why don't they pump $167.4m dollars into Chinook Salmon enhancement instead of spending money on vessel noise monitoring? If the experts really think these whales are starving to death then they should quit wasting money on studies and put the money towards providing a food source.
Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales
- Thread starter cohochinook
- Start date
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Didn’t read all of these links, but in the ones I did, one thing stood out. Since WWII the Canadian Navy has been using various types hydrophones either fixed or towed array, to track submarines and surface ships. Within its ranks lies a vast amount of experience and expertise and actual knowledge. Yet they the one organization that actually knows about ship generated noise, appear to not have a seat at the table? I have to wonder what level of expertise in passive acoustics exists in any of the organizations represented. I also note that while larger vessels are being studied, there is no mention of the already banned recreational fishing boat?
Excellent point Ziggy. Methinks they wish to remain anonymous & secretive though. Many years ago on one of the CBC radio programs - there was a guy talking about his experiences in the sub-listening network listening to whales using their echos off pingos/seamounts to find their way across the Atlantic Ocean.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Some stuff is of course is classified, but there is a lot that is not and there is no need to delve into the sensitive stuff in this kind of study. The real issue is more than likely intergovernmental jealousy, where rather than harness the expertise available to read and analyse the results by people who already know how, we reinvent the wheel.
ya - in government circles - sharing w another authority often means you don't get the funds you asked for to build your own castle...
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Let's be honest all this study is just really delay, they know what the issues are and the solutions, they just don't want to deal with the economic consequences or political consequence of taking meaningful action that would support a recovery.
The longer the delay, the longer the recover will take and more harsh the measures will be down the line.
The longer the delay, the longer the recover will take and more harsh the measures will be down the line.
searun
Well-Known Member
Here's some thoughts on the poor science advice paper, and significant lack of actual science to support the rationale to propose Swiftsure and La Perouse as Critical Habitat - the whole basis for the science paper used to convince the government to enact portions of SARA are badly flawed. The question is how can the Fisheries Minister rely upon that advice?? If you are writing into voice your concerns about the SARA Critical Habitat proposal, you have until Nov 3 to get your letter or email submitted. A few observations to hopefully help your own effort below:
Science Advice Gaps:
o The proposed Critical Habitat extension is based on flawed data and does not adequately define the habitat used by killer whales
o Science containing sighting data that are not robust are rarely publishable in scientific journals due to well recognized limitations
o Drawing a polygon around all sightings ever reported in an area is an inappropriate way to deal with a significant lack of data
o Much of the killer whale location data provided was from areas outside the proposed CH extension, and already within areas under current legal CH protection or existing fishery closure areas (only 89 observations are within CH area of 292 presented (only 34%) – 34 on La Perouse Bank in 40 years or less than 1/year)
o Sighting data is insufficient and incomplete employing sightings with no measure of effort, incomplete coverage, not using systematic transect surveys, and deployment of networks of hydrophones. This has led to reaching erroneous conclusions and science advice that is misleading
o The methodology used to collect the sightings data was designed to photo-identify individual whales to determine their survival and birth rates, and not to determine their spatial distribution and habitat use. The data are flawed and statistically inappropriate to define CH
o Very few whales (just 89 sightings in 40 years) were seen in a very large area (5,025 square km) to have any confidence that the designated CH is accurate
o Passive Acoustic Monitoring occurred in just one site, which represents 4.6% of the total proposed CH extension. It cannot be extrapolated to the rest of the coastline.
o Multiple sighting data of same whales on same day were not eliminated – and resulted in over-reporting bias
o Applying an inference hypothesis as the foundation of CH area designation was based on the belief that whales must use areas of both La Perouse and Swiftsure Banks that are high commercial and recreational catch areas. However, this hypothesis was disproven by McClusky (2006)
o Indigenous and Local Knowledge contradicts the assumptions that underline the given science advice. SRKW very rarely observed by fishers with over 50 years on the water experience in CH extension area
o DFO failed to consult with holders of indigenous and local knowledge to identify areas where killer whales travel, rest and feed. This information should have been used to correctly identify CH
If you are interested, McClusy reached these conclusions in her research:
McClusky’s conclusions (below) clearly documented the hypothesis used in the CSAS Science advice and subsequent recovery measure was in error, and much of the science advice was offered on the premise that one can infer a spatial habitat of critical importance from areas that recreational and commercial fishing is most successful by CPUE measures, when in fact, that is completely unfounded:
“Results show that there is no overall pattern of whale preference for the management area of highest reported salmon catch density. 1994 and 2000 were the only years to show significantly non-random distribution, indicating that either factors other than reported density of commercial salmon catch are driving SRC distribution patterns, or that higher relative densities of specific species influence distribution rather than the highest density regardless of species.”
“Contrary to the predicted outcome that whales would spend the greatest proportion of their time in areas ofhigh CPUE, it appears that a higher proportion of weeks were spent in areas of medium or low CPUE.”
“It was hypothesized that the whales would spend the greatest proportion of their time in areas of high chinook CPUE. However, the results indicate that all three pods spent the majority of their time in areas of low chinook CPUE. L pod in particular, 100% of the weeks they were sighted in areas of low chinook CPUE”.
Ford et al. used this same flawed hypothesis to propose the CH extension out onto La Perouse Bank per:
CSAS Advice:
“It also includes several other relatively shallow banks including La Perouse Bank to the northwest which, like Swiftsure Bank, are among the most productive fishing areas for Chinook and other salmonids on the North American west coast (Healey et al. 1990; McFarlane et al. 1997). It is probable that the whales make greater use of these banks than the modest number of documented Resident Killer Whale encounters might suggest – this is likely a reflection of the relatively low
observer effort in those areas.” (Ford et al. 2017)
Science Advice Gaps:
o The proposed Critical Habitat extension is based on flawed data and does not adequately define the habitat used by killer whales
o Science containing sighting data that are not robust are rarely publishable in scientific journals due to well recognized limitations
o Drawing a polygon around all sightings ever reported in an area is an inappropriate way to deal with a significant lack of data
o Much of the killer whale location data provided was from areas outside the proposed CH extension, and already within areas under current legal CH protection or existing fishery closure areas (only 89 observations are within CH area of 292 presented (only 34%) – 34 on La Perouse Bank in 40 years or less than 1/year)
o Sighting data is insufficient and incomplete employing sightings with no measure of effort, incomplete coverage, not using systematic transect surveys, and deployment of networks of hydrophones. This has led to reaching erroneous conclusions and science advice that is misleading
o The methodology used to collect the sightings data was designed to photo-identify individual whales to determine their survival and birth rates, and not to determine their spatial distribution and habitat use. The data are flawed and statistically inappropriate to define CH
o Very few whales (just 89 sightings in 40 years) were seen in a very large area (5,025 square km) to have any confidence that the designated CH is accurate
o Passive Acoustic Monitoring occurred in just one site, which represents 4.6% of the total proposed CH extension. It cannot be extrapolated to the rest of the coastline.
o Multiple sighting data of same whales on same day were not eliminated – and resulted in over-reporting bias
o Applying an inference hypothesis as the foundation of CH area designation was based on the belief that whales must use areas of both La Perouse and Swiftsure Banks that are high commercial and recreational catch areas. However, this hypothesis was disproven by McClusky (2006)
o Indigenous and Local Knowledge contradicts the assumptions that underline the given science advice. SRKW very rarely observed by fishers with over 50 years on the water experience in CH extension area
o DFO failed to consult with holders of indigenous and local knowledge to identify areas where killer whales travel, rest and feed. This information should have been used to correctly identify CH
If you are interested, McClusy reached these conclusions in her research:
McClusky’s conclusions (below) clearly documented the hypothesis used in the CSAS Science advice and subsequent recovery measure was in error, and much of the science advice was offered on the premise that one can infer a spatial habitat of critical importance from areas that recreational and commercial fishing is most successful by CPUE measures, when in fact, that is completely unfounded:
“Results show that there is no overall pattern of whale preference for the management area of highest reported salmon catch density. 1994 and 2000 were the only years to show significantly non-random distribution, indicating that either factors other than reported density of commercial salmon catch are driving SRC distribution patterns, or that higher relative densities of specific species influence distribution rather than the highest density regardless of species.”
“Contrary to the predicted outcome that whales would spend the greatest proportion of their time in areas ofhigh CPUE, it appears that a higher proportion of weeks were spent in areas of medium or low CPUE.”
“It was hypothesized that the whales would spend the greatest proportion of their time in areas of high chinook CPUE. However, the results indicate that all three pods spent the majority of their time in areas of low chinook CPUE. L pod in particular, 100% of the weeks they were sighted in areas of low chinook CPUE”.
Ford et al. used this same flawed hypothesis to propose the CH extension out onto La Perouse Bank per:
CSAS Advice:
“It also includes several other relatively shallow banks including La Perouse Bank to the northwest which, like Swiftsure Bank, are among the most productive fishing areas for Chinook and other salmonids on the North American west coast (Healey et al. 1990; McFarlane et al. 1997). It is probable that the whales make greater use of these banks than the modest number of documented Resident Killer Whale encounters might suggest – this is likely a reflection of the relatively low
observer effort in those areas.” (Ford et al. 2017)
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
In Search Of Salmon
UBC Video:
http://beatymuseum.ubc.ca/research-...gtwbA3sdExHQo2MS5Pvj3pJDFJifBH6O5gnb4r4qV7XYc
UBC Video:
http://beatymuseum.ubc.ca/research-...gtwbA3sdExHQo2MS5Pvj3pJDFJifBH6O5gnb4r4qV7XYc
searun
Well-Known Member
Great research, and as it turns out several people who are on this forum participated in helping validate the fish by helping catch them. Speaking with one of the UBC researchers, the experience was very enlightening for them as they learned a lot about salmon behaviour - in other words, the fishermen had PH'd's in Salmon habitat, location, and feeding habits.
sheloves2fish
New Member
it is imperative that everyone works together. Finger pointing is ineffective. Solution based dialogue is what is needed. I am not a scientist or biologist, so I cannot argue their data or lack of data I can only point out that what we see and what they say appear very different. I have some difficulty swallowing the 'all' of this. I have spoken to many different 'user groups' and sat at different roundtables since the DFO meetings regarding SARA. Some people advised me to lie (no I have never seen the SRKWs in the proposed critical habitat area?!), and everyone seems to have an agenda/mandate (pipeline, cull etc). I sit in a pretty weird spot in this discussion, and do not know the answers. I wrote a letter, I collected over 300 signatures, I forwarded it to everyone I can think of. I talk to Gord Johns (our MP) he is super helpful. I don't know if I am supposed to fight this CH designation or if I am supposed to be fighting for our salmon....I was angry because the consultations were lip service. I worry about our community, our lifestyle and our ecosystem. There is no one answer. It is my belief the sportsfishermen are the low-hanging fruit. It costs zero to shut down finfishing, and it has great optics, 'look what we've done'. I am making a lot of noise. I am handing our slips of paper with the DFO consultation email address (and Gord Johns and the Minister) and asking people to speak up. I refuse to pit user group against user group. I will have my epetition up and running shortly, and will post a link here when it goes live. Good luck, speak up, be loud and persistent, involve people,(those 'value-added' salmon dollars support all areas of community)....
searun
Well-Known Member
Thanks for your efforts!! Please note that the deadline for public input is Nov 3.
Everyone should take a moment and write in your input. The gaps in science advice are posted there for you to consider using in your response.
If DFO had the funding, and the experts working to develop robust data this Critical Habitat proposal would never have been launched. The science is very badly flawed, was rushed ahead with extremely limited actual data, and is wasting a lot of good time and talent chasing a ghost that won't actually do anything to help SRKW recovery. Not to mention the harm this is doing to the economies of small coastal communities that rely upon the recreational sport fishery. $713 million USD in economic activity, $440 USD to our GDP, $246 million USD in Labour Income, 6,150 jobs - that's a lot of cost impacts if DFO manages the CH the way they did down in Sooke with Area Closures.
So would this mean no Chinook fishing at all? Around the Vancouver area? Or just stricter limits?
searun
Well-Known Member
Here's what Washington State is proposing for their SRKW recovery - notice they are prepared to spend a lot more $$ on making substantive changes. I also noted they are talking about a 400 yard bubble zone, similar to what we are advancing as an alternative to Area Closures. See Recommendation #26.
https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Draft_recommendations_OrcaTaskForce_10-24-18.pdf
https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Draft_recommendations_OrcaTaskForce_10-24-18.pdf
california
Well-Known Member
I think this is encouraging. The Silver lining of the emergence of the movement to protect the SRKW is it may finally spur substantive efforts to improve river, estuary and nearshore habitats. Those are the real actions that could increase chinook (and other species) abundance. Its too bad in BC there is much less interest in these actions, the focus here is mainly on closing fisheries. There already have been some significant improvement projects in the US such as the Elwha and White Salmon river dam removals, and plans to remove the dams on the Klamath river.
searun
Well-Known Member
And, just in case you might have thought that the Critical Habitat issue is only related to the current proposed expansion...here's the Minister's announcement today...happy Halloween
New measures announced today include:
https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-...-protect-southern-resident-killer-whales.html
New measures announced today include:
- continuing to identify and protect new areas of habitat necessary for survival or recovery of the Southern Resident Killer Whale Population;
- introducing important measures aimed at protecting and recovering Chinook salmon stocks that are significant for the Southern Resident Killer Whales;
- expanding the vessel slowdowns to further reduce underwater noise;
- developing agreements with ferry operators and other marine industry partners to formalize current voluntary measures to reduce noise;
- expanding vessel monitoring systems and capabilities to develop real time ability to avoid whale encounters and providing funding to Ocean Wise for the development and deployment of a Whale Report Alert System;
- launching consultation with marine industry on development and implementation of Noise Management Plans;
- advancing feasibility work on one or more South Resident Killer Whale sanctuaries within sub-areas of critical habitat the whales use for foraging; and
- enhancing regulatory control of five key organic pollutants, including two flame retardants to lessen contaminants impacting these whales.
https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-...-protect-southern-resident-killer-whales.html
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
The upcomming action items
https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-...otecting-southern-resident-killer-whales.html
"Continuing to identify a new area of critical habitat (habitat necessary for the survival and recovery of SRKW) off the coast of Southwestern Vancouver Island in a proposed amended recovery strategy, which was included on the SARA public registry for a 60 day comment period on September 4, 2018, and closes on November 3, 2018.
Examining further reductions of overall levels of Chinook Salmon fisheries for 2019 season
Making investments to strategically rebuild and protect Chinook stocks"
https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-...otecting-southern-resident-killer-whales.html
"Continuing to identify a new area of critical habitat (habitat necessary for the survival and recovery of SRKW) off the coast of Southwestern Vancouver Island in a proposed amended recovery strategy, which was included on the SARA public registry for a 60 day comment period on September 4, 2018, and closes on November 3, 2018.
Examining further reductions of overall levels of Chinook Salmon fisheries for 2019 season
Making investments to strategically rebuild and protect Chinook stocks"
fogged in
Well-Known Member
Feds announce new protections for B.C.'s endangered killer whales
CTV Vancouver Island
Published Wednesday, October 31, 2018 12:31PM PDT
On Wednesday, the government said it would commit an additional $61.5-million to conservation efforts including further reduction of Chinook salmon fishing and investing in Chinook hatcheries.
https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/...-for-b-c-s-endangered-killer-whales-1.4157768
CTV Vancouver Island
Published Wednesday, October 31, 2018 12:31PM PDT
On Wednesday, the government said it would commit an additional $61.5-million to conservation efforts including further reduction of Chinook salmon fishing and investing in Chinook hatcheries.
https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/...-for-b-c-s-endangered-killer-whales-1.4157768
Similar threads
