DFO Announces further SRKW Restrictions

My opinion is this 100 percent. We cannot train, or teach these whales how to hunt. They are wild predators. They need to survive on their own. We cant provide them with food or easy pickings, drugs, or any other type of manipulation. They need to figure it out or be over taken by other apex predators. Leave them alone in that regard.

The world is definitely getting soft. I agree with @Reeltime

I also agreed with the statement in the video where they stated that instead of allocating 20 million to research, how about putting a smaller amount into finding out if its even necessary to use the money where as the real question here is " what is the actual interaction between Chinook and Orcas ?! " the million dollar question. Now how to do that is the other question. Capture one and pump its stomach? Thats not going to work. ENGOS would roll in their graves. How can you find out that information? So this whole assumption that they only eat chinook, now its they mostly eat chinook, I call ******** and how can you make block areas and closures when no-one has had actual proof.
 
Reel Time said:
The "Biology Degree"... After looking at the regulations, openings, closures, slot limits, no limits, hatchery here, wild there, minimum size this and over here that, killer whale closures that look like puzzle pieces....makes me really think that psychedelics have taken over the Natural Science populace. This sort of mapping and regulatory decision making looks schizophrenic.

Hopefully the kids today getting Biology degrees have cleaned up their act. I see less kids using drugs which is a good sign. Maybe in 10 years we will see a less scatter brain approach to Wildlife management.

2 cents.
Click to expand...

I will reply to my own comment. I did not mean DFO is soft. I meant they are full on delusional. From an Engineering background, I can not understand Biologists. The science they change year by year. How these color coded maps and slots limits make sense to anyone blows my mind.
 
ship happens said:
" what is the actual interaction between Chinook and Orcas ?! " the million dollar question. Now how to do that is the other question. Capture one and pump its stomach? Thats not going to work. ENGOS would roll in their graves. How can you find out that information? So this whole assumption that they only eat chinook, now its they mostly eat chinook, I call ******** and how can you make block areas and closures when no-one has had actual proof.
Click to expand...
How to determine orca's diet? No, not by pumping stomachs! Orca scat-detection dogs, since about 2008 or so. Lots of info online.

News:

Study paper (first paragraph in "Methods"):
journals.plos.org

Estimation of a Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) Population’s Diet Using Sequencing Analysis of DNA from Feces

Estimating diet composition is important for understanding interactions between predators and prey and thus illuminating ecosystem function. The diet of many species, however, is difficult to observe directly. Genetic analysis of fecal material collected in the field is therefore a useful tool...
journals.plos.org journals.plos.org
 
Birdbrain said:
How to determine orca's diet? No, not by pumping stomachs! Orca scat-detection dogs, since about 2008 or so. Lots of info online.

News:

Study paper (first paragraph in "Methods"):
journals.plos.org

Estimation of a Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) Population’s Diet Using Sequencing Analysis of DNA from Feces

Estimating diet composition is important for understanding interactions between predators and prey and thus illuminating ecosystem function. The diet of many species, however, is difficult to observe directly. Genetic analysis of fecal material collected in the field is therefore a useful tool...
journals.plos.org journals.plos.org
Click to expand...
100% Orcas eat Chinook salmon. They dont waste energy on small salmon. I think by attacking sport fishers as being any sort of an issue is a joke. We need bigger salmon period. There are tons of Chinook all over the Salish Sea, average size has plummeted from my own witnessing for the past 15 years.

The fix? Stop the massive decimation of the herring fishery. Any time we see a substantial return (2011) it was smashed. Slow rebound over the years yet the DFO decimated the 2021 herring again out front local Salish Sea waters. It is incredible. Biology degrees are printed on toilet paper today.
 
The ENGOs have achieved all of their goals and even more. What have we sporties done to counter their political agenda in the past three years? Just see this from May 2019:

————————

As Greg Taylor from MCC stated on May 3rd 2019, with his comments to minister on SRKW protections, and re-quoting:


As a member of the SRKW Technical Working Group on Prey Availability and Accessibility, we find the actions taken on prey availability and accessibility insufficient. Our specific concerns are:

1. A key objective was to reduce disturbance associated with recreational fishing. DFO has proposed going to non-retention fisheries in Areas 20-1, 19, 18, and 29. Experience with non-retention fisheries in North America indicates that moving to non-retention may not reduce effort and therefore disturbance.

2. Non-retention fisheries only means mortality of key Fraser River Chinook populations is reduced, not eliminated. And research indicates short-term mortality is high, especially in respect to what is reported by DFO, see: https://www.mccpacific.org/.../Fraser-Chinook-FRIM...

3. In 2019 DFO is proposing to introduce a guidance that would ask recreational fishers to quit fishing if SRKW come within one kilometer of them. This is a voluntary requirement with little associated monitoring and no ability to enforce the guidance. It is disturbing that when fishery management agencies around the world are moving to independent, third party monitoring and tighter enforcement of fishing regulations; DFO is moving in the opposite direction. There is a reason why the rest of the world is moving to independent monitoring and better enforcement, good fishery management - as outlined by the FAO - demands it.

4. DFO, after persistent questioning, has indicated it has no plan to maintain fishery monitoring of effort and encounters in recreational fisheries at a level of what was in place in 2019. Nor does it plan to collect DNA samples from released fish to estimate the stock composition of the catch. Finally, DFO refuses to address the question of how many released chinook survive to eventually spawn, even in the face of its own science that says it is required.

5. DFO has not challenged the statements issued by the recreational industry saying that Fraser 4-2 and 5-2 chinook (which are of critical importance to SRKWs) represent only 1% of their total catch. DFO knows from their DNA samples that the proportion of 4-2 and 5-2 chinook in the recreational catch, in the months these populations are migrating through SRKW critical habitat, is significant. In 2018, the total escapement of these populations was around 16,000. The estimated totality mortality of these populations in the recreational fishery was between 12,103 and 15,428.

The MCC continues to recommend that, for the above reasons, all salmon fishing be closed in SRKW critical habitat between May 1st and July 31st. Anything else is indefensible.

Marine Conservation Caucus
 
Ringo said:
The ENGOs have achieved all of their goals and even more. What have we sporties done to counter their political agenda in the past three years? Just see this from May 2019:

————————

As Greg Taylor from MCC stated on May 3rd 2019, with his comments to minister on SRKW protections, and re-quoting:


As a member of the SRKW Technical Working Group on Prey Availability and Accessibility, we find the actions taken on prey availability and accessibility insufficient. Our specific concerns are:

1. A key objective was to reduce disturbance associated with recreational fishing. DFO has proposed going to non-retention fisheries in Areas 20-1, 19, 18, and 29. Experience with non-retention fisheries in North America indicates that moving to non-retention may not reduce effort and therefore disturbance.

2. Non-retention fisheries only means mortality of key Fraser River Chinook populations is reduced, not eliminated. And research indicates short-term mortality is high, especially in respect to what is reported by DFO, see: https://www.mccpacific.org/.../Fraser-Chinook-FRIM...

3. In 2019 DFO is proposing to introduce a guidance that would ask recreational fishers to quit fishing if SRKW come within one kilometer of them. This is a voluntary requirement with little associated monitoring and no ability to enforce the guidance. It is disturbing that when fishery management agencies around the world are moving to independent, third party monitoring and tighter enforcement of fishing regulations; DFO is moving in the opposite direction. There is a reason why the rest of the world is moving to independent monitoring and better enforcement, good fishery management - as outlined by the FAO - demands it.

4. DFO, after persistent questioning, has indicated it has no plan to maintain fishery monitoring of effort and encounters in recreational fisheries at a level of what was in place in 2019. Nor does it plan to collect DNA samples from released fish to estimate the stock composition of the catch. Finally, DFO refuses to address the question of how many released chinook survive to eventually spawn, even in the face of its own science that says it is required.

5. DFO has not challenged the statements issued by the recreational industry saying that Fraser 4-2 and 5-2 chinook (which are of critical importance to SRKWs) represent only 1% of their total catch. DFO knows from their DNA samples that the proportion of 4-2 and 5-2 chinook in the recreational catch, in the months these populations are migrating through SRKW critical habitat, is significant. In 2018, the total escapement of these populations was around 16,000. The estimated totality mortality of these populations in the recreational fishery was between 12,103 and 15,428.

The MCC continues to recommend that, for the above reasons, all salmon fishing be closed in SRKW critical habitat between May 1st and July 31st. Anything else is indefensible.

Marine Conservation Caucus
Click to expand...

Lots just not what you see online. To be honest if our groups didn't do anything last 3 years the entire fishery across BC would be closed for salmon fishing.

I wouldn't get to surprised with anything Greg writes. This individual goes on about FRIM and mortality, but when any catch and release study gets done he isn't interested. Kind of ironic.

That speaks volumes to me. Have little use for people that waste valuable air at meetings.

If you want to blame the Vancouver fishery for closing one only has too look who is running the department and the political party running the show. People like Greg thrive in that environment. Just wait till government changes should be interesting to see if those backdoors are still open..
 
Last edited:
SpringVelocity said:
Lots just not what you see online. To be honest if our groups didn't do anything last 3 years the entire fishery across BC would be closed for salmon fishing.

I wouldn't get to surprised with anything Greg writes. This individual goes on about FRIM and mortality, but when any catch and release study gets done he isn't interested. Kind of ironic.

That speaks volumes to me. Have little use for people that waste valuable air at meetings.

If you want to blame the Vancouver fishery for closing one only has too look who is running the department and the political party running the show. People like Greg thrive in that environment. Just wait till government changes should be interesting to see if those backdoors are still open..
Click to expand...
Can’t wait for that. Not only because of our fishery problems, but also for a variety of other reasons.
 
As a kid back in the 80's we fished south Bowen and UBC often. The fishing was horrible, but the recreation boats were always there. Somehow the fishery took off sometime early 2000's, it seemed to have a rebound for some years - all the while recreational boats were always on the water.

If removing recreational fishers today has any springboard effect on Salmon enhancement/populations - that is a complete and utter joke. Keep the fishers going, the funding provided from licenses alone helps enhancement, let people have freedoms that have always been present. This is a non issue, the SRKW is a manufactured political agenda. Lets see what footage we get from private drones monitoring the Fraser this year. The river nets are extremely disturbing.
 
Ringo said:
The ENGOs have achieved all of their goals and even more. What have we sporties done to counter their political agenda in the past three years? Just see this from May 2019:

————————

As Greg Taylor from MCC stated on May 3rd 2019, with his comments to minister on SRKW protections, and re-quoting:


As a member of the SRKW Technical Working Group on Prey Availability and Accessibility, we find the actions taken on prey availability and accessibility insufficient. Our specific concerns are:

1. A key objective was to reduce disturbance associated with recreational fishing. DFO has proposed going to non-retention fisheries in Areas 20-1, 19, 18, and 29. Experience with non-retention fisheries in North America indicates that moving to non-retention may not reduce effort and therefore disturbance.

2. Non-retention fisheries only means mortality of key Fraser River Chinook populations is reduced, not eliminated. And research indicates short-term mortality is high, especially in respect to what is reported by DFO, see: https://www.mccpacific.org/.../Fraser-Chinook-FRIM...

3. In 2019 DFO is proposing to introduce a guidance that would ask recreational fishers to quit fishing if SRKW come within one kilometer of them. This is a voluntary requirement with little associated monitoring and no ability to enforce the guidance. It is disturbing that when fishery management agencies around the world are moving to independent, third party monitoring and tighter enforcement of fishing regulations; DFO is moving in the opposite direction. There is a reason why the rest of the world is moving to independent monitoring and better enforcement, good fishery management - as outlined by the FAO - demands it.

4. DFO, after persistent questioning, has indicated it has no plan to maintain fishery monitoring of effort and encounters in recreational fisheries at a level of what was in place in 2019. Nor does it plan to collect DNA samples from released fish to estimate the stock composition of the catch. Finally, DFO refuses to address the question of how many released chinook survive to eventually spawn, even in the face of its own science that says it is required.

5. DFO has not challenged the statements issued by the recreational industry saying that Fraser 4-2 and 5-2 chinook (which are of critical importance to SRKWs) represent only 1% of their total catch. DFO knows from their DNA samples that the proportion of 4-2 and 5-2 chinook in the recreational catch, in the months these populations are migrating through SRKW critical habitat, is significant. In 2018, the total escapement of these populations was around 16,000. The estimated totality mortality of these populations in the recreational fishery was between 12,103 and 15,428.

The MCC continues to recommend that, for the above reasons, all salmon fishing be closed in SRKW critical habitat between May 1st and July 31st. Anything else is indefensible.

Marine Conservation Caucus
Click to expand...
Stop fishing if whales are within 1 km, I just got back from Winchelsea island and a pod of 5 whales have 7 whale watching boats surrounding them within a few hundred feet. That is a bigger issue
I did report to DFO report line and they a very thankful and great to deal with. Hats off to the officer I was talking to.
 
Last edited:
I had written in my head a post then reading the posts in this thread it had all been said so I decided to not stress out and just go back to fresh water fishing! a lifetime of political DFO regulation which has nothing to do with the fish or wales has robbed me of one of the pleasures in my twilight years
 
habberdasher said:
I had written in my head a post then reading the posts in this thread it had all been said so I decided to not stress out and just go back to fresh water fishing! a lifetime of political DFO regulation which has nothing to do with the fish or wales has robbed me of one of the pleasures in my twilight years
Click to expand...
I still do a bit of salt fishing but I have mostly gone to freshwater too. The main reason, no DFO to deal with.
 
Found this research paper on comparative measurement of various small vessels at low and cruise speeds to assess if there are benefits accruing to the newly launched vessel slow down measures. The number of mono hull recreational fishing vessels tested in the study is low, however the results when you dig into the data are a bit surprising. Seems to me at least, calling into some question the actual benefits vs perceived benefits of vessel slow down. By my read on the data for the specific vessels tested that represent the bulk of those fishing in the recreational fleet there is no substantial reduction in noise by implementing a slow down as opposed to allowing cruise speeds. Doesn't address potential reduction in vessel strikes however.

V-18 test vessel was 28 foot mono hull vessel with 2x225 hp 4 stroke engines
V-19 test vessel was 27 foot mono hull vessel with 1x150 hp 4 stroke engines

Vessel results



Vessel10 ktsMSL
kHz		RSL
kHz		20+ ktsMSL
kHz		RSL
kHz		MSL DifferenceRSL Difference
V-1810.5 kts163.3164.026.6 kts162.9164.4 - 0.4 kHz +0.4 kHz
V-1910.2 kts157.3159.724.5 kts171.4172.4+15.1 kHz+12.7 kHz



The research paper authors broadly claim there is a substantial level of acoustic disturbance protection afforded SRKW by implementing vessel slow downs. I'm at a loss to explain how the research findings demonstrate that given what appear to me at least to be a minor level of improvement in the metrics. Perhaps I simply don't get the difference between low and high speed results when its only 15 kHz on high side for vessel 19 (twin 150's) and almost zero on the other vessel (V-18 with twin 225's). Maybe someone smarter than me on acoustic data can help explain it??
 
searun said:
Found this research paper on comparative measurement of various small vessels at low and cruise speeds to assess if there are benefits accruing to the newly launched vessel slow down measures. The number of mono hull recreational fishing vessels tested in the study is low, however the results when you dig into the data are a bit surprising. Seems to me at least, calling into some question the actual benefits vs perceived benefits of vessel slow down. By my read on the data for the specific vessels tested that represent the bulk of those fishing in the recreational fleet there is no substantial reduction in noise by implementing a slow down as opposed to allowing cruise speeds. Doesn't address potential reduction in vessel strikes however.

V-18 test vessel was 28 foot mono hull vessel with 2x225 hp 4 stroke engines
V-19 test vessel was 27 foot mono hull vessel with 1x150 hp 4 stroke engines

Vessel results



Vessel10 ktsMSL
kHz		RSL
kHz		20+ ktsMSL
kHz		RSL
kHz		MSL DifferenceRSL Difference
V-1810.5 kts163.3164.026.6 kts162.9164.4- 0.4 kHz+0.4 kHz
V-1910.2 kts157.3159.724.5 kts171.4172.4+15.1 kHz+12.7 kHz



The research paper authors broadly claim there is a substantial level of acoustic disturbance protection afforded SRKW by implementing vessel slow downs. I'm at a loss to explain how the research findings demonstrate that given what appear to me at least to be a minor level of improvement in the metrics. Perhaps I simply don't get the difference between low and high speed results when its only 15 kHz on high side for vessel 19 (twin 150's) and almost zero on the other vessel (V-18 with twin 225's). Maybe someone smarter than me on acoustic data can help explain it??
Click to expand...
KHz is a measure of frequency, not intensity. That data would be relevant in determining if the frequency emitted is in the same range as whale communication.

How loud the noise is would be measured in decibels (dB or dBa).
 
Not to mention that whales tune in more to and are more sensitive to the lower frequencies that are deeper in the water from large ships. Small boats with higher, frequencies shallow in the water don't bother the whales as much. But as usual the 'baby gets thrown out with the bath water' and we get lumped with huge ships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Whole in the Water
DFO-2024 mgmt. measures to protect Southern Resident killer whales
Replies
32
Views
4K
High Time
High Time
SpringVelocity
Southern Resident Whales - New Study Released Nature, Extinction in 75-100 years
Replies
24
Views
3K
kingspring
K
Adler
2024-25 DFO proposal and survey on salmon measures
Replies
55
Views
8K
Salmonslayer1992
Salmonslayer1992
G
Crabbing NEAR porteau cove, very difficult to find where the restrictions are?
Replies
4
Views
268
lemmy
lemmy
cohochinook
Your Salmon Fisheries Are In Peril!- COMPLETE THE DFO SRKW SURVERY BEFORE FEBUARY 12TH
Replies
43
Views
5K
Ringo
R
Back
Top