Orca, “environmentalists” and lawsuits
- Thread starter localboy
- Start date
I was in Egypt awhile ago. Talking to someone there, he said that the message from the religious leaders in the region was that people should have as many children as possible because the best way to defeat the infidels was to outnumber them. If anyone asked "How am I supposed to feed all my children?", the answer was "Don't worry, God will provide."
Also, having religious doctrine that considers contraception forbidden or a sin doesn't help either. When you have leaders telling their followers such things, it sort of helps explain the problem.
Also, having religious doctrine that considers contraception forbidden or a sin doesn't help either. When you have leaders telling their followers such things, it sort of helps explain the problem.
Marco Flamingo
Active member
You're going to have to explain that one to me. Is "No" not the answer you were looking for? What is the problem caused by not having children? And whatever problem we may have caused, is that justification for ignoring the problem going forward?Chester":3uoaa0j7 said:
ssobol,
I'm familiar with the idea that the gods will take care of us (just like they are taking care of the salmon and orca populations). Religious doctrines are one thing. One can't expect them to be logical. Supernatural fantasy is part of their attraction. But one would hope that government policy would be more realistic. Unfortunately, talking about population is the "third rail" for politicians. It seems politicians need lots of babies to kiss regardless of the effect on their constituents.
Mark
bobjarrard
New member
Rule #1 here is "Be Nice". Rule #2 (See Rule #1).
Bob
Bob
Salmon Fisher
Member
I, too, find it interesting that the Southern Residents don't start eating seals.
I also find it interesting that the SR Orcas don't camp out in the south end of Hood Canal. I have heard there is a surplus of 20,000 adult chinook returning to the George Adams hatchery each year. They sure could chow down there.
I also find it interesting that the SR Orcas don't camp out in the south end of Hood Canal. I have heard there is a surplus of 20,000 adult chinook returning to the George Adams hatchery each year. They sure could chow down there.
starcrafttom
Active member
https://www.gapminder.org/answers/how-does-income-relate-to-life-expectancy/
So here is a link to just about everything you need to know about populations and the supposed problems and how to handle them.
In one of these videos he makes a really great point that the cure to population is the free market system. As every group of people move from socialism/ tribalism to a open free market and their standard of living rises, two thing always happen. One - their life expectancy goes up and two - they stop having more kids. This is going on around the world right now. Clean water is the first step to this process as is modern energy sources. Not burning cow shit and wood but a modern electrical system. This happened in American and Western Europe in the early 1900's. It happened to Japan in the 1920 and again after the war. Its happened to Korea and other parts of Asia after the Korean war. It did not happen to China or Vietnam until they moved their economy a failed communist system and towards ( more room to go ) to a free market economy. Its happening in a big way in India.
As we have longer easier lives we find that we do not need to have so many children. Only problem is that there is a cross over period that the old modal of big families over lays a period of low child death rates. This causes a spike in population for a short time , two or three generation. Our population growth world wide has been slowing. It will top out in 50 years and start to decline according to these videos and other studies. the free market system is the best thing for both humanity and our planet.
All of this reminds me of the book the population bomb. it stated the by 1990 the world will be out of food because of limited resources and over population. Scary stuff. The author , and many others, did not account for technology in farming improving. We now feed more people with less land then we ever have before. In fact we have less farmers even thought we have more people to feed.
So to answer your question, free markets, technology and democracy are the answer to saving the world and its oceans. but in the short term it would be great if we could get Asia to stop dumping 9/10th of the worlds pollution in to the our oceans. Or even get them to stop violating ever fishing agreement they have ever signed.
Just like the seals that are the real limiting factor and not recreational fisherman ( you cant catch a salmon that has never got to the ocean to grow if a seal eat it as a smolt two years ago), if we could identify the real source of the problem and stop chasing excuses maybe we could solve the problem of low orca numbers in J, K, and L pod AND clean our oceans by not pointing at straws in Seattle.
And to correct a lie I did not propose that we kill anyone, I asked who you are going to kill to " half the population" you did not state that you wanted to limit the future population. Which is already happening.
None of this address my question that we maybe we are just looking at nature and Darwinism taking its course. I did not know if the three pods have enough of a gene pool left to survive. All the fish in the world will not fix that.
So here is a link to just about everything you need to know about populations and the supposed problems and how to handle them.
In one of these videos he makes a really great point that the cure to population is the free market system. As every group of people move from socialism/ tribalism to a open free market and their standard of living rises, two thing always happen. One - their life expectancy goes up and two - they stop having more kids. This is going on around the world right now. Clean water is the first step to this process as is modern energy sources. Not burning cow shit and wood but a modern electrical system. This happened in American and Western Europe in the early 1900's. It happened to Japan in the 1920 and again after the war. Its happened to Korea and other parts of Asia after the Korean war. It did not happen to China or Vietnam until they moved their economy a failed communist system and towards ( more room to go ) to a free market economy. Its happening in a big way in India.
As we have longer easier lives we find that we do not need to have so many children. Only problem is that there is a cross over period that the old modal of big families over lays a period of low child death rates. This causes a spike in population for a short time , two or three generation. Our population growth world wide has been slowing. It will top out in 50 years and start to decline according to these videos and other studies. the free market system is the best thing for both humanity and our planet.
All of this reminds me of the book the population bomb. it stated the by 1990 the world will be out of food because of limited resources and over population. Scary stuff. The author , and many others, did not account for technology in farming improving. We now feed more people with less land then we ever have before. In fact we have less farmers even thought we have more people to feed.
So to answer your question, free markets, technology and democracy are the answer to saving the world and its oceans. but in the short term it would be great if we could get Asia to stop dumping 9/10th of the worlds pollution in to the our oceans. Or even get them to stop violating ever fishing agreement they have ever signed.
Just like the seals that are the real limiting factor and not recreational fisherman ( you cant catch a salmon that has never got to the ocean to grow if a seal eat it as a smolt two years ago), if we could identify the real source of the problem and stop chasing excuses maybe we could solve the problem of low orca numbers in J, K, and L pod AND clean our oceans by not pointing at straws in Seattle.
And to correct a lie I did not propose that we kill anyone, I asked who you are going to kill to " half the population" you did not state that you wanted to limit the future population. Which is already happening.
None of this address my question that we maybe we are just looking at nature and Darwinism taking its course. I did not know if the three pods have enough of a gene pool left to survive. All the fish in the world will not fix that.
starcrafttom
Active member
Here is a long ,Sorry, back ground and update of what is going on in meetings on this subject. The Author is Ron Garner. Head of PSA and member of many fishing advisory groups. He maybe the one person the most responsible for us having any fishing left at all. Remember we have lost 105 days of fishing already in the last 5 years and its not enough for the radical environmentalist.
Ron Garner
19 hrs ·
Information on the Orca Task Force meeting Tuesday August 28.
We need your comments. Our voice is not being heard and the non fishing folks are stating that fishing needs to be stopped to save the orcas. Stopping fishing will not save the orcas or the salmon. If you cannot make the Orca Task Force meeting in Anacortes on Tuesday, please comment using the links below. We also need you to comment to the WDFW Commission at the link below on hatchery production increases needed. This is one of those meetings that if you are not at the table you are on the table!
Meeting is from 10:00 am to 5:30 PM You may stay and see the entire meeting.
Public Testimony is at 4:30-If you wish to speak you need to sign in at the front desk. You will probably be limited to 2 minutes. They need to hear from you.
Issues we are not in agreement with:
1. No clear evidence that our presence (vessel noise) on fishing grounds are driving the orcas away-if you have ever had them chasing salmon around your boat while fishing, please mention that. One study says that the SRKWs use about 50-80kHz frequency. We can and will change our frequency to the 200 setting when Orcas are present. We have been present for most of the Orcas life on their feeding grounds. They don't know an existence without fishing boats.
2. Media is blaming fishing for the SR Orca demise and stopping fishing is their answer. When interviewed they omit our view.
3. There are studies including some by NOAA that show that stopping sport fishing is not going to recover the salmon/Orcas.
4. WDFW and leads are trying to say that through scat samples, harbor seals do not eat that many salmon percentage wise and downplaying dealing with Pinnipeds (seals and Sea Lions). They are not being addressed as a problem due to scat samples showing that salmon is a very small percentage of their diet. It's the massive numbers of harbor seals eating salmon that is the problem. Harbor seals in the Puget Sound are wiping out our salmon runs. Both when they are smolt coming through the river systems and out into the salt and when they return as adults. Think of locusts. In small numbers they are not very harmful but is swarms they have devastated huge amounts of crops and caused hardships on early settlers. This of it this way.
5. A tagged steelhead study was done in the Puget Sound with 5 rivers. 8-9 of every 10 smolt had their tags show up in scat. That Is 80-90% killed by seals alone!
6. Predation by birds and seals consume over 10 million smolt before they get to the saltwater, info backed by NOAA.
7. WDFW does not want to have to deal with the pinniped issue and is trying to keep it off of the table. It needs to go back on the table and the Chasco paper has to be used as it is a scientific study by scientists. Chasco Paper has to go back on the table.
8. We need to demand salmon hatchery production increases to save both the salmon and our SR Orcas. Save the salmon save the Orcas.
9. We have cut back our Coho and Chinook salmon hatchery production 160 million fish since 1992 in Washington State. Add the 30 Million cut in Oregon to it and that brings it up 190 million.
10. British Columbia and Alaska take approximately 60% of our salmon.
11. Pinnipeds, Northern fisheries (BC and Alaska), and hatchery cuts (ESA, HSRG, and funding cuts) have endangered our salmon runs to the point that we, tribes, commercials, and recreational, are hardly fishing any more. It took the starving ding Orcas for people to finally realize what we have been preaching is correct.
12. The WDFW Commission suspended 3 points of the Hatchery Science Review Group Policy to be able to take additional eggs for increased hatchery production. Voted 9-0, Next meeting they realized the harm that pinnipeds are doing and passed a policy to give flexibility to WDFW in Pinniped management.
Please bring this up. You may comment online to the task force here:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/srkwtfpubliccomment
Please also send comments to Gov. Jay Inslee
https://www.governor.wa.gov/cont…/contact/contact-gov-inslee
Also the WDFW commission needs to hear from you on their motion to increase hatchery production up 50,million Chinook Smolts. We have done the opposite for 10 years now. It's time to try it the other way. The Orcas have to be fed. Please comment to the commission at commission@dfw.wa.gov and tell them you want to see the 50 million increase in the 3 safe areas that do not harm wild fish.
Letter Received from one of our respected colleagues that we have been working with Brett Rosson:
I'm concerned that those of us with an understanding of the fishery in Marine Area 7, and fisheries management in general, are being shut out. From what I have observed, we are up against for-gone-conclusions, and that the Prey Availability moderator/facilitator is unilaterally choosing which viewpoints to advance and which to disregard or cast aside. She does this regardless of the available science and well-reasoned group member objections. In a nutshell, I think we are being intentionally sidelined and it worries me.
Not being part of the task force or any working group allowed me to roam from room to room and listen to the discussions being held. The groups were attempting to distill the proposed action items and find agreement. I was taken aback by what I observed: Individually many of the group members have knowledge in their field, but the problem is many feel qualified to suggest actionable ideas of which they have no background or understanding. They weigh in on matters for which they have zero technical and scientific knowledge, and they often have no way of backing up some of the ideas or recommendations they put forth. It's nothing short of astounding.
To name just a few:
Outlaw downriggers to limit the ability of fisherman to catch king salmon.
A 5-year moratorium on all fishing, up to Alaska, in order to allow chinook to get to the SRKW.
Require fishing boats to use electric motors because they will be quieter and produce no exhaust.
Curtail recreational fishing not just in Marine Area 7, but in 5-11, because the salmon that the whales eat are everywhere.
Require all recreational fisherman to acquire limited entry permits allowing them to fish on certain days only.
One member (a San Juan County Commissioner) was mad at the commercial fishing going on at Eagle Point this past week. He stated that they were "taking all the fish." During a brief sidebar, I pointed out to him that they were tribal boats who were sockeye fishing and not targeting kings. He didn't care for my explanation and insisted they were catching fish that the Orca could eat! He got quite agitated and emphatically stated that '15 miles of no-go zone was not going to save the SRKW' and that much more was needed. To note, the best available science points to SRKW feeding on adult chinook, not sockeye, and the primary foraging grounds are no longer the west side of San Juan Island, as it has been in the past, but well to the west and other areas in the straight and sound.
Penny Becker led discussions on Prey Availablity but was far from a neutral facilitator. With each group, she introduced the idea of shutting down geographical areas to fishing that historically support SRKW foraging. She then would give a "for instance" and suggest the west side of San Juan Island. She would further add that this action would work in concert with vessel restrictions in the same area, but that the vessel working group was assigned this specific task. She makes no attempt to hide her agenda and is quite intentional in her 'steering' of the separate working groups toward her own goal of seeing the west side closed to recreational harvest and fishing boats. A point to note is that when one
of the group members brought up the fact that this would require all user groups to comply, she suggested that if the recreational boats where kept from the area, and not the tribal, that somehow
this would entice the tribes to do the same for fear of "looking bad." This shows she is either painfully naive or blinded by her own agenda.
Kevin Ranker's comments in the vessel working group room really concerned me. He openly stated that we should disregard Phil Anderson's assurances that 1. A higher number of migrating fish could be expected due new to Pacific Salmon Treaty agreements with the Canadians. And, 2.That a re-worked 10-year management plan would further restrict harvest throughout the Puget Sound marine areas. Further, Kevin went on to state that the task force should immediately move forward with harvest cuts, concentrating on area 7, because "we have been listening to Phil tell us for years that cuts to recreational harvest are coming, and yet nothing has yet happened'. Given that I have been involved in the North of Falcon process for the last 10 years and have been witness to nothing but annual reductions in harvest opportunity, I call BS on Kevin's point. What astounds me is that Kevin and many others refuse to acknowledge this point. We have 104 fewer days of Chinook fishing when compared to 5 years ago and yet this does not seem to register with folks on the task force. I heard on group member put it this way though, and I couldn't agree more. He stated 'why would we continue to go down the path of harvest reductions as a way to help save the SRKW when based on the last 10 years of reductions, it hasn't helped?" To expect different results from further cuts is lunacy and a waste of time, not to mention it will only serve to hurt recreational opportunity, industry, and businesses throughout Puget Sound.
I know that the design of the task force discussions is based on the marketplace of ideas. The intention is that good, reasonable, and workable solutions will rise to the top and be implemented, while others will sink to the bottom. What worries me first, is that some of these crazy suggestions, ideas. and notions will take hold, and second, that individual or group agendas will find their way to the governor's desk and be written into law.
Ron Garner
19 hrs ·
Information on the Orca Task Force meeting Tuesday August 28.
We need your comments. Our voice is not being heard and the non fishing folks are stating that fishing needs to be stopped to save the orcas. Stopping fishing will not save the orcas or the salmon. If you cannot make the Orca Task Force meeting in Anacortes on Tuesday, please comment using the links below. We also need you to comment to the WDFW Commission at the link below on hatchery production increases needed. This is one of those meetings that if you are not at the table you are on the table!
Meeting is from 10:00 am to 5:30 PM You may stay and see the entire meeting.
Public Testimony is at 4:30-If you wish to speak you need to sign in at the front desk. You will probably be limited to 2 minutes. They need to hear from you.
Issues we are not in agreement with:
1. No clear evidence that our presence (vessel noise) on fishing grounds are driving the orcas away-if you have ever had them chasing salmon around your boat while fishing, please mention that. One study says that the SRKWs use about 50-80kHz frequency. We can and will change our frequency to the 200 setting when Orcas are present. We have been present for most of the Orcas life on their feeding grounds. They don't know an existence without fishing boats.
2. Media is blaming fishing for the SR Orca demise and stopping fishing is their answer. When interviewed they omit our view.
3. There are studies including some by NOAA that show that stopping sport fishing is not going to recover the salmon/Orcas.
4. WDFW and leads are trying to say that through scat samples, harbor seals do not eat that many salmon percentage wise and downplaying dealing with Pinnipeds (seals and Sea Lions). They are not being addressed as a problem due to scat samples showing that salmon is a very small percentage of their diet. It's the massive numbers of harbor seals eating salmon that is the problem. Harbor seals in the Puget Sound are wiping out our salmon runs. Both when they are smolt coming through the river systems and out into the salt and when they return as adults. Think of locusts. In small numbers they are not very harmful but is swarms they have devastated huge amounts of crops and caused hardships on early settlers. This of it this way.
5. A tagged steelhead study was done in the Puget Sound with 5 rivers. 8-9 of every 10 smolt had their tags show up in scat. That Is 80-90% killed by seals alone!
6. Predation by birds and seals consume over 10 million smolt before they get to the saltwater, info backed by NOAA.
7. WDFW does not want to have to deal with the pinniped issue and is trying to keep it off of the table. It needs to go back on the table and the Chasco paper has to be used as it is a scientific study by scientists. Chasco Paper has to go back on the table.
8. We need to demand salmon hatchery production increases to save both the salmon and our SR Orcas. Save the salmon save the Orcas.
9. We have cut back our Coho and Chinook salmon hatchery production 160 million fish since 1992 in Washington State. Add the 30 Million cut in Oregon to it and that brings it up 190 million.
10. British Columbia and Alaska take approximately 60% of our salmon.
11. Pinnipeds, Northern fisheries (BC and Alaska), and hatchery cuts (ESA, HSRG, and funding cuts) have endangered our salmon runs to the point that we, tribes, commercials, and recreational, are hardly fishing any more. It took the starving ding Orcas for people to finally realize what we have been preaching is correct.
12. The WDFW Commission suspended 3 points of the Hatchery Science Review Group Policy to be able to take additional eggs for increased hatchery production. Voted 9-0, Next meeting they realized the harm that pinnipeds are doing and passed a policy to give flexibility to WDFW in Pinniped management.
Please bring this up. You may comment online to the task force here:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/srkwtfpubliccomment
Please also send comments to Gov. Jay Inslee
https://www.governor.wa.gov/cont…/contact/contact-gov-inslee
Also the WDFW commission needs to hear from you on their motion to increase hatchery production up 50,million Chinook Smolts. We have done the opposite for 10 years now. It's time to try it the other way. The Orcas have to be fed. Please comment to the commission at commission@dfw.wa.gov and tell them you want to see the 50 million increase in the 3 safe areas that do not harm wild fish.
Letter Received from one of our respected colleagues that we have been working with Brett Rosson:
I'm concerned that those of us with an understanding of the fishery in Marine Area 7, and fisheries management in general, are being shut out. From what I have observed, we are up against for-gone-conclusions, and that the Prey Availability moderator/facilitator is unilaterally choosing which viewpoints to advance and which to disregard or cast aside. She does this regardless of the available science and well-reasoned group member objections. In a nutshell, I think we are being intentionally sidelined and it worries me.
Not being part of the task force or any working group allowed me to roam from room to room and listen to the discussions being held. The groups were attempting to distill the proposed action items and find agreement. I was taken aback by what I observed: Individually many of the group members have knowledge in their field, but the problem is many feel qualified to suggest actionable ideas of which they have no background or understanding. They weigh in on matters for which they have zero technical and scientific knowledge, and they often have no way of backing up some of the ideas or recommendations they put forth. It's nothing short of astounding.
To name just a few:
Outlaw downriggers to limit the ability of fisherman to catch king salmon.
A 5-year moratorium on all fishing, up to Alaska, in order to allow chinook to get to the SRKW.
Require fishing boats to use electric motors because they will be quieter and produce no exhaust.
Curtail recreational fishing not just in Marine Area 7, but in 5-11, because the salmon that the whales eat are everywhere.
Require all recreational fisherman to acquire limited entry permits allowing them to fish on certain days only.
One member (a San Juan County Commissioner) was mad at the commercial fishing going on at Eagle Point this past week. He stated that they were "taking all the fish." During a brief sidebar, I pointed out to him that they were tribal boats who were sockeye fishing and not targeting kings. He didn't care for my explanation and insisted they were catching fish that the Orca could eat! He got quite agitated and emphatically stated that '15 miles of no-go zone was not going to save the SRKW' and that much more was needed. To note, the best available science points to SRKW feeding on adult chinook, not sockeye, and the primary foraging grounds are no longer the west side of San Juan Island, as it has been in the past, but well to the west and other areas in the straight and sound.
Penny Becker led discussions on Prey Availablity but was far from a neutral facilitator. With each group, she introduced the idea of shutting down geographical areas to fishing that historically support SRKW foraging. She then would give a "for instance" and suggest the west side of San Juan Island. She would further add that this action would work in concert with vessel restrictions in the same area, but that the vessel working group was assigned this specific task. She makes no attempt to hide her agenda and is quite intentional in her 'steering' of the separate working groups toward her own goal of seeing the west side closed to recreational harvest and fishing boats. A point to note is that when one
of the group members brought up the fact that this would require all user groups to comply, she suggested that if the recreational boats where kept from the area, and not the tribal, that somehow
this would entice the tribes to do the same for fear of "looking bad." This shows she is either painfully naive or blinded by her own agenda.
Kevin Ranker's comments in the vessel working group room really concerned me. He openly stated that we should disregard Phil Anderson's assurances that 1. A higher number of migrating fish could be expected due new to Pacific Salmon Treaty agreements with the Canadians. And, 2.That a re-worked 10-year management plan would further restrict harvest throughout the Puget Sound marine areas. Further, Kevin went on to state that the task force should immediately move forward with harvest cuts, concentrating on area 7, because "we have been listening to Phil tell us for years that cuts to recreational harvest are coming, and yet nothing has yet happened'. Given that I have been involved in the North of Falcon process for the last 10 years and have been witness to nothing but annual reductions in harvest opportunity, I call BS on Kevin's point. What astounds me is that Kevin and many others refuse to acknowledge this point. We have 104 fewer days of Chinook fishing when compared to 5 years ago and yet this does not seem to register with folks on the task force. I heard on group member put it this way though, and I couldn't agree more. He stated 'why would we continue to go down the path of harvest reductions as a way to help save the SRKW when based on the last 10 years of reductions, it hasn't helped?" To expect different results from further cuts is lunacy and a waste of time, not to mention it will only serve to hurt recreational opportunity, industry, and businesses throughout Puget Sound.
I know that the design of the task force discussions is based on the marketplace of ideas. The intention is that good, reasonable, and workable solutions will rise to the top and be implemented, while others will sink to the bottom. What worries me first, is that some of these crazy suggestions, ideas. and notions will take hold, and second, that individual or group agendas will find their way to the governor's desk and be written into law.
Marco Flamingo
Active member
Shhhhh.Salmon Fisher":3nufp8a2 said:
starcrafttom":3nufp8a2 said:
Somebody always mentions killing people when overpopulation is brought up. If you find it offensive that I thought that was your idea, then what should I make of your thinking that it was my idea? We can forget about killing people as a proposed solution, right?
Relying on Darwinism has its own unpleasant consequences. First, if man loads the ocean with microplastics, as just one possibility, and that causes a crash in the food chain, is that Darwinism or is it human folly? I doubt that Charles would want his name associated with human induced climate change or species extinction.
Second, Darwinism is probably much longer and more painful than what we would imagine. The best evidence is that the dinosaurs disappeared after a massive environmental change. Not immediately, probably over hundreds, maybe thousands of years. A hundred million years later, man pops up. If man is creating a massive environmental change, then we can decline over the next thousand years (taking a lot of other flora and fauna with us). Maybe in another hundred million years dinosaurs will pop up. Yeah for Darwinism although, like I said, Charles would probably not approve and it doesn't exactly save us.
Another part of Darwinism is that the organism can't react fast enough to the changed environment. Why don't the local orcas start eating salmon? Probably the same reason that we are still relying on fossil fuels. With the relatively huge affect man's activities have on the environment, and our lack of knowledge or outright denial, whatever it is that gets us we won't see it coming. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't take precautions to lower our risk from the likely dangers.
But then, I don't have children so what do I care?
Mark
RE: the people who decry various proposals that the ban salmon fishing. Are these people fishing the salmon primarily as a necessary food source or are they sport fishermen that mostly fish for fun and as a hobby?
If the salmon are a necessary food source, then any restrictions on fishing should be carefully considered. If it is the sport fishermen that are complaining, maybe they should just find something else to spend their money on.
P.S. There is no reason in the world that Darwinism can't cause humans to go extinct. As much as we might want to think so, there is no special exemption for humans. Perhaps the environmental damage and pollution caused by humans is Darwinism in action.
If the salmon are a necessary food source, then any restrictions on fishing should be carefully considered. If it is the sport fishermen that are complaining, maybe they should just find something else to spend their money on.
P.S. There is no reason in the world that Darwinism can't cause humans to go extinct. As much as we might want to think so, there is no special exemption for humans. Perhaps the environmental damage and pollution caused by humans is Darwinism in action.
starcrafttom":ufqz3f8x said:
Will you please point me to the NOAA citations which indicate that seal populations are 100X above their carrying capacity in the Sound. It doesn't seem possible for any population to be that far above its carrying capacity for that long. By definition, a population's carrying capacity (I'm assuming that you mean carrying capacity and not holding capacity because holding capacity is a term used to describe how much water a soil can hold and carrying capacity defines population limits) is determined by the resources available to it. Any population existing at 100X it's carrying capacity would quickly crash (from starving to death and from other population dependent factors).