Photo: NOAA/NMFS #21114
Last week, our Science Director, Joe Gaydos, presented to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission about an upcoming decision they face concerning new whale watching guidelines.
Like most of SeaDoc's science-based work, our efforts are integrated and layered to be more effective at driving conservation. Here’s how how something like this presentation, which you can read below, comes about and how it can help drive change:
While on the Governor’s Task Force, we recommend the State Legislature review and revise whale watch guidelines to ensure they are consistent with what we know about vessel disturbance and Southern Resident Killer Whale recovery.
After the Task Force report comes out, we have conversations with legislators, who pass the law to revise guidelines.
A whale watch guidelines task force is created to develop draft regulations. They ask the Washington Academy to provide a scientific review of what we know about vessels and disturbance to whales.
SeaDoc is invited by the Academy to provide scientific evidence as they develop their report. Interestingly, one SeaDoc recommendation is that the Academy use the precautionary principle to deal with uncertainty related to disturbance, vessels and whales, which is a key finding in the Academy report.
The Fish and Wildlife Commission decide on the new whale watching guidelines so we provided public comment on the topic.
By presenting to the Fish and Wildlife Commission at one of their regularly scheduled meetings, the Commission sees that the public is keeping an eye on their decision making process.
It’s a reminder that people want the new whale watch guidelines to be science-based. It’s a relatively simple action to advocate for the science, but it is a step that scientists are not always trained to take. SeaDoc helps produce the science, but we don’t stop there. We work to bridge the gap between science and policy. It’s a crucial step.
Joe’s full public statement to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
Thank you. My name is Joe Gaydos. I am a wildlife veterinarian and have been the Science Director for the SeaDoc Society for nearly 20 years. SeaDoc funds and conducts research and works to get science into management and policy. Since our inception we have funded and collaborated with WDFW on numerous wildlife recovery projects ranging from pinto abalone to Tufted Puffins to killer whales.
Additionally, I was a member of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Wildlife Diversity Advisory Council from 2013-2015. Most recently I served on the Governor’s Southern Resident KW Task Force with Commissioner Smith and Deputy Director Windrope.
I like to fish for lingcod and hunt for deer, but today I would like to speak to you about Washington’s non-harvested wildlife, specifically killer whales. The Commission made a bold statement in 2004 when they listed killer whales as endangered an entire year before the US Federal Government did so.
Despite intensive efforts on both sides of the US-Canadian border, the southern resident population has continued to decline since listing and the population is in grave danger of extinction.
Last year, at the recommendation of the Governor’s Task Force, the Washington State Legislature passed a law requiring WDFW to adopt regulations for viewing southern resident killer whales (SRKWs) for holders of the commercial whale watch license.
Soon, you Commissioners will decide on new whale watch guidelines for Washington State. As a scientist working for a science-based conservation program, I urge you to make your decision based on the science. I know you will get the entire report, but I want to highlight a few things from report produced by the Washington State Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Underwater Acoustics and Disturbance:
1. Despite the potential for low prey availability to be a major SRKW stressor, alleviating impacts on foraging behavior [associated with vessels], would be important in order to maximize the foraging opportunities that these whales have.
2. Reduced foraging, lower food availability, evasive behaviors and the production of louder calls [related to vessel traffic] have the potential to impact a whale’s energy balance.
3. Reducing the amount of time vessels spend around whales would reduce both daily and cumulative exposure to noise and disturbance.
And to summarize, again quoting from the Washington Academy of Sciences report, “given the inherent uncertainties in knowledge due to research gaps, and the dire condition of the Southern Resident Killer Whale population, the committee recommends defining every interaction as an opportunity to disturb a whale and taking a precautionary management approach. According to the precautionary principle, when an activity threatens harm then measures should be taken...”
I want to thank you Commissioners for all you do for Washington’s wildlife, and thank you in advance for using science as you develop new whale watching regulations that benefit southern resident killer whale recovery.
Correction: On August 5th we corrected this blog post. An earlier version of this blog mischaracterized the challenges faced by the Commercial Whale Watching Licensing Program Advisory Committee members as they worked through the difficult process of developing a recommendation to send to the Fish and Wildlife Commission. We apologize for this mistake and for any unnecessary harm caused by this inaccuracy. SeaDoc strives to always get the science and details correct and the earlier inaccuracy is completely our fault and was not to the standard of factual detail that we strive for. Excellence is a process and we will continue to work toward this.