Courtesy The Island Guardian
A large crowd filled the Friday Harbor High School Commons room Monday night to listen to a NOAA presentation on the proposed No-Go-Zone for the west side of San Juan Island, and then listen to each other give testimony that, for the most part, was critical of the NOAA plan, while supportive of action to protect the Orca.
What that action should be, to what extent, and why it is necessary, framed most of the comments from the public. Bob Wilson said he has watched as whale watching boats went from none, to “flotillas of boats”, and cautioned “we should not punish everyone, and blanket this area,…because we cannot police this action…it would be like outlawing all cars because of a few speeders.”
There were repeated comments that if something is not done about the lack of Chinook salmon, the orca would continue to decline. And without enforcement of regulations, there is no point of having a No-Go-Zone.
Ken Balcomb of Orca Survey has been up-close and personal with the orca, having conducted photo-identification contracts of the orcas to help keep track of the population. Balcomb stated contrary to what some may think, “it makes no difference to the whales” if the NOAA proposal is passed. He said the problem is a lack of fish.
Jack Giard, a member of the Frasier River Panel of the Pacific Salmon Commission, told NOAA the proposed No-Go area is the main supply of fish for the commercial fishing industry," but that it is pink salmon -not the Chinook the orca need- that is the catch taken by non-tribal commercial fishing
While the Whale Museum staff and board members were out in force, and in general support of the NOAA proposal, the commercial and sport fisherman, whale watching groups, and orca support and protection groups were for the most part critical of NOAA’s lack of enforcement of existing regulations and laws, and questioned how imposing new laws would help solve the problem.
A number of speakers questioned the lack of supporting science for the proposal, and the appropriateness of science used as a basis for the proposal. Studies on porpose and sea lions as justification for the proposal were given by several speakers as examples of the lack of proper supporting science.
The lack of adequate, and peer-reviewed science, was a repeated issue. One speaker stated there was no evidence of adverse impacts due to sport fishing; while others stated the science is clear that the orca are starving, and there are negative impacts from vessel noise.
Mark Anderson of Orca Relief said “the science is clear: the whales are dying of starvation; and boats accelerate starvation; chemicals don’t.”
If there was one area of almost universal agreement, it was the need for enforcement of regulations, without which, it was said, there would be little compliance. On the other hand there was testimony that existing voluntary guidelines in conjunction with education from whale watch operators were working well, and the No-Go-Zone was not necessary, would not be effective in any case, and would remove a platform for education of the public.
Overall there was general praise for the direct contacts of offending boats made by Sound Watch volunteers from the Whale Museum; who in turn made a pitch to NOAA for support and funding.
The County Council was represented by Chair Rich Peterson, who read the main points of a “Preliminary Comment to NOAA” Letter, outlining the official San Juan County response to the No-Go-Zone.
Peterson said the three main points were that rules be enforced fairly to both “U.S. and Canadian, international and tribal vessels…that a 7 knot speed limit be imposed within 400 yards of whales within the inland waters of the state” and there be “an aggressive program of education, coupled with enforcement..”
The County Council letter included attachments of The Marine Resources Committee **(MRC) Report and recommendations against the No-Go-Zone, and County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord’s Letter to Representative Rick Larsen pdf (275\k file) on an international treaty that may sink the whole NOAA plan.
NOAA links to Regulations on Vessel Effects ; and the public may e-mail comments to NOAA at: