About this website

This website was created to promote discussion about and compliance with the Southern Resident Killer Whale (SRKW) No-Go area. The no-go area extends 0.25 miles from the shoreline of most of the west side of San Juan Island. Around the Lime Kiln Point lighthouse, it extends 0.50 miles. Commercial whale watching vessels are prohibited from entering this area at any time. All other vessels are requested to comply on a voluntary basis. More about the no-go area.

This is just a personal passion website with no organization behind it. One person's work alone, building on the data published by NOAA and the US Coast Guard. I am avid sailor and fisherman who transits through Haro Strait several times each year. My personal observation is that few boaters are aware of the SRKW no-go area, and that few volunteer to comply with it.

The following personal convictions and opinions were the catalyst for creating this site:

I am firmly convicted that preservation of a species such as the SRKW comes ahead of recreation and commercial activities. I think there is room for discussion about the best tactics for the future of the SRKW: things such as dam breaching and addressing the impact pinnipeds have on salmon stocks might have more impact than the no-go area.

My opinion is that the cost to comply is very low, so why not "volunteer" to stay out of the no-go area? What does it cost you to go 0.25 miles out of your way?

I like to think the skippers whose vessels are listed on this site simply don't know. But I also recognize there are arguments against the no-go area, such as the fact that the whales are not even there all that often. If the cost of compliance was high, or as the more cynical might argue "this is just the thin edge of the wedge to take away boater rights!", then I could see looking askance at the no-go area. But the cost is so low, why not give it a shot? How will we ever know if it is effective if it is ignored by the vast majority?

As a sailor I appreciate that hugging the shoreline is an effective tactic to get out of the worst of adverse current, which can be a challenge in Haro Strait. I also appreciate that long tacking angles and wind shifts may make you want to bang the shoreline with each tack will take you close to shore. Which are all great considerations if you are trying to min/max the game of who is the best sailor. Or if you are in a race such as Round the County. However, I would still argue that potentially helping a tiny bit with species preservation comes ahead of all of that.

Looking at the data from Round the County did give me pause. There are issues of practicality with suggesting racers must stay out of the no-go area. That means someone has to monitor them. Especially on days with conditions that favor hugging the shore: somebody is going to push their advantage and cross over the line. Perhaps there should be a process for once-a-year events like this where the area is monitored for whale presence and racers given the go ahead to go where they will if there are no whales.

My final argument in favor of compliance is that it is just good seamanship. Good skippers go out of their way to understand and comply with COLREGs, no discharge laws, bridge opening and locking through procedures, vessel traffic separation lanes, "Whiskey Golf", and dozens of other rules and regulations. They don't blast past all the buoys at Echo Bay and anchor in the designated eelgrass preservation areas. Just as skippers demonstrating good seamanship inconvenience themselves to comply with all these other expectations, so should they choose to volunteeraly comply with the SRKW no-go area.

I'm going to see how this goes. My intention is to load a fresh cut of the database each month as a new month's worth of 180 day old data is published.

I am hoping for one of two outcomes:

  1. This gets people talking and spreading the word about the no-go area. Compliance increases to the point that effectiveness of this policy can be evaluated. After studying the results, the policy is either abandoned for being ineffective, or improved/sustained to promote the welfare of the SRKW
  2. Agencies conclude that the policy is a failure due to low compliance. The policy is abandoned in favor of focusing their efforts on more effective policies.

I am guessing some skippers will want to see mention of their vessel removed from this site. After a year of abstaining from entering the no-go area your vessel will drop off of this site.

Support

The best thing you can do is spread the word, and have conversations with others in the boating community. Especially if you know someone connected with one of the vessels listed on this site.

If there is enough interest, more can be done: