Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales

Hard to believe there are whale there, I thought they spent May through August at Pender Bluffs. Interesting to see if this impacts the previous closures! I’m guessing no.
 
Last edited:
https://achemistinlangley.net/
Another good post worth reading regarding SRKW. Although it’s aimed primarily at tanker noise, it raises questions about vessel noise in general and casts doubt on some of the refuge area choices.Some very interesting charts and an excellent job of exposing the enviro embellishment.
 
Achemistinlangley always provides fact based analysis, and his critique of the hyperbole of the most radical environmental groups is helpful. His conclusions around Rosario straight do show the effect vessel noise has on the whales. If indeed that traffic keeps whales away it is more evidence that exclusion zones if strategically implemented will be important in increasing or maintaining SRKW prey access. The ENGO narrative is biased and their agenda of complete closure of economic and recreational activity is not warranted. At the same time the science as outlined by Dr.Trites indicates the animals are in distress, need immediate action and the highest likelihood of an impact is to reduce physical and acoustic disturbance, which means exclusion zones will need to be employed and not be limited to just sport fisherman. The ENGO position is not viable, but neither are the positions mostly brought forward here which are that there is no problem, if there is it's something other than what the science says, and if any actions are taken they should have zero impact on sportfisherman ability to bonk chinook.
 
california said:
Achemistinlangley always provides fact based analysis, and his critique of the hyperbole of the most radical environmental groups is helpful. His conclusions around Rosario straight do show the effect vessel noise has on the whales. If indeed that traffic keeps whales away it is more evidence that exclusion zones if strategically implemented will be important in increasing or maintaining SRKW prey access. The ENGO narrative is biased and their agenda of complete closure of economic and recreational activity is not warranted. At the same time the science as outlined by Dr.Trites indicates the animals are in distress, need immediate action and the highest likelihood of an impact is to reduce physical and acoustic disturbance, which means exclusion zones will need to be employed and not be limited to just sport fisherman. The ENGO position is not viable, but neither are the positions mostly brought forward here which are that there is no problem, if there is it's something other than what the science says, and if any actions are taken they should have zero impact on sportfisherman ability to bonk chinook.
Click to expand...

One of your better posts - agree with most of it. I think your last statement is not fully how I see this forum..... I'd say most want to see research and science on the subject and don't expect zero impact to their sportfishing. Most here I believe want to see actions to help SRKW even if it means some changes have to happen and the science proves its needed. I think being selected as the only activity removed from a quiet zone is one sportfishers really struggle with ....and understandably.
 
california said:
Achemistinlangley always provides fact based analysis, and his critique of the hyperbole of the most radical environmental groups is helpful. His conclusions around Rosario straight do show the effect vessel noise has on the whales. If indeed that traffic keeps whales away it is more evidence that exclusion zones if strategically implemented will be important in increasing or maintaining SRKW prey access. The ENGO narrative is biased and their agenda of complete closure of economic and recreational activity is not warranted. At the same time the science as outlined by Dr.Trites indicates the animals are in distress, need immediate action and the highest likelihood of an impact is to reduce physical and acoustic disturbance, which means exclusion zones will need to be employed and not be limited to just sport fisherman. The ENGO position is not viable, but neither are the positions mostly brought forward here which are that there is no problem, if there is it's something other than what the science says, and if any actions are taken they should have zero impact on sportfisherman ability to bonk chinook.
Click to expand...
I think you’re miscategorizing the vast majority on this site. I think we all recognize there is a problem, but we question, and I believe that is very important we do, some of the claims as well as some of the purposed solutions. Do you believe water depth or bathymetric charts were considered when establishing the whale refuges? If not we’re they strategically implemented? If the problem is a shortage of one species of salmon, why a total fin fish closure as opposed to Spring non retention? Was it because of the disturbance caused by trolling motors of recreational fishers? Funny the only vessels that have had no sound data collected on them were the only ones banned. Does anyone believe that a trolling motor competes with the noise generated by commercial traffic and whale watchers?

I personally believe that it’s reckless to dismiss the problem, but I also believe it is even more reckless to take action for the sake of appeasement to special interest groups. I find it refreshing to read the posts of a Scientist who refuses to just fall in line and regurgitate the special interest groups sound bites, but rather questions the validity and incoperates common sense. I think many on here in there own way are trying to do the same.
 
On another note, giving credit where credit is due. I received a reply from the Associate Deputy Minister on the Ministers behalf. Here is one short paragraph that I have just replied to. It may be of interest to anyone else planning on writing the Minister.

“Fisheries management actions, based on the best science available, have been announced and are expected to remain in place for 2018. However, the Department will be reviewing our approach as part of the post-season Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) review process. DFO receives input from recreational stakeholders via local Sport Fishing Advisory Committees (SFACs). For more information on how to participate, please visit the Department's Sport Fishing Advisory Board website.”
 
I also received exactly the same reply Ziggy...it was a generic, bulk e-mail which certainly ignored the list of specific concerns I sent the Minister. it was interesting to me that the the Deputy suggested that we contact the SFAB process and use their input. In fact, the Minister totally ignored the extensive consultation the SFAB provided at the Minister's request. I found the reply somewhat insulting. I have sent a reply to the deputy.
 
ziggy said:
On another note, giving credit where credit is due. I received a reply from the Associate Deputy Minister on the Ministers behalf. Here is one short paragraph that I have just replied to. It may be of interest to anyone else planning on writing the Minister.

“Fisheries management actions, based on the best science available, have been announced and are expected to remain in place for 2018. However, the Department will be reviewing our approach as part of the post-season Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) review process. DFO receives input from recreational stakeholders via local Sport Fishing Advisory Committees (SFACs). For more information on how to participate, please visit the Department's Sport Fishing Advisory Board website.”
Click to expand...
I got the same letter too. Don't forget this sentence "I regret the delay in responding and will take the opportunity to provide an update on the Government of Canada’s actions in the intervening period since we received your correspondence."
It takes a long time to draft a bulk reply that basically says nothing, but we are doing something.
 
Give the SFAB process a whirl, what do you have to lose? Still doesn't replace taking time to make your views known via the official SARA team site on the CH extension or attending the public meetings - Port Alberni is Oct 3 at 6 pm at the Barklay Hotel.

The Science advice being used to justify the CH extension is simply wrong. Interesting to see that in 40 years of documented Resident Killer Whale observations out on LaPerouse, there are only 34 sightings. Less than 1 per year, and yet some want us to believe this habitat is of critical importance to the recovery of these wonderful whales - does that add up? No empirical evidence offered up to support their claims - no acoustic monitoring.

This whole thing seems more like junk science being used to string together a few assumptions made by science folks who have very little actual on the water experience with the areas they seek to propose as critical habitat. Meanwhile, we are losing ground on finding recovery strategies that actually work in our haste to be seen to be doing something. There are a lot of social and economic consequences if we get it wrong that impact real families in small coastal communities.
 
Hope you guys write back and call them on it. I replied and told them that I thought they were full of it and why. We need to keep up the pressure!
 
lol ENGO fail


Leaping humpback whale on Vancouver Island cracks boat window with head bang


"Peter Hamilton, director of the animal-rights group Lifeforce, was on the boat last Thursday and says the experience with the bus-sized whales was a bit unsettling.

He posted a video of the close encounter on YouTube, and it shows the whales checking out the boat before one of them leaps into the air and smacks its head on the window as it lands in the water."

https://www.cheknews.ca/leaping-hum...d-cracks-boat-window-with-head-bang-3-494622/
 
fish brain said:
I got the same letter too. Don't forget this sentence "I regret the delay in responding and will take the opportunity to provide an update on the Government of Canada’s actions in the intervening period since we received your correspondence."
It takes a long time to draft a bulk reply that basically says nothing, but we are doing something.
Click to expand...
That's the communication branch of DFO for you. The minister never actually sees your letter. For every hot item they have already produced an approved safe, non-committal, generic response for cut and pasting back to you. Every once in a while, however - maybe on a Friday afternoon or maybe more likely a Monday morning - they cut and paste the wrong response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cohochinook
Your Salmon Fisheries Are In Peril!- COMPLETE THE DFO SRKW SURVERY BEFORE FEBUARY 12TH
Replies
43
Views
5K
Ringo
R
A
Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations II: TC handed control over to the provinces and municipalities
Replies
17
Views
1K
zurk
zurk
SVIAC
IMPORTANT: Feb. 27 Fisheries Town Hall Mtg. in Langford
Replies
13
Views
2K
PEETZcanada
PEETZcanada
F
Petition to Stop the politically motivated destruction of the Vancouver area recreational Salmon fishery
Replies
28
Views
3K
kingspring
K
Adler
Petition for Marked Selective Fishery and Mass Marking
Replies
17
Views
2K
Ryan A
Ryan A
Back
Top