Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales

And the light bulb turned on this morning when I read this. Please read this closely on the DFO minster response to noise with respect to the whales.

http://www.martlet.ca/a-conversation-with-the-federal-minister-of-fisheries-and-oceans/

The port of Vancouver there’s about 3 200 large commercial vessels that go in and out of that harbour every year,” he said. “There’s thousands of B.C. Ferries. B.C. Ferries is probably the biggest problem in the context of noise, that go across between the island and the mainland every year.”

He also mentioned recreational boats. “And there are tens of thousands of recreational boats — all of which create noise.


So, if you’re going to save the Southern Resident Killer Whale, it’s not about mitigating the noise from six tankers, it’s about actually mitigating noise from thousands and thousands of vessels. So the broader issue is how do we actually do that, and I would tell you that the work that we’ve done is about doing that, and the mitigation of the six vessels coming out of the TMX terminal, I mean, we’ve basically done all of that work in the context of actually looking at the broader issue,” the minister concluded.

As I said before this entire thing is about getting that pipeline through, and those opposed to it. If you guys can't see it now I am not sure how it becomes more clear. The government has now 5-6 months to go back to NEB board. If you look at the timeline doesn't it fit with the timing of our Chinook fishery announcements next year? The government has no plans to stop tanker traffic it is going tell the NEB it is addressing the issues with acoustic noise the whales by reducing recreational and whale watching boating noise. I really hope I am wrong here, but you see where this is going. Just something to think about and add to the discussion.
 
Last edited:
I’ve yet to see an acoustic study on the impact of recreational vessels noise generation and more specifically Rec vessels involved in sport fishing.I’ve seen data from tankers, commercial vessels, Navy,Coast Guard,Recreational vessels over 65’ and commercial fishing vessels, but nothing specifically on boats running on their kicker. My point being the latter is the only one prohibited from the refuge areas and frankly that defies logic!
 
So now he is going to mitigate noise from thousands and thousands of vessels. And so far in Area 18 he has mitigated the noise from zero a lot of the time,to maybe a couple dozen sport fishing boats on a busy day in the Summer that are idling along Pender Bluffs and were willing to pull their gear and shut done sonar and engines when whales approached. Sounds like he has an awful long way to go....
 
So now he is going to mitigate noise from thousands and thousands of vessels. And so far in Area 18 he has mitigated the noise from zero a lot of the time,to maybe a couple dozen sport fishing boats on a busy day in the Summer that are idling along Pender Bluffs and were willing to pull their gear and shut done sonar and engines when whales approached. Sounds like he has an awful long way to go....
Yeah it makes no sense! If the addition of 6 more tankers is not an issue because there are already 3200 large commercial vessel visits, thousands of ferry trips and tens of thousands of recreational vessels all making noise( questionable facts at best) so his point is it’s already very noisy. Then why the ban exclusively on a handful of small boats operating on a small outboard kickers?The 3200 large commercial vessels, the thousands of ferry trips and tens of thousands of recreational vessels, provided they are running on main engines and not trolling on their kickers, are exempt.

Yes they all make noise, but not an equal amount. The intensity and frequency are factors the Minister glossed over and are hugely different! Also creating noise are things such as wave action, rain, biologicals etc.wonder if he’s ok with these sources?Bottom line folks there is no rhyme nor reason to how they are approaching the ships noise issue and they seem to be counting on people not knowing enough to call them out on it. We have a couple of sound ranges in the Victoria area, maybe the Minister needs to see the difference between a large commercial vessel and a small boat running a trolling motor!
 
Im too the point where when, and they will be, make the announcement of a total fin fish closures out off Bamfield I might just go get a "food fish" permit from a buddy in Port just to fk with the people who "think" they are running the show..
That is how fked up things are going
 
Im too the point where when, and they will be, make the announcement of a total fin fish closures out off Bamfield I might just go get a "food fish" permit from a buddy in Port just to fk with the people who "think" they are running the show..
That is how fked up things are going
Someone on here must have the skills to make fake status cards...
 
So Eric does that mean that you won't be coming to Tofino to hire a guide and catch the whales main source of food like you did this year...just asking, does your hypocrisy know no bounds
 
Do SRKW hang out off Tofino?
Does Eric? Do the fish that pass by Torino ever head towards the Fraser or are they Resident?
 
Thought I would share this fisheries notice (there's another allowing troll) for Area 29, which by the way is closed for recreational fin fishing to protect SRKW. The only protection offered for SRKW is to avoid them (highlighted by me in the notice)

A dual standard? Evidence of systemic bias? Or is this to protect the economic viability of the commercial fleet?

Or is this simply DFO finally recognizing that you can establish a balance between measures to protect SRKW, and allowing careful fisheries that ensure economic opportunities are supported? Perhaps we are at a turning point, where DFO will afford the same approach to the Recreational fishery which BTW generates almost twice the actual economic value to Canada while utilizing a fraction of the available fish to accomplish those benefits.


Subject: FN1048-COMMERCIAL - Salmon: Seine - Area B - Area 29 - Fraser River Sockeye ITQ Demonstration Fishery - Quota Increase - September 21, 2018


Category(s):

COMMERCIAL - Salmon: Seine


Fishery Notice - Fisheries and Oceans Canada


Subject: FN1048-COMMERCIAL - Salmon: Seine - Area B - Area 29 - Fraser River Sockeye ITQ Demonstration Fishery - Quota Increase - September 21, 2018


In 2018, Area B seine Fraser River sockeye harvest opportunities will be

managed as an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) demonstration fishery and

will be based on available commercial TAC. Sufficient quota is required to

participate in any fishery opening listed below.


Vessel Masters are reminded that overages must be covered by a quota

reallocation within 24 hours of landing and validation, vessels are not

permitted to recommence fishing until all overages have been covered, and an

increase in the TAC cannot be used to cover an overage. The quota being

transferred to a vessel in an overage situation must be quota that was

available prior to the TAC increase. For further details refer to Appendix 7

of the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan.


The involvement of the Area B seine fleet in the Area 29 Gulf Sockeye fishery

is dependent on the Area B Seine Harvest Committee developing and implementing

a fishing plan that is aligned with coho impacts available for the fishery.

This approach limits the amount of ‘Boat Days’ to a target allocation of

approximately 75 Boat Days for the entire Area B fleet for the remaining 2018

Sockeye fishery.

This fishing opportunity is possible due to the cooperation between Fisheries

Management staff and the Area B Harvest Committee to actively manage this

weekly fishing plan. As a result, Area B vessel masters and vessels must have

a valid 2018 Area B Seine Licence and also be **designated by their

representative Working Group body** and **subsequently by the Area B Harvest

Committee** to participate in this fishery. This fishery will not proceed

should undesignated seine vessels attend or attempt to participate in this

fishery.

The number of vessels participating in this fishery is not limited, however

there is the requirement for observers in this fishery. If **four or fewer

vessels are participating in this fishery, all vessels must carry a certified

observer**. If five or more vessels are participating in this fishery, a

minimum of four vessels must carry a certified observer.

If fewer than four certified observers are available from the service provider

then approval to proceed with fewer than four certified observers is required

from the Resource Manager.


At this time the Area B cumulative individual quota in pieces for each Area B

licence is increased to 13,300 Sockeye salmon based on a share of 0.28411% and

a commercial TAC of 4,681,421 Sockeye. Each individual quota amount (in

pieces) will change if the available commercial TAC changes in-season and is

cumulative for the season. These commercial TACs are for the purpose of

calculating the individual quota amounts for Area B and H vessels only. The

vessel master must account for any fish caught to date and any reallocation

made.


Area 29:


Seines remains open to fishing from 06:00 hours until 21:00 hours daily until

further notice in Subareas 29-3, 29-4, 29-6, and 29-10 in waters no shallower

than 45 metres (approximately 27 fathoms). Minimum bunt mesh size 70 mm. The

use of power skiffs is permitted.


Vessel Masters are requested to avoid fishing in the vicinity of Killer Whales

when they are present in these areas.



V.O. 2018-STN-SN-007, 2018-STN-SN-008, 2018-STN-SN-009, 2018-STN-SN-010, 2018-

STN-SN-011


The available commercial Fraser River sockeye TAC will be distributed over the

course of the fishery (in increments) rather than all at once and will be

announced by fishery notice and adjusted if necessary following Fraser Panel

meetings (usually Tuesday and Friday) depending on abundance and stock

composition.


The vessel must have sufficient allocations (ITQ) of Sockeye salmon to

participate in this fishery. It is the responsibility of the vessel master to

cease fishing when the vessel quota for Fraser River Sockeye salmon is

achieved. For further details please refer to the guidelines for the 2018 ITQ

demonstration fishery which are available in Appendix 7 of the 2018 Integrated

Fisheries Management Plan for Southern BC at the following link. IFMP Southern:

http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/40694306.pdf


For 2018 there is a new minimum approach distance for Killer Whales being 200m,

in all Canadian Fisheries waters in the Pacific Ocean and British Columbia. For

other whales, dolphins and porpoises the minimum approach distances is 100m.
 
Great video SpringVelocity; thanks. FYI this about 1 year old now & I still wanna listen to the whole 7 hour symposium as he did not address the birth rate & infant mortality issues:

And your expertise in this field is?

I believe Dr. Trites clearly set out that the population suffered removals, sanctioned by DFO, that in a population of limited numbers of reproductive aged animals has dire consequences (my words) into the future. He also addressed concerns about the skewed births (mostly males). This fluctuating population (thought by some experts to be SRKW reaching their carrying capacity within the environment) was predicted back in 199o by Olesiuk, so not shocking news. The other paradigm shift offered was there is some possibility that NRKW are displacing (out competing for food) SRKW within their range.

And, when we talk about population trends - 2 of the 3 SRKW pods are actually maintaining their population trend, whereas L Pod whom travel down to the US are not. Interestingly, the management measures put in place in Canada won't benefit L Pod down across the line.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/768f/682e6c8936bf7d487cbb0deee9e16f259053.pdf

upload_2018-9-22_20-11-40.png
 
Last edited:
I have to say one thing you are all missing about this whole issue is this , Trudeau and his elite team of buffoons do not care about any fishermen/women ,it has been stated many many many times over they are NOT basing any on this subject using science...it strictly appeasing certain user groups to better the platform for down the road.
Unfortunately we are low hanging fruit and easy to pick off as we are small compared to the rest of the user groups.
To those that want to put up the fight I tip my hat to you all and good luck into whatever you do . I caution this is a slippery slope coming ahead, If you are in the business I suggest you better start looking in new directions and have a plan B in effect , as its not looking good.this will not be fixed in just one year this is going to take decades...

Good luck Wolf
 
Apparently according to the greens they hang out from Northern California to Alaska so lets shut it all down

From Wilkinsons comments it's clear they are more or less going to follow the consensus panel recommendations, which doesnt include coastwide shutdowns, so probably your hysteria is overblown. On this forum the SRKW feed nowhere on the coast. So there must be something between the nowhere here and the everywhere ENGOs think. You are on the water a lot, Where do the SRKW feed?
 
From Wilkinsons comments it's clear they are more or less going to follow the consensus panel recommendations, which doesnt include coastwide shutdowns, so probably your hysteria is overblown. On this forum the SRKW feed nowhere on the coast. So there must be something between the nowhere here and the everywhere ENGOs think. You are on the water a lot, Where do the SRKW feed?
Perhaps there is some confusion because the so called Resident whales don’t just eat Resident salmon? Maybe from a closure perspective it would be simpler if they did!
 
Well I guess if the fin fish closures and establishment of whale sanctuaries is deemed the answer, it will eventually spread across the border to the SanJuans and Puget Sound, so it may change the outlook for Chinook fishing.Are you involved in lobbying your government for these measures?

I am not involved in any kind of lobbying. It is already in effect on west San Juan Island. As for wider effects in WA, I think that the closures in area's where the SRKW are feeding in late spring-summer will be tried before other closures are implemented.

So Eric does that mean that you won't be coming to Tofino to hire a guide and catch the whales main source of food like you did this year...just asking, does your hypocrisy know no bounds

I don't get how that makes me a hypocrite. Being largely on the side of science on this issue, I'll go with what the scientists recommend & hope that the various governments involved follow suit.

And your expertise in this field is?

I have no expertise in this field, just like everybody else on this forum
To whom it may concern:

Your an asshat.
 
Do you have a link to the closure on West San Juan this is all I could find?

WDFW will promote the adherence to a voluntary “No-Go” Whale Protection Zone along the southwest portion of San Juan Island in MA7 for all recreational vessels (Figure 2). The geographic extent of this area will stretch from Eagle Point in the southeast to Mitchell Point in the north and extend offshore 1⁄4 mile between these locations and 1⁄2 mile centered on Lime Kiln Lighthouse. This area is consistent with that proposed by NOAA Fisheries as Alternative 4 in the 2009 Environmental Assessment on New Regulations to Protect SRKWs from Vessel Effects in Inland Waters of Washington and represents the area most frequently utilized for foraging and socialization in the San Juan Islands.

As you can see this was a simple voluntary measure as opposed to our mandated no go. I’m not sure if this is the only regulation on this, but you are likely more familiar with tracking down your regs than am I.
 
Back
Top