Blackmouth

[mbowers]

You guys used to have a season in the Fall for the Fraser run fish, but I have no idea what is happening with those stocks because the Canadians don’t make the run data as easy to access as we do. (If anyone has forecasts and historical data for that river I would really appreciate it!)

Good luck. Canada is actively blocking all attempts by even Canadians to get that kind of data. Government has an agenda for the fish and doesn't want science getting in the way.

https://bcwf.bc.ca/bcwf-urges-standing-committee-impose-transparency-at-dfo/

Fraser fish are allegedly not doing well and so lots of closures on Canadian side for them on their own plus SRKW reasons. Even though there was never good proof that food availability was the issue, public fishing is the easy target. Seems the actual. problem for SRKW is inbreeding.

https://www.pugetsoundinstitute.org...g-endangered-southern-resident-killer-whales/

“Other killer whale populations … have rebounded rapidly,” Kardos said. “But the Southern Residents are an outlier in that respect. The effect of inbreeding is really quite large.”

"Although early studies suggested that the miscarriages and post-natal mortalities could be directly linked to a shortage of Chinook salmon, those conclusions are being reconsidered, according to Eric Ward, also with NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center and another author of the new study."

 

[Smalma]

The southern resident have demographic issue that are compounded by the females that continue to feed their first born son. But the real underlying issue is the lack of larger Chinook. With the typical PS Chinook averaging only about 10# the orcas are force to catch a lot more Chinook requiring more effort to meet their diet needs. A large adult bull requires 400 or pounds of Chinook a day. If the bulk of their diet was 40# fish they would need to catch 10 or 12 fish a day. With 10# fish they need to catch 40 or more; just does not work. Just one of the several reasons why we need larger fish rather than more fish.

Curt

 

[speedbird]

Fraser fish are allegedly not doing well and so lots of closures on Canadian side for them on their own plus SRKW reasons. Even though there was never good proof that food availability was the issue, public fishing is the easy target. Seems the actual. problem for SRKW is inbreeding.

Sorry but this is completely untrue. Inbreeding is an issue for the SRKW because their population size has shrunk as a result of a lack of food. Other populations of killer whales are doing just fine because they are able to sufficiently feed themselves. Essentially every SRKW issue goes back to a lack of food. PCB toxins enter their body when they consume fat stores, other Killer Whales have higher rates of PCB buildup but are unaffected by it as it remains stored in their fat and is offloaded when they give birth. Vessel noise effects the SRKW simply because there are fewer fish, and the noise affects echolocation making it even harder for the SRKW to find prey

 

[SeaRunner]

Well, yes, 100:1 is an exaggeration, but things have changed since 2014. The number of undersized fish in the last couple of seasons I fished was way higher. I don’t know what the total catch of retained legal sized fish was over the entire fishery this year, but the creel reports show about 70 over 7 days of sampling. If the total was double that, then with about 3800 total fish caught the ratio is 27:1

The point being that the fishery needs a reassessment. It is not what it used to be. I think your suggestion of a lower minimum size plus moving the season to April might be one way to do it, though it might need to go with a rule that you have to keep the first legal fish you catch, and that would be really unpopular!

Review the post-season reports on the WDFW website. You can find them by searching publications. There is lots of interesting information there. The most recent post-season winter report I could find is for 2021 and it has a summary of total encounters for each A10 season going back to 2007. My quick math shows the best ratio of keepers to non-keepers for that time period was 2019 when there was 1 keeper for every 3 non-keepers. The worst was 2015 at 1 for every 21.

From that report it doesn't appear that the ratios of legal to sublegal have changed all that much over that period of time, just normal year to year variability. What has changed is encounters per angler trips, and that change was very dramatic starting with the 2016/2017 season.

Of interesting note on that 2019 season, the fishery controls agreed to at North of Falcon stated:

"The preseason prediction of total Chinook salmon encounters in Area 10 is 2,997 (FRAM Chin3218).
WDFW plans to manage this fishery as a season, beginning and ending on the agreed-to dates (above).
However, if in-season estimates indicate that total Chinook salmon encounters are projected to be at 80% of
the preseason modeled encounters, WDFW will initiate co-manager discussion regarding potential fishery
actions. WDFW will ensure that the fishery does not exceed 3,596 predicted total Chinook salmon
encounters."

The fishery was closed after 18 days with 74% of preseason prediction encounters used and 62% of the "does not exceeed" number used.

 

[mbowers]

Sorry but this is completely untrue. Inbreeding is an issue for the SRKW because their population size has shrunk as a result of a lack of food. Other populations of killer whales are doing just fine because they are able to sufficiently feed themselves. Essentially every SRKW issue goes back to a lack of food. PCB toxins enter their body when they consume fat stores, other Killer Whales have higher rates of PCB buildup but are unaffected by it as it remains stored in their fat and is offloaded when they give birth. Vessel noise effects the SRKW simply because there are fewer fish, and the noise affects echolocation making it even harder for the SRKW to find prey

Did you read the paper?

"It appears that both the ancestral populations of Alaska Resident and Southern Resident orcas were much larger in the distant past before declining about 700 years ago, according to the study. Since then, the effective population of the Southern Residents ranged from about 61 to 76 — translated to roughly 200 living animals. It appears that genetic isolation took place about 20 generations ago — or roughly 500 years in the past."

SRKW made a choice 500 years ago to start inbreeding. Food availability now has nothing to do with the start of inbreeding.

As the paper directly stated it is time to reconsider the suggestion that food availability is a significant factor in the lack of successful breeding compared to other killer whale populations.

This is a very small population of animals with a lot of behavior we just guess at. If we don't continuously keep an open mind to new data and make new guesses we will almost definitely draw the wrong conclusion and make bad choices about measures to protect the whales.

Your theory on food causing the SRKW inbreeding does not match any science that I can find. Maybe you have some references you can share?

From Whale watching boats and SRKW
"The lowest recorded population level was 67 in 1971 due to the live-capture of SRKW s for oceanarium display beginning in the late 1960s causing an estimated 30% decrease in the population"

I'd say stealing 30 percent of a very small population would cause a significant increase in the inbreeding.

I do not follow your PCB transfer logic. So other killer whales can offload PCBs by giving birth but SRKW are different and can not offload PCBs when they give birth? Also if you read up on the process, the PCBs are not offloaded by giving birth, rather they are offloaded by nursing the offspring.

Some more info linked below that suggests PCBs are not a significant factor in reproduction success because as you said other populations of killer whales have even higher PCB concentrations and are reproducing very successfully. Plus not all PCBs are equal and the particular ones that are at high levels in the killer whales might not be the most damaging to reproduction.

PCBs and Orcas

 

[speedbird]

Did you read the paper?

"It appears that both the ancestral populations of Alaska Resident and Southern Resident orcas were much larger in the distant past before declining about 700 years ago, according to the study. Since then, the effective population of the Southern Residents ranged from about 61 to 76 — translated to roughly 200 living animals. It appears that genetic isolation took place about 20 generations ago — or roughly 500 years in the past."

SRKW made a choice 500 years ago to start inbreeding. Food availability now has nothing to do with the start of inbreeding.

As the paper directly stated it is time to reconsider the suggestion that food availability is a significant factor in the lack of successful breeding compared to other killer whale populations.

This is a very small population of animals with a lot of behavior we just guess at. If we don't continuously keep an open mind to new data and make new guesses we will almost definitely draw the wrong conclusion and make bad choices about measures to protect the whales.

Your theory on food causing the SRKW inbreeding does not match any science that I can find. Maybe you have some references you can share?

From Whale watching boats and SRKW
"The lowest recorded population level was 67 in 1971 due to the live-capture of SRKW s for oceanarium display beginning in the late 1960s causing an estimated 30% decrease in the population"

I'd say stealing 30 percent of a very small population would cause a significant increase in the inbreeding.

I do not follow your PCB transfer logic. So other killer whales can offload PCBs by giving birth but SRKW are different and can not offload PCBs when they give birth? Also if you read up on the process, the PCBs are not offloaded by giving birth, rather they are offloaded by nursing the offspring.

Some more info linked below that suggests PCBs are not a significant factor in reproduction success because as you said other populations of killer whales have even higher PCB concentrations and are reproducing very successfully. Plus not all PCBs are equal and the particular ones that are at high levels in the killer whales might not be the most damaging to reproduction.

PCBs and Orcas

I don’t have the spare time to dig up studies to corroborate every quote but the vast majority of studies you will find in Google scholar under “Southern Resident Killer Whales“ will back up what I say. The PCB transfer logic is simple: SRKWs give birth at lower rates than other populations, as such they lack opportunities to pass PCBs down through nursing. As for your anecdote on human removal: The SRKW population actually dramatically rose to 94 after captures ceased, the population than began a downward spiral that has not stopped. Nearly all SRKW deaths in recent years were proceeded by the Whales documented emaciated. “Food” isn’t causing inbreeding, as much as decreased food leads to a smaller population, which naturally leads to higher inbreeding in any population.

 

[mbowers]

The southern resident have demographic issue that are compounded by the females that continue to feed their first born son. But the real underlying issue is the lack of larger Chinook. With the typical PS Chinook averaging only about 10# the orcas are force to catch a lot more Chinook requiring more effort to meet their diet needs. A large adult bull requires 400 or pounds of Chinook a day. If the bulk of their diet was 40# fish they would need to catch 10 or 12 fish a day. With 10# fish they need to catch 40 or more; just does not work. Just one of the several reasons why we need larger fish rather than more fish.

Curt

Agreed on demographic issues. Science is already changing on lazy male SRKW. It seems the other RKW have lazy males but SRKW males are working hard.

Killer whale foraging behavior

“This potential prey-sharing role of SRKW adult males challenges the existing paradigm that adult females are disproportionate provisioners in resident killer whale populations,” the study’s scientists wrote.

 

[charles sullivan]

I don't understand why it is so common to think that every question has one answer. It is also common to think that if one thing is correct that another is therefore incorrect. The fact is that there are often more than one answer to a question like "why is the SRKW population struggling?"

It seems logical that nutrition is an issue given that nutrition and fertility are linked in most every mammal ever studied. Additionally, the PCB issues are most likely real. Again, we've seen PCB's effects on testosterone in other mammals. It stands to reason that animals with high levels of PCB's or other bioaccumulating chemicals will be affected in some way, especially if they are hormone mimicking chemicals. It also stands to reason that in smaller populations in-breeding can become a big issue.

My point is that in-breeding being an issue does not preclude nutrition from being a factor. The smaller size of chinook being a factor does not preclude the abundance of chinook being a factor. There is not always just one answer. "All of the above" is often the correct answer.

 

[Pink Nighty]

I don't understand why it is so common to think that every question has one answer. It is also common to think that if one thing is correct that another is therefore incorrect. The fact is that there are often more than one answer to a question like "why is the SRKW population struggling?"

It seems logical that nutrition is an issue given that nutrition and fertility are linked in most every mammal ever studied. Additionally, the PCB issues are most likely real. Again, we've seen PCB's effects on testosterone in other mammals. It stands to reason that animals with high levels of PCB's or other bioaccumulating chemicals will be affected in some way, especially if they are hormone mimicking chemicals. It also stands to reason that in smaller populations in-breeding can become a big issue.

My point is that in-breeding being an issue does not preclude nutrition from being a factor. The smaller size of chinook being a factor does not preclude the abundance of chinook being a factor. There is not always just one answer. "All of the above" is often the correct answer.

You take your calm, reasonable takes and get outta here!!! Black and white, zero sum only please!

 

[speedbird]

I don't understand why it is so common to think that every question has one answer. It is also common to think that if one thing is correct that another is therefore incorrect. The fact is that there are often more than one answer to a question like "why is the SRKW population struggling?"

It seems logical that nutrition is an issue given that nutrition and fertility are linked in most every mammal ever studied. Additionally, the PCB issues are most likely real. Again, we've seen PCB's effects on testosterone in other mammals. It stands to reason that animals with high levels of PCB's or other bioaccumulating chemicals will be affected in some way, especially if they are hormone mimicking chemicals. It also stands to reason that in smaller populations in-breeding can become a big issue.

My point is that in-breeding being an issue does not preclude nutrition from being a factor. The smaller size of chinook being a factor does not preclude the abundance of chinook being a factor. There is not always just one answer. "All of the above" is often the correct answer.

Agreed 100%. From what I have seen coming out of Canada, I think there is a deliberate disinformation campaign up north to make it seem like Wild Chinook populations and the whales are doing a-okay. A fly and tackle store posted a video claiming that “the scientific concensus believed the SRKW population to be well fed and stable“ which flies in the face of virtually every study out there. I politely contradicted him in the comments and when requested, I provided peer reviewed sources via email. (To mbowers, when I get a chance to pull up that email I will gladly provide you that data as well, I tried finding it last night but couldn’t) The owner acknowledged that the information I provided him was true, and that he had made a mistake, yet he did not take down the video, nor did he publish a retraction.

 

[mbowers]

I don't understand why it is so common to think that every question has one answer. It is also common to think that if one thing is correct that another is therefore incorrect. The fact is that there are often more than one answer to a question like "why is the SRKW population struggling?"

It seems logical that nutrition is an issue given that nutrition and fertility are linked in most every mammal ever studied. Additionally, the PCB issues are most likely real. Again, we've seen PCB's effects on testosterone in other mammals. It stands to reason that animals with high levels of PCB's or other bioaccumulating chemicals will be affected in some way, especially if they are hormone mimicking chemicals. It also stands to reason that in smaller populations in-breeding can become a big issue.

My point is that in-breeding being an issue does not preclude nutrition from being a factor. The smaller size of chinook being a factor does not preclude the abundance of chinook being a factor. There is not always just one answer. "All of the above" is often the correct answer.

The PCBs would seem likely to be an issue but the data suggests otherwise. The NRKW males have significantly higher PCB levels than the SRKW males due to diet. The young NRKW females also have higher PCB levels than SRKW females due to diet but successfully wean calves so older NRKW females have a much lower PCB level. Just looking at the data, a higher PCB level in males and females at FIRST pregnancy correlates with higher successful calf raising. It is possible that the low calf raising rate of young SRKW females (for other reasons) causes the higher PCB levels in older females rather than the high PCB levels cause the low calf raising rate. If there's an error in my logic please point it out.



It is interesting that SRKW population was increasing until late 1990s when a decline started. One thing that changed then is the massive growth of whale watching that targeted SRKW. Chart below shows an 800% increase in whale watching incidents from 1998 to 2014.



WA finally starting to get serious about whale watching effects.

Whale watchers must stay away

"To minimize disturbances to the whales, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has recommended maintaining a distance of 1,000 yards from the whales. Research from NOAA has found that when vessels come within this distance to the whales, they stop hunting for food. Mother whales will stop feeding their young if a vessel approaches within 400 yards. "

There can be plenty of salmon but the whales won't feed or nurse because they are continuously harassed by whale watchers.

 

[charles sullivan]

The PCBs would seem likely to be an issue but the data suggests otherwise. The NRKW males have significantly higher PCB levels than the SRKW males due to diet. The young NRKW females also have higher PCB levels than SRKW females due to diet but successfully wean calves so older NRKW females have a much lower PCB level. Just looking at the data, a higher PCB level in males and females at FIRST pregnancy correlates with higher successful calf raising. It is possible that the low calf raising rate of young SRKW females (for other reasons) causes the higher PCB levels in older females rather than the high PCB levels cause the low calf raising rate. If there's an error in my logic please point it out.

View attachment 61446

It is interesting that SRKW population was increasing until late 1990s when a decline started. One thing that changed then is the massive growth of whale watching that targeted SRKW. Chart below shows an 800% increase in whale watching incidents from 1998 to 2014.

View attachment 61447

WA finally starting to get serious about whale watching effects.

Whale watchers must stay away

"To minimize disturbances to the whales, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has recommended maintaining a distance of 1,000 yards from the whales. Research from NOAA has found that when vessels come within this distance to the whales, they stop hunting for food. Mother whales will stop feeding their young if a vessel approaches within 400 yards. "

There can be plenty of salmon but the whales won't feed or nurse because they are continuously harassed by whale watchers.

Discounting PCB pollution as an issue based on that info assumes that there is no effect from PCB's on NRKW's. Discounting PCB pollution as an issue based on that info assumes that that PCB related issues are "stand alone" and not intertwined with other factors.

I do not know if there is or isn't a PCB issue that is a factor in the decline. A population with higher PCB levels is doing better than a population doing worse, does not prove that the levels are not causing problems. For instance, PCB levels may have greater effects on animals that have reproductive issues stemming from malnutrition or that goes periods of time being malnourished. PCB's are fat soluble chemicals if I recall correctly so there could be any number of differences in effects based on fat content or using fat reserves in times when food is scarce etc. Secondary factors may make PCB contamination more impactful one population than another, even if the more impacted population has a lower average PCB concentration. My examples above are made up. Like I said, I do not know. I am just trying to illustrate why that data can't prove PCB's are not an issue.

There is often more than one answer to any question. Often a number of different factors are related or dependent upon each other. In the end, I do not know if PCB's are playing a role or not. I do know that the limited data provided above does not in any way prove that it is not a factor. Proving a negative is pretty much impossible though so that can't be the standard that we use either.

The whale watching data is interesting. Correlation does not equal causation. Many other factors may have abruptly changed in the late 1990's. It correlates with me moving to the PNW. I doubt that I am the cause of SRKW decline. Time based correlations are often misunderstood as well. Not all cause and effect scenarios are instantaneous. It may take years after an environmental change for the effect to happen. For instance, if Puget Sound spring king populations or PS average fish size declined starting in 1990, it may take a while before the impact is felt on the SRKW population because they had stored fat reserves from prior large run sizes ( this is also a purely made up example).

Sometimes finding things that correlate are a good way to find out what to try and study. That graph makes a compelling argument that whale watching should be looked at as a possible factor in he decline. It does not mean that the smoking gun has been found. Red herrings are often mistaken for smoking guns and magic bullets.