• We apologize for the somewhat convoluted sign-up process. Due to ever-more sophisticated attacks by chatbots, we had to increase our filtering in order to weed out AI while letting humans through. It's a nuisance, but a necessary one in order to keep the level of discourse on the forums authentic and useful. From the actual humans using WCP, thanks for your understanding!

Orcas in decline thanks to sea kayakers

I can't estimate 1000 yards over water myself. But I've seen plenty of examples where the watching boats position themselves in front of the Orca's path - then they can't help it if the whales are coming to them.

Considering how sound travels underwater, can you imagine the noise pollution any marine engine would make.
 
"Anything that demands censorship on any level (especially on a self-censorship level) IS agenda based and fears real science because it would expose the lies."

Hardly the exclusive domain of those with "leftist agenda"s...

I have seen other web forums degenerate due to political ranting. Might be a good idea to nip that particular invasive weed in the bud before it spoils this most excellent forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CPS
I have seen other web forums degenerate due to political ranting. Might be a good idea to nip that particular invasive weed in the bud before it spoils this most excellent forum.

And we shall make it so! Szihn, this is not the first time you've strayed from the direct kayaking related subject into political rants. If you want to have political discussions and debates, there are lots of forums all over the interwebs for that. This forum is not one of them. If you want to bring the science around global warming, whale preservation etc, great. But no diatribes.
 
OK, but please tell me how the subject matter itself was NOT a political diatribe ----- if you will. (or can)

Sure. Let me break it down for you: the original discussion on this thread linked to an article that suggested sea kayakers contribute to the decline of the Orca population. The discussion here was around whether the article writer had accurately represented the science and whether the science itself was valid. No name calling of any side of the political spectrum - or one another on the forum - involved.

Your now-deleted comment went off on a conspiracy theory rant, used dog-whistle slurs that are the vocabulary of only one end of the political spectrum, and identified the opposite end of that spectrum by name while accusing it of abusing science for a larger, evil agenda.

You've gone off-topic in similar ways about guns in the bear protection thread. So to avoid yourself getting banned, I'm going to suggest this: if you've typed up a post or response and have any doubt about whether it's inappropriate, PM it to me first before posting it publicly. I can sort that out for you.

And to preempt any possible complaint of yours about "censorship": censorship is something governments are (or should be) constrained from doing. Private actors in their private spaces are free to make whatever rules they want: they are not required to provide platforms for speech or speakers they consider offensive or even merely irrelevant. So I rein in political screeds on WCP for a lot of the same reasons I'd be excommunicating someone on a firearms forum who insisted on bringing every thread around to the subject of knitting: this is not the place for that, brother.
 
Last edited:
'Orcas in Decline because of Sea Kayakers' hahahahaha. Frikken Hilarious......
Salmon disappearing because of Sea Kayakers! Homelessness expanding because of Sea Kayakers!
Tax avoidance by Rich scumbags caused by Sea Kayakers! Human Trafficking by Social Media Wastes of Skin caused by Sea Kayakers!
Sea kayakers are on the decline.....
I'm going for a paddle to promote more destruction like my ancestral paddler friends did for a millennia....
 
In defense of Seattle Times journalist Lynda Mapes, who wrote the piece that prompted all this discussion, she has substantially revised the piece since its original publication. In its current, revised version, the piece lays far less blame on kayakers than the original version did.

I commend her for watering down the criticism of kayakers. While there is evidence (discussed upthread) to support the notion that kayakers adversely affect killer whales, it is misleading to present that claim without also acknowledging that powerboaters are more frequent disturbers of whales, and without emphasizing that salmon loss and water pollution dwarf all other adverse effects.

The original piece claimed that kayak disturbances are “no small factor” among the total number of disturbances and claimed repeatedly that kayakers are not subject to the same level of law enforcement scrutiny as powerboaters. Those claims have been deleted or watered down.

Even the revised piece, in my opinion, does not sufficiently emphasize fish loss and water pollution. But at least kayakers are no longer singled out as some kind of especially pernicious threat to killer whales.

Alex
 
There are thousands of miles of coast. There are in comparison a handful of kayakers. Right?
So this journalism makes money for her paper by writing controversial pieces with no truth from what has been said.
Was she also anti-vax? That would also sell papers.

It sounds as if someone needs to be blunt and call her a liar, loudly, and take her kayaking, possibly with out bringing her back.

As for whales and kayaks, our problem was making sure they wouldn't run into us. I kept in the kelp if it was a questionable situation when paddling in the Haida Gwaii. Certainly one surfaced rather close to one of our group one day.
 
It sounds as if someone needs to be blunt and call her a liar, loudly, and take her kayaking, possibly with out bringing her back.

Frustrating for sure when we're a members of a group we feel has been misrepresented. But, when the other party is receptive to engagement (and Alexside's comments show that she has been and is), far more productive to engage and educate rather than scorn - or to threaten, however jokingly.
 
But, when the other party is receptive to engagement (and Alexside's comments show that she has been and is), far more productive to engage and educate rather than scorn - or to threaten, however jokingly.

I agree, and I also don’t think it’s fair to call Mapes a liar. Every word she wrote in her piece was true. Kayakers really do interfere with southern residents. That’s not a claim Mapes just made up herself, it’s supported by eyewitness accounts and scientific data (as discussed upthread). The problem with Mapes’s reporting (especially the original version of the piece) is the emphasis she gives to kayaker disturbances as opposed to the more important issue of powerboat disturbances or the overwhelmingly more important issues of salmon decline and water pollution. If you read Mapes’s piece, it would be easy to conclude, wrongly, that kayakers are one of the main causes of decline for the southern residents. Mapes herself doesn’t say so - that would be a lie - but she presents just enough evidence to let her readers stumble into that conclusion on their own. Without speaking one word of a lie, Mapes convinces her readers of an idea that isn’t true.

Fox News does something very similar with regard to crime stories. They don’t come out and SAY anything untrue or racist, they just lay out a trail of breadcrumbs that end in an untrue and racist place. Caveat lector!

The rationalist blogger Scott Alexander wrote a good post on this issue recently, “The Media Very Rarely Lies.” This story about kayakers harassing killer whales is a great example of how to misinform without lying...although as I said upthread, Mapes has edited the piece to make it less inflammatory and more informative.

Alex
 
> “The Media Very Rarely Lies.
The technique I've seen, or more truly heard, is the commentator gives 20% (or only 10%) accurate information, then says, "Or ..." and fills the much larger space emphasizing a more agenda focus diatribe. You can't say that he's lying because the "or" only requires one of the pair to be true. And it is, though minor in content and emphasis.

Newspapers create their own clickbait. A few months ago, someone stopped an active shooter and lost his life. Instead of focusing on his heroic actions, the local paper, in a bold headline, posted that 10 years ago or more, he had been arrested on a sexual matter - for which he went to prison and had served his time. The paper tried to justify their action as "serving the public". To their credit, every letter to the editor on the subject chastised them. Even if the paper felt it was "serving the public" (the grieving family might disagree), by including that historical tidbit instead of emphasizing lives saved, they didn't have to lead with it in bold large print.

For me, an awareness started back a calculus class. We were given problems to solve with the answer available in the back of the book - note, this was for learning/confirmation, not a test. Except sometimes the printed answers were wrong.

The longer I've lived, the more I've come to realize, "Just because it's in print, doesn't make it true." But it doesn't make it false either.

As with tide, current and weather predictions for a kayak adventure, I try to find multiple sources and note how many agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CPS
The longer I've lived, the more I've come to realize, "Just because it's in print, doesn't make it true." But it doesn't make it false either. As with tide, current and weather predictions for a kayak adventure, I try to find multiple sources and note how many agree.

Yup, having lived long enough to see the mainstream media botch reporting on stuff I happen to have some expertise on, "Trust but verify" is my motto.
 
It is the inference given. A half-story teller.
The link to the other story inferring don't use hydro power because it isn't totally "green". No, it might not be as green as previously thought (a fact) but just what differece does it really make (a more important fact) and what are the alternatives to power generation and how green are they (the really important facts)?

Basically a half story teller because it is sensational and gets her readers. Shout the facts that aren't of any importance to the total overall story.

My suggestion of calling her a liar would be to see what the response was. The inference that maybe things aren't as they seem as far as her story telling goes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CPS
Back
Top