As I said earlier in this thread the last thing I want is that group telling government that they should make us release all larger Chinook to provide SRKW with more fish that they prefer. It just becomes a pissing match and we both loose. As I said I have my own personal opinion about them but I'm keeping my emotions in check.
Important Victoria & Area SFAB Halibut Mtg Nov. 27
- Thread starter Whole in the Water
- Start date
Deewar25
Well-Known Member
incorrect actually - they have studied this and there was found to be no correlation at all between those distances & decibels. Infact some observations show at 700m, there were often higher sound levels under water than what was produced under 100m away. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140119.s004 These studies are likely why the group would refuse to agree to 400 as it has no difference whether its 50m 100m 200m 600m....going to take many studies showing their data is incorrect to convince otherwise. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/a...7nBTR0f1-84vqmZJAzSXsjrPvAFOYI2TO0uIEEY_rolhM
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Come on guys not you now. Why would you both even care if its 400m? I am not getting the argument here.
Stizzla
Crew Member
Totally. If we are granted a 400m bubble zone in the areas that are closed now it’s a HUGE win. It makes sense too. Those odd times they are around, they get space. If they aren’t around, we get to fish. Seems like a win win to me.
I wrote that in a letter to the fisheries minister so if they implement it they own me a fried chicken lunch!
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Exactly.
scott craven
Well-Known Member
After the IPHC meetings in January.
new regs won't implement till April 01/19
new regs won't implement till April 01/19
Deewar25
Well-Known Member
I couldn't care less about the zone - all I am stating is the reason why that sector also believes a 'buffer zone' is garbage and there is no scientific justification to set one distance from another (its all voodoo as shown by their study). Essentially, they believe boat proximity & 'disruption' is an unrealistic argument produced by NGOs and we should be focusing on more important things (and most don't believe taking us off the water is one of those)
Last edited:
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Stizzla nailed it above. All we have to do is leave the whales alone to do our part. Seems very simple.
Last edited by a moderator:
ziggy
Well-Known Member
E
Is there a link to the background info in chart linked in the first part of your post Dewar? I see the chart part but not the associated info. Thought the second link would take me to it, but no luck.
Deewar25
Well-Known Member
you can go down to the 'supporting information' part near the bottom and that was S2 figure. The 'summary' of the chart as follows: "There was no significant relationship between received noise levels (dB re 1 μPa) and the average distance of vessels to tagged whales (m) per interval. Variation in average vessel distance was slightly skewed toward closer distances. "
There are other interesting figures there as well.
Ok SV the whale watchers agree to a 400m exclusion zone for SRKW only and to help us get rid of the closed areas that unfairly effect only us. But with a condition, as food supply is likely the main cause for their decline (our sector agrees on that, not noise) they say we are doing this as our part to help these whales recover now we would like you to implement a year round mandatory realse of all Chinook over 25 pounds so that you are doing your part on the most important factor effecting these whales. You going to go along? If you don't you are going to look like you really don't care in the publics mind...they win!!!
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Is fishing for chinook only 10% of your business because watching SRKW is about that of theirs.
Here is something every angler following this thread should think about. The fact is that if in the next few years the SRKW population falls by just a few more individuals and combined with no successful new births this whole argument is meaningless. If that happens (and it is very possible) there will be NO whale watching or fishing period. So in my mind the best way to avoid that is to increase their food supply and that will continue to be my focus. Yes I'm still for our sector adopting the 400 m bubble but do I think it will seriously make a difference with their recovery...NO. It is just a way to get rid of the closed zones which also do nothing. NOTHING won't cut it...we will all be off the water before we know what happened.
Last edited:
Wild....Optics would be they are doing what they can to help with recovery by reducing noise and staying away from them, our sectors best contribution that we are able to offer would be to stay away from their preferred food. Us staying away from them would only represent a .001 percent contribution to their recovery because our time on the water is already based on staying away from them.
Last edited:
fishin solo
Crew Member
Hmm is bc ferries gonna slow down?
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Thanks.
Fishing solo...the ferries have been here since before this problem began ...and another reason why I firmly believe noise isn't why these whales are in decline. It is a harder to find food supply (especially in winter off Oregon and Cali where K &L pods go), toxins making them sick and in breeding within a small population...and in that order. The rest is fluff to make the government look like they are doing something. Including the closures...and be honest the 400 m bubble is no different just swapping optics from a closure to a bubble. I do think the bubblw will achieve a quieter environment for the whales as it wouldn't be restricted to a few small ares on the coast...it could be coast wide. But neither the closed areas or the bubble will do anything to solve this problem. More fish will.
Similar threads
