KWs
Re: KWs
For those of us in SE Alaska, our killer whales have so many sea mammals and other salmon to eat that those around here do not spend the energy chasing Chinook. Or perhaps it is because our far migrating Chinook stocks from the upper Columbia are so full of energy that they are hard to catch, and our Alaska stocks are genetically programed to either go so far, Yukon, or so high, Copper, that they are also extremely hard to catch. So, from my perspective, it would be a waste to try and protect the king salmon the killer whales aren't eating. I have never seen or heard about a king salmon taken off commercial troll gear here in SE Alaska. I have never seen Killer Whales targeting Chinook in SE. I have seen them targeting pinks and sea lions. I heard about the time they ate the two moose swimming across Icy Straits.
What might be a real good idea is to train the killer whales to jump into the farmed salmon pens in BC for an occasional meal. In fact, the more I think about it that might be a good way to phase those farms out. Feed the existing stock to the poor starving BC killer whales who are starving because the sea lice population explosion facilitated by the farmed salmon pens is wiping out their native salmon food.
With the pens and the sea lice nutrient source gone the sea lice might die out and the happy killer whales will have plenty of slow moving Puget Sound and West Coast Vancouver Island Chinook to eat again.
Of course there is the slight problem that in the Puget Sound sport fisheries they target "blackmouth", small growing Chinook, before they reach Killer Whale nutritious size. We let those size Chinook go in SE Alaska, in both the sport and commercial fisheries, if we ever see one, which we don't very often.
What might be a real good idea is to train the killer whales to jump into the farmed salmon pens in BC for an occasional meal. In fact, the more I think about it that might be a good way to phase those farms out. Feed the existing stock to the poor starving BC killer whales who are starving because the sea lice population explosion facilitated by the farmed salmon pens is wiping out their native salmon food.
With the pens and the sea lice nutrient source gone the sea lice might die out and the happy killer whales will have plenty of slow moving Puget Sound and West Coast Vancouver Island Chinook to eat again.
Of course there is the slight problem that in the Puget Sound sport fisheries they target "blackmouth", small growing Chinook, before they reach Killer Whale nutritious size. We let those size Chinook go in SE Alaska, in both the sport and commercial fisheries, if we ever see one, which we don't very often.
Re: KWs
I agree with you, Salty. I had a discussion yesterday with a few KW biologist working in BC about this. One guy, who works as a cetacean researcher for DFO, says the transients will not adapt to a new food source and are strictly chinook eaters. What the hey? I tried to rationalize this further with him and explain that the KWs eat a variety of available food sources, anything that is basically rich in fat, plentiful and, well, there. I understand that they prefer really oily fish high in fat, as can be seen in the Aleutians as they chase longliners like our beloved sperm whales do here. But they also feed non-selectively off the slop chute of draggers there also. I also mentioned that I see KWs here in the Lofoten-area and there are definitely not any chinooks out there. But nonetheless, this guy from DFO just explained my rationalization was "not that simple" and said that they must have king salmon and will not adapt to a new food source and their research has showed this. I just could not grasp what this guy actually believed and made a rude, off-hand remark about how his Excel spreadsheet numbers were not telling him the whole story. (I used to be a KW research technician in Russian Kamchatka, Aleutians and GOA before I realized most , not all, scientists did not have a clue what was going on out on the ocean and it was the fisherman who were, in essence, the real stewards of the marine resources. Hence I became a commercial fisherman and walked far away from those Excel datasheets!)
I digress. Well, it always amazes me the huge gap in understanding that exists between the policy makers, scientists and the ones who actually live on the ocean and are part of the food web out there...the fishermen and women. Not that we are all right all the time also. In any case, giving part of the chinook quota to KWs is definitely a very strange, disturbing and bizarre notion to even be considering. But I guess that just means more chinnok bycatch for the draggers.
I digress. Well, it always amazes me the huge gap in understanding that exists between the policy makers, scientists and the ones who actually live on the ocean and are part of the food web out there...the fishermen and women. Not that we are all right all the time also. In any case, giving part of the chinook quota to KWs is definitely a very strange, disturbing and bizarre notion to even be considering. But I guess that just means more chinnok bycatch for the draggers.
Re: KWs
Wow, a kindred soul. I have two science degrees myself, one appropriately initialed BS. I believe, after hundreds of meetings, that a mix of traditional, experiential, and scientific knowledge make for the best understanding. It is so sad when the different perspectives, for all kinds of reasons, get locked into the righteousness of their own perspective without really trying to understand the others. It is the blend of the diverse that makes for the best stew.
A person who does not post but reads this site called me and pointed out that Alaska just gave up 15% of its Chinook quota so Canada, Tribes, and South 48 could benefit. Perhaps that is where they can start feeding Killer Whales from.
A person who does not post but reads this site called me and pointed out that Alaska just gave up 15% of its Chinook quota so Canada, Tribes, and South 48 could benefit. Perhaps that is where they can start feeding Killer Whales from.
-
John Murray
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:09 pm
Re: KWs
Eric's correct and the Canadians gave up 30% of their chinook quota on the south end.That adds up to a fair ammount of kings.Maybe someone could provide that number.On another note related to numbers there appeared to be some good returns to the Columbia/Snake in 2010, see -fish passage center site.
There is reason to be concerned exspeccially when you add the decesion to not use lethal force on the sealions up the Columbia river which eat salmon and sturgeon by the dams.The federal agency in charge there said they would look into taking the cuts needed to protect endangered stocks from sport/commercial side instead of plugging those brown guys.
Both of these issues have been around for a while.
There is reason to be concerned exspeccially when you add the decesion to not use lethal force on the sealions up the Columbia river which eat salmon and sturgeon by the dams.The federal agency in charge there said they would look into taking the cuts needed to protect endangered stocks from sport/commercial side instead of plugging those brown guys.
Both of these issues have been around for a while.
-
valianthunter
- Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:36 am
- Spammer?: No
Re: KWs
The news article said that the issue is about resident killer whales which brings up a very interesting and troubling issue. Oddly, what may be killing at least some of the resident killers more than anything else is their appetite for king salmon. One thing they do know about some of the resident orcas is that they have a low reproduction rate that many people with BS or similar credentials attribute to eating too many pcbs. Puget Sound doesn't flush out worth a darn, so all of the toxic runoff from urban and rural agriculture and the heavy metal industries and the old pulp and paper mills and oil leaks from cars etc. ends up right in the bottom of Puget Sound and it stays there for god knows how long if not actually forever. It's a hard issue to digest even if you are familiar with matters BS but toxins may be as big a problem for salmon as anything.
But anyway, back to the toxic goo at the bottom of the sound. The critters at the bottom of the food chain eat the stuff. The salmon hanging out in Puget Sound then eat the poisoned critters on their way to the their natal stream or hatchery. Then the orcas eat the salmon and some component of the goo ends up in the digestive system of the orcas, and somehow impacts their ability to reproduce. That's what I thought the bottom line was for the Puget Sound resident orcas - pollution = poor reproductive potential. Think about the problem of townsites near toxic waste dumps where everyone gets cancer. That's what this is except it's failed reproductive organs instead of cancer. Seems like there were still some whales left when I last looked at some of the resident orca ESA issues but they weren't having babies and that was the real problem in terms of declining population levels. This same rationale may apply to resident whales in B.C. if they are the population of concern. Certainly there are a number of factors that could affect species viability but the most plausible theory to me seems to be that the link between toxic diet and reproduction. They do say there are some undernourished orcas but it would be interesting to compare the rate of undernourishment versus the poor reproduction rate. My recollection from reading this stuff a half decade ago was that reproduction was the more significant concern.
It's bad news, but not surprising that B.C. wants to make chinook fisheries take the fall. Tim, are you sure your cetacean researcher said transients and not residents? It makes more sense that he would have been referring to residents as salmon dependent. There has been talk that non-chinook - Fraser River sockeye - are important as there has been some mention in an article on resident orca viability that the 2 degree rise in average river temperatures over the past several decades has created a prey depletion scenario for orcas. Since they cooked the entire escapement for one entire four year cycle (2004-2008-2012) in between a couple of dams, maybe this makes sense. Under the theory that sea lions can't be shot without thinking about restricting other harvest, perhaps B.C. Hydro could let a little flow through the gates now and then? Just kidding. They never accepted responsibility for that fish kill.
DFO blamed the fishermen (native gillnetters). Of course.
But anyway, back to the toxic goo at the bottom of the sound. The critters at the bottom of the food chain eat the stuff. The salmon hanging out in Puget Sound then eat the poisoned critters on their way to the their natal stream or hatchery. Then the orcas eat the salmon and some component of the goo ends up in the digestive system of the orcas, and somehow impacts their ability to reproduce. That's what I thought the bottom line was for the Puget Sound resident orcas - pollution = poor reproductive potential. Think about the problem of townsites near toxic waste dumps where everyone gets cancer. That's what this is except it's failed reproductive organs instead of cancer. Seems like there were still some whales left when I last looked at some of the resident orca ESA issues but they weren't having babies and that was the real problem in terms of declining population levels. This same rationale may apply to resident whales in B.C. if they are the population of concern. Certainly there are a number of factors that could affect species viability but the most plausible theory to me seems to be that the link between toxic diet and reproduction. They do say there are some undernourished orcas but it would be interesting to compare the rate of undernourishment versus the poor reproduction rate. My recollection from reading this stuff a half decade ago was that reproduction was the more significant concern.
It's bad news, but not surprising that B.C. wants to make chinook fisheries take the fall. Tim, are you sure your cetacean researcher said transients and not residents? It makes more sense that he would have been referring to residents as salmon dependent. There has been talk that non-chinook - Fraser River sockeye - are important as there has been some mention in an article on resident orca viability that the 2 degree rise in average river temperatures over the past several decades has created a prey depletion scenario for orcas. Since they cooked the entire escapement for one entire four year cycle (2004-2008-2012) in between a couple of dams, maybe this makes sense. Under the theory that sea lions can't be shot without thinking about restricting other harvest, perhaps B.C. Hydro could let a little flow through the gates now and then? Just kidding. They never accepted responsibility for that fish kill.
DFO blamed the fishermen (native gillnetters). Of course.
Re: KWs
I had to go back and read my reply. Yes, we were talking about residents and not "marine mammal eating " transients. It is startling to see heavy metal data analyses of blubber and tissue samples from KWs...alarming amounts of cadmium and mercury (both organic and metallic) make them literally one of the most toxic organisms in the world.
http://www.compassonline.org/sites/all/ ... 6_2_18.pdf
http://www.compassonline.org/sites/all/ ... 6_2_18.pdf