You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Orca, “environmentalists” and lawsuits
- Thread starter localboy
- Start date
localboy":28dcq6mb said:
According to the “Center for Biological Diversity's” web site, their version of "protecting the habitat" is this.
1. No powered vessel traffic allowed between April and October during the year.
2. November through March, all vessels in an "orca habitat" must proceed at no faster than a "no wake" speed.
The proposed habitat for the southern resident orca — included in the lawsuit — would extend the protected area from the current Puget Sound / Strait of Juan de Fuca area, down the West Coast to San Francisco.
IMO the Orcas need protection from the hoards of whale watchers.
The current rules allow untenable crowding and sound pollution through the pods. How the hell can they use their sonar to locate fish with dozens of boat engines, propellers and depth sounders swarming around them?
I know people enjoy the show and livelihoods are at stake. Thing is, the pods are not healthy and need some relief.
There are workable measures that will assist the Orcas and negatively impact a relatively small number of people vs the huge economic crush the enviros want.
The proposed legislation is typical of the extremest ecologists and not practical.
.
The current rules allow untenable crowding and sound pollution through the pods. How the hell can they use their sonar to locate fish with dozens of boat engines, propellers and depth sounders swarming around them?
I know people enjoy the show and livelihoods are at stake. Thing is, the pods are not healthy and need some relief.
There are workable measures that will assist the Orcas and negatively impact a relatively small number of people vs the huge economic crush the enviros want.
The proposed legislation is typical of the extremest ecologists and not practical.
.
starcrafttom
Active member
The orcas decline has nothing to do with noise or boats . it has to do with two things. the decline in fish brought on by the twin problems of too many seals and too little habitat. There is not, and has not been for some time, enough habitat to sustain the whales and the devastating large numbers of seals in the PNW with enough fish to eat. Which is why we have had hatachiers for generations. In the late 70's the state stopped paying a bounty for seals, $10 a nose at the time. the population of seals has exploded ever since. In the 90s the state started to cut back on the hatchery out put in favor of the "wild salmon" delusion. I said is at the time and have been saying it for years that the result would be too few fish to fish any longer, which is what the intended result is. Well we are there now and the only reason anyone gives a shit is because of the orcas ( which I like very much) . We will only see a increase in ocra numbers of the 3 pods if we increase salmon production, which the state is talking about, and reduce the number of seals. Mostly harbor seals in the sound. NOAA knows this and has done the studies. Hell they have known this for at least 15 years when they determined that the holding capacity for harbor seals in the sound was exceeded by 100 fold. I forget the numbers but the capacity is something in the area of 20k and the current population is around 200k.
So here is the curious thing about all the whale populations. The local 3 pods are in decline at the moment for any number of reasons, but all the transient pods in the pacific, including the pod that frequents the sound, are increasing in number. All up and down the coast from south america to russia the ocra populations are increasing. (Population
Worldwide population estimates are uncertain, but recent consensus suggests a minimum of 50,000.[3][30] Local estimates include roughly 25,000 in the Antarctic, 8,500 in the tropical Pacific, 2,250–2,700 off the cooler northeast Pacific and 500–1,500 off Norway.[103] Japan's Fisheries Agency estimated 2,321 killer whales were in the seas around Japan.[104][105]) The transients are spending more time in the SJ's and the sound every year. When I first moved here in 2002 it was big news that the transient pod was in the hood canal for the first time in decades. So my questions is are we seeing Darwinism in action??? Are the salmon eating orcas dying out as a sub species and their range being replaced by a better hunter with a larger food base? transients eat both seals and fish as well as other mammals. If we are seeing Darwinism should we interfere? Maybe in 20 years we will have more whales just of a different sub species. Food for thought.
So here is the curious thing about all the whale populations. The local 3 pods are in decline at the moment for any number of reasons, but all the transient pods in the pacific, including the pod that frequents the sound, are increasing in number. All up and down the coast from south america to russia the ocra populations are increasing. (Population
Worldwide population estimates are uncertain, but recent consensus suggests a minimum of 50,000.[3][30] Local estimates include roughly 25,000 in the Antarctic, 8,500 in the tropical Pacific, 2,250–2,700 off the cooler northeast Pacific and 500–1,500 off Norway.[103] Japan's Fisheries Agency estimated 2,321 killer whales were in the seas around Japan.[104][105]) The transients are spending more time in the SJ's and the sound every year. When I first moved here in 2002 it was big news that the transient pod was in the hood canal for the first time in decades. So my questions is are we seeing Darwinism in action??? Are the salmon eating orcas dying out as a sub species and their range being replaced by a better hunter with a larger food base? transients eat both seals and fish as well as other mammals. If we are seeing Darwinism should we interfere? Maybe in 20 years we will have more whales just of a different sub species. Food for thought.
There are at least 4 pods of Orca in the Gulf of Mexico. The total number is under debate, but probably from 200 to 500 individuals. There are no seals in the Gulf of Mexico or Caribbean. It appears that the Orca population in the Gulf of Mexico may be increasing. The principle food source is Dolfin and Tuna.
The diet in of the Orca in the Caribbean used to be primarily the Monk seal, but those were hunted to extinction in the 19th and early part of the 20th century--the last sighting was in 1952. Sightings of Orca in the Caribbean is rare (3 to 5 a year), but 2 years ago a whale watching boat sighted a pod of 4, and a native whaling boat harpooned all of them!. So it can go both ways--If man stays out of the equation, often the ecology reaches a balance.... No question that a proliferation of seals on the West Coast has been a factor in the decline of fisheries, (and other issues). There is no question that the Resident pods in the PNW prefer salmon over seals...(Don 't we all?).
The diet in of the Orca in the Caribbean used to be primarily the Monk seal, but those were hunted to extinction in the 19th and early part of the 20th century--the last sighting was in 1952. Sightings of Orca in the Caribbean is rare (3 to 5 a year), but 2 years ago a whale watching boat sighted a pod of 4, and a native whaling boat harpooned all of them!. So it can go both ways--If man stays out of the equation, often the ecology reaches a balance.... No question that a proliferation of seals on the West Coast has been a factor in the decline of fisheries, (and other issues). There is no question that the Resident pods in the PNW prefer salmon over seals...(Don 't we all?).
Marco Flamingo
Active member
starcrafttom":1j5d2901 said:twin problems of too many seals and too little habitat.
I was just talking to a seal the other day. His theory was that there are too many people and too little habitat. He even blamed the destruction of habitat on people! Something about too many culvert pipes under too many streets to too many houses. And of course he claimed that if you have too many people you will have too many of them fishing. Crazy seal. I should have just shot him like in the good old days when this problem first started.
Mark
Good points Mark
So I live on the Skagit. Too many times I see “fishermen” take a net and cover three quarters of the river’s width. Must be some kind of law they cannot cover the entire river width. But wait, listen and watch as the “fishermen” throw cherry bombs in the one third that is not covered by nets.
How many salmon get past the nets? You tell me. But there were NO seals involved with this “fishing”.
Luckily for me, I also spend a fair amount of time sleeping on my boat at the Everett Marina. Again, more than once, I have been awaken to find a Seal fishing. The seal slaps the water to shock the salmon and goes for the kill. One Salmon, ONE Seal.
I’m not a fisherman, environmentalist, scientist, politician or claim special rights to the destruction of god’s work. But what I see with my own eyes and ears, is the destruction of our planet. We need to back off and let this incredible, diverse, and complex web of life recover. Our lives depend on it.
So I live on the Skagit. Too many times I see “fishermen” take a net and cover three quarters of the river’s width. Must be some kind of law they cannot cover the entire river width. But wait, listen and watch as the “fishermen” throw cherry bombs in the one third that is not covered by nets.
How many salmon get past the nets? You tell me. But there were NO seals involved with this “fishing”.
Luckily for me, I also spend a fair amount of time sleeping on my boat at the Everett Marina. Again, more than once, I have been awaken to find a Seal fishing. The seal slaps the water to shock the salmon and goes for the kill. One Salmon, ONE Seal.
I’m not a fisherman, environmentalist, scientist, politician or claim special rights to the destruction of god’s work. But what I see with my own eyes and ears, is the destruction of our planet. We need to back off and let this incredible, diverse, and complex web of life recover. Our lives depend on it.
starcrafttom
Active member
ok mark, so how many people you want to kill? So here the is the thing every one forgets while climbing on to their " nature left alone will reach a balance." horse. the native population of the North west was in the low millions prior to settlement. and they eat a lot of fish and seals. seal skin boats, water bags, cloths etc etc. To talk about nature and balance with out including humans is delusion. We have always been here. To talk about recover with out talking about management is disaster. Yes if left alone the eco system in the PNW will balance, AFTER it collapses . The seals will eat them selves out of fish and take the ocras with them. Lost habitat can not be recovered because the city of Seattle is on it. So who of you is moving? can I list your home? What eco system are you going to move too and over populate?
We can point fingers or we can address the REAL problems. Its does not matter how many boats follow the whales, you know the ones that seek out my boat all the time, seek out the ferrys and cargo ships to play in the wake. The ones that take fish off the hook of fisherman ( and we let them). They have no fear of boats or boat traffic. They freely follow boats all the time. Its amazing what you see if you do something more then once before you set an opinion.
It also does not matter how many fish we raise if they can not make it to adult hood and return. Most ( 80% or more ) of smolts that leave the rivers in the Puget sound are eaten by harbor seals, cormorants and turns before they are a year old. If we can cut that number in half our problem are is solved. The " good old days of salmon fishing" were a product of management. A big part of that management was the removal of the seal population by the WDFW thru a bounty. Up until the 70's fisherman shot any seal that got near their boats. population was down to 4000 harbor seals, which is to low I admit. Since then the seal population has increased and the salmon and rock fish population has decreased. Those are the facts of the NOAA reoprt. ( I had a copy on computer but I think that was my last lap top.)
So we can point fingers at each other from our homes in the cities , beach front and river lots ,not to mention boats. We can claim that " if only let alone mother nature ( cousin to the Easter bunny) will fix it all. Or we can get to the heart of the matter. Not enough food for the mouths at the plate , not enough habitat to grow more with our our help or we can manage the system with the best science and not emotion . Leaving it to nature is why we are having large fires ( not in any way record breaking) , low salmon returns and the destruction of the elk and deer herds by non native wolves planted by good intentioned fools. We are part of nature and when we break it we should manage it to recovery. Have a nice day.
We can point fingers or we can address the REAL problems. Its does not matter how many boats follow the whales, you know the ones that seek out my boat all the time, seek out the ferrys and cargo ships to play in the wake. The ones that take fish off the hook of fisherman ( and we let them). They have no fear of boats or boat traffic. They freely follow boats all the time. Its amazing what you see if you do something more then once before you set an opinion.
It also does not matter how many fish we raise if they can not make it to adult hood and return. Most ( 80% or more ) of smolts that leave the rivers in the Puget sound are eaten by harbor seals, cormorants and turns before they are a year old. If we can cut that number in half our problem are is solved. The " good old days of salmon fishing" were a product of management. A big part of that management was the removal of the seal population by the WDFW thru a bounty. Up until the 70's fisherman shot any seal that got near their boats. population was down to 4000 harbor seals, which is to low I admit. Since then the seal population has increased and the salmon and rock fish population has decreased. Those are the facts of the NOAA reoprt. ( I had a copy on computer but I think that was my last lap top.)
So we can point fingers at each other from our homes in the cities , beach front and river lots ,not to mention boats. We can claim that " if only let alone mother nature ( cousin to the Easter bunny) will fix it all. Or we can get to the heart of the matter. Not enough food for the mouths at the plate , not enough habitat to grow more with our our help or we can manage the system with the best science and not emotion . Leaving it to nature is why we are having large fires ( not in any way record breaking) , low salmon returns and the destruction of the elk and deer herds by non native wolves planted by good intentioned fools. We are part of nature and when we break it we should manage it to recovery. Have a nice day.
Marco Flamingo
Active member
I assume that you are talking about the number of people? I agree. Cut the number in half and our problem is solved.starcrafttom":28tm1ows said:If we can cut that number in half our problem are is solved.
I wasn't suggesting killing people or other knee-jerk solutions. A reduction in the human population could be through natural attrition instead of the (seemingly more likely) historical reductions through war, famine, disease, and other manifestations of ignorance. For a long time I was hopeful that we would be intelligent enough to recognize this. It could be that I'm wrong. Or maybe it needs to be simplified to "Less Babies = More Fish." Fits on a bumper sticker.starcrafttom":28tm1ows said:so how many people you want to kill?
Mark
AstoriaDave
New member
An interesting set of contributions on these complex issues. And much more sophisticated than what floats around on newsprint, at least here in Oregon.
Living in Astoria these last 45 years, immersed in the competing cultures of both commercial and sport fishermen, while listening to fish biologists of the Federal and State persuasions, and peripheral inputs from the ragtag local biologists with independent affiliations, I suggest that there are other variables not on the table yet.
To wit:
1. Fundamental changes in fauna available to smolts in the estuaries of rivers caused by mud snails now dominating benthic environments.
2. Yet unknown changes in location and quantity of feed to salmon while in the ocean.
3. Influences in waterborne micropollutants while in fresh water on the health and reproductive capacity of salmon.
And more, no doubt.
Starcrafttom seems to identify others not much cussed and discussed locally. And, he also raised the specter of changes in feeding behavior of orcas induced by loss of feed sources considered dominant because of our biased focus on resident populations over transients.
Living in Astoria these last 45 years, immersed in the competing cultures of both commercial and sport fishermen, while listening to fish biologists of the Federal and State persuasions, and peripheral inputs from the ragtag local biologists with independent affiliations, I suggest that there are other variables not on the table yet.
To wit:
1. Fundamental changes in fauna available to smolts in the estuaries of rivers caused by mud snails now dominating benthic environments.
2. Yet unknown changes in location and quantity of feed to salmon while in the ocean.
3. Influences in waterborne micropollutants while in fresh water on the health and reproductive capacity of salmon.
And more, no doubt.
Starcrafttom seems to identify others not much cussed and discussed locally. And, he also raised the specter of changes in feeding behavior of orcas induced by loss of feed sources considered dominant because of our biased focus on resident populations over transients.
starcrafttom
Active member
I assume that you are talking about the number of people? I agree. Cut the number in half and our problem is solved.
In realty it would not because is does not remove the biggest problem we have right now which is eating of the smolt which humans dont do. We have reached a point where the predator base is higher then the food base can support and if we do nothing it will crash. Better to kill half the seals now then lose all of them and the orcas later. its feel good politics and finger pointing that got us here and if we continue to ignore the true problems we can not solve this issue. Habitat to support a non supplemented run of salmon no longer exist. Raising smolt to only be eaten in a few months and never go to sea to reach full size and return is a loosing game. We can stop all fishing and the runs will not return if the smolts never make it out.
A
Anonymous
Guest
message deleted
We have reached a point where the predator base is higher then the food base can support and if we do nothing it will crash. Better to kill half the seals now then lose all of them and the orcas later.
Maybe not that simple. One or two orca pods in the San Juans is not reindeer in the Pribilof Islands. They may not crash like that
http://dieoff.org/page80.htm
In Oro Bay, I see harbor seals commonly come up with all different species of fish and shellfish. No doubt they take a lot of Nisqually smolts as well.
The question is whether salmon smolts are a primary and required food source for this explosion of seals and sea lions, or whether they are just a supplement.
If a supplement, they could continue to thrive using other fish species. Harbor seals get salmon smolts seasonally, not all year long.
One of the reasons house cats are so hard on birds is that they are fed, healthy, but continue to do what comes naturally...catch birds. They don't even always eat them. One of the joys of moving from Seattle to Anderson Island, where there are few house cats, is to see birds working the ground as well as the trees.
If seals have stable food sources other than salmon, wiping out salmon won't necessarily cause a crash.
I remember a couple tens of years ago when a transient orca group entered Hood Canal. They completely wiped out the harbor seals, and salmon fishing started to be much better after that. Maybe a coincidence?
I'd be curious to know how the orca pods that focus on seals are doing. I would expect very well.
https://www.sanjuansafaris.com/whale-re ... an-channel
Maybe the resident pod will learn to eat seals. There seem to be plenty of them right now.
I assume that you are talking about the number of people? I agree. Cut the number in half and our problem is solved.
You sound like you would approve of such tactics as was employed in the novel "Rainbow Six" by Tom Clancy. Wipe out the world's population (aka murder billions) in order to "save the world"...except of course those deemed "worthy". Truly amazing and scary.
I would argue that the U.S. does not lead the world in over-population. That award goes to India, Africa, Asia and the the 3rd world. Yet, somehow it's us that's supposed to pay the price. The radical environmentalists, such as those bringing this suit, are typical. Angry. Bitter. Full of "guilt". And utterly delusional.
Hmmmm...
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-07/srkw-population2016.png
This seems like a pretty stable population, with normal increases and decreases, to me.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-07/srkw-population2016.png
This seems like a pretty stable population, with normal increases and decreases, to me.
Marco Flamingo":2lrxdg8y said:I assume that you are talking about the number of people? I agree. Cut the number in half and our problem is solved.starcrafttom":2lrxdg8y said:If we can cut that number in half our problem are is solved.
I wasn't suggesting killing people or other knee-jerk solutions. A reduction in the human population could be through natural attrition instead of the (seemingly more likely) historical reductions through war, famine, disease, and other manifestations of ignorance. For a long time I was hopeful that we would be intelligent enough to recognize this. It could be that I'm wrong. Or maybe it needs to be simplified to "Less Babies = More Fish." Fits on a bumper sticker.starcrafttom":2lrxdg8y said:so how many people you want to kill?
Mark
Do you have children?
Marco Flamingo
Active member
Chester":2u52747r said:Do you have children?
Whether I'm a vegetarian, or believe in Satan, or have children doesn't really pertain to a discussion of whether we have a population problem that is affecting the oceans. If we have a problem, and I believe that we do, the issue is how to address the problem. Killing people, as starcrafttom suggested, is not a solution that I would propose. An argument that I have 12 children and therefore everyone should have 12 children is also not helpful.
We are on a boat that is sinking. Arguing about who to kill first or who has the most children doesn't get us anywhere. But no, I don't have children.
As an experiment, those people who have a visceral negative reaction to discussions about population issues should propose possible solutions. Just "pretend" that there is a population problem. What would they propose as a solution? Maybe those who have more than 2 children should be forced to kill their "excess" children? Surely they could come up with something more humain.
And the "what about" argument doesn't apply to this experiment. It actually doesn't apply anyways. "What about people in Somalia who are going to have 12 children?" What about it? Does that preclude us from thinking?
Mark
1. I propose the rest of the world stop having "12 children" AND...
2. we close our borders to all except those who LEGALLY immigrate to the U.S.
Number one is unrealistic. Number two totally attainable.
Maybe, as you stated earlier in the thread, we just need us a good, old-fashioned World War. I mean it worked so well in the 1940s...
:roll:
2. we close our borders to all except those who LEGALLY immigrate to the U.S.
Number one is unrealistic. Number two totally attainable.
Maybe, as you stated earlier in the thread, we just need us a good, old-fashioned World War. I mean it worked so well in the 1940s...
:roll: