‘War of the Whales’ :
My take on the book by Joshua Horwitz

In the book “War of the Whales,” author Joshua Horwitz reveals, in exquisite detail, how Ken Balcomb played a central role in showing how Navy sonar was killing and injuring whales around the world.

Book

Ken, who we know as the dean of orca research in Puget Sound, has not been alone, of course, in the quest to get the Navy to better protect marine mammals. Horwitz introduces us to a variety of people, each with his or her own interest in saving the whales.

Frankly, I was surprised at how much I learned from the book, given that I have been covering these same issues as a reporter for many years. What really gained my admiration for Horwitz was how he was able to weave scientific and historical aspects of the story into a gripping tale that reads like a detective thriller.

I consider this book to be several stories woven into one. First, there are the personal biographies of two key players in this conflict with the Navy. The lives of Ken Balcomb, of the Center for Whale Research, and Joel Reynolds, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, became intertwined with each other after the NRDC sued the Navy over its use of sonar around whales.

Next, we are given the history of the Navy’s sonar technology, developed to track stealthy submarines. We meet many of the Navy officials involved, including some who became emotionally involved with marine mammals, flipping to the other side, as Horwitz describes it.

The Navy has long controlled much of the research involving marine mammals — the original models for sonar. At times, whales and dolphins were even trained as military combatants, with mixed success.

Last, but not least, we are shown the legal arguments related to environmental law versus the need for national security. As a result, we see how the Navy has become more open today about the risks to whales from its testing and training procedures.

Horwitz paints intimate portraits of many of the characters, especially Balcomb, the biologist, and Reynolds, the lawyer. He sees the pair coming together from different backgrounds and uniting in their effort to protect the whales against the Navy’s single-minded approach to national security.

Joel Reynolds, left, and Ken Balcomb at the Center for Whale Research on San Juan Island, September 2013. Photo by Joshua Horwitz
Joel Reynolds, left, and Ken Balcomb at the Center for Whale Research on San Juan Island, September 2013.
Photo by Joshua Horwitz

“Ken was such an extraordinary character,” Horwitz told me in a telephone interview. “He was a reluctant activist. Activism wasn’t Ken’s thing.”

The story begins in the Bahamas, where Balcomb was doing research when a mass stranding of beaked whales took place, practically at his doorstep. Navy sonar had been suspected of killing whales in other areas of the world, but Balcomb was able to secure fresh tissues — essential evidence to understand how their injuries were caused by sound waves. Balcomb also observed that the Navy was conducting exercises in the Bahamas at the same time, and he made the connection to the dead whales.

From there, other researchers and policy officials became involved, but Balcomb kept pushing to keep the incident from being swept under the rug.

“Ken’s investment was immediate,” Horwitz explained. “One night the Navy just plowed through and decimated this population of whales.”

We learn from the book about Ken’s serendipitous life. As a young biologist, he collected whale lungs for research by going to a commercial whaling station still operating in California. He later signed onto a research crew as a dishwasher, but his skills with a shotgun earned him the lead job of tagging whales.

Balcomb joined the Navy during the Vietnam War and became a pilot. A series of circumstances led him into Fleet Sonar School and the Navy’s highly secretive Sound Surveillance System, or SOSUS. At the same time, his compatriots in graduate school became some of the top marine mammal experts for the Navy and the National Marine Fisheries Service. His later interactions with these folks revealed something about their past and present positions in life.

Horwitz ties all these pieces of the story together in a compelling narrative that kept offering me new and surprising tidbits of information. It took the author seven years to complete the book.

“He kept asking over and over the same questions,” said Ken, somewhat amused when I asked him about it. “I didn’t know if he had confused notes or what.”

Horwitz was seeking an extraordinary level of precision and accuracy, so that his telling of this true and controversial story could not be assailed.

Balcomb said he could find no errors, except for the conscious decision by Horowitz and his editors to describe two overflights by Balcomb in the Bahamas as a single event.

Most surprising of all was the account from Navy officials, whose story about underwater warfare has rarely been told, except perhaps in novels by Tom Clancy and others. Horwitz said active-duty military officials were no help to him, but he got to know retired Admiral Dick Pittenger, who opened doors to other retired officers.

“He (Pittenger) was a total career Navy guy, but he was skeptical about the way the Navy was handling some of these matters,” Horwitz said, noting that the admiral spent days helping him understand anti-submarine warfare.

Pittenger wanted the story told right, and he must have been satisfied with the result, since he offered this comment in promotional materials for the book:

“‘War of the Whales’ is an important book about a major post-Cold War problem: the often conflicting goals of national security and environmental protection. The author presents this very complex and multidimensional story with great clarity.

“I’m certain that no one who has been involved with this issue will agree with everything in this book (I don’t). But the topic is, by its nature, so emotionally charged and controversial that I doubt anyone can read it without a strong personal response. The importance of this book is that it tells the ‘inside’ story to the wide reading public in a compelling way.”

In my mind, Horwitz did a remarkable job of capturing the relevant facts for this complicated story. He then seamlessly joined the pieces together into a coherent and dramatic story — one especially important to those of us living in an area where the Navy maintains a strong presence among an abundance of marine life.

Check back to “Watching Our Water Ways” tomorrow, when I will describe more of Josh Horowitz’s personal views about his book and what he learned along the way.

The book can be ordered from the Center for Whale Research, which gets a share of the proceeds, or visit the book’s webpage, “War of the Whales.”

It’s a girl! Orca gender identified; her mother remains a mystery

Thanks to a baby photo from Jane Cogan, the newest killer whale in J pod has been identified as a girl, according to Ken Balcomb of the Center for Whale Research.

The baby killer whale, J-50, with her family.Photo by Jane Cogan, courtesy of Center for Whale Research
The baby killer whale, J-50, reveals that she is a girl as she swims with her family in British Columbia.
Photo by Jane Cogan, courtesy of Center for Whale Research

We still don’t know whether the mother is 42-year-old J-16, known as Slick, or Slick’s 16-year-old daughter J-36, known as Alki. At moment, the family group, which consists of J-16, her three offspring plus the new calf, are sticking close together.

“It may take a little time for us to sort it out,” Ken told me, but the mother should become apparent within a few weeks, if not sooner, because the calf must be getting milk from the mom. From all indications, the little one is doing fine.

Initially, the calf was thought to be the offspring of J-16, because J-36 was some distance away. But now it seems just as likely that J-16 was babysitting while J-36 got some rest, Ken told me.

Yesterday, Jane and Tom Cogan of San Juan Island took an overnight trip up north into British Columbia, where J pod has been swimming near Texada Island since the beginning of the new year. Jane sent back a good photograph of the baby’s underneath side. According to Ken, it is not unusual for mothers to roll their babies near the surface of the water.

Female killer whales have a more rounded pattern in the genital area, while males have a more elongated pattern of coloration. A good photo is all it takes to tell a boy from a girl. For comparison, see Questions & Answers at Center for Whale Research website.

I talked to Tom briefly this afternoon. He told me that J-50 was acting playful at times, like young whales will do, with some tail slapping and porpoising.

“I would say it looked healthy,” he said. “It was following J-16 a lot of the time, but all of the family was in the area, and they would group up at times.

“We’ll show Ken our pictures and debrief him when we get back,” he added.

Because J-27, a male in J pod, has been carrying a satellite transmitter since Dec. 28, experts have a pretty good idea about their location, as the orcas move about. Check out the maps on NOAA’s website, “2015 Southern Resident Killer Whale Satellite Tagging.”

As of this afternoon, J pod, including the J-16 clan, was near Nanaimo, B.C., and headed south toward the Washington border, according to Tom Cogan, who was in the vicinity.

Amusing Monday: Ad experts describe most creative ads of 2014

In its annual “Ten Best Ads of 2014,” Adweek magazine praised an eclectic assortment of commercials featuring unusual topics and/or presentations.

While I found no overtly water-related ads this year, a couple of them came close — and I liked them — so I’m featuring them in the two video players on this page. As you’ll see, they are quite different from each other in style.

Adweek’s top winner is sort of a noncommercial, because it is a description of a Super Bowl ad that would have been produced if only the sponsor, Newcastle Brown Ale, had enough money to buy a spot during the last Super Bowl. I featured this ad among other “ads that never were” in Water Ways back on Feb. 10.

You can watch all 10 ads chosen by Tim Nudd of Adweek in his annual review of television commercials for the magazine. As he notes in his story:

“Four spots came from outside the U.S., and a fifth was made without an agency at all. Also, there’s not a single traditional 30-second spot in the bunch, as if we needed more proof that the shape of advertising is changing.”

It’s worth noting that these ads are chosen for their creativity, not for their success in selling products.

If you’d like to view other clever or creative commercials, I’ve put together some additional lists from 2014:

J pod will be tracked by satellite again this year

A 24-year-old male orca named Blackberry, designated J-27, has been carrying a satellite transmitter since Monday, allowing experts to track the movements of J pod.

Map of J-27 shows 38 hours of travel, ending travels from 9:43 a.m. today. Downloaded by Robin Baird
Map of J-27 shows 38 hours of travel, ending at 9:43 a.m. today. // Downloaded by Robin Baird

The research project, started in 2011 and led by Brad Hanson of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, is designed to figure out where J pod goes in winter and early spring. J pod does not seem to travel far down the West Coast, as K and L pods do.

As luck would have it, the satellite tag was in place Wednesday when a portion of J pod headed into East Sound on the south side of Orcas Island. A day later, they were seen by observers with a new calf, J-50, which I reported in Water Ways yesterday and updated today. Nobody seems to recall the whales ever going into that waterway, as suggested by comments to a post on Orca Network’s Facebook page yesterday at 5:19 p.m. It’s long been speculated that orcas seek out calm waters, when possible, to give birth.

The mother of J-50 is still a mystery, though it could be solved as observers notice which adult female is spending the most time with the young animal.

After J-27 was tagged about equidistant from Sequim, Whidbey Island, San Juan Island and Victoria, the whales worked their way through the islands near the Canadian border, then moved north to Texada Island in the Strait of Georgia, east of Comox, B.C. As of this morning, they were still traveling around that general vicinity, as you can see from the map on this page and previous maps on the project’s webpage. The page called “2015 Southern Resident Killer Whale Satellite Tagging” also contains information about the project’s goals.

I have written about these tagging efforts and the controversy surrounding them since permits were first proposed under the Endangered Species Act. You’ll find last year’s stories and links to previous stories in Water Ways on Jan. 3, 2014, and later on Jan. 14, 2014. You can also search the blog for “satellite and orcas” to find just about everything I’ve blogged about on the topic.

J-27 and other members of J pod moved into East Sound near Orcas Island on Monday. The cluster of points represent travels between 4 and 5 a.m. the next morning. A newborn orca was spotted Wednesday.
J-27 and other members of J pod moved into Orcas Island’s East Sound on Monday. The cluster of points represents travels between 4 and 5 a.m. the next morning. A newborn orca was observed on Wednesday. // Downloaded by Robin Baird

Oldest orca mom to give birth offers twist of fate for Puget Sound whales

UPDATE, JAN. 2, 2015

After thinking it over, Ken Balcomb of the Center for Whale Researchers says it is likely that J-16 is the grandmother of the new calf, not the mother.

J-16, known as Slick, could have been babysitting the young whale when the two were spotted by observers. If so, the mom is probably J-36, a 15-year-old female named Alki, who was following a few miles behind at the time.

The pattern of older whales taking care of young relatives has been seen many times before, occasionally even with newborns, Ken told me. The mother may have needed some time for rest and recovery after giving birth, especially if it was a tough delivery, he said.

The baby had evident scratches, known as “rake marks,” on its back and dorsal fin caused by the teeth of another killer whale, Ken said. He believes it could be an indication that the grandmother assisted with the birth.

Whoever the mother is, the baby’s condition indicates that it has been nursing, and that’s a good sign.

If J-16 is the mother, she would be the oldest known orca to give birth among the three Southern Resident pods. If it is J-36, then the young mom could need help from her own mother.

If J-36 is the mom, then she should be spending most of her time with her new baby. That could come within a few days or up to a couple weeks, Ken told me. Observers are making a special effort to see who is spending time with whom over the next few days.

“This is an interesting little mystery,” Ken said. “If the whales do their part, we should be able to figure it out.”

Tracking them could be made easier because of a satellite tag attached to another member of J pod — J-27, a 24-year-old male named Blackberry. The barbed tag was attached to the whale’s dorsal fin in open waters about equidistant from Sequim, Whidbey Island, Victoria and the south end of San Juan Island. Since then, the whales have moved north into Canada. I’ll soon have a separate blog post on the tracking study.
—–

By Milt Priggee in Kitsap Sun
By Milt Priggee in Kitsap Sun

A newborn killer whale, reported Tuesday by the Center for Whale Research, was identified as the offspring of 42-year-old J-16 — the oldest known orca to ever give birth among the three Puget Sound pods.

“No other female has given birth at over 42 years of age in the four decades of demographic field studies of the Southern Resident orcas,” according to a statement from Orca Network. “J-16 was not expected to be carrying a calf due to her advanced age.”

It’s odd how the circumstances have worked out. The birth of this new calf, designated J-50, becomes the first major news story about the Southern Residents since we heard about the death of J-32, named Rhapsody. See Water Ways for Dec. 7 and a later report on Dec. 12.

Rhapsody was only 18 years old when she died carrying an unborn calf. Before her death, experts had high hopes that Rhapsody would live long and produce many babies. If she had ever given birth before, her offspring died before they were noticed by observers.

So it is that we have the death of a young killer whale with an unborn calf and now a new birth to an older whale thought to be beyond reproductive age. Let’s hope this new baby orca survives, lives long and contributes to the endangered killer whale population.

J-16, named Slick, has six known offspring, including the new baby. Three others are still alive: J-26, a male named Mike, born in 1991; J-36, a female named Alki, born in 1999; and J-42, a female named Echo, born in 2007. The deceased offspring are a male that died at 14 years of age in 2010 and a baby orca that died in 2011 after living about a month.

The birth and death records are maintained by the Center for Whale Research. Young orcas are typically given names by The Whale Museum in Friday Harbor after they survive through a winter.

The population of the Southern Residents now stands at 78 — down from 88 less than four years ago.

J16, a 40-year-old orca named Slick, attends her her newborn calf, J50. Photo by Dave Ellifrit, Center for Whale Research.
J-16, a 40-year-old orca named Slick, leads her newborn calf, J-50.
Photo by Dave Ellifrit, Center for Whale Research.

Puget Sound: Hopeful signs shine through complex cleanup effort

While putting the final touches on a two-year, 10-part series about the Puget Sound ecosystem, I couldn’t help but wonder about the true character of Washington state and its citizens.

Kitsap Sun photo by Meegan M. Reid
Kitsap Sun photo by Meegan M. Reid

How much do people really care about salmon and rockfish, eagles and herons, killer whales, cougars, and many lesser-known species in and around Puget Sound? Do we have a political system capable of supporting the needed efforts — financially and legally — to correct the problems?

After interviewing hundreds of people over the past few years, I have a pretty good feeling about this state, especially when considering other parts of the country. There is hope that we can save some of the remaining gems of the Puget Sound ecosystem while restoring functioning conditions in other places.

Puget Sound Partnership, which is overseeing the restoration efforts, still has the support of many people and organizations — including many conservatives and business-oriented folks. That support comes despite ongoing struggles by the partnership to find a proper place within the state’s political system. Review my latest story in the Kitsap Sun (subscription).

“Let science lead the way” remains the refrain of both critics and supporters of the partnership. But that is easier said than done — even if you could take politics out of the equation.

Scientists in almost any field of research don’t always agree on the fundamental problems, and there is a competition among scientific disciplines for limited research dollars. Are endangered fish more important than endangered birds or endangered whales, or should we be studying the plankton, sediments and eelgrass that form the base of the food web?

Really, where should we focus our attention and tax dollars? That’s a key question. The correct answer is, and always has been, “All of the above.”

When it comes to funding, the decision-making becomes widely disbursed, and I’m not sure whether that is good or bad. At the local level, we have Lead Entities and Local Integrating Organizations. At the state level, we have the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board and agencies themselves.

Then there is the Puget Sound Partnership, with its seven-member Leadership Council and 28-member Ecosystem Coordination Board, along with its science advisory panel. The partnership establishes an Action Agenda to guide funding decisions by the others.

One would never want an individual man or woman deciding where the money should go. But do the various groups help identify important problems, or do they diffuse attention from what could be a focused strategy? I believe this will always be somewhat a philosophical question.

One thing I confirmed in the final installment of the 10-part series “Taking the Pulse of Puget Sound” is that nobody was ever serious about a deadline established in the law creating the Puget Sound Partnership. Restoring Puget Sound by the year 2020 remains on the books as a goal that needs to be changed.

If officials acknowledge that the goal cannot be met, will the Legislature and the public continue their support for the current level of funding or perhaps increase support?

That gets back to my wondering about the true character of Washington state and its citizens. Based on past legislation, this state is clearly a leader in ecosystem protection. We have the Shoreline Management Act, the Growth Management Act (with its urban-concentration and critical-areas protections), Municipal Stormwater Permits, Forest Practices Act and more.

Are we ready to go all the way, by setting interim goals for 2020 and looking to the long term? We will need to better track progress, which means gathering more data in the field — monitoring, if you will.

Monitoring is not as inspiring as restoring an important estuary. But think of all the time and money spent on forecasting the weather, which relies entirely on monitoring with costly investments in satellites and equipment, all needing continual improvements.

Envision a significant role for experts who can describe changes in the ecosystem and help us decide if our money is being well spent. If weather reporters can hold a central role on the evening news, why shouldn’t we have ecosystem reporters discussing environmental conditions.

I wouldn’t mind hearing a report on the news something like this: “We are seeing improved conditions in southern Hood Canal, with scattered salmon spawning at upper elevations, and a 90 percent chance that oyster beds will be opened in Belfair.” (Just kidding, of course.)

Puget Sound Partnership’s proposed budget, as submitted by the governor, contains more than $1 million for assessing Puget Sound recovery. That could be an important step to providing information about how the ecosystem is responding to the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on protection and restoration so far.

In writing about the future for the final part of the “Pulse” series, I described a 2008 report from the University of Washington’s Urban Ecology Research Lab. The report identified the primary “drivers” of change that would determine the future of the Puget Sound region.

It was interesting to learn that if we are lucky about climate change — or even if we’re not so lucky — the future is largely in our hands. How will we react to economic ups and downs? How will we address land use with millions of new people coming in? Will we embrace technology as the final solution or look to nature for answers?

The report describes six remarkably different scenarios, though others could be constructed. Perhaps the worst one is called “Collapse,” in which warning signs of ecological problems are ignored and economic challenges are met by relaxing environmental regulations and allowing residential sprawl. In the end, the ecosystem cannot withstand the assault. Shellfish beds are forced to close, and hundreds of species — including salmon and orcas — disappear.

Two scenarios hold more hopeful outcomes. One, called “Forward,” includes public investments to purchase sensitive areas, including shorelines. Growth becomes concentrated in cities, and people learn to fit into the ecosystem. The other, called “Adaptation,” includes grassroots efforts to save water and resources and improve people’s ecological behavior. Protecting shorelines, floodplains and wildlife corridors help reduce flooding and protect species that could have been wiped out. Check out “Scenarios offer glimpses of a possible future for Puget Sound,” Kitsap Sun (subscription).

Joel Baker, director of Puget Sound Institute, capped off my “futures” story with a sense of optimism, which I find contagious. I don’t know if Joel was thinking of the Frank Sinatra song, “New York, New York” which contains the line, “If I can make it there, I’ll make it anywhere.” But Joel told me something like, “If we can’t make it here, we can’t make it anywhere.”

Here are his exact words:

“As an environmental scientist, I find it interesting that things are starting to come together. We continue to grow economically, so we have the money.

“Energy is lining up with the environment, and we’re forcing the restoration program to think holistically. It’s as much about transportation as it is about sewage-treatment plants.

“The Pacific Northwest is technologically savvy; we have smart people here; and we have the collective will to get things done. So I’m optimistic about cleaning up Puget Sound. If we can’t do it here, God help the rest of the country.”

Amusing Monday: Have you ever seen a snowflake so fine?

snowflake 6

They say no two snowflakes are alike. And that’s easy to believe after you’ve seen the extraordinary crystalline structure of a single snowflake, as captured in images by Russian photographer Alexey Kljatov.

Alexey has spent a lot of time perfecting his technique of shooting snowflakes on the balcony of his apartment. He uses just a simple point-and-shoot digital camera, the Canon Powershot A650, along with a reversed lens from an old Soviet Zenit film camera. He captures a series of images of the same snowflake, then combines them with special software to reduce the random “noise” found in a single image. He explains his technique on his blog “The Keys to December.”

Check out Alexey’s Flickr page for dozens of snowflake images along with other enhanced photographs. I post a sampling here, with his permission. Other media outlets also have shown interest. See his list of publications.

snowflake 2

snowflake 3

snowflake 4

snowflake 5

‘Whale Wars’ returns amid multiple legal entanglements

The seventh season of “Whale Wars” — a three-hour presentation premiering on Friday — follows on the heels of an unresolved contempt-of-court ruling against Sea Shepherd Conservation Society earlier this month.

Sea Shepherd captains (from left) Sid Chakravarty, Peter Hammarstedt and Adam Meyerson during 2014 Operation Relentless Sea Shepherd photo by Eliza Muirhead
Sea Shepherd captains (from left) Sid Chakravarty, Peter Hammarstedt and Adam Meyerson during 2014 Operation Relentless
Sea Shepherd photo by Eliza Muirhead

The new program, to be shown at 5 p.m. and again at 8 p.m. on Animal Planet network, documents the 2013-2014 Antarctic whaling season and the sometimes-violent confrontation between Sea Shepherd and Japanese whalers. Check out the Sneak Preview.

While Sea Shepherd faces some serious court rulings, the Japanese government finds itself in conflict with the International Court of Justice, which concluded that its “scientific” whaling program does not conform to scientific principles — which was the legal justification for the program — so the whaling must stop, at least for now. See Water Ways, March 24, 2014.

Paul Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd, appears to have ticked off the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which first called his group a “pirate” operation in December 2012. The court issued an injunction to keep Sea Shepherd ships at least 500 feet away from the Japanese whaling vessels. (See Water Ways, Feb. 26, 2013.)

In its latest ruling on Dec. 19, the court says Watson and Sea Shepherd’s U.S. board of directors acted contrary to its injunction by shifting their anti-whaling operations over to the related group Sea Shepherd, Australia. In the court’s view, Watson should have done what was necessary to halt the anti-whaling tactics, not find a way to continue them. As Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. wrote in his findings (PDF 127 kb):

“Sea Shepherd US’s separation strategy effectively nullified our injunction by ensuring that OZT (Operation Zero Tolerance) proceeded unimpeded, in part by using former Sea Shepherd US assets. Sea Shepherd US ceded control over OZT to Sea Shepherd Australia and other Sea Shepherd entities it believed to be beyond the injunction’s reach, knowing these entities were virtually certain to violate the injunction.

“At the same time, Sea Shepherd US continued to provide financial and other support for OZT after the injunction by, among other things, transferring for no consideration a vessel and equipment worth millions of dollars to Sea Shepherd Australia and other entities…

“Rather than instruct its employees to help prevent OZT, Sea Shepherd US effectively shifted these employees to its affiliates’ payrolls to ensure continued participation in a campaign it knew was very likely to result in violations of the injunction…

“Our objective in issuing the injunction was to stop Sea Shepherd from attacking the plaintiffs’ vessels. Sea Shepherd US thwarted that objective by furnishing other Sea Shepherd entities with the means to do what it could not after the issuance of the injunction. It has long been settled law that a person with notice of an injunction may be held in contempt for aiding and abetting a party in violating it.”

These court findings were all related to Operation Zero Tolerance, the Sea Shepherd campaign that ended in March of 2013. The ruling did not address Operation Relentless, which ended in March of 2014 and is the subject of Friday’s “Whale Wars” event. I wonder if Japan will attempt to use the U.S. courts to collect for damages related to the latest conflict.

The International Court of Justice ruling against the Japanese whaling operations seems to have had no effect on how the U.S. Court of Appeals views Sea Shepherd’s actions. Sea Shepherd’s activities were still illegal, the court ruled, and the injunction would still be needed if the whaling were to resume under conditions acceptable to the international court. See “order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss” (PDF 308 kb).

In fact, although whaling was suspended for the 2014-15 season, the Japanese government has submitted a new plan (PDF 2.3 mb) to resume whaling at this time next year. The plan calls for an annual harvest of 333 minke whales — as opposed to the previous plan to take 850 minkes, 50 humpbacks and 50 fin whales. For additional insight on the controversy, read Dennis Normile’s piece in Science Insider, affiliated with Science magazine.

As for the upcoming “Whale Wars” special, a news release from Animal Planet says the action will be as exciting as ever, even with Paul Watson gone from the scene:

“With Captain (Peter) Hammarstedt once again at the helm and tensions with the whalers at an all-time high, this new campaign will likely be the most aggressive and dangerous the Sea Shepherds have faced.”

This episode of “Whale Wars” was produced by Lizard Trading Company, using raw footage filmed by Sea Shepherd crew members. That’s similar to the arrangement for last year’s two-hour special. (See Water Ways, Nov. 7, 2013.)

Amusing Monday: Swimming with orcas and a GoPro camera

I’d like to offer something quite different for this week’s “Amusing Monday.” It’s a 19-minute video featuring Ingrid Visser, one of the world’s leading experts on killer whales.

One of the highlights of the video is the rescue of an orca imperiled with a rope and buoy caught around her tail. Without the rescue, which begins at 10:25 into the video, the whale probably would have died. If you continue watching, you’ll see shots taken from a camera on the whale’s dorsal fin, giving you a glimpse into the life of a killer whale.

Ingrid’s base of operations is New Zealand, but she has been to Puget Sound numerous times, as well as many other places where orcas reside. I’ve always admired her for her personal approach to understanding orcas throughout the world.

The video provides an insight into Ingrid’s life, research and interests. It’s appropriate that it begins with her discussing orcas with a group of young students. For more information, check out the Facebook page for Orca Research Trust or the related webpage for her nonprofit group.

The video was produced by a team of photographers to introduce the new high-speed, high-definition GoPro camera called HERO4.The video was the sixth in a series called “The Adventure of Life in 4K.”

Click on these links to watch the full series:

Hood Canal council questions hatchery cuts

Hood Canal Coordinating Council is calling on Gov. Jay Inslee to drop a proposal for major budget cuts to the George Adams and Hoodsport hatcheries in southern Hood Canal.

“The economic loss to our HCCC member counties and tribes does not justify the small savings that would be afforded to the state budget,” wrote Council Chairman Jeromy Sullivan in a letter to the governor.

2014 WDFW Supplemental Budget
2014 WDFW Supplemental Operating Budget

The governor’s budget (PDF 134 kb) includes hatchery reductions proposed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, which was trying to meet the governor’s call for a 15-percent reduction in General Fund expenditures.

Hatcheries proposed for outright closure include Minter Creek Hatchery near Gig Harbor, 6.5 million chum, coho and fall chinook; Naselle Hatchery on Willapa Bay, 2.5 million coho, chum and fall chinook plus 19,000 trout and 75,000 steelhead; Nemah Hatchery near Willapa Bay, 3.3 million fall chinook and chum; and Samish Hatchery near Bellingham, 4 million fall chinook. For details, check out WDFW’s budget page.

Under the plan, the Hoodsport Hatchery would save $132,000 by reducing production of fall chinook salmon by 800,000 fry and eliminating production of 12 million chum and 500,000 pink salmon. George Adams Hatchery would save $87,000 by eliminating production of 2.1 million chum.

Kelly Cunningham, deputy assistant director of WDFW in charge of the Fish Program, forwarded me the department’s economic analysis of the hatchery reduction.

For the Hoodsport Hatchery, the estimated loss in personal income by businesses associated with commercial and sport fishing would be about $4.15 million, according to state estimates. For the George Adams Hatchery, the loss would be more than $900,000.

In other words, for a savings of $219,000 in the state budget, workers in the fishing industry would lose more than $5 million. And that does not include the economic value related to harvests outside of Washington state, Kelly Cunningham told me.

Decisions about which hatcheries to cut included considerations of court orders, tribal agreements and hatchery-reform recommendations, as well as economic benefit, Kelly explained. But he wasn’t specific about whether the hatchery cuts aligned with any identified ecological benefits.

The state and tribes have been under pressure from the National Marine Fisheries Service to reduce the unintended harvest of wild chinook, a threatened species, caused by large numbers of hatchery chinook coming into the Skokomish River at the same time. Another concern has been stray chinook bypassing Purdy Creek (where the George Adams Hatchery is located) and interacting with wild stocks in the Skokomish River. See my story in the Kitsap Sun, Oct. 26, 2013.

The long-term plan is to develop a late-timed chinook stock that returns to the Skokomish at a different time than the wild stock, allowing more targeted harvesting of the hatchery fish. See “Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan” (PDF 725 kb)

Sullivan’s letter to the governor continues:

“HCCC members appreciate the difficult budget climate that you and the state Legislature are facing. We urge you, however, to be forward-looking and recognize that stronger local economies will, in the long term, contribute significantly to a strong state budget and financial situation.”

Sullivan was authorized to send the letter during a recent meeting of the Hood Canal Coordinating Council, whose members are county commissioners from Kitsap, Mason and Jefferson counties along with leaders from the Skokomish and Port Gamble S’Klallam tribes. Sullivan is chairman of the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribal Council.