18 December 2010
P. Michael Payne
Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division
Office of Protected Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Dear Mr. Payne:
I hereby submit my comments on the proposed satellite tagging permit
modification application by NMFS (File # 724-1824-01). While I am in complete
agreement with the research goal of better determining the winter habitat distribution of
southern resident killer whales (SRKW’s), there is no urgency to filling this data gap;
and, I am very concerned that the method of attaching satellite transmitters to selected
individual whales is still much too invasive, and the research program design not
adequate to provide sufficient additional information for the management objective
touted – describe the range of SRKW critical habitat in sufficient detail for pivotal
management decisions to be made.
As you know, in November 2008 your office issued a modification of my photoidentification
permit (MMPA/ESA Permit No. 532-1822-03) to allow satellite tagging of
6 SRKW’s per year; and, in March 2009 I declined acceptance of the modification as
drafted, citing “several reasons”. The primary reason (unstated at the time in deference to
colleagues) was that, contrary to verbal assurance from the same and other colleagues
that the tag wounds resulting from the attachment hardware were minimal and healed
completely, I personally observed (Fig. 1, T30 02 Feb 2009,) the bilateral tag wound
swelling on the dorsal fin of a transient female killer whale that had been satellite tagged
one hundred and forty-one days prior on 14 Sep 2008. In my evaluation, I considered the
wound unacceptable were it to occur with my responsibility on a SRKW. Subsequent
photographs taken nearly seven months post-tagging (Fig. 2, T30 08 Apr 2009) show
skin sloughing in the region, and photographs taken a year and a half post-tagging show
that the bilateral swelling is still quite evident for this whale (Fig. 3, T30 15 Mar 2010).
You no doubt have been thoroughly briefed on the success stories of tag wound healing,
but at the present time there can be no assurance that this type of very long term visible
injury on T30 would not occur with a SRKW, perhaps due to barb release failure or
individual variation in tag placement/foreign object tissue rejection.
I have subsequently seen other very serious tag wound injuries (Figs. 4 a and b)
and dangerous attachments (Figs. 5 and 6) on other killer whales, and I remain concerned
that tag attachment development and deployment have not yet proceeded far enough
along to be considered humane, safe, or publicly acceptable for SRKW use. I have
repeatedly discussed my concerns with the NMFS applicant and other colleagues, and
have seen little progress toward minimizing or eliminating these types of potential injury
and tag delivery stressors in the development protocol. I have just returned from Hawaii
and discussions with principals in another satellite tagging project funded to further
develop tags and attachment, and I was appalled to learn that there is virtually no planned
follow-up on monitoring the injury/healing process, nor is any feasible with the majority
of the tagged species involved. The Hawaii investigators are using the same attachment
hardware proposed and used by the applicant for killer whales.
At best, aside from laptop monitoring of tag transmission duration, the follow-up
on all of these tagging activities is, and has been, largely serendipitous, involving
colleagues and whale-watchers, while the “development” appears geared toward
maximizing tag life, rather than minimizing wound trauma. Even so, the tag life is still
only 23-29 days average duration (range 2-76 days) with attachment hardware that can
currently be described as primitive. Not all research applications (including those of the
NMFS applicants) require extra long-term tracking, so why not look to minimizing
trauma by improving and reducing the size of attachment hardware while at the same
time reducing package size by having less battery life; or, maintain package size but use
smaller barbs while increasing package versatility (depth and duration of dive,
temperature, etc.) for shorter deployments? I do not belittle the truly amazing
accomplishments made so far by the tag developers, but I suggest that “development”
should include minimizing trauma to the animals. They are not our lab rats.
With respect to the overall research design and objectives, I look at it this way: we
already know that for the majority of time between November and March the SRKW’s
are not in the inland marine waters of Washington State and southern British Columbia
(the designated Critical Habitat), therefore they are “out in the ocean”. One might ask
where they are in the ocean, and it can be responded that ALL of the evidence to date
indicates that when they are not in the inland marine waters they forage and travel in the
continental shelf waters from about central California to Haida Gwai (Queen Charlotte
Islands, British Columbia), not in deep oceanic waters. Furthermore, ALL of the eastern
North Pacific transient killer whale satellite tracking to date also indicates that the
transient ecotype killer whales forage and travel in the continental shelf waters, not in
deep oceanic waters (Hanson, pers. comm.). These eastern North Pacific continental shelf
waters are very productive of prey species for both resident and transient ecotype killer
whales, so that is not really unexpected. In fact, the migratory corridors of the principal
known prey species of SRKW’s (Chinook and Chum salmon) are in the continental shelf
waters, and extend in the north to the Gulf of Alaska. If we are looking for justification to
extend Critical Habitat designation to continental shelf waters, we already have sufficient
evidence; but, the reasons for not extending such designation are political, military and
economic, not data limited. I seriously doubt that the satellite track of one, or six, or
eighteen SRKW’s to preponderantly deep oceanic waters would bolster a management
decision to extend Critical Habitat designation offshore. No. If anything, such unlikely
tracks would lend further support for NOT designating continental shelf waters as Critical
Habitat, hence they would not be of any benefit to the SRKW’s. That’s the big picture in
my simple view.
The little picture of this research design should also be questioned. With an
average 23-29 day tag life, a SRKW tagged in November might be tracked until
December; one tagged in December might be tracked until January; and so on. Given
what we know of killer whale average swimming speed, the tagged whale could travel
1,800 to 2,400 nautical miles (from Neah Bay to Monterey, or Haida Gwai and back)
during this average tag life, perhaps returning at intervals to particularly good foraging
areas, as we know they do during summer months. Yes, we might find some frequented
areas that the tagged whale visited simply with tag data. But, without follow-up, we
would not know if the ephemeral track was just the tagged whale(s), a subgroup, a
matriline, or a pod; and, we would know nothing about what is going on with the animals
at the time. It is implied that real-time follow-up would be accomplished by the applicant
and collaborators, and this would be good; but, what is the reality of this? The SRKW’s
may very well spend more than half of their winter time in Canadian waters – where is
the collaboration with DFO? In US waters, how does the NOAA ocean vessel scheduling
fit into the design? The schedule for the “MacArthur II” is prepared well in advance, and
ship-time is very coveted for many projects. Is it realistic to find, tag and follow-up a
SRKW mini-study in one brief opportunistic ocean vessel deployment in, for example,
March? How does the existing sighting network fit in to either the ship planning or other
response? Where is the coordination with existing researchers in coastal locations?
Where is the communication? I have the honor of being listed as a collaborator, but my
collaboration to date has been largely serendipitous follow-up in the course of my photoidentification research, sponsored by NWFSC (perhaps that is the connection!).
The scheduling issues and logistics for follow-up vessel response are not trivial,
particularly in the winter when response (or tagging) is subject to frequent weather
constraints. I am not telling the applicant anything new to him by this - he is
exceptionally qualified and experienced in vessel and field operations; but, I suggest that
in lieu of a huge amount of hoped-for luck and collaboration, a bit more information be
extracted from much less invasive short duration tags – depth and duration of dive, water
temperature, etc., that can lead to improving our knowledge about winter predation on
identifiable prey resources (THE important data gap). We all, of course, are willing to
help however we can to fill any of the data gaps with adequate coordination; but, I for
one conscientiously object to these whales being injured before the tag development gaps
are thoroughly addressed.
I apologize for declining my satellite tagging permit without such explanation in
2009, but my humane concerns and some of the catch-22 wording in the permit
modification greatly bothered me and my counsel at the time. I am sure that you would
agree that had I accepted my permit modification, knowing what I know, it would
immediately be suspended as soon as my responsible follow-up demonstrated the level of
injury exhibited in the attached photographs. Think about it! ALL of the tags attachment
hardware must eventually exit via the entry wounds and tissue rejection; and, ALL of the
exit trauma must initially be similar in extent to that documented in Figure 4. The only
thing exceptional about this illustration is the immediacy and quality of the follow-up.
Such trauma has undoubtedly happened to every tagged whale, but few are seen again
within days of tag failure! The retention barbs do not magically reduce in size upon exit,
or disappear. SOME of the exit wounds may be obvious for years, as for the whale in
Figures 1-3, and some may seriously disfigure or cause lasting distress to the whale. As a
permit holder, it would be illegal to NOT report such injury to you, and it would be
misleading of me to simply report completely healed and re-epithelialized wounds as
evidence for acceptable level of trauma, especially for critically Endangered SRKW’s.
They are at significant additional risk from these injuries.
I urge you to decline the requested permit modification for satellite tagging at this
time. There is no rush to fill a data gap that has existed for decades, and is gradually
being filled by less invasive means. It is incumbent upon you and the applicant to employ
methods that will have the least potential for pain and stress on the “target” animals by
thoroughly exploring the alternatives.
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth C. Balcomb, III
Fig. 1. Transient ecotype killer whale T30 one hundred and forty days after tagging,
illustrating significant swelling at barb sites after tag loss.
Fig 2. T30 nearly seven months after tagging, illustrating continued swelling and skin
loss at barb sites.
Fig. 3. T30 one and a half years after tagging, illustrating continued swelling at barb sites.
Fig. 4 a. Transient ecotype killer whale T99A thirty-five days after tagging and two days
after tag transmission ceased, illustrating fresh exit woulds at barb sites.
Fig. 4 b. Close-up view of T99A exit wounds at barb sites, illustrating extent of tissue
extrusion. The open wound does not appear to be infected.
Fig. 5. Transient ecotype killer whale T90, tagged near trailing edge of the dorsal fin on
the left side, illustrating barbs protruding up to three inches on right side of fin.
Fig. 6. Juvenile transient ecotype killer whale T100C, tagged near trailing edge of the
dorsal fin on the right side, illustrating barbs protruding up to one inch on left side.
