About the SRKW no-go area
The SRKW no-go area was established in 2018. In December 2020 it was further formalized with a full year-round ban on visits by commercial whale-watching vessels. Compliance remains voluntary for all other vessels.
The no-go area is on the west side of San Juan Island, from Mitchell Bay in the north to Cattle Point in the south, extending a quarter-mile offshore for the entire stretch.
In the area around the Lime Kiln Lighthouse, the no-go zone extends further offshore – half of a mile.
If this sounds difficult to understand or comply with, ask your favorite fisherman to show you the marine area fishing rules section of the WDFW fishing regulations pamphlet.
More information
"Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you've got nothing new to say"
I didn't invent the no-go area and I'm not going to spend much time defining it or its backstory. To learn more, please see the following:
WDFW official page for the no-go area
WDFW press release requesting voluntary compliance from all boaters
San Juan County Marine Resources Committee
For comparison, in the neighboring Canadian Gulf Islands there are also sanctuary areas designed for the preservation of orca habitat. These areas are not subject to voluntary compliance. They have specific regulations for exceptions such as indigenous fishing and other activities, residents, and government employees performing public service. They are limited to June 1 - November 30.
In the interest of balance, Brett Rosson offers arguments against the no-go area here: Fish Northwest. It should be noted that Brett Rosson is listed as the registrant for the MMSI number for one of the vessels with the top five most visits to the no-go area.
Voluntary compliance
I have always been a "Do or do not. There is no try." type of person.
It would be interesting to know how the voluntary compliance aspect of the no-go area came to be. It is clearly a compromise. Was the thinking "something is better than nothing"? Or was it "there will be a positive impact even if vessel traffic is only reduced by a small amount"? Was there concern regarding the cost of monitoring and enforcement? Or was it simply wishful thinking about the expected level of voluntary compliance?
A requirement for voluntary compliance paired with a lack of marketing and education runs the risk of coming off as a wishy-washy milquetoast effort at conservation: toothless public relations and window dressing.
There is also an element of broken windows syndrome: even boaters who are aware of the no-go area will become disheartened and opt out of voluntary compliance if they see few other vessels are in compliance. Why be the only one?
And there is a risk that efforts with mixed or indeterminate results can undermine important work on other, higher-impact, tactics for species preservation. It erodes confidence in other conservation efforts and the public agencies responsible for them.
My personal opinion is that as long as it is defined, boaters should comply with it. The cost of compliance is low. Without giving it a chance we will never know whether it is effective and should be retained or it is not worth it and should be scrapped.