One thing to consider -- right now, salmon fishing is the only activity actually managed for impacts to endangered southern resident orcas. The comanagers' chinook fishery management plan is reviewed and analyzed by NOAA each year to determine whether it will cause jeopardy to this species. Because the standard for endangered species (as opposed to threatened species, such as Puget Sound chinook salmon) is so high, it is always possible that the amount of fishery-related mortality that is ok for chinook will be too much for orcas (affecting their food supply). So far, NOAA has determined that the fishing plan does not pose jeopardy to orcas, but the review and analysis is redone every year.

If they determine that the fishery on chinook is too much of an impact on the orcas, then the fishery will have to be cut back. This rule is not about fishing, it's about vessel noise. But if the rule is rejected, and vessel noise is not addressed, then NOAA could well make a determination that fishing has to be cut back more because no action is being taken to deal with the stress of vessel noise. So, it is at least possible that the end result could be that fishing, and only fishing, is regulated. In other words, the kayaks, whale watching boats, and looky-loo pleasure craft would have free passage everywhere. But fishing would be cut back even more.

So, again, it is very important to recognize that, right now, fishing is the only impact actually being addressed relative tot he orca listing. This proposed rule, with all its many faults, is at least the first time NOAA has addressed non-fishing factors relative to the orcas. There are many other non-fishing factors that need to be looked at -- contaminants, pollution, habitat loss, and all of the elements of the salmon recovery plans. So, i do believe that it is wise to provide positive feedback to NOAA for at least looking at non-fishing factors and encourage them to look at others. Otherwise the only ones sitting on the beach might be the fishermen.