Crowd says no go to proposed orca rules
Oct 1 2009 in Environment by Deborah Bach
Fishers, whale watch operators, recreational boaters and conservationists turned out in force Wednesday night to oppose a federal plan to protect killer whales by closing off 6.2 square miles of water off San Juan Island each year.
A standing room-only crowd of more than 200 packed a room at the Seattle Aquarium to discuss a proposal by the National Marine Fisheries Service to establish a half-mile-wide “no-go zone” on the west side of San Juan Island from May 1 through September, when whales are typically present.
The regulations would also prohibit boats from coming within 200 yards — twice the current limit — of the whales and from being in the path of any killer whale within 400 yards.
Fisheries officials say the regulations are needed to protect the area’s Southern Resident killer whales, declared endangered in 2005. Scientists estimate there were once around 200 killer whales in the region; that number has now shrunk to 85, according to the fisheries service.
Boat traffic off San Juan Island causes behavioral changes in the whales, reduces their ability to communicate, increases the likelihood of them being struck by vessels and impedes their ability to hunt for food, fisheries service representative Lynne Barre said at the meeting.
“Our conclusion is that the current protections are not significant for the Southern Resident population,” Barre said.
A NOAA map shows the proposed "no-go" area off San Juan Island. Most boats would be prohibited from May through September in the area.
But one after one, speakers assailed the proposed rules, saying they’re based on faulty science and that better enforcement of current regulations can sufficiently protect the whales. Speakers were almost universally opposed to the no-go zone proposal, saying there is little evidence to demonstrate that boats are harming the Southern Resident population.
Lynwood angler Wallace Cogley said the likelihood of a whale being struck by a boat is slim, and that boats that are fishing travel too slowly to make enough noise to impact the endangered mammals.
“Short of putting them in a bubble or in a swimming pool, I don’t know how they could be safer from boats,” Cogley said. “I think the no-go zone is much ado about nothing and I would really recommend it be reconsidered.”
Calling the data used to support the proposals “extremely flawed,” commercial fisherman Troy Liljeblad urged the fisheries service to consult with the divergent groups united in their opposition to the proposals.
“You have managed to coordinate groups that do not like each other. They’re cooperating. Get a clue,” he said. “It is imperative that you take another look at your data and talk to people who are out there every day. The things you’re telling us, we’ve observed on a regular basis not to be true.”
The regulations would make some exceptions for government and scientific vessels, tribal and commercial boats, and for people accessing privately owned property. But they would otherwise apply to all boats, motorized or not, including small craft such as canoes and kayaks.
David Lednicer, who regularly kayaks off the west coast of San Juan Island, said the regulations would effectively put the area off-limits to him unless he’s willing to kayak far from shore. Lednicer said he is hardly a threat to orcas, who have frequently approached his kayak, swimming under and around it.
“Paddling at two to three knots, I cannot chase an orca,” Lednicer said. “In fact, I can barely move out of their way.”
More than 200 people attended Wednesday's meeting at the Seattle Aquarium.
Even conservationists spoke against the proposals. They included orca expert Ken Balcomb, executive director and research biologist for the Center for Whale Research in Friday Harbor. Balcomb, who’s spent decades studying orcas, said the whales are comfortable moving around large numbers of boats. He said he’s not aware of a boat ever striking a whale in this area.
“My vote is that we take no action and that we all shelve (the proposed regulations) in our conceptual library somewhere between Alice in Wonderland and Don Quixote,” Balcomb said, to applause.
Heather Trim, a project coordinator with conservation group People for Puget Sound, said the organization supports the 200-yard barrier and the requirement that boats stay out the path of whales. But Trim said the no-go zone is not backed by scientific evidence and carries too many unintended consequences. She recommended the fisheries service convene a group of vessel operators to come up with a better plan to protect and increase the region’s orca population.
“Basically, our bottom line is, where is the orca recovery in the orca recovery plan?” Trim said.
Speakers also included several owners of whale watching companies in Washington and British Columbia, who said the regulations will devastate their businesses.
The Pacific Whale Watching Association, an industry trade group, is proposing alternate regulations that would establish a 7-knot speed restriction year-round on the west side of San Juan Island rather than the no-go zone, prohibit boats from being “negligently” within 100 yards of the Southern Resident population and require vessels to stay out of the whales’ path.
Suzanne Franklin has watched a "zoo" of boats surrounding orcas from her San Juan Island property. She was one of very few who spoke in favor of the new regulations.
Cedric Towers, who owns Vancouver Whale Watch, said the 100-yard barrier provides boats the proximity needed for education. “My naturalists — all professional biologists — really take pride in the fact that they can educate people,” he said.
“When we start to go to 200 yards, our educational ability, the value, is lost. We’ve asked people if they’d be interested in watching from 200 yards and they say no. My business is going to be lost. I will be out of business.”
One of the few voices in favor of the no-go zone was Suzanne Franklin, who said she owns property on the west side of San Juan Island and regularly sees whale watching boats making a beeline for orcas.
“I can see that unless there is state enforcement in the area when whales are present, it’s a zoo on the west side,” Franklin said. “I know it’s illegal to pursue an endangered species, yet I see that going on every day.”
Wednesday’s meeting followed one last Thurdsay in Anacortes, at which dozens of speakers railed against the proposals. A third and final public meeting is scheduled from 7 to 9 p.m. next Monday, Oct. 5, at the Grange Hall in Friday Harbor.
Public comments on the regulations are being accepted until Oct. 27 and can be submitted by email or regular mail. Additional information is available here.
Monica Harrington said on October 1, 2009
Suzanne Franklin was not the “lone” voice supporting the No Go Zone. There were several other speakers at the end of the evening who voiced support for he new rules, including at least one person who brought devastating photos taken one recent weekend that showed whale watching boats practically on top of the whales.
I spoke at the meeting and also support the No-Go Zone. Earlier in the evening here was an interesting suggestion on kayaks to limited group size and require kayakers to stay within 100 feet from shore and and then move to shore when whales are present. If there were strong enforcment on this ( meaning violatoers get substantial fines, then it seems workable). I also think all customers should have to sign agreement acknowledging their understanding of the new rules and penalties for enforcement. I don’t know what the scientists think about this one, but if they think it would work, it might make sense.
Pumpkineater said on October 2, 2009
You see? Joel PROVES my point – ‘It’s NEVER the commercial EXPLOITER that drives a species to near extinction.’ When harvesting is good, the more the better; instead of 5million of something being taken, with a healthy balance between supply and demand, the commercial operator grabs another 5 million, decimating BREEDING stocks, but also CUTTING their price per pound, as they flood the market with OVER supply. California did that with crab, rockfish, abalone, salmon. Seattle’s fleet TOOK a 120,000 ILLEGAL KIng salmon as a by-product catch in Alaska. Can’t LEGALLY sell them, but the Seattle Fleet can HARVEST TAX WRITE OFFS for donating to the ‘needy.’
PERHAPS what Joel was REALLY doing, is (again SEE my 1st post) to MUDDY the waters so greedy, irresponsible developers, and their avaricious land owners, can take ALL the blame. Throughout the 19th and 20 century, it has become possible to HARVEST all that one can grab, reap the profits and leave the mess to the taxpayer. Know how much EXTRA we pay for the bloody dams/logging/toxic chemical farming, so special interests can get more Federal and State money for their pockets? The Indians ravaged their reservation land for profits; now YOU and I are paying SELECT tribes $90 million over 10 years to restore THEIR ravaged habitat. We KNOW the politicians have ZERO enforcement interests – it cuts down on campaign contributions – but
As I said in the 1st post:”…BOTH (commercial fisherman AND special interest landowners) have a mantra they shout like Mao’s Red Guards – FIRST, LOUDEST and LONGEST; ‘Not ME! NOT ME! It’s those…..(fill in the blank.).’ Next, these whiners, will be asking for their Federal + State Bail Out!, because, ’some one took all ‘their’ fish.
THANK YOU for helping PREOVE my point, Joel…much appreciated.
Deborah Bach said on October 2, 2009
Hi Monica,
Thanks for the heads-up. We stayed for 50 speakers and then had to leave to file our story, so unfortunately we missed hearing your comments and those of the other speakers you refer to. We’ve changed the story accordingly.
Deborah
Joel said on October 1, 2009
When you read the Biological Opinion on the Southern Resident Killer Whale, the main conclusion is that they are not getting enough to eat. Since SRKW eat salmon, preferring chinook, the Biological Opinion in essence says that recovery is dependent on restoring salmon populations across the SRKW Critical Habitat. Now “Pumpkineater” wishes to blame fishing on the destruction of salmon runs in Washington State. Looking again to the NMFS documentation on ESA listed salmon in Washington State, you will see that loss of salmon habitat is the biggest obstacle to recovery. Harvest has been reduced (in the case of Sacramento Fall Chinook – eliminated) in order to allow sufficient numbers of salmon to spawn, based on the available habitat of a particular river system.
Can large commercial harvests of salmon be conducted in Puget Sound? Yes. Exhibit A is the Pink Salmon run of 2009. Why were the Pink Salmon able to come back in such large numbers when Chinook and Sockeye are still struggling? Pink salmon have much less dependence on freshwater habitat than Chinook or Sockeye. When habitat loss is less of a problem for a salmon run, traditional management is shown to work. For species that are highly dependent on freshwater habitat that is badly damaged as all watersheds in Puget Sound, harvest management can not work miracles. Habitat dependent salmon can only return in numbers that the stream can support.
“Pumpkineater” also mentions habitat destruction from commercial fishing. I’d like to have “pumpkineater” demonstrate how he clear cuts 5,000 acres in the Skagit River Watershed with a seine net. Or how you pave 200 acres of parking lot around Alderwood Mall with a gill net. Habitat destruction in Puget Sound is a consequence of people trying to make a place to live and work without paying attention to the needs of salmon.
Finally, the largest local source of chinook for the SRKW was the Columbia and Snake River. The federal government recently published a Biological Opinion on the Federal Power System – the dams. The Biological Opinion does not declare jeopardy for the SRKW due to low salmon populations in the Columbia River. However, the SRKW Biological Opinion states that the loss of salmon as available prey from the Columbia River contributes to the stress on orcas. The Biological Opinion for the Columbia and Snake Rivers fails SRKW and salmon because it does not increase salmon populations because it does not sufficiently increase the available healthy habitat and because it continues to ignore the damaging effects of the dams. In particular the Biological Opinion does not attempt to study the removal of the four lower Snake River dams until salmon populations fall to critically low numbers and until all salmon harvest has been further restricted or eliminated – a timeline that will recover neither salmon nor SRKW.
Doug Leen said on October 1, 2009
The solution is simple….let’s just love ‘em to death.
Pumpkineater said on October 1, 2009
Oh, now THERE’s a ‘beacon’ of truth and enlightenment; commercial fishermen. See what price they charge for fresh fish? Much HAS to do with OVERFISHING and habitat DESTRUCTION by…..whoops! COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN. One can also look at the explosion in the number of whale watching boats, vs 20 years ago. BOTH have a mantra they shout like Mao’s Red Guards – FIRST, LOUDEST and LONGEST; ‘Not ME! NOT ME! It’s those…..(fill in the blank.). Next, these whiners, will be asking for their Federal + State Bail Out!, because, ‘some one took all ‘their’ fish.
Howard said on October 1, 2009
To put these restrictions on Kayaks is absolutely ridiculous. If kayaks endanger the whales then we better get out there and clean up all of the deadheads that are floating out there.
Scott Grimm said on October 1, 2009
It is flabbergasting that, once again, reputed scientists do not apply a fundamental principle of science and logic, the scientific method, to their study and the implementation of federal rules:
1. Establish a hypothesis (Boating and fishing harm orcas off San Juan Island);
2. Establish controlled experiments that can be repeated to prove the hypothesis (Does the data irrefutably support that boats and fishing cause harm to the orcas?); and
3. Can these experiments be repeated by other researchers?
Based on these fundamental requirements, there is a logical chasm that has been leapt from their hypothesis to their conclusions. Basic flaws include a failure to connect the decline in orca population to fishing and boat traffic off the West Side. Where is the direct correlation? What other variables may contribute to a decline, if any, such as declining fish runs, water temperatures from El Nino and La Nina? Is there truly a decline? How has the study shown that no fishing or boating in any other area has increased orca populations? Has this hypothesis been proven using the same experiments by other researchers? The list of questions goes on and on. It would be astounding if these scientists can honestly look themselves in the mirror and be proud of their work and still call themselves scientists. They’ve failed Science 101.
We’ve entered an era of pop science, which draws an illogical conclusion based on a predetermined outcome that is founded in political beliefs.
Skelly said on October 1, 2009
“Scientists estimate there were once around 200 killer whales in the region; that number has now shrunk to 85, according to the fisheries service.”
Can we please put this in some context? The Killer Whale population shrunk from 200 because of people hunting them, being captured for captivity (approximately 50, plus an estimated 11 that died in attempted captures) until their population was estimated to be 73 whales in the late 1970′s.
Since then, during the time that they’ve had the most contact with boats in the San Juan Island area, their numbers have increased. In the mid-90′s (when rules were even less stringent) we had over 90 Resident Killer Whales, however in the last few years we’ve sadly lost some of the much beloved senior whales, and a few others, bringing us to a total of approximately 85 resident Killer Whales.
Deborah Bach said on October 1, 2009
Hi Skelly,
Indeed, that point was made at last night’s meeting – that the killer whale population in the San Juan Island area has actually increased along with their contact with boats. The consensus at the meeting was that boats aren’t the problem, and that protection and restoration efforts should instead be focused on the other factors negatively impacting the Southern Resident whales – among them, starvation and disease.
Thanks for reading, and for taking the time to write.
Deborah