SRKW - New Research Findings on Prey Availability

[SpringVelocity]

Joint response concerning “no apparent shortage of prey for Southern Resident killer whales” in the Salish Sea

PDF version available here October 14, 2021 On October 12, the University of British Columbia (UBC) issued a press release claiming that a newly published study[i] has “debunked” the idea that ther…

orcabehaviorinstitute.org

What a joke. Cue the NGO social media piggyback of this statement coming shortly. Don't worry it's all planned. Friday shuffle, and a social media team to push it. Anyway it isn't unexpected.

 

[browningmirage]

Oops. I missed that. My bad.

Revert back to a plethora of previous study’s apposing the results of the study in question, lacking any explanation of why those studies are better.

This study is not better. It's different. But there's limitations, it's not a drain the ocean study, it's based on sounder marks validated by fishing. I know we all think we are the beat anglers...but let's be honest, dropping on a sounder mark is a crapshoot, and that's what this study relied on.

This is science. Evidence is presented and weighed, then challenged. In this case, the conclusions ARE overstated, even if context is given. The reality is, the SRKW are at low numbers for a range of factors. Starving was never likely in the summer. But that's only 1/4 of the year.

 

[ziggy]

This study is not better. It's different. But there's limitations, it's not a drain the ocean study, it's based on sounder marks validated by fishing. I know we all think we are the beat anglers...but let's be honest, dropping on a sounder mark is a crapshoot, and that's what this study relied on.

This is science. Evidence is presented and weighed, then challenged. In this case, the conclusions ARE overstated, even if context is given. The reality is, the SRKW are at low numbers for a range of factors. Starving was never likely in the summer. But that's only 1/4 of the year.

It’s better in my opinion in that it actually made an effort to determine prey availability. The ENGO argument all seem to simply assume there are no fish ( different than less) as one of the main assumptions for their theory. This study actually seeks to establish if there is prey available and how it differs between the “starving” SRKW and the “ doing just fine” Northern Residents. I think this is the first time this has been looked at. While there may be variables in how they counted, at least they used a method to gather data rather than a vague assumption.

Many ENGO papers assume the whales are starving as opposed to not eating. There are of course many reasons why an animal chooses not to eat at a given time and in a given area. Why is only one whale in the POD is starving if there is no food? Wouldn’t they all be? Also the reliance on DFO numbers to predict prey numbers may be deeply flawed in that it is based solely, as far as I know, on the Albion test fishery and Fraser River returns. This totally seems to ignore the fact that Puget Sound fish are also present. We also have whale sanctuaries to appease ENGO’s, where the whales forage, only problem is they don’t.

No study is perfect but this is a giant step forward in that the conclusion wasn’t determined prior to the study. ENGO’s continue to use data based on assumptions that make their theories viable. That’s not science. I suspect at some point real science will look at identifying the real problem and this may be the first step.

 

[SpringVelocity]

It’s better in my opinion in that it actually made an effort to determine prey availability. The ENGO argument all seem to simply assume there are no fish ( different than less) as one of the main assumptions for their theory. This study actually seeks to establish if there is prey available and how it differs between the “starving” SRKW and the “ doing just fine” Northern Residents. I think this is the first time this has been looked at. While there may be variables in how they counted, at least they used a method to gather data rather than a vague assumption.

Many ENGO papers assume the whales are starving as opposed to not eating. There are of course many reasons why an animal chooses not to eat at a given time and in a given area. Why is only one whale in the POD is starving if there is no food? Wouldn’t they all be? Also the reliance on DFO numbers to predict prey numbers may be deeply flawed in that it is based solely, as far as I know, on the Albion test fishery and Fraser River returns. This totally seems to ignore the fact that Puget Sound fish are also present. We also have whale sanctuaries to appease ENGO’s, where the whales forage, only problem is they don’t.

No study is perfect but this is a giant step forward in that the conclusion wasn’t determined prior to the study. ENGO’s continue to use data based on assumptions that make their theories viable. That’s not science. I suspect at some point real science will look at identifying the real problem and this may be the first step.

Great post.

 

[browningmirage]

Q

It’s better in my opinion in that it actually made an effort to determine prey availability. The ENGO argument all seem to simply assume there are no fish ( different than less) as one of the main assumptions for their theory. This study actually seeks to establish if there is prey available and how it differs between the “starving” SRKW and the “ doing just fine” Northern Residents. I think this is the first time this has been looked at. While there may be variables in how they counted, at least they used a method to gather data rather than a vague assumption.

Many ENGO papers assume the whales are starving as opposed to not eating. There are of course many reasons why an animal chooses not to eat at a given time and in a given area. Why is only one whale in the POD is starving if there is no food? Wouldn’t they all be? Also the reliance on DFO numbers to predict prey numbers may be deeply flawed in that it is based solely, as far as I know, on the Albion test fishery and Fraser River returns. This totally seems to ignore the fact that Puget Sound fish are also present. We also have whale sanctuaries to appease ENGO’s, where the whales forage, only problem is they don’t.

No study is perfect but this is a giant step forward in that the conclusion wasn’t determined prior to the study. ENGO’s continue to use data based on assumptions that make their theories viable. That’s not science. I suspect at some point real science will look at identifying the real problem and this may be the first step.

The conclusion wasn't but the methodology left holes...but that's often the case in environmental research...you work with what you have.

I'm not saying ENGO research is any good, but this is one season. And really did anyone ever expect summer to be a limiting time?

 

[ziggy]

Q

The conclusion wasn't but the methodology left holes...but that's often the case in environmental research...you work with what you have.

I'm not saying ENGO research is any good, but this is one season. And really did anyone ever expect summer to be a limiting time?

I’m not suggesting one study will provide all the answers but I am suggesting it went in with fewer assumptions and at least tried to quantify those it did use. Going through the ENGO studies the one thing that struck me was the assumption of food shortage right from the get go. This study sought to at least see if prey was available rather than assuming it wasn’t. Thats a big step in deterring if the whales are starving which is the ENGO mantra.

I read through some ( not all) of the ENGO response, paying particular attention to the articles it cites. While some highlight the decline in what we think the salmon population is, none really address what the requirement would be to keep whales healthy. No effort is made either to determine how much access the whales have to prey, which I think the UBC study of the two Pods at least attempts to do. Even if they are feeding or transiting is never addressed in the ENGO references. Recently there has been some research on the “Sanctuaries“ such as Pender Bluffs. This was declared a prime foraging area, yet recently it appears it never was a foraging area but simply a transit corridor. It’s interesting when you think one theory would require them to leave relative abundance of prey to come to an area to starve. I suspect there is more at play here we simply don’t understand

They do sometimes mention vessels following the whales interrupt feeding patterns which is something they have taken the time to look into and attempted to quantify. But generally the food shortage is simply assumed based on previous assumptions, big difference between less and starvation levels.They don’t mention why if starvation is a problem it only impacts one whale in the Pod. That clearly defies common sense, but again we need more open minded study before declaring “Starvation”.

I think if anything the benefit of the UBC study is that it challenged the accepted belief. While it had holes as you say, it none the less used principles of science to form a conclusion. I’m sure it will be challenged by ENGO’s but if so they need to also come out with facts and not emotional arguments. Why would the Northern Residents who have less access to prey continue to do well? Is there a better way of determining prey ability, if so what is it? If this discussion is takes place among the scientific community we may get some answers.

 

[wildmanyeah]

ENGOs shares wide and far a picture of a skinny killer whale as gospel as to why whales are starving and need more chinook. Not one scientist in the ENGO community calls them out on it.

yet a study done by UBC that goes contrary to their narrative is full of holes.

 

[agentaqua]

ENGOs shares wide and far a picture of a skinny killer whale as gospel as to why whales are starving and need more chinook. Not one scientist in the ENGO community calls them out on it.

yet a study done by UBC that goes contrary to their narrative is full of holes.

EXACTLY, WMY! Excellent post. Pretty tight community there, and one that really doesn't understand fish - esp. Chinook - which are really the problems...

and great posts as well, Ziggy

 

[searun]

EXACTLY, WMY! Excellent post. Pretty tight community there, and one that really doesn't understand fish - esp. Chinook - which are really the problems...

and great posts as well, Ziggy

Amen, agreed. Thanks for calling out the stack of assumptions that have been strung together to support some pet theories. Some also prefer to forget that SRKW spend very little time in BC waters generally. This is the northern summer range, and while important, pinning the problems on what happens when SRKW are here while ignoring what takes place in another significant portion of their range is simply bad application of science.

What I like about this research is the authors sought first to be curious, and put aside conventional "wise dumb" to follow that seeking of the truth.

 

[SpringVelocity]

Just a previous article written found interesting.

Whale Watchers Accused Of Loving Endangered Orcas To Death

The question of whether boat-based watching tours are really harmless has become more urgent in Washington state, where Southern Resident killer whales have been declining since the 1990s.

www.npr.org

 

[SpringVelocity]

Ken Balcomb, founding director of the
Center for Whale Research, dismissed the paper as “a nice little fish thing” that proved nothing as to the amount of fish available for the southern residents throughout their range and year.

Deborah Giles, research director for the nonprofit Wild Orca and biologist for the University of Washington’s Center for Conservation Biology, said the findings go against 40 years of data on the southern residents and their prey.

“To say the southern residents are getting four to six times as much salmon as the northern residents is just silly,” Giles said. “And here we are, trying to find a nice way to say that.”

Researchers make surprising discovery while tracking Chinook salmon in Salish Sea, B.C.

New findings challenge the hypothesis that southern resident orcas can't get enough Chinook to eat in the Salish Sea during the summer. But some experts are pushing back on the study.

www.seattletimes.com

 

[wildmanyeah]

Eric Ward, a statistician at NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center whose work is used to model salmon populations, said the paper sheds new light on inconsistencies with the orcas-are-hungry hypothesis.

“This seems to be an important paper that may help reduce our uncertainties in factors limiting killer whale recovery,” Ward said in an email. “I think this is consistent with views that prey limitation is probably not the most important factor preventing SRKW recovery. There’s a number of other data points that point in the same direction.”

 

[wildmanyeah]

ENGOs: we have indisputable evidence from the last 40 years that whales are starving,

DFO, NOAA, UBC: Well its not that simple and much more complicated

 

[wildmanyeah]

Ken Balcomb, founding director of the
Center for Whale Research, dismissed the paper as “a nice little fish thing” that proved nothing as to the amount of fish available for the southern residents throughout their range and year.

I thought this comment was interesting that someone posted

"Mr. Balcomb and his center for Whale Research receives funds from the 90+ whale watching boats that have been cited as one of the primary causes for the threatened numbers of the Southern Resident Killer Whales."

 

[agentaqua]

Bloody damn hypocrites, WMY.

They selectively use the "it's too complicated" excuse only when it suits them. They say that when the topic of a seal cull comes out, but are ok with any and all efforts to "save" the SRKW w/o evoking the "it's too complicated" narrative, until of course the science says Chinook are likely not the problem - then suddenly it's "too complicated" again.

And as further proof of their substantial undeclared bias and lack of knowledge they try to de-legitimize any critiques by coming out with this paternalistic zinger: that the article is only “a nice little fish thing” - meanwhile Debby Dallas tries to declare that the findings go against 40 years of "data" on the southern residents and their prey. Goes against a biased narrative, perhaps - that Deb likes - but that ain't science Deb. Maybe instead find a "nice way" to educate yourself w/o the paternalistic BS. Geez!

 

[ziggy]

Ken Balcomb, founding director of the
Center for Whale Research, dismissed the paper as “a nice little fish thing” that proved nothing as to the amount of fish available for the southern residents throughout their range and year.

Deborah Giles, research director for the nonprofit Wild Orca and biologist for the University of Washington’s Center for Conservation Biology, said the findings go against 40 years of data on the southern residents and their prey.

“To say the southern residents are getting four to six times as much salmon as the northern residents is just silly,” Giles said. “And here we are, trying to find a nice way to say that.”

Researchers make surprising discovery while tracking Chinook salmon in Salish Sea, B.C.

New findings challenge the hypothesis that southern resident orcas can't get enough Chinook to eat in the Salish Sea during the summer. But some experts are pushing back on the study.

www.seattletimes.com

Glad to see this post S.V. It shows how desperate they are to discredit a report that finds fault with their assumptions. Notice they have shifted from the local area where up until now the debate was about, now it’s coast wide?

Who said the whales were getting “four to six times as much salmon than the Northerns? As I read the study it said the prey was available, different than “getting”. How about you find a nice way to say you have really no idea as to whether or not there is more prey availability because you have simply made an assumption and never followed up. How about publishing your method enumerating the population and tell us why it’s a better system

I suspect a great deal of circling the wagons is starting. First they have to defend the prey scarcity theory, something which they dance around. Secondly if the prey are available and whales are not eating, why not? Is perhaps the whale watching industry a larger problem than prey availability. They have released studies claiming the noise impacts feeding so that would make sense, but………. Is the crux of the problem really the absence of the whales and prey availability is a good excuse? Lots of other things have changed in the Salish Sea in the past 40 years.

Whoever posts this crap should be embarrassed, a childlike attempt to discredit people doing some actual fieldwork that is at odds with your office assumptions. Tough on fundraising when real science is suggesting you just might not have a clue and not be the best place to park donations.

Lets see there 40 years of data that proves there is not enough as opposed to less. Does anyone know what the minimum number of fish is? What evidence do they have that the Pods are starving?

 

[steeler]

I read this study the other day and was thinking it had all kinds of holes in it only to read on and see they acknowledge themselves the holes and massive gaps. This study doesn't prove a thing it suggest some possibilities however they aren't quantifiable, too many assumptions based on unproven techniques on such a short scale. There could have been millions more fish pass through the northern waters they just weren't over them with the sounder or there at the right time. Comparing northern Chinook abundance with southern abundance in such a way is silly its pretty easy to have 4x as many fish when you are dealing with so few fish, it doesn't prove there is enough Chinook for them only that there were even less somewhere else. Its like saying one homeless person has 4x more money than another one but he doesn't even have enough to buy lunch and still starves, while the other guy leaves the north end to the Alaskan soup kitchen and gets something to eat the rest of the time. 4x a small number is still a small number this study is basing itself on a diminished baseline to begin with which does not prove abundance over historical numbers only that low numbers are the new norm. Whales aren't choosing not to eat that doesn't happen, urban sprawl, pollution, freight traffic, pleasure boats, whale watching boats, sports fishing boats all play a role however none of that matters if historical numbers of large Chinook aren't present and they aren't.

 

[ziggy]

I read this study the other day and was thinking it had all kinds of holes in it only to read on and see they acknowledge themselves the holes and massive gaps. This study doesn't prove a thing it suggest some possibilities however they aren't quantifiable, too many assumptions based on unproven techniques on such a short scale. There could have been millions more fish pass through the northern waters they just weren't over them with the sounder or there at the right time. Comparing northern Chinook abundance with southern abundance in such a way is silly its pretty easy to have 4x as many fish when you are dealing with so few fish, it doesn't prove there is enough Chinook for them only that there were even less somewhere else. Its like saying one homeless person has 4x more money than another one but he doesn't even have enough to buy lunch and still starves, while the other guy leaves the north end to the Alaskan soup kitchen and gets something to eat the rest of the time. 4x a small number is still a small number this study is basing itself on a diminished baseline to begin with which does not prove abundance over historical numbers only that low numbers are the new norm. Whales aren't choosing not to eat that doesn't happen, urban sprawl, pollution, freight traffic, pleasure boats, whale watching boats, sports fishing boats all play a role however none of that matters if historical numbers of large Chinook aren't present and they aren't.

I’ll agree with you on one point, this study admits it has holes. Interestingly enough none of the former ones,often quoted by the anti fishing lobby are even honest enough to do that. Even though clearly they are based mostly on untested assumptions. My favourite is the many pictures of a single sick whale in the Pod somehow being used a a bell-weather for the entire Pod. Why aren’t they all showing the same signs of starvation?

 

[Bryan Allen]

Glad to see this post S.V. It shows how desperate they are to discredit a report that finds fault with their assumptions. Notice they have shifted from the local area where up until now the debate was about, now it’s coast wide?

Who said the whales were getting “four to six times as much salmon than the Northerns? As I read the study it said the prey was available, different than “getting”. How about you find a nice way to say you have really no idea as to whether or not there is more prey availability because you have simply made an assumption and never followed up. How about publishing your method enumerating the population and tell us why it’s a better system

I suspect a great deal of circling the wagons is starting. First they have to defend the prey scarcity theory, something which they dance around. Secondly if the prey are available and whales are not eating, why not? Is perhaps the whale watching industry a larger problem than prey availability. They have released studies claiming the noise impacts feeding so that would make sense, but………. Is the crux of the problem really the absence of the whales and prey availability is a good excuse? Lots of other things have changed in the Salish Sea in the past 40 years.

Whoever posts this crap should be embarrassed, a childlike attempt to discredit people doing some actual fieldwork that is at odds with your office assumptions. Tough on fundraising when real science is suggesting you just might not have a clue and not be the best place to park donations.

Lets see there 40 years of data that proves there is not enough as opposed to less. Does anyone know what the minimum number of fish is? What evidence do they have that the Pods are starving?

"Whoever posts this crap should be embarrassed," .. Well Ziggy, do NOT underestimate the effect of a lie ( or false information if you will) Just one word-- TRUMP ! Look at the havoc one man has created in the world. The Whale watchers seem to have taken that lesson to heart.

 

[agentaqua]

Ending Recreational Fishing in BC to Save Southern Killer Whales

According to the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, recreational fishers are routinely violating the 400-metre protection buffers around Southern Resident kille

www.spreaker.com

According to the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, recreational fishers are routinely violating the 400-metre protection buffers around Southern Resident killer whales. The Foundation is now calling for a complete end to recreational salmon fishing in southern B.C. Joining us again on The Blue Fish Radio Show is Chris Bos, Coordinator of a south Vancouver Island Chinook salmon hatchery, President of the South Vancouver Island Anglers Coalition, and Director with the Public Fishery Alliance. Join Chris and I as we discuss the need for science-based precautionary conservation measures in the fight to save these whales and BC’s billion-dollar marine recreational fishery.

Chinook Abundance and BC Resident Killer Whales

Dr. Andrew Trikes from the University of British Columbia and his research team at the Marine Mammal Research Unit just published their findings on Chinook salm

www.spreaker.com

Dr. Andrew Trikes from the University of British Columbia and his research team at the Marine Mammal Research Unit just published their findings on Chinook salmon abundance specific to the foraging habits of both southern and northern resident Killer whales. The research results, published in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, have caused people to re-think what may be causing southern residents to experience pour nutrition. Dr. Trites is our guest once again on The Blue Fish Radio Show, and we talk about the research and what other factors may be impacting southern resident Killer whales.