NOAA Fisheries Service listed the Southern Resident killer whales as endangered under the Endangered Species (ESA) on Nov. 18, 2005. The agency identified vessel effects, including physical interference and sound, as a potential contributing factor in the population’s decline.

The proposed regulations would set up, beginning in spring of 2010, a half-mile-wide “No-Go Zone” along the entire west side of San Juan Island from May 1 through the end of September where many types of vessels, including recreational anglers, would be prohibited from entering.

Public Meetings: The Northwest Region will hold public meetings on the proposed vessel regulations, below, so people can learn more about them and provide comments. The meetings will be:

Sept. 24, 2009, 7-9 p.m., Pier One Main Warehouse, 100 Commercial Avenue, Anacortes, Wash.

Sept. 30, 2009, 7-9 p.m., Seattle Aquarium, Pier 59, Seattle, Wash.
Oct. 5, 2009, 7-9 p.m., The Grange Hall, First Street, Friday Harbor, Wash.
Sept. 17, 2009, Federal Register notice on public meetings (PDF 49KB)

I have been quite active on this issue on other boards as well as in my own community. I can not make the Anacortes meeting since I am currently travelling for work (I am in Indiana) but I will definitely make the next two meetings. We NEED to make our presence known. If they successfully shut down this area, who knows what will be next. Please, anyone who can make the meeting, do so. Show them that we can work with them and coexist peacefully with the Orcas. I think a large part of the problem is that they unfairly group recreational fishermen with the rest of the problem. Show them that we are NOT the problem and if anything, we are stewards of the sea. The most important thing is that we show up level-headed and in large numbers so they know we are not just some small group to be pushed aside. If you enjoy your freedom to fish the sound, PLEASE show up to these meetings!

I would like to extend a thank you to all of the people that attended the NOAA meeting in Anacortes tonight. Many people took the time to state their experiences, feelings, and criticisms of the proposed "No Go Zone". I can't help but feel that the valuable information that was discussed this evening will go unrepresented in further consideration of the No Go Zone. At approximately 8:10 the question and answer part of the meeting began. By 8:20 the NOAA representatives tried to end this part of the meeting and progress towards a video documented comment period that was intended to give the 40 people who signed up to comment on this matter a chance to do so. NOAA reps did not allow for the 30 minute Q&A session to run its course before switching to the video comment period. They were called out on this and the results were that for 2 hours people took turns making comments and questions about the proposal. This did a lot to promote discussion and evoke emotions, but did not result in any DOCUMENTED commentary. There were no video documented commentaries. To the people who plan on attending the next meetings, PLEASE make sure that what you are saying is documented! Bring tape recorders, video cameras, written commentary, anything that will become a part of the public record. To the people who attended the meeting tonight, PLEASE email your comments to orca.plan@noaa.gov. If we don't make our voices not only heard, but documented then this No Go Zone may very likely become a reality. Once that happens good luck getting this tremendously producticve fishing area back open. This proposal could set precedence for further expansion and implementation of No Go Zones in other areas of the state. Some of the studies used to back up the proposal are suspect. Especially the economic impacts that they are assuming. Take a closer look.

Thanks,
K/247

http://www.anacortesnow.com/content/view/1378/111/

Representatives of NOAA Fisheries Service got an earful from dozens of sport fishermen and whale watch operators over proposed new regulations designed to keep boats further away from Orcas than is current allowed.
More than 150 people filled the Port's Warehouse Thursday night and, in effect, told the NOAA representatives 'no' to the proposed regulations which would require boaters to stay at least 200 yards from Orcas. The regulations would include a half-mile wide no-go zone along the west side of San Juan Island from May 1 to Sept. 30.

Most of the crowd seemed to sport fishermen, charter operators, whale watch operators and kayak tour leaders. Complaints ranged from "you've got a huge gap in your data," to "the Orcas aren't impacted by fishing boats now."

One sport fisherman said "You only wee whales about one-third of the time in that no-go zone. If you'd come to us, we would have given you data."

Boat owner Larry Carpenter said "Orcas choose to be around fishing boats. If they were bothered, they'd just swim away. I don't believe that excluding sport fisherman would help killer whales."

Charter operator Jay Field, in an interview, said "These rules are completely unnecessary. Whales don't avoid our boats. The west side of San Juan Island is the best salmon fishing area nearby."

Whale watch operator Shane Aggergaard said he thought the current state law, which requires boats to stay 100 yards from Orcas, was satisfactory. "Forcing boats to stay more than one-half mile from San Juan Island will damage the whale watch industry." He added, "The economic cost will be far greater than just the whale watch industry."
In fact, the Anacortes Chamber of Commerce prepared a statement which said said "Put simply, whale watching is a substantial economic driver in Skagit County, which we estimate generates at least $7.2 million annually," adding, "we believe this figure to be conservative—the “no go” zone under consideration would have a negative impact on various other industries—fishing, kayaking, and charter boat operations--that is not quantified here."

Not everyone at the meeting was opposed to the new rules, though. Evergreen Island leader Tom Glade said "We support any regulation that will help protect the Orcas." He pointed out that there are only 85 Orcas in existence, about half the number of people that showed up for the NOAA meeting.
At one point in the meeting, the crowd all but took control, insisting on continuing a question-and-answer portion instead of moving on to giving testimony that NOAA was prepared to video record.
NOAA representative Lynn Barre started off the meeting saying that their studies show that when boats are nearby, Orcas increase surface activity, change swimming patterns and decrease time foraging." Since Orcas are on the endangered list, NOAA is justified in implementing protections. Barre said studies show that Orcas have an 88-100% increase in communication calls, indicating interference from outside noises.
During a break in the meeting, NOAA representative Donna Barm said she had taken a whale watch cruise this summer out of Anacortes and that other people on the boat were excited to see the whales, even though they were 330 yards away, indicating the 200 yard rule would not hinder whale watch tours.
In addition to a no-go zone, NOAA's proposal would prohibit vessels, including kayaks, from approaching within 200 yards of a killer whale — an increase of 100 yards — and from getting within 400 yards of the forward path of any killer whale. Government and research vessels, fishing boats and ships traveling in approved shipping lanes would be exempt from distance regulations. Tribal fisheries would be exempt from the no-go zone because of treaties between their governments and the United States.
NOAA is tasked with developing and implementing a recovery plan for the Southern Residents, which were listed as endangered under federal law in 2005.
They will also get feedback at a meeting in Friday Harbor on Oct. 5.

...and you should consider doing a cc to your county, state (including WDFW), and federal elected officials when you send your comments to NOAA-F.

I was there last night and put simply, if we care at all about all of our fishing rights, be it fresh or salt water, I highly encourage people to attend the next meeting in Seattle.

Hearing what NOAA had to say last night and how headstrong and robotic they seemed, was actually pretty disturbing. Comments were made that insinuated that perhaps in the near future that their data would lead them to closing down more areas of the Sound. But as for now, their data does not show the need for it.

If they get their foot in the door, without out public outcry, these impending closures are more real than we can imagine.

(stepping off soap box now)

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.

We need to stuff the Aquarium Wednesday night! If anybody needs a ride from the Everett/Lake Stevens area let me know!

Potentially this is the most important meeting for the future of fishing in our area you'll ever attend!

Nelly, do you know if anyone is set to be recording this one? We made the mistake in Anacortes and failed to get any of it recorded.

No clue... I'm bringing my video camera though...
I hope NOAA knows that they are not gonna shut us down without a knock-down-drag out...

It would be wise to think carefully about what Twodogs has pointed out. There is abundant evidence that the Orcas rely on Chinook as a primary food source. If fishermen argue too loudly that restricted vessel access in a limited area is unfair there will be little public support in the event that salmon fishing is restricted in Puget Sound to protect the orcas food source. I think in the next month or two the final decision on listing some Puget Sound rockfish is due. If there is a listing it is probable that the next step will be several Marine Protected Areas with fishing restrictions. I think it is in the best interest of the sports fishing community to be more involved in solving the problems. It will involve some sacrifices but the outcome may be better than fighting to keep fishing as usual. There is no doubt that the public will choose to support regulations to protect the orcas regardless of the impacts on sports fishing.

I've wondered if there might be a correlation between the increase/cutbacks in hatchery production and the population numbers (up/down) of the southern resident Orcas over the years. From the early 1950s through the mid/late 1980s, the Dept of Fisheries released billions of salmon (fry,fingerlings,smolts, yearlings) in the Puget Sound basin.

Could be. When the hacteries started to pump out Chinook it probably increased the overall numbers. It is also possible that the delayed release progarm, which kept fish in the Sound and increased the toxin loads in the fish, may have increased the body burden in the whales.

Another thing to at least ponder is that, if we are rather unwilling to let the wild Chinook runs to increase to feed the whales we may have to use the hatchery fish for that.

I wonder as well if this is in some way tied into the Chinook Harvest Management Plan. However, what is at stake here is if they create one MPA, there is nothing to prevent them from establishing more within the Puget Sound, and soon there may be limited or no fishing within the Islands or elsewhere.

There was a fantastic turnout at the Anacortes meeing, however, they were unorganized and none of the fabulous comments and questions were recorded as public record unless you provided them written comments at the end of the meeting or by email.

I would first suggest that enormous amounts of people attend this Wednesday's meeting in Seattle, second write out your comments and concerns and email them to Lynne and lastly copy Sen. Rick Larsen and your local representatives.

Their econcomic analysis is flawed, dated and conducted by a Massachusets firm and there appears to be no direct scientific evidence linking recreation fishing to the decline of the orcas.

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Marine-Mammals/W...enderforprint=1

The part that disturbs me the most is that the controls are one-sided. Non-Indian fishing, non-Indian whale watching. Tribes keep on keeping on.

Either an activity is damaging or it isn't. If the activity is damaging, then it is stopped. For all who do it.

My god CM the tribes influence has gotten to the point that they damn near picked the director via the governor's office. In the world of PC conduct nobody is going to challenge them anyway anyhow not in this state.

Read the article linked in the post, " Killer whales dine on chinook salmon,endanger them" by Phoneix77. The article mentions the toxins in the orcas but doesn't explore where they come from other than chinook. The NOAA Northwest Science Center has been studying this for the past several years. The delayed release chinook have some of the highest toxin loads of any salmon in the world including farmed fish. As TwoDogs pointed out the issue of pollution in Puget Sound has to be addressed as part of any program to protect orcas. The article should serve as a warning to fishermen, the easiest way to provide more chinook for the orcas is to stop fishing for chinook. Restricting vessel access in a limited area may not be to sports fishers liking but it is more desirable than a total closure of chinook fishing in the sound.

makes me want to vomit

EXACTLY!

All they need is a foot in our door then it's the complete remodel soon to follow.

I think that the ones who are saying to allow them this area, clearly, do not fish or frequent this area. So, in a sense, it's no skin off their back.

It's the big picture. They take a little bit at a time, then soon, they have it all. Doing so with no scientific data the substantiate their decision making as well.

I think there is a real possibility that both will happen and I am not suggesting that there shouldn't be public input to the process. As TwoDogs pointed out this rule is not about fishing. If the only argument against the rule is that fishing will be restricted then you lose. The arguments have to address faults in the studies that NOAA is using to back up this rule or provide evidence vessel traffic is not a major problem. One could argue that until steps are taken to reduce the pollution that cause the orcas high toxic loads other protective steps are futile. One could also argue that more effort should be made to increase chinook populations so that the orcas would utilize much more of Puget Sound in the summer. Whatever the arguments against the rule are you have to be aware of the ESA provisions. If NOAA determines that vessel traffic violates the ESA they are required to take action.

My point, and I think TwoDogs, is that emotional arguments are not enough and that a better approach is to work towards some sort of compromise rule. Think about Spotted Owls and the result of the battles against ESA protection. My favorite example of never backing down or compromise is the fight against tribal fishing rights by AuntyM's favorite ex senator and then WA attorney general. He passed up several settlement proposals, instead taking the tribes to federal court. We all know the result, the Boldt decision, the tribes won far more than they were asking for.