For a population of animals to grow and thrive, the first requirement will always be adult specimens of both genders that have reached reproductive age. The more whales mating in a region, the bigger the area pods can grow. With the 17 month long gestation period necessary to produce a baby orca, population growth can be understandably slow without a high level of breeding activity. Female orcas are especially essential, as one of these is required for each and every infant birth. A male is involved, too, of course, but a single energetic and virile male can impregnate an entire pod of females. The marine mammal entertainment industry was aware of this fact when they began harvesting orca whales in the late 1960s.

In 1965, the first captive orca was placed on display, and the general public soon lost their fear of "killer" whales, as they discovered the gentleness and intelligence of these majestic creatures. At this point, the tables turned, and the animals that had once reigned solely as predators suddenly became prey. Marine parks, such as SeaWorld, organized/supported violent round-ups in the Pacific Northwest to stock their facilities with a popular new showpiece - the killer whale. These captures targeted young, trainable orcas, with an emphasis on females that could be used in park breeding programs.

Orca captures affecting the Southern Resident populations were conducted in the Salish Sea from 1966 - 1973. During this brief period, 45 orcas were taken from the Southern Resident pods to live in captivity. This number is more than half of the current total population of J, K, and L-pods. In addition, 13 more orcas lost their lives amidst the violence surrounding the captures.

Stolen family members made for a drastic population reduction in the wild whale pods of the late 20th century, but the after-effects of this travesty have continued on through today. Because so many young females were abducted from the Southern Resident orca pods, fewer remain to reproduce. For example, Lolita, the last captive survivor of the infamous 1970 Penn Cove round-up, is one of many lost Southern Residents who could, if swimming free with her pod, be actively breeding and restoring the local population. A healthy female orca will give birth to a calf approximately once every 5 years.

Is there any way to repair the damage inflicted upon the Southern Residents by past captures? As wild whale round-ups are no longer legal, it has become a case of 'what's done is done'. There is no way to bring back the many orca whales that have died in captivity, but a glimmer of hope remains in the idea that Lolita could be successfully reunited with her L-pod family where she would potentially mate and reproduce. Click HERE to read the full proposal for Lolita's retirement into the wild Puget Sound.

There's no gentle way to say it - Puget Sound, home to three struggling orca pods, would be more aptly named "Pungent" Sound for the overwhelming levels of toxins swirling through its waters.  Factories, businesses, state/government agencies, and individual citizens are all guilty of contributing to the problem.  Much of the waste dumped into Puget Sound is done so legally.  Still, there are many violators of the rules and not enough resources to adequately enforce the Clean Water Act. 

Even with new laws regulating pollutants, chemicals released into our oceans decades ago remain trapped in the seafloor sediments.  Clean-up and restoration efforts are slow; hundreds of sites languish on extensive contamination lists waiting their turn for attention.  Needless to say, the deterioration of their habitat is a major issue for the orcas of the Pacific Northwest.

One of the biggest chemical offenders are substances known as polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs for short. Although the use of these chemicals was banned in 1979 - a full 30 years ago - high levels of PCBs still stubbornly reside in the waters of Puget Sound. Because of this, our resident orcas are considered some of the most contaminated marine mammals in the world! As the top feeders in ecological food chain, orcas ingest the highest concentration of harmful pollutants. They must feed on large fish full of PCBs ... which have fed on smaller fish, also full of PCBs ... which have fed on plankton and invertebrates that have languished in PCB-filled silt.

The consumption of such a highly polluted food source disturbs the growth and development of young orcas, and interferes with their ability to properly reproduce. The PCBs also impair the mammals' immune systems, rendering them vulnerable to illness and disease.  

Click HERE to read the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's five-part series on pollution in Puget Sound.

Click HERE to read the 2002 report on PCBs by Morgan Roose and Keith Seiders of the Washington State Department of Ecology.

An average adult orca can consume anywhere between 100 to 300 pounds of food a day. For many families - including the Southern Resident pods of the Pacific Northwest and Canada - this diet consists primarily of salmon. Sadly, the populations of Pacific salmon have been in decline for the last few decades. What will our orcas do if their food source disappears?

Three of the biggest threats to salmon populations are low spawning returns, logging, and disease. Can anything be done to stop the rapid demise of these fish?

Low Salmon Returns

The life of a salmon begins in the freshwater river or stream where its ancestors were born and have returned to release and fertilize their own eggs. After birth, the baby fish, or "smolts", wait until instinct commands them to migrate, then they ride the river's currents gradually downstream and into the ocean to complete the spawning circle.

In the 1960's, this natural cycle was interrupted for the salmon of the Pacific Northwest. Dams were constructed along the Columbia River obstructing the path of the spawning salmon. Built as sources of energy and irrigation, the introduction of these dams did the area some good . . . but also "spawned" a myriad of problems for migrating fish.

With the dams in place, it became understandably more difficult for returning salmon to reach their spawning grounds. In addition, the dams increased the time it took for the young salmon to make the journey to the open ocean. Trapped in warm pools of slow-moving water, the juveniles are easy game for predators, and many smolts are killed while passing through the dam's turbines.  Still, the salmon population survived these hurdles - albeit in reduced numbers. The ultimate tragedy occurred when four more dams were completed along the lower Snake River in 1975. Since that time, the steelhead, sockeye, and Chinook salmon have been placed on the Endangered Species List, and the coho salmon have gone extinct.  A study conducted by doctors Gretchen Oosterhout and Philip Mundy has determined that at the current rate of decline Chinook salmon will be functionally extinct by the year 2016.

Steps have been taken to combat the demise of the salmon in the last 25 years: by-pass systems have been built to help the fish circumvent the dams, hatcheries have been established to increase the population, and young salmon have even been rounded up and transported to the ocean in trucks and barges. None of these tactics have worked. In days past, adult salmon returned to the Columbia River Basin in immense numbers. In the last three decades, salmon returns have diminished dramatically - and the vast majority of the returning fish are hatchery bred rather than wild stock. The severity of the situation is best illustrated by the tragic decline of the sockeye salmon. In 2003, only two adults survived the trip upstream.

According to Joseph Bogaard, a representative of Save Our Wild Salmon, in order to stabilize the Pacific salmon population 2% of adult fish would need to return to their spawning grounds. With a 4-6% return rate, the wild salmon could once again flourish. With the programs currently in place, only .33% of wild salmon are returning to spawn - only one sixth of the number needed.

The journey of the juveniles to the ocean is no easier than the trek made by their dedicated parents. With eight dams to navigate, the migration that once took approximately three weeks has now been extended to as much as three months. 90% of young salmon never make it to the ocean.

In 2005, Federal Judge James Redden ordered that increased amounts of water be "spilled" over the sides of the dam rather than churned through the turbines.  Despite appeals from the Bush Administration, this act was put into place during migration seasons, in an attempt to ensure a higher number of surviving smolts.  When improved fish "slides" proved inadequate during the 2006 migration returns, a new salmon recovery plan was enacted by the Bush administration in 2008. Todd True of Earthjustice summed up the adequacy of this legislation with the colorful statement, "The new plan is the same ol' pig we've seen before. It's dressed in a different tutu, but it still can't dance."

The most ideal solution would be the dismantling of four lower Snake River dams.  The removal of these dams is an achievable goal, as their benefits are outweighed by the harm they do to the environment and the cost of maintaining them.  According to the Oregon Natural Resources Council, 87 million dollars a year would be saved if the dams were removed and the Snake River were restored to its natural condition. However, this is a highly controversial course of action, with no absolute guarantees for success. Still, salmon advocates believe that drastic changes must be made to the current recovery plans set up by the U.S. government if they wish to strengthen the wild fish population. Dan Drais, the associate director of Save Our Wild Salmon points out, "The government has been 'recovering' Columbia Basin salmon since the first run was listed [under the Endangered Species Act] in 1991.  Since then at least one run has disappeared and another 11 have been listed. By its own estimates, the government has spent about $8 billion to achieve this result." Mr. Drais goes on to say, "Most scientists agree that providing some habitat improvements in the Columbia estuary, or barging fish downstream, or engaging in the other half-measures proposed by the federal government, is not going to allow these terribly depleted populations to recover."

There is still hope for the survival of our salmon. In the fall of 2009, the Obama Administration released the latest governmental salmon recovery plan. The new proposal is far from an ideal solution to salmon salvation, but we're getting a little bit closer. Currently, the plan is stuck in a legal quagmire, pending further information and investigation. Stay tuned.

Logging

The logging industry affects salmon habitat in many destructive ways:

1. Logging practices can destroy entire streambeds.
2. Logging stirs up harmful sediments in river water.
3. Removing trees from stream banks increases water temperatures.

What can be done to rectify this damage? Conscientious landowners and logging companies are taking steps to protect the spawning salmon by building roads safely away from waterways, maintaining tree lines along banks, placing logs in streams to act as salmon shelters, etc.

State run forestry departments and other government agencies have set laws in place to regulate logging and promote environmentally healthy practices. However, these laws are not always upheld in a manner responsible to wildlife. In 1999, the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund won a lawsuit which blocked 24 timber sales that were not in compliance with federal programs. The Earthjustice website reports: "The court found that the agencies violated the Northwest Forest Plan and the Endangered Species Act by turning a blind eye to the sales' harm to salmon". Environmental organizations and concerned citizens must remain vigilant to ensure that our salmon runs are protected from the devastation of the logging industry.

Pesticides

There are a number of pesticides that are already known to adversely affect wild salmon populations, and more common chemicals are being tested and declared unsafe every year since 2002 when a Seattle District Court ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to address the problem of pesticides and environmental contamination.

The high levels of pesticides in our rivers - particularly in the shallow side streams where younger fish frequent - affect salmon in many adverse ways. Even if the concentration level does not cause death, this type of contamination decreases a fish's ability to swim properly and may kill off insects used as a food source. Most significantly, the toxins dull the salmon's sense of smell, an essential tool for reproduction and to detect and avoid predators.

What is being done to combat this threat? After decades of inactivity, the EPA's forced review of dangerous pesticides has turned out faulty conclusions. The National Marine Fisheries Service has stepped in to offer their own studies and opinions, determining, thus far, that at least six of the pesticides thought to be benign actually pose a serious threat. Research is underway by the NMFS to test and assess further potentially harmful chemicals. Earthjustice's Osborne-Klein tells us, "Today's [April 20, 2009] findings are an example of why it's so important for the fish and wildlife scientists at NMFS to provide an independent check on other agencies' findings about endangered species." 

NMFS will enact laws and regulations about pesticide use on crops. The primary solution is to create pesticide-free buffer zones around rivers and waterways. 

Disease in Salmon

Like any member of the animal kingdom, salmon are susceptible to sickness and infection. However, the process of nature guards against epidemics of disease in population of wild animals - the sick fall behind the others, to die or be eaten by predators, before they have a chance to infect the remainder of the population. Why, then, are our Pacific salmon plagued with record amounts of disease and parasites? The blame falls to salmon farming practices.

Salmon farms differ from terrestrial fish farms because the stock is housed directly in the ocean, in netted off areas, where the farm salmon are in direct contact with wild populations. Very little care has been taken to confine these fisheries to areas less-frequented by wild schools of salmon, not to mention orcas and other marine mammals.

The salmon farms are cesspools of disease. Packed closely together, the growing salmon must remain almost motionless, and are unable to avoid feces and other water pollutants from passing repeatedly over their gills. It goes without saying that as soon as one of these fish develops a disease, the rest will quickly be infected as well!

So, how do salmon farms keep their fish alive long enough to be sold? They treat the masses with large amounts of antibiotics that sustain the fish until they achieve adulthood. However, wild salmon which have contracted diseases by passing by infected fish farms do not benefit from these doses of medication. They swim away, carrying the sickness along with them.

Raincoast Research Society, a British Columbia based organization, has conducted extensive studies on the impact that fish farming has had upon their local environment. Much of Raincoast's research focuses on the spread of disease from farm stock to wild populations of salmon. Their website reports that not only are imported Atlantic salmon the source of a new disease called "furnuculosis", but these fish also have escaped from the farms in numbers thought to exceed the reported number of 46, 255. The introduction of Atlantic salmon into our Pacific population not only increases the spread of disease, but also causes negative impact in the form of competition for food and aggression toward native fish.

According to the Rainforest Research Society, the spread of fish disease also works in the opposite direction - from wild to farmed salmon. In the open ocean, it is natural for adult salmon to host a harmless level of lepeophtheirus salmonis, a strand of sea lice specific to salmon. These louse die off when the adult enters freshwater to spawn, and juvenile salmon are not inflicted with the parasites until they mix with older fish in the ocean.

Since the establishment of fish farms, sea lice have become an epidemic. Wild salmon pass through the territory of the captive salmon, dropping louse eggs in their wake. These eggs infest the fish farms, where the lice are provided with an ideal environment to breed and multiply unhindered. When young salmon pass by on their way to the open ocean, they become infected with the parasites far earlier than they would have under normal conditions. In a study conducted in 2004, 90% of juvenile salmon captured in the region of the Broughton Archipelago (a fish farm area) were infested with an eventually lethal amount of sea lice. Wild adult salmon schooling near fish farms were found to host 5 - 8.8 times more lice than fish living a distance from salmon fisheries.

In addition to the negative impact on the environment, research has determined that salmon farms are not economically sound, nor do they provide a nutritious product for human consumption. Why do governments support this type of business?

To learn more about the atrocities of salmon farming, click HERE to visit the Rainforest Research Society's website.

If our salmon populations can be restored, there will be enough fish available in the Pacific Ocean to satisfy the needs of orcas, other marine wildlife, commercial fishermen, and even recreational sportsmen!

For more links to salmon restoration websites, visit:
http://www.wsu.edu/swwrc/SalmonIndex.html

Websites used to compile information for this article:

http://www.wildsalmon.org/
http://www.onrc.org/
http://espn.go.com
http://www.forestlearn.org (gone)

http://www.seattlepi.com

http://www.earthjustice.org
http://www.raincoastresearch.org

Noise pollution is a major cause of concern in regards to the world's cetaceans, who rely on sound for their very existence. Orcas and other dolphins use a communications system called 'echolocation' to find food, explore their environment, and interact with one another. Echolocation is a form of sonar in which an orca sends out "clicks" that bounce off objects and allow the animal to "see" his surroundings. Underwater noise can interfere with this ability. 

Noise pollution comes in the form of tankers, cruise ships, private vessels, air guns, Acoustic Harassment Devices, seismic blasting, oil exploration, acoustic thermometry, and the list goes on and on. 

Mid and Low Frequency Active Sonar

Perhaps one of the greatest sources of noise pollution in our oceans today, and certainly the one capable of doing the most damage, is mid and low frequency active sonar. The sonar used in the past was passive; it basically just sat there listening for unusual sounds. But during the Cold War with Russia, our U.S. military developed active sonar, which had the ability to send out sound beams that would actively look for enemy submarines. After the end of the cold war, this technology was considered unnecessary, but in recent years it has been revived in what the military says is a crucial tool in our national security efforts.

The sonar is deployed from three different sources on board a Navy vessel. Each source creates a sound wave that is 215 decibels. By comparison the loudest animal on earth, the Blue Whale, creates a call that is 155 decibels, equivalent to standing 1 yard away from a jet engine at take off. The three sound waves from the Navy vessel converge to create a sound that is 240 decibels. Because the sonar is low frequency it has the ability to travel large distances, especially under water where sound is carried further than in air. 300 miles away from the source of the sonar, the sound waves are still 140 db, higher than the human pain threshold of 120 decibels. Because this sonar is so loud and travels such long distances it has the ability to injure or kill marine mammals depending on their distance from the sound waves by causing brain hemorrhage, eye and/or inner ear rupture, disorientation, and the loss of their ability to communicate, echolocate, and forage. In a study conducted by the Navy, a 32-year-old man was exposed to sonar at 160 decibels. After 12 minutes he experienced dizziness and drowsiness. He later suffered memory lapse and seizures. Two years later he was still being treated with anti seizure and anti depressant medication.

In 1996 there was a mass stranding of Beaked Whales off the coast of Greece, which was associated with sonar being tested by NATO in the area. In March of 2000 there was a stranding of four different species of whales and dolphins in the Bahamas. Of the 13 animals, 7 died right away. All but one had eye and inner ear hemorrhage. The U.S. Navy accepted responsibility for this tragedy as it was testing mid frequency sonar in the region. Beaked Whales have since disappeared from that particular area. In the summer of 2002 two whales were found dead in the Sea of Cortez, close to where sonar was being used. In September 2002, there was a mass stranding in the Canary Islands, also linked to Navy sonar. In May of 2003, off the coast of San Juan Island, Washington a Navy vessel began deploying mid frequency sonar in the presence of J pod, a resident pod of orcas listed as endangered in Canada and Washington State. The orcas became very agitated and banded close together near shore, remaining at the surface of the water to try to get away from the noise. A Minke Whale, normally a slow moving animal, was seen fleeing the area. Fortunately J pod suffered no visible short-term effects from this sonar exercise, but in the following weeks, 13 porpoises washed up dead around the region. Some of them showed signs of acoustic trauma, however the necropsy results were "inconclusive". This sonar is not only detrimental to marine mammals, it has also been shown to be fatal to fish and fish eggs, attacking the entire marine food chain.

In July of 2002 the National Marine Fisheries Service gave the U.S. Navy a five-year exemption to the Marine Mammal Protection Act in order to use the low frequency active sonar in 75% of the world's oceans. NMFS was subsequently sued by a number of environmental groups including Natural Resources Defense Council, Humane Society of the United States, and Ocean Futures, among others. On October 31, 2002 they were granted an injunction stopping the military from using the low frequency sonar on the grounds that the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act were being violated. In August of 2003, the lawsuit was successful and low frequency active sonar was deemed illegal. The Navy then agreed to limit its exercises to a fraction of the area it was using and to non-critical habitat. However, shortly after the ruling, the Bush administration once again exempted the military from provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. They are now attempting to appeal this court decision. Meanwhile, mid frequency active sonar, which is just as loud but doesn't travel quite as far, is still being used by the military. Other countries are also using both mid and low frequency sonar as well, so our oceans are far from safe. Groups like NRDC are continuing to work on getting a worldwide ban of active sonar and they have met with some success. In October of 2004, the European Parliament asked 25 of its members to stop using the sonar until more is know about its potential harm. 

What can you do to help? Pressure the military to stop the use of an obsolete, unnecessary technology that threatens the life in our oceans. Let your elected officials know that if active sonar continues, national security won't be necessary. Once our oceans are dead, we won't be here either. 

Click HERE to visit the NRDC website and find out how you can assist in the fight to stop active sonar globally.

Click HERE to view articles collected by Orca Network about the dangers of sonar to the marine mammal population.

Boat Traffic 

Boat motors cause significant noise underwater, which is quite disturbing to marine mammals. Too much boat noise agitates these animals, and can drive them from their usual breeding and hunting grounds. The biggest problems of this kind occur in high traffic areas, like shipping routes such as Haro Strait, home to the Southern Resident orca pod.

Another disruption to orcas are the multitude of whale watching boats that visit them daily during the summer months. Ironically, these vessels are operated by individuals who love and conserve orcas, and are loaded with sightseers who value the wonder of nature. These are the very people who fight for the rights of marine wildlife and strive to protect them and their environment. If the public has no connection with wild orcas, they will be less likely to conserve what they never see. A balance must be found between loving orcas and loving them to death.

There are ways to minimize the impact of boat noise on our underwater environment:

Slower moving boats are quieter than fast ones. Laws can regulate the speed of boats in wildlife frequented areas.

Proper maintenance of boats helps keep engines running smoothly and quietly. New technology is ever advancing toward better, quieter equipment.

Laws can be established to limit the amount of vessel traffic through areas such as Haro Strait. These laws not only reduce noise pollution, but also help to lessen other environmental problems, like the threat of an oil spill.

Whale watching vessels can strictly adhere to regulations about speed, number of boats in one area, and distance from whales.

People who desire the thrilling experience of encountering orca in the wild can plan a daytrip to one of many spots in the San Juan Islands where the whales can commonly be spotted from shore. One of the best areas for land-based orca viewing is Lime Kiln State Park on San Juan Island.

Click HERE to read the Friday Harbor Whale Museum's guide to responsible whale watching. 

Click HERE for directions and information on Lime Kiln State Park.

Other Noise Pollution 

Some other forms of unwanted underwater noise are caused by economic or scientific reasons. Seismic blasting used to seek oil, and the drilling once oil is discovered, result in not only noise, but also in chemical pollution and habitat destruction.

Sound waves can also be used to accurately test the temperature of water, by measuring the time it takes for the waves to travel to various points. This information is helpful for determining if our ocean temperatures are increasing due to global warming. But how do these sounds affect the marine mammals in its path?

Another noise problem is Acoustic Harassment Devices (AHD). For example, salmon fisheries in Canada were being plagued by thieving harbor seals. To combat this, the fisheries installed devices that would constantly emit a noise designed to dissuade seals from approaching their fish nets. The result of the AHD's was a mass exodus of marine animals from the areas where the noise resonated. Orcas and porpoises fled in droves, but the clever seals now knew that they could follow the sounds to a free dinner!

State and Federal governments should be made aware of the ill effects that can be caused by certain forms of "progress", and must be encouraged to disallow actions that do our environment more harm than good.

Click HERE to read WSU student, Rebecca J. Bressan's report on acoustic pollution in Puget Sound (pdf. file).

Oil spills have long been a danger to our world's environment and wildlife. The most well-known and publicly exposed oil spill - the crash of the Exxon Valdez - raised our nation's general awareness of the risks mankind take when transporting toxic materials through a delicate ecosystem. This 1989 tragedy ended the lives of thousands of animals in Alaska's Prince William Sound. Twenty-two of these were orca deaths.