NOTE:This is a copy of a report submitted to San Juan County Commissioners by Mark R. Anderson, Executive Director of Orca Relief Citizens' Alliance.
posted 03/20/01
To The County Commissioners
San Juan County
Review of Comments by Interested Parties on the Decline of Local Orca
We have reviewed the materials presented prior to and during the workshop on Orca mortality issues held by the county Marine Resources Committee, and would like to offer these comments for your consideration. This process has clearly taken us beyond the "Do boats affect whales?" discussion, and into one regarding what is the best course of action for the County in its attempt to prevent the continued decline and/or extinction of the local Orca population.
All local data taken to date (which remain incomplete) indicate a direct relationship between changes in Orca behavior and the presence of boats. This includes work by Jodi Smith, Dr. Birgit Kriete, and David Louen. We are forwarding a list of Scientists On The Record who have publicly stated their understanding of a relationship between Orca mortality and boat interactions.
Mark Spalding, a self-proclaimed pro-whale-watching advocate, and professor at UCSD with extensive experience in whale watching issues worldwide, put it this way in a public discussion Thursday at Skagit Valley College: "There is no question there are short-term impacts on whales of whale watching, including behavioral changes, dives, breathing, and flight. And until we have proven that there is no long-term impact, we should exercise caution. -- Orca do exhibit behavioral changes when chased by boats. It is only common sense not to pursue, or encircle, the whales."
He continued, in response to a question from boat operator Bill Wright, to describe a regulated whale watching venue where a reduction in pressure by boats led to an increase in responsiveness by the whales:
"In Mexico [when watching grey whales], you must disengage your motor, and you cannot leave until the whale is gone.":
Spalding's description of one of the greatest regulatory successes in the world is almost exactly the behavior our proposal against whale chasing suggests for San Juan County. We confirmed this with him in a subsequent discussion.
The Whale Watch Operators Association Northwest is unable to patrol non-association boats, which represent over half of the infringing craft today. External enforcement, such as that considered by the County, is the only technique that will assure non-harassment by private, Association, and commercial non-Association boats.
Our top scientists say toxins do not appear to be the primary cause of current Orca mortality. While those receiving direct pay from the local Whale Watching Association consistently present the opposite case, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that toxins are killing whales. In the words of Dr. Peter Ross, quoted in Discover magazine last month: "Critics are technically correct in saying that we do not have strong evidence that PCBs in particular are adversely affecting these marine mammals [Orca]." It is more than technical: there is no evidence of any whale being killed directly by toxins.
Contrary to the Orca population, for which we have only one timeslice of data, the Puget Sound seal population has been studied in terms of PCBs and effects for decades. The result, released last month at the Conference on Puget Sound Water Quality in Bellevue:
- PCBs have been declining in Sound waters and sediments since the banning of point sources in the 1960s;
- After accumulating up the food chain into the seal population [which share prey and water with Orca], PCB concentrations are now on the decline in seals, and have been for a number of years;
- The seal population, despite having similarly high PCB concentrations, with equally-dangerous potential effects on reproduction and immune function, is exploding in number.
There are two "takeaways" from this science: PCB concentrations are dropping in a fellow top (blubber-carrying) predator in the marine food chain; and, even at these elevated concentrations, population size is rocketing.
Dr. Doug DeMaster, head of the National Marine Mammal Laboratory, went on the record at the Orca Forum in Friday Harbor in late 2000: "Toxins are not the primary cause of death in this Orca population." Nor, he added, was human take of the whales in earlier decades to be considered the cause.
Although Orca deaths may be caused by all or many contributing factors, adding boat interaction stress to an already-declining population can only increase the death rate. Dr. David Bain explained this in terms of decreased carrying capacity caused by boat interactions, in his first presentation to the Marine Resource Committee. Just prior to this meeting, he appeared on National Public Radio with me and estimated the potential energy cost to the whales from boat stress to be in the realm of 10-13% of their total energy budget. This means eating more fish to stay alive because of boats. Dr. Birgit Kriete has suggested that noise from boats may be driving fish away from the whales, even as they need to eat more to compensate for the stress.
Summary: one does not have to have final scientific answers regarding what is killing our whales, to understand that increased stress and biological harassment will hasten their demise. Conversely, one does not need to have a complete understanding of contributing factors to their decline to understand that reducing stress and biological harassment is the only way in which we can currently hope to improve death rates. (Increasing fish populations will take many years, and there is no known scientific method today to accelerate the ongoing decline of PCB concentrations in Sound waters. According to William Ruckelshaus, past EPA director and head of the state Salmon Initiative and the World Resources Institute, 85% of toxins in the Sound today come from non-point sources.)
We would like to have it entered into the record that the following people and institutions are directly receiving payments from the Whale Watching Association. The Whale Museum receives thousands of dollars per year that directly support Soundwatch and its personnel. Soundwatch is run by Dr. Richard Osborne and Kari Koski. Dr. David Bain has applied for work under the Museum's Seasound program this summer, administered by Dr. Osborne. Museum staff often work as paid naturalists on whale watch boats. None of these people may claim to be financially objective on the question of boat/whale interactions, and, indeed, their testimony consistently runs counter to that of world-class scientists from elsewhere who are not so employed.
It is worth noting that the Museum's board of directors not long ago included the first whale watch "spotter" pilot. In its early days, the Museum refused to release data from its hotline on whale locations for 24 hours to protect the whales; today, the Museum advertises whale watching trips on its homepage.
Despite Museum staff's insistence that boats have no effects on whales, the Museum Web site says this: "The long-term impacts from [boat-induced underwater] noise pollution would not likely show up as noticeable behavioral changes in habitat use, but rather as sensory damage or gradual reduction in population health."
In your testimony materials, you have a paper written by Dr. Osborne suggesting that the whales would have left the area if boat interactions were adversely affecting the population. From a science perspective, it is equally (or more) likely that whales in need of food would not leave. More important, whales do not leave their territory even when repeatedly hunted and captured by humans, as was proved in the 1960's and 1970's in Puget Sound waters. Osborne's argument is simply not based on science. He said as much in his last slide, in which one of the possible data interpretations is that not leaving could be consistent with extreme stress levels, caused by boats.
The Whale Museum is obviously an institution in commercial conflict with its past scientific roots, and their statements on boat/whale interactions are directly contradicted by virtually every other scientist in the field, all of whom believe that boat interactions have a negative impact on the whales, and many of whom include this negative impact as contributing to death rates. We append a list in support of this statement.
The people of San Juan County have already made their opinion clear: they have asked you to make the chasing of whales in County waters illegal. They did not ask for more study, or more comments by those taking money from those making money from the whales, even as they decline. The whales are dying now, and they want this particular action taken now in an attempt to slow, or to arrest that process.
The Marine Resources' Committee Workshop
We would like to start by thanking Dr. Richard Osborne for his personal apology to us the morning of this event, insofar as four out of five panel members came from the whale-watch side of this discussion (Rich was part of the agenda committee, but apparently was not in attendance during final deliberations). We do need to point out that this was indeed the case, and that no one other than Kelley Balcomb-Bartok on this morning panel represented other than the whale watchers' point of view.
Being excluded from presenting at the MRC Workshop, when our proposal was its cause, is baffling at best. More important, the petitioners from San Juan County whom we represent need to be included in this decision-making process, if there is to be any final agreement representing their interests.
Following are responses to specific comments made during the MRC workshop:
Kelley Balcomb-Bartok described the cultural and historical view of local Orca; whale watch operators association officials Mike Bennett and Dan Kukat described their concern and operations. No major new initiatives were tabled, although there were suggestions that revised association guidelines are coming.
Kari Koski, Presentation on Soundwatch, Compliance Through Education:
Kari's presentation highlighted the difficulty in The Whale Museum's position. While showing data that indicated a doubling in negative boat/whale incidents over two years along the west side of San Juan, she told a story of improved conditions for the whales. When the audience expressed skepticism regarding this conclusion, she and Rich Osborne made disparaging comments about their own data-gathering techniques in an effort to keep the story alive.
Kari was asked to release Soundwatch data on whale watch boat overall behaviors, so that consumers could judge for themselves and select the most responsibly-behaving boats for their trips. She and Rich Osborne declined to do this, saying they feared lawsuits by boat operators. This point probably deserves further thought by the Commissioners: could harassment data from Soundwatch be released to, say, the Commissioners, who themselves could release the data to the public? We believe the public has the right to know which operators use best practices, and which are consistently violating guidelines.
This single presentation and reaction goes to the heart of the problem: science - even Soundwatch's own science - indicates serious boat/whale problems, but those in the business (or too close to it financially) are not able to accept it.
Rich Osborne, Long Term Effects On Habitat Use
Rich's thesis - because the whales are still here, boat interactions must not be causing stress or death - were refuted in the prior MRC hearing, and again at this one. When questioned by Fred Felleman and others in the audience, Rich agreed that the whales do not leave even when repeatedly herded (occasionally killed) and captured. This historic fact moots his arguments.
Rich also showed a chart indicating a small decline in number of boats on the whales over the last 2-3 years. We would like to suggest that, given what is currently understood about boat/Orca interactions, this is no cause for comfort. With the average number of boats on the whales 23 over the past year, and with numbers ranging as high as 75-100 at any given time, a decline in the average at these levels probably has little meaning in terms of positive impact. Indeed, with research indicating a single boat changes Orca pod behavior, and with indications in Smith's work that the whales stop appear to "give up on" avoidance behaviors after 17-18 boats present, reducing boats from, say, 26 to 23 on average, would still put the boat count above any possible stress tolerance level we see in the whales themselves.
In simple terms, if the whales are already showing avoidance behavior at 1-4 boats (Smith and others), reducing the number from, say, 26 average to 23 average, may have no effect at all.
At this stage, we would like to make an additional point, taken from earlier comments by whale-watch association presenters: if the central item of the operators' argument in favor of continuing the current system is one of "leading-edge self regulation, and third party [Soundwatch] observation," this relationship must be more objective and arms-length than exists today. Protecting scofflaws would not be part of that process.
Bill Hebner, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Enforcement Responsibilities
Bill did not come prepared to present at length, as he himself stated. His most interesting comments, touched on by others later in the day:
- "We are available."
- "State regulations don't address this situation."
- "We can be deputized by the National Marine Fisheries Service, and we could enforce federal statues [such as whale harassment enforcement regulations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act].
Brent Norberg, NMFS, Regulatory and Enforcement Context
Brent described the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which says one may not "take, harass, capture or kill", and which prohibits "any act of pursuit, torment or annoyance with the intent to disturb by causing disruption of behavior patterns, breathing, feeding, nursing, migration --"
We would like to pause here to comment that this law clearly prohibits chasing of whales, and that documented changes in breathing and track, as noted at the MRC workshop by Smith are clear violations of federal law. These violations occur daily, without enforcement.
Norberg noted that regional guidelines, such as distance requirements, are not regulations under the MMPA.
Brent specifically said that "boats should not herd or chase whales." And that, "Within 100 yards, they should be in neutral."
Regarding the County's ability to create legislation that does not conflict with federal law, Norberg left the door open; he said,
"While the concept of "take" is reserved to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, there may be ways [for the County] to address regulations in a manner that doesn't regulate "taking;" that might work."
Tom Shuler, NMFS Enforcement, also spoke.
Seeming to encourage local action, he said that solutions "all start in a forum like this. If it can't be solved locally, it may be kicked up to the MMPA."
He suggested that boat licensing was an excellent tool, as licenses can be withdrawn in case of violations. He finished with: "Who's going to regulate? If you have someone who can do that, it's a great step forward."
David Bain, UW and The Whale Museum, spoke on Vessel Noise Impact on Whales.
Bain gave a detailed scientific description of boat noise propagation in water, and its effects upon Orca.
We would like to insert a comment here: Bain's description of this key issue was the best we have heard anywhere, and it is worth noting that the whale watch operators were also extremely interested in his findings. This is probably a fertile area for continued exploration.
Among his statements:
- At 120db sound levels, one half of Orca will change their behavior in ways obvious to a surface observer.
- "Masking Effects" from boat motors can make it harder for Orca to find food.
- "Temporary threshold shifts" (reduced hearing ability) in Orca occur as a result of temporary exposure to boat noise, and
- "permanent threshold shifts" (permanent hearing loss) in Orca occur as a result of increased noise levels or prolonged exposure.
- Result:"Whales may have a harder time finding food."
- Immediate injury can be caused by yet louder sounds.
- Boat Noise:
Bain categorized noise from boats:
170db at source (1m.), outboard motors
150db at source, slower running
Intensity drops by about 20 db (from these levels) at 50 yards, and 40 db at 100 yards.
He stated that:
"Frequencies used for Orca communication are similar to those emitted by outboards," also noting that
Echolocation frequencies used by Orca are in the 15k-20k range.
Masking effects tend to preferentially degrade higher frequencies in hearing.
With multiple boats present, sound intensities "would be additive," but not linear.
"The major effect of multiple boats is the increased likelihood of being closer to any given motor."
He summarized by saying that a typical 165db outboard sound, creating an 18db threshold hearing shift in Orca, could reduce echolocation abilities of the whales to as little as 3-4% of normal abilities. Obviously, impacts of this magnitude could have equally large impacts on catching fish, for which echolocation is a primary tool.
As the facilitator noted, all of this means that boat sound at legal (100 yard) distances can be a violation of the MMPA, since it can cause observable changed whale behavior at that distance. This would mean that local regional 100 yard guidelines currently in use for Orca are too close. If distance-based guidelines were not inherently unenforceable, as noted by Brent Norberg in his enforcement review, we would suggest the development of new guidelines based upon sound, and not sight.
Finally, we would like to suggest what may be a reasonable metaphor for understanding current boat impacts, and one more comprehensible to land mammals such as ourselves: imagine studying - or enjoying - wolves (a top mammalian predator) by using motorcycles (the engines are often the same as outboards). Imagine following the same wolf family with 20-40 motorcycles, from dawn till dusk, four to five months a year. (The major difference: wolves don't depend as strongly upon sound.) Would anyone still be wondering if there were any impact?
Jodi Smith, Orca Conservancy, Whale/Boat Interaction Research, San Juan Island
Jodi repeatedly stated that "the toughest part of this work has been getting whale tracks with no boats." She noted that even a research regime involving 5 a.m. rising did not produce more than a small number of boat-free individual whale tracks per year. Her team regularly logs whale tracks on the west side of San Juan from dawn until dusk.
We would like to insert a comment: Jodi's difficulty should be taken directly as a measure of the time exposure of the whales to whale watching. With research boats from the Center for Whale Research and spotter boats from the commercial fleet arriving as early as seven in the morning, and with final commercial operators leaving Snug Harbor and elsewhere as late as sunset, the whales appear not to have any serious daylight time, for a five month period, when they are not accompanied by motorboats.
Here is her finding on Orca behavior with and without boats:
"When whales are alone, they travel in a line. When you add boats, they move away from that line." Jodi showed tracks taken of J1, with no boats present, vs L1, with (only) four boats present, to illustrate her point. The first track was straight along the coast; the second showed constant turning, as though in avoidance.
She noted that when the number reached 17-18 boats, Orca seemed to revert to straight-line travel again, as though there were simply no longer any successful strategy for avoiding boats at that number.
We would like to insert a comment here: Commissioner Evans asked for a repetition of this statement, implying that he thought some comfort could be taken from whales swimming straight in a group of boats so large that evasive strategies had been given up. We would strongly argue against such an interpretation; all indications from other studies of stress show that removing the ability to avoid stress adds greatly to the physiological consequences. In this case, the ability to avoid is being coupled with increased stress sources. There should be little doubt that the overall impact on the whales is increased, regardless of track, and not decreased.
We would also like to note that Jodi did not discuss respiration rates. Scientific studies on Northern Orca have found increased swimming speed, avoidance, and increased respiration rates are all coupled to the presence of even a single boat.
Summary: Although Jodi's work is not yet complete, it is clear from her findings that boats affect whale behavior.
We would hope this, as well as all of the other science on the subject, will put an end to comments to the contrary by Museum staff; but we suspect it will not. The Museum partially funds Jodi's work, through equipment donation, and has been aware of these results for some time.
Paul Wade, NMFS, National Marine Mammal Laboratory
Paul noted that Southern Resident Orca are a genetically distinct population, and that the earliest measured size of about 100 "was probably not the maximum population" historically.
One of his first, and most interesting comments, was this:
"There was no mortality at all in females in the 11-41 age group until the year 1998." This applies to the full 25+ years of study of this population.
He noted that calf survival was "pretty good," and later noted that "fecundity had not been greatly effected." (Note: good calf survival and higher fecundity argues against toxins as a primary source of death for Orca.)
As for potential effects caused by human take in earlier decades, he stated that "the population is now recovered. The decline since 1995 is not a function of live captures." We would note that Dr. Doug DeMaster, head of this lab, made the same comment at the Orca Forum a few months ago.
We would like to insert a comment: these Marine Mammal Laboratory scientists, who are better-trained than local researchers on these issues, and more exposed to the related science regarding Puget Sound marine life, consistently disagree with the whale-watch-supported group idea that toxins or take is the largest problem in whale deaths.
Randy Gaylord, Prosecuting Attorney, Local Enforcement Perspectives
Randy discussed the requirements for successful drafting of local whale management legislation, noting that it would have to have a local aspect or "flavor." In the case of the County jet ski ordinance, "recreational activity" provided this aspect, vs. the issue of longer travel, for which an exception was made in that law.
He stressed that "we don't have to show a scientific proof regarding the problem, but we DO have to show rational reason."
His key issues, in order, were:
1. Are the whales bothered at all?
2. What by? Noise, surface movement, fuel, salmon, chasing -- Noting again, "We don't have to reach agreement."
3. What conduct is regulated? What is allowed? Vessels involved in interstate commerce would, he said, be an obvious exception, as well as those involved in foreign commerce. He noted that this "could" be construed to include Canadian whale watch boats, but was not sure.
The Legal Context: From the comments by both federal (Norberg) and County (Gaylord) officials, we believe there is a relatively clear path for creating a County whale management ordinance, which both meets the federal requirement of not transgressing on issues of whale "taking," and meets the County Prosecutor's guidelines.
It seems to us that use of the "recreational activity" aspect again might provide just such a path for local control - one which has already been sustained at the State Supreme Court level. We will note again past State Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Guy's comment that following the same basic precepts in this case could prove successful.
Sheriff Bill Cumming, same subject.
Bill noted that his department has "no resources to put out on the water." He discussed this in some detail.
We would like to note, as we have in the past, that we do not believe there is any need for on-water enforcement of a No Whale Chasing County ordinance, since videotapes would provide adequate evidence. Not putting police on the water should in no way prevent the passage of a local ordinance.
Marc Pakenham, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the British Columbia Experience
Marc's primary focus was on international cooperation. He described the efforts in Canada to develop a working model among all constituencies for implementing whale management regulations and law changes, and expressed a strong willingness to work with us in the U.S. on this and any related matters.
We would recommend that the County initiate cooperative long-term planning and implementation with Marc's group, but that this in no way be allowed to slow the County's own attempts to arrest the population decline in the short term. We note that the Canadian populations are not facing the same pressures, nor rapid declines, as Southern whales.
This marked the end of the Workshop, and this is the end of our comments on presentations to date. Members of ORCA are sending separate documents with their own perspectives.
We hope that these notes and summaries bring us all closer to taking action which will halt the decline in the Orca population.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Anderson
Executive Director
Appendix A:
SCIENTISTS ON THE RECORD:
BOAT INTERACTIONS ARE A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR TO WHALE MORTALITY
Doug DeMaster, Ph.D., National Marine Fisheries Service,
Director, Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle
Kenneth C. Balcomb, researcher. Center for Whale Research,
Friday Harbor, WA
David E. Bain, Ph.D., University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Robin Baird, Ph.D., Victoria, B.C. Canada and University of Dalhousie
Andrew W. Trites, Ph.D., marine mammal scientist, University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Canada
also (non-scientist)
Kieran Suckling, Executive Director, SW Center for Biological Diversity (authors of the
Orca Endangered Species Act application)
SCIENTISTS ON THE RECORD:
BOATS HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON WHALES
John Ford, Ph.D., resident marine mammal scientist. Vancouver
Public Aquarium, Vancouver, B.C. Canada (quoted in Discover)
Jodi Smith, Orca Conservancy, Friday Harbor, WA
Christine Erbe, Institute for Ocean Sciences, Victoria, BC
Lance G. Barrett-Lennard, Ph.D. University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, B.C. Canada
Birgit Kriete, Ph.D., marine mammal researcher, Friday Harbor, WA
Also (non-scientist):
Mark Spalding, Professor, Graduate School of Business,
University of California at San Diego, whale-watching promoter.
Selected Quotes From Researchers:
Jodi Smith:
"As a researcher looking specifically at the interactions between individual whales and boats, I must say that I have seen reactions to different boater behavior. I can name individuals and their responses to leapfrogging, chasing, and close encounters at a particular moment. The risks of this harassment may not seem critical for the total population, until you consider what stress could potentially do to a currently pregnant female or growing young, juvenile animals. Reducing the costs on this population, obvious or not, short- or long-term, through sound management practices is what I encourage San Juan County to do." (Letter to the San Juan Marine Resource Committee, January 17, 2001)
Lance G. Barrett-Lennard
"Killer whale subpopulations should be considered discrete units for the purposes of conservation ... this makes each subpopulation inherently vulnerable to changes in local environmental conditions."
"Their populations are therefore slow to respond numerically to changes in reproductive and mortality rates even if those changes have profound long-term consequences. In addition, because populations are small, short-term trends are driven by the random timing of birth and deaths."
"Because the effect of factors such as contaminant and noise pollution, reductions in food supply, and human disturbance could take years to be detected even with comprehensive monitoring, an extremely cautious approach to conservation is indicated."
"It is my hope and recommendation that the MRC promote conservation policies that recognize the inherent vulnerability of killer whales and ensure that whale watching and other activities are conducted in a manner that minimizes their potential negative impact on whale populations." (Letter from Dr. Lance G. Barrett-Lennard to the MRC, March 10, 2001)
Quotes from David Bain and Andrew Trites:
"A number of cetacean studies have shown that whale watching causes short-term behavioral changes in individuals, but none have yet demonstrated long-term population effects. this is particularly true of killer whales." p1
"Studies of the effects of vessels on the behavior of northern and southern resident killer whales in B.C. have been conducted for two decades and have found significant short-term behavioral effects." p 1
"Other significant factors may be vessel size, activity and engine noise, as well as age and tolerances of individual killer whales." p. 1
In 1990, pods of killer whales in southern BC were accompanied by an average of 4 vessels at any one time during summer daylight hours, By 1997, the number had grown to 25 vessels at one time." p.2
"To a killer whale, most boats must seem noisy. Underwater noise may inflict pain on marine mammals, and may disrupt feeding and communication between whales. Similarly, the cumulative effect of inhaling diesel fumes or ingesting oil may prove toxic over time; and of course collisions with vessels can result in injury or death." p.3
"Avoiding vessels may be energetically expensive and required an animal to eat more. Maintaining vigilance against vessels may also reduce the amount of food consumed." p. 3
"Killer whales swam 1.48 times faster when vessels were present ...there was also a correlation between swimming speed and number of boats within 400m of the whales." p4
"Rates of surface-active behavior increased between 3-4 times when a single boat closely approached (within 50m)." p.4
"Vessels affected the movement of whales." p.4
"Over the long term, vessel activity on killer whales may be expected in increase mortality, reduce reproduction, or lead to a change in distribution patterns." p.5
"Mortality of killer whales in the southern population has increased, and this population does sustain higher levels of whale-watching activity than any other." p.5
"Whale behavior was no different in 1985 compared with 1995, and that no habituation has taken place, or conversely, no additional habituation has occurred since 1985." p 6
" Males travel 13% farther in the presence of whale watching traffic than when on their own. This extra distance traveled would lead to extra energy consumption." p.7
David Bain and Ken Balcomb
"Four candidates are often mentioned as potential causes for the [Orca] decline, and all may play some role. These are: disruption of the age structure by collections for public display; a reduction in carrying capacity due to reduced food supply; increased mortality and reduced fecundity due to exposure to toxic chemicals; and disturbance by extensive whale watching traffic (Baird 1999)."
Rich Osborne:
"If the Southern Resident orcas are compared with the ecologically identical Northern Resident Community that frequents Johnstone Strait and who currently number over 215, then the present population of 83 Southern Residents is a half-to-a-third of its natural population size. This small population size means the southern residents will be less resilient; they will be more sensitive to all disturbances and will take longer to recover under favorable conditions. Although there is little that can be done about this historical condition - it is probably the primary explanation for why the population is so low at this present." p. 2
"Despite extensive field measurement on the ways whale watching vessel traffic might alter or interfere with orca surface behavior, many findings have been conflicting and the measurable effects that have been identified to date are extremely small." p.2
"To date, long-term effects upon habitat use of Southern Resident orcas has not shown any indication of change clearly due to whale watching; the whales still frequent the most heavily whale watched areas during the peak seasons and the peak times of day." p.3
"The most conclusive study undertaken in Johnstone Strait did find consistent small effects on swimming direction relative the whale watching boats, if males and females were separated out in the analysis. When this effect was extrapolated to overall energy expenditure of the orcas, it accounted for roughly a 10% increase in the energy expenditure of the whales relative to what would be expected if no vessels were present." p.3
"A recent study of whale watching vessel noise in Haro Strait by Canadian oceanographer Christine Erbe (2000) indicates the cumulative effect of multiple vessels exhibits simulated levels that would be expected to cause interference and potentially even hearing damage to orcas." p.3
"No long-term effects on the surface behavior or habitat use have been measured for these whales relative to whale watching vessel traffic ." p.3
"Whether boaters bother and stress Orcas to the point that they would begin to die off seems unlikely, Osborne says. Informal study suggests that the boats do not unduly tax the Orcas, which do not seem to behave differently around boats."-- Discover magazine, February, 2001.
John Ford
"We have to control those things we can control," Ford says. And those things are the other two potential - and controversial - culprits in the [Orca] decline: boat traffic and food supply.' -- Discover magazine, February, 2001.
Christine Erbe
"Erbe is concerned about hearing damage that could occur after 20 minutes of being within one kilometer of a boat traveling 22 to 32 knots. The continuous presence of boats near the whales - day after day during whale-watching season, year after year - also worries Erbe." -- Discover magazine, February, 2001
|