I should have asked first, Noggin... can you give us some pointers?
This is what I wrote, hop it helps someone who's at a loss of what to say. Something is better than nothing
Question 1:
Yes, it is very important to weigh in the necessary amount of protection based on science versus the desired over-protection by "environmentalist" anti-consumption groups. It is not neccesary to shut down the entire coastline to accomplish management for a small number of whales in an extremely large area, the closure seems only to cater to the animal rights movement based on human emotion,and not science.
Question 2:
Yes, I am a sport fisherman and it is imperative that the government allows the sport fishery to remain open. Closing the area down will cause un-necessary heavy pressure in other areas of the west coast and un-necessarily create problems elsewhere. The chinook salmon fishery in the north is currently in a state of concern from poor management decisions of the DFO and does not need additional heavy fishing pressure. The west coast sport fishery generates both massive amounts of income and jobs for both the country of Canada and province of British Columbia, and as well as intense pleasure by those persons who partake in the fishery.
Please recognize the importance of sport fishery and strive to keep it compatible with whales as it has for many, many decades.
Question 3:
(quotation of draft)
3.3.1 Global
Little is known of the historic abundance of Killer Whales, except that they were “not numerous” (Scammon 1874). Since the early 1970s, photo-identification studies have provided reasonable population estimates for Killer Whales in the near-shore waters of the northeastern Pacific (Washington, BC, Alaska, and California), and similar work is now underway in several other coastal regions (e.g. the Gulf of California, the Russian Far East, New Zealand, Patagonia, Iceland, and Norway). In other areas line transect surveys have been used to provide population estimates. These include the Antarctic (25,000 whales, Branch and Butterworth 2001) and the Eastern Tropical Pacific (8,500 whales, Wade and Gerrodette 1993). As such, the worldwide abundance of Killer Whales is probably between 40,000 and 60,000 whales (Forney and Wade 2006). Trend data for Killer Whales are generally not available, with the exception of Killer Whales in BC (discussed below) and southern Alaskan Residents (population thought to be generally increasing, Matkin et al. 2008) and for a small population of Transients in Prince William Sound (AT1s, currently in decline, not likely to recover, Saulitis et al. 2002).
Section 3.3.1 is reason and proof enough that this whole process is a sham and does not represent sound science. Science must be proven without a reasonable doubt prior to enacting heavy and likely permanent restrictions. Top of the food chain predatory species are never overly abundant, nor should they be, it is basic management that the predators remain in check that they do not put un-necessary strain on prey species.
3.3.1
"...Little is known of the historic abundance of Killer Whales, except that they were “not numerous” (Scammon 1874)..."
In all likelihood, as a top of the food chain predator, the killer whale was never abundant even when the prey species were very abundant.
WE MUST NOT MAKE SUCH AN OVER-RESTRICTIVE POLICY/LAW IN LIGHT OF SUCH POOR, SUBJCTIVE, AND MOST SPECUALTIVE "SCIENCE".
3.3.1
"...As such, the worldwide abundance of Killer Whales is probably between 40,000 and 60,000 whales (Forney and Wade 2006)..."
The world population of killer whales remains stable as it likely has been throughout history.
We must not make sweeping decisions such as this proposed policy/draft document proposes with so much speculation included.
As the policy states, the Canadian populations have been increasing slowly and implies this whole new policy is both redundant, over-restrictive, and un-necessary.
The draft document identifies that the government would like to see an increase in the prey species(salmon). This can easily be achieved by reining in the commercial harvest of salmon, particularly of breeding stock in native nets. The native sustenance fishery can continue, however, the commercial aspect of the native fishery must stop. The government needs to restrict the natives in order to manage the resource.
As the recreational fishery dwarfs the commercial fishery in terms of money generated, it is desirable to continue the sport industry which employs the most people and generates the most income. If anything should be restricted, it should be the commercial fishery as it impacts the last number of people and generates the least income.
|