Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales

[scott craven]

Habitat restoration is the key to more Chinook.
All the closures they throw at us will not increase the population
until the fish have adequate spawning grounds.

 

[searun]

California if you look closely the Rec sector has already been asked to make several contributions to the plan. Chinook catches from the Rec sector were at historic lows already prior to the SRKW issue, then this season we were asked to develop a fishing plan to further reduce those catches by 30% on targeted stocks of concern. If you also look at the Area Closures, those too have reduced catch to zero as there are wide sweeping fin fishing closures. In areas like south Vancouver Island the exploitation rate of Fraser chinook is less than 3% (just 1 example). Catch limits inside the SOG were reduced from 2 to 1 per day; 2 possession. I guess if we followed your advice we could simply close the fishery to zero retention - precisely what the green NGO's are demanding - crushing a $713 USD million economic impetus to Canada and $440 million US to Canada's GDP. That represents impacts to real families, real jobs and kills the social fabric of our fishery in Canada.

If you look closely at the actual catch (fish landed) for 2017 the year prior to the management measures here is how it stacks up for Rec and Commercial:

North Coast Commercial = 97,730 and South Coast Commercial = 54,411 for a total combined catch of 152,141

North Coast Rec = 45,600, and South Coast Rec = 46,707 for a total combined catch of 92,307

Breaking down the catch by economic value derived from the actual catch, the economic value to Canada for rec caught salmon is rather difficult because any data I can find lumps all salmon (not just Chinook) together. But for a moment to illustrate if we just used the economic value of all salmon divided by the number of Chinook caught the value proposition starts to loosely look something like this:

Recreational GDP contribution = $440 million USD - or $4,766.70 per fish landed in US dollars. Converted to Canadian funds is $6,275.57 per landed fish recreationally. I would suggest that this represents a tremendous value proposition to Canada, and if managed well could easily be grown by adding more value added services to each fish landed so as to maximize further the economic spin offs accruing to activity associated with the fishery. Other way around, the rec fishery represents one of the wisest uses of this precious resource to Canada and is a national cultural icon to boot.

You might find this interesting - Pacific Salmon Commission post season summary which lists all the catch by all countries of origin and management measures/outcomes:

https://www.psc.org/download/131/meeting-summaries/9857/2018-psc-post-season-meeting-summary.pdf

 

[Fishmyster]

Not to flog a dead horse but if all he had done in the video was make a case for La Perouse there wouldn't be much of an issue. He gets to that eventually, after a misinformed rant about how whales starving is "a crock" . I agree closures on LaPerouse, Swiftsure and Dixon entrance are not needed, but I found much of the rest of his rant counterproductive. It just plays into the stereotype the NGOs want of sport fisherman as self centered and ignorant, or at least indifferent to the issues facing the whales. This is exactly the kind of spokesperson we need to avoid.



You make some very good points on what could be done. I disagree with the hatchery ramp up, as if you want science based solutions that is not supported, but a debate for another time.

What is missing is any contribution by sport fisherman to this plan. The reductions in limits seen this year in some areas for parts of the season were long overdue given the state of chinook stocks. Only politics prevented the Conservatives from implementing reductions years ago as they were more concerned with placating sport fisherman votes than the current government which is more aligned with voters sympathetic to green groups. We are the largest exploiter of the chinook resource, and any plans or negotiations for SRKW or overall chinook survival will have to include some effects on the group that catches the most chinook. Ericl posted on another thread that it "looks like aneverybody else is to blame" situation, and that seems to still be the case. The various sport fisherman advocacy groups will need to be prepared to offer up ideas of what sport fisherman can do, not just what everyone else can do. What might they be?

For some initiall thoughts I see two themes:
1. Minimize Sport fishing vessel impacts on foraging behaviour -Proposing bubble zones not just in the current or proposed critical areas but everywhere. In reality the entire coast could be critical habitat, any area the orcas decide to feed is critical at that time. Therefore the rule coast wide could be if Orcas come in the the area, sport fisherman turn off their electronics, pull their gear and leave. This should at least be a discussion point to offer up in exchange for continued access to the new proposed critical habitat areas, not just bubble zones in those areas.
2. Increase availibility of Early season chinook. The issue for SRKW is less about Salmon availability late summer and early fall as it is availability early in the season, when their only option is Chinook. Proposals to minimize chinook harvest early in the season while preserving opportunities later in the season when fish are more plentiful. What might this look like?
- Winter fishing; A potential closure of all chinook (all salmon) fishing coast wide from Dec 1 to March 1. This accomplishes 3 things, it gives the mostly undersized fish a break and eliminates the mortality on these young chinook from C&R, It leaves any larger early season fish in the water for the whales or escapement, and it ensures the whales will have feeding grounds free from sport boats during the leanest time of the year.
- Spring fishing : continue with the limit reductions seen this year. To reduce exploitation on early season fish heading to US rivers reduce chinook limits to 1 per day on the WCVI as well as everywhere else. Perhaps until July 1 or 15. The science says a big issue for the whales is the precipitous decline of early run chinook extending the time they have to live off fat reserves. Get in front of the curve and use this as a negotiation point to keep late season access.
-Summer/fall fishing - Expand the WCVI and Haida Gwaii limits back to 2 per day as of July 1 or 15. This continues to support the summer economic activity of the sport industry and exploits the runs at the time there is probably enough for both sport fisherman and Whales.

I often wonder who's team you are on??? ENGO's or sportfishermen? It surely isn't the whales.

All your recommendations seem directed at fishing efforts and show no consideration to water quality. What is your experience in ocean ecology that leads you to discredit the input of a thirty year fisherman? How many hours of experience do you have in the field??

This bs about not enough Chinook salmon is just deflection from the water quality issue that has disrupted all ecology like stream invertebrates, killed off coastal starfish populations, inhibited shellfish production and much more. Can you not see the connection? You are suggesting a typical ENGO solution to a much deeper issue effecting the SRKW's. If you had an aquarium and your fish were sick would you just keep throwing more food in rather than test the water??? If you had a dog that was sick would you just keep filling his dish with more food in hopes of improvement??? How about if your wife or children were sick. Would you run to the grocery store so you could fill the fridge with their favorite foods??? Totally lame if you ask me but typical of ENGO mentality to do something now. Just another example of remedies suggested from desk top scientists.
My recommendations would be to let time heal the damage that was caused from low rain pH that has move heavy metals to the ocean where they have precipitated in concentration through out the inside waters. In the mid 1990's rain pH averaged in the mid 4's and was as low as 3.4. It has been rising considerably over the last few years to averaging over 6 the last few days. The condition is improving!! If anyone did water quality analysis they would know this. The poor SRKW's that have been swimming in the tainted water have absorbed the toxins and only time can will help them.

California, have you ever researched local water quality trends to properly inform yourself. You comments reveal your ignorance to the science of ecology and effects of poor chemistry on aquatic life. It is an example of ENGO mentality showing lack of compassion for your fellow Canadians who fish and lack of desire to find the real source of the whales sickness.

 

[california]

California if you look closely the Rec sector has already been asked to make several contributions to the plan.

Yes, you are correct I do not dispute that, one could argue those were long overdue, but more my point of putting it out there is the reality of the situation is the recreational sector is not going to be left alone. Just saying "were done" we had some restrictions now look elsewhere is going to fall on deaf ears, and if the rec sectors stand is we will do nothing more, it will just be imposed. I suppose that is one strategy, and if advocacy groups decide it is then so be it, but it seems there should at least be contingencies of how cuts might be implemented that are more palatable than might other wise be the case.

I often wonder who's team you are on??? ENGO's or sportfishermen? It surely isn't the whales.

All your recommendations seem directed at fishing efforts and show no consideration to water quality. What is your experience in ocean ecology that leads you to discredit the input of a thirty year fisherman? How many hours of experience do you have in the field??

Searun had already listed a bunch of other possible actions not involving fishing restrictions, I didn't repeat them. and his list did not include water quality which I know is your thing. Water quality is probably one of the many issues, I don't doubt it has an effect. But for all your posts I have never seen anything on how it can be fixed, it appears to be a background factor we can not influence, like rainfall, snowpack, CO2 and global temperature. These things may influence Salmon abundance and survivability but are not modifiable. Issues Searun brought up like pollution, overfishing of prey species, water diversion, seal populations and of course fishing pressure are all potentially modifiable. Just waiting around for it to get better because one guy on a fishing forum says so isn't really an option.

 

[ziggy]

The reality is closure is the cheapest option and it’s what the engo’s are demanding and DFO is happy to provide. Hatcheries, environmental rehabilitation, forage fishery and even cutting back commercial fishing (assuming license buy back?) all cost time money and manpower. Closure costs nothing and might even save DFO money and man hours! Sadly we can argue all we want about fairness,practicality and how silly this whole whale sanctuary, or is it whale viewing sanctuary idea is, but no one is listening! Closure costs the Department nothing, requires little effort and can be sold to the uninformed as taking action.

 

[profisher]

Exactly...when you accept closures and fishing restrictions as the only means to fix salmon and or whales problems you are letting the governement off the hook for meaningfull and positive changes that would benefit both. They are doing very very little in the other areas mentioned that require budgets and manpower.

 

[Floater]

The band-aid problem solvers like our southern friend here love restrictions.

Because when they inevitably fail, they get to flex their muscle a bit more and impose bans.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Its not all about the food, in fact even if they banned all Chinook exploitation and did nothing about the other issues they still expect the SRKW population to go extinct. The single biggest factor is noise according to the study used by ENGO's. They really seem to be only looking for an increase of Chinook by about 15%. Its more about our boats being in the water where whales feed then the Chinook we kill.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14471-0

Threat Management
Improvements in demographic rates would need to be achieved by management actions that reduce threats or otherwise enhance the environment for SRKW. We therefore examined how population growth would respond to reductions in the levels of current threats. To achieve the recovery goal by increasing Chinook abundance alone would require a return to nearly the highest rates of Chinook abundance observed since 1979 (Fig. 5). If eliminating acoustic disturbance while maintaining current levels of Chinook abundance were possible, annual population growth could reach 1.7%. Removal of PCBs from the habitat would result in marginally positive (0.3%) growth, but the effect is much smaller than the impact of reduced noise and disturbance or increased Chinook abundance. Complete removal of both acoustic disturbance and PCBs is predicted to result in 1.9% growth. Therefore, reaching the recovery target without increasing Chinook salmon numbers is likely impossible. Reducing acoustic disturbance by 50% and simultaneously increasing Chinook by more than 1.15x would allow the population to reach the 2.3% growth target. Other combinations of mitigation should be explored by management authorities as conservation options are identified.

However, from the perspective of a foraging killer whale that emits high-frequency (18-32 kHz) echolocation clicks to detect and capture salmon, high-frequency noise from small, outboard vessels that follow whales might cause a greater reduction in a killer whale’s foraging success than low-frequency (<1 kHz) background noise from commercial shipping44.'

Whale watching doing some serious damage....

 

[Fishmyster]

Yes, you are correct I do not dispute that, one could argue those were long overdue, but more my point of putting it out there is the reality of the situation is the recreational sector is not going to be left alone. Just saying "were done" we had some restrictions now look elsewhere is going to fall on deaf ears, and if the rec sectors stand is we will do nothing more, it will just be imposed. I suppose that is one strategy, and if advocacy groups decide it is then so be it, but it seems there should at least be contingencies of how cuts might be implemented that are more palatable than might other wise be the case.

Searun had already listed a bunch of other possible actions not involving fishing restrictions, I didn't repeat them. and his list did not include water quality which I know is your thing. Water quality is probably one of the many issues, I don't doubt it has an effect. But for all your posts I have never seen anything on how it can be fixed, it appears to be a background factor we can not influence, like rainfall, snowpack, CO2 and global temperature. These things may influence Salmon abundance and survivability but are not modifiable. Issues Searun brought up like pollution, overfishing of prey species, water diversion, seal populations and of course fishing pressure are all potentially modifiable. Just waiting around for it to get better because one guy on a fishing forum says so isn't really an option.

California, You are absolutely wrong in stating "Just waiting around for it to get better isn't really an option". It has been done for decades. Just like the dye off of interior coho, coast wide loss of stream invertebrates, dydimo blooms and collapse of steelhead populations. Fishing was heavily regulated or closed but it did nothing to address the water quality issues causing the population crashes. ENGO's MOE and DFO have turned their back on the bottom up approach and water chemistry because it is expensive and takes effort. It was treatable in freshwater but that science was discontinued. Closing fishing is doing nothing!!! This has been going on for thirty years but very little science is being directed to it or ways to treat the waters. Now, because of the beloved SRKW's are sick it is time to act fast and regulate fishing more!!! Totally lame butt feel good remedy that does NOTHING to help the whales. Your negative attitude toward hatcheries, seal cull and lack of desire to understand water quality issues is the exact same ENGO attitude of doing nothing concrete to create more fish for whales and people it just restricts people from having a viable fishery. Whales still loose. ENGO's keep getting donations and lining their pockets. The only winners are the ENGO's. It's all so sickening!
If it was in my hands I would take tissue samples of the sick whales to identify their sickness. To properly understand what contamination it is that has made them unhealthy would be my first step. Then I would look at innovative ways to treat the individual whales if possible. What could be done for people who have been poisoned by heavy metals or sewage? Maybe it could be applied to whales?
I agree fully with all Searun's list of options. I personally would also add water quality assessment, long term supporting ecology monitoring and investigation of water treatment options to the list. It is long overdue!!!

 

[profisher]

Small outboard powered (2 strokes) were around these whales for decades and the whales were doing well,
In fact the population was increasing up until the 90’s. Take a look and compare BC’s hatchery Chinook output from the 70’s through the 90’s and compare to the SRKW numbers during that same time. Then compare the hatchery output after the 90’s and what happened to the SRKW population.

 

[terrin]

Small outboard powered (2 strokes) were around these whales for decades and the whales were doing well,
In fact the population was increasing up until the 90’s. Take a look and compare BC’s hatchery Chinook output from the 70’s through the 90’s and compare to the SRKW numbers during that same time. Then compare the hatchery output after the 90’s and what happened to the SRKW population.

Or on the other hand take a look at the explosion of Open net pen Fish Farms in both B.C. and Washington State since the late 80's and the decline in Chinook Salmon.

 

[terrin]

Habitat restoration is the key to more Chinook.
All the closures they throw at us will not increase the population
until the fish have adequate spawning grounds.

Also being exposed to non native PRV Virus in their migration routes from Fish Farms are Killer.

 

[Fishmyster]

Or on the other hand take a look at the explosion of Open net pen Fish Farms in both B.C. and Washington State since the late 80's and the decline in Chinook Salmon.

That's just coincidental stats ENGO's use to justify their directive of targeting working Canadians while bypassing the basics in ecology. If they really cared to understand salmon productivity they would test the local water for quality and supporting ecology. That would not make them any money though and they might have to get wet!! The salmon productivity depression is also apparent in areas with no ff exposer. Why will they acknowledge that? There is no money in it!

Why will nobody test our water? Why does it have to be so many complicated issues? It only takes a quick look thru the Environmental Monitoring database to see all kinds of unsuitable water quality samples in B.C. streams being high levels of aluminum and ammonia or low pH/alkalinity. Like how many ways do you have to kill a salmon population. They do rear and reproduce in freshwater and thirty years of low rain pH has shown predictable results. Anyone who truly cares to know the truth would start here with water quality before targeting every other entity that may also harvest the shiny fruit. If the water quality has been suitable over the last three decades then the other variables should be explored but guess what?? It's not so....

 

[ericl]

I often wonder who's team you are on??? ENGO's or sportfishermen? It surely isn't the whales.

There is the crux of of matter, when we need to pick a side & fight everything the other side does & support everything our side does we get nowhere.

 

[barkerfam]

Its not all about the food, in fact even if they banned all Chinook exploitation and did nothing about the other issues they still expect the SRKW population to go extinct. The single biggest factor is noise according to the study used by ENGO's. They really seem to be only looking for an increase of Chinook by about 15%. Its more about our boats being in the water where whales feed then the Chinook we kill.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14471-0

Not sure that's what the article says. Here is from their results:

Over the ranges tested, the effects of Chinook prey abundance on fecundity and survival had a greater effect on the population growth rate than did the other two factors (Fig. 2). Noise disturbance acts through decreased feeding efficiency in our model, but has a lesser effect than prey abundance because the maximum impact of boat noise 100% of the time would be to reduce foraging by about 20%.

So, chinook abundance is the key. Feed the whales! (By helping chinook breed and thrive, ie - feed the whales and not the seals!

 

[wildmanyeah]

Over the ranges tested, the effects of Chinook prey abundance on fecundity and survival had a greater effect on the population growth rate than did the other two factors (Fig. 2). Noise disturbance acts through decreased feeding efficiency in our model, but has a lesser effect than prey abundance because the maximum impact of boat noise 100% of the time would be to reduce foraging by about 20%.

So, chinook abundance is the key. Feed the whales! (By helping chinook breed and thrive, ie - feed the whales and not the seals!

"Fecundity and survival" Is largely out of our control but will see what the PSF salish sea project comes up with.

 

[GLG]

Over the ranges tested, the effects of Chinook prey abundance on fecundity and survival had a greater effect on the population growth rate than did the other two factors (Fig. 2). Noise disturbance acts through decreased feeding efficiency in our model, but has a lesser effect than prey abundance because the maximum impact of boat noise 100% of the time would be to reduce foraging by about 20%.

So, chinook abundance is the key. Feed the whales! (By helping chinook breed and thrive, ie - feed the whales and not the seals!

That's what I understood from this paper not the conclusion that wildmanyeah posted. To help these whales out we need to look at 3 threats. Chinook abundance, Noise and PCB's. This paper clearly shows the PCB's are a threat but by far the other two are more important. The biggest help would be to make sure that the females bring their offspring to term and have those calves survive. Those females need to be well feed or over the long term the population will die out. We need to tackle the problem of food abundance and noise (hunting that food).

Mean population growth for SRKW achieved by mitigation of anthropogenic threats. Threat reductions are scaled on the x-axis from no reduction to the maximum reductions tested: Chinook abundance increased up to 1.3x the long-term mean; noise disturbance during feeding was reduced from 85% to 0; and PCBs were reduced from accumulation rates of 2 ppm/y to 0. The top line shows growth rates under a combination of varying levels of improved Chinook abundance plus mitigation of noise to half the current level.

The trick is to get it right at the least cost.

 

[GLG]

"Fecundity and survival" Is largely out of our control but will see what the PSF salish sea project comes up with.

Nonsense!

 

[cohochinook]

A friend of mine made the point that "We didn't seem to have whales having an issue with their survival years ago when there weren’t whale watching boats. Why has their population only become endangered since that industry started up?"

 

[SpringVelocity]

That's what I understood from this paper not the conclusion that wildmanyeah posted. To help these whales out we need to look at 3 threats. Chinook abundance, Noise and PCB's. This paper clearly shows the PCB's are a threat but by far the other two are more important. The biggest help would be to make sure that the females bring their offspring to term and have those calves survive. Those females need to be well feed or over the long term the population will die out. We need to tackle the problem of food abundance and noise (hunting that food).

Mean population growth for SRKW achieved by mitigation of anthropogenic threats. Threat reductions are scaled on the x-axis from no reduction to the maximum reductions tested: Chinook abundance increased up to 1.3x the long-term mean; noise disturbance during feeding was reduced from 85% to 0; and PCBs were reduced from accumulation rates of 2 ppm/y to 0. The top line shows growth rates under a combination of varying levels of improved Chinook abundance plus mitigation of noise to half the current level.

The trick is to get it right at the least cost.

That is wonderful but yet again how valid is this data when the Northern Resident population is doing this. Same threats and noise and PCB as Southern pods. Look at the values from 1975. This paper you keep referencing is also heavily weighted on statistical analysis and theory.