killer whales/chinnook
-
John Murray
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:09 pm
killer whales/chinnook
There is a decent article in Pacific Fishing --Fish Wrap the other day dealing with the killer whales needs for smileys.There hasn't been much info on this I've seen but this has a positive spin and hopefully a good direction for the troll fleets(hope,hope).
Re: killer whales/chinnook
Hi John and All:
There hasn't been much information shared on this topic, because it's been so difficult to know what to say yet. We don't want to panic the fleet, nor do we want to give the public the impression through our statements or reaction that our industry doesn't care about killer whales, because we all know that is patently untrue.
So, here's a quick bit about what we know today.
The issue is focused on a specific pod of killer whales - the L pod - which are part of the Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW) population. They are thought to be 'resident' to Puget Sound and are known to feed in the Salish Sea. Both the US and Canada have listed them under their respective endangered species acts. They claim that the whales appear under-nourished and fear that some may have died from malnutrition. They also don't think the population is growing at a robust enough rate. There isn't all that much data at this point, but within a very short period of time after beginning their investigations, agency personnel went from recognizing that killer whales eat a lot of salmon and appear to prefer Chinook, to stating that the whales mostly rely on Chinook salmon for sustenance and even drawing links to specific stocks of salmon.
NOAA has made statements in several arenas about the need to limit fisheries to existing levels and has even suggested that additional fisheries restrictions might be needed, but they also say they have no absolute position. This means I have nothing to share with you regarding any new management plan that would require additional restrictions under the ESA. If they decide to pursue such measures, NOAA will have to conduct a formal rule making process with public comment.
Instead of over-reacting and worrying the fleet about the broad statements being made, ATA's first order of business has been to determine what information is out there; decide whether or not there is a problem in need of addressing; and find out what range of options are being considered by the agencies to address any perceived issue. From my perspective, the workshops have so far revealed a lack of information on a causual relationship between Chinook fisheries and any perceived problems with L pod killer whales. Unfortuantely, despite the many other issues (e.g. reduction of breeding age animals from the population for aquariums, pollution, vessel traffic, military testing) that might be negatively affecting the whales in Puget Sound/Salish Sea, some indviduals and groups have appeared to be on a quest to close Chinook fisheries. Hopefully this will change as better information emerges.
ATA has been very concerned about this issue and where NOAA plans to go with it. I have been tracking it the last few years in general and also at the treaty, where it has been brought up multiple times. We met with NOAA staff during our fall board of directors meeting and one of our most knowledgeable board members also monitors this issue at the PFMC.
Along with a number of ADFG staff members, I have been attending a series of invitational workshops put on by NOAA and DFO on killer whales and Chinook fisheries. Two have already occured and the final is coming up in September 2012. To their credit, NOAA and DFO convened an independent 'expert panel' to review and comment on data and information presented on the whales during the workshops. Ultimately, a report will be published documenting their opinions and findings. They recently published a draft report, which prompted the press story you mention. I am working through the draft and will send comments for ATA. The state sent excellent comments and made presentations at both workshops.
You can find the report here:
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Mammals/ ... W-Chnk.cfm
I will report to the fleet when there is more solid information to share. In the meantime, if you have questions, please give me a call or shoot me a private message with your name and contact info.
Good fishing...
Dale
ATA
There hasn't been much information shared on this topic, because it's been so difficult to know what to say yet. We don't want to panic the fleet, nor do we want to give the public the impression through our statements or reaction that our industry doesn't care about killer whales, because we all know that is patently untrue.
So, here's a quick bit about what we know today.
The issue is focused on a specific pod of killer whales - the L pod - which are part of the Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW) population. They are thought to be 'resident' to Puget Sound and are known to feed in the Salish Sea. Both the US and Canada have listed them under their respective endangered species acts. They claim that the whales appear under-nourished and fear that some may have died from malnutrition. They also don't think the population is growing at a robust enough rate. There isn't all that much data at this point, but within a very short period of time after beginning their investigations, agency personnel went from recognizing that killer whales eat a lot of salmon and appear to prefer Chinook, to stating that the whales mostly rely on Chinook salmon for sustenance and even drawing links to specific stocks of salmon.
NOAA has made statements in several arenas about the need to limit fisheries to existing levels and has even suggested that additional fisheries restrictions might be needed, but they also say they have no absolute position. This means I have nothing to share with you regarding any new management plan that would require additional restrictions under the ESA. If they decide to pursue such measures, NOAA will have to conduct a formal rule making process with public comment.
Instead of over-reacting and worrying the fleet about the broad statements being made, ATA's first order of business has been to determine what information is out there; decide whether or not there is a problem in need of addressing; and find out what range of options are being considered by the agencies to address any perceived issue. From my perspective, the workshops have so far revealed a lack of information on a causual relationship between Chinook fisheries and any perceived problems with L pod killer whales. Unfortuantely, despite the many other issues (e.g. reduction of breeding age animals from the population for aquariums, pollution, vessel traffic, military testing) that might be negatively affecting the whales in Puget Sound/Salish Sea, some indviduals and groups have appeared to be on a quest to close Chinook fisheries. Hopefully this will change as better information emerges.
ATA has been very concerned about this issue and where NOAA plans to go with it. I have been tracking it the last few years in general and also at the treaty, where it has been brought up multiple times. We met with NOAA staff during our fall board of directors meeting and one of our most knowledgeable board members also monitors this issue at the PFMC.
Along with a number of ADFG staff members, I have been attending a series of invitational workshops put on by NOAA and DFO on killer whales and Chinook fisheries. Two have already occured and the final is coming up in September 2012. To their credit, NOAA and DFO convened an independent 'expert panel' to review and comment on data and information presented on the whales during the workshops. Ultimately, a report will be published documenting their opinions and findings. They recently published a draft report, which prompted the press story you mention. I am working through the draft and will send comments for ATA. The state sent excellent comments and made presentations at both workshops.
You can find the report here:
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Mammals/ ... W-Chnk.cfm
I will report to the fleet when there is more solid information to share. In the meantime, if you have questions, please give me a call or shoot me a private message with your name and contact info.
Good fishing...
Dale
ATA
Re: killer whales/chinnook
In over 60 years of being on the water in SE Alaska I have seen killer whales targeting Chinook only once, in Southern Chatham, in 1979. I have seen them targeting pinks numerous times and coho once.
It is hard for me to imagine an apex predator of that type only targeting Chinook. Perhaps the State of Washington needs to stop the Puget Sound sport fishery from targeting blackmouth under 28" and fishing Chinook on their spawning beds.
It is hard for me to imagine an apex predator of that type only targeting Chinook. Perhaps the State of Washington needs to stop the Puget Sound sport fishery from targeting blackmouth under 28" and fishing Chinook on their spawning beds.
Re: killer whales/chinnook
In over 60 years of being on the water in SE Alaska I have seen killer whales targeting Chinook only once, in Southern Chatham, in 1979. I have seen them targeting pinks numerous times and coho once.
It is hard for me to imagine an apex predator of that type only targeting Chinook. Perhaps the State of Washington needs to stop the Puget Sound sport fishery from targeting blackmouth under 28" and fishing Chinook on their spawning beds.
It is hard for me to imagine an apex predator of that type only targeting Chinook. Perhaps the State of Washington needs to stop the Puget Sound sport fishery from targeting blackmouth under 28" and fishing Chinook on their spawning beds.
Re: killer whales/chinnook
I agree with Salty on this issue, though my years on the water are nothing but a speck comparatively. However, I did spend a lot of time on the water between Sitka and Chukotka in two years time as a killer whale research technician. I met and worked with some of the world's renowned killer whale researchers and experienced my own observations a well. Though I did not continue that research line and instead chose to become a fisherman is proof as to how I feel about who actually is a steward for the ocean and the resources. Many others here have more time scientifically and politically involved, but I just wanted to throw my two cents in and say that I learned during those two years that killer whales are an animal that still little is known about and their activities and behaviours are constantly surprising even the most experienced researchers. What they eat, how they adapt to other food sources where and when and even where they might be found at any time is still nearly a shot in the dark. Yes, some pods are very predictable as to where they are located, but even they can surprise. Personally I do not get too worked up when killer whale issues arise, but we do need someone to keep a finger on it of course. It is always a delight to see killer whales when I am fishing and I am not always that concerned that they are going to take all my fish that day. Nor am I about to consider shooting them like I have seen in the Bering...many with obvious bullet scars and holes in dorsal fins. But I do feel that the "killer whale lovers" of the scientific and pseudo-scientific community take their stance too far. I personally believe that these animals are so advanced and skillful that they , too, can even adapt their feeding behaviours to a changing ocean. Malnutrition? Maybe we can begin to consider the pollution (organo-contaminants and metallic and semi.metallic-poisons, i.e. cadmium, mercury, selenium and radioactive outfall now even (!!)) dumped into Puget Sound everyday rather than point the finger at some trollers out there bobbing about barely catching anyways.