Marine Mammal Regulation Amendments 2025
Two unsuccessful Emergency Order petitions later…it’s time to make amends for the Southern Residents!
Fisheries and Oceans Canada have opened the Marine Mammal Regulation Amendments consultation to the public, and now is our time to unite for the Southern Resident killer whales! The public comment is open to Indigenous peoples, marine industry stakeholders, non-governmental environmental organisations, and members of the general public. Responses to the consultation will be accepted from March 7th 2026 to April 21st 2026, so let’s make sure we get our voices accounted for!
This year’s MMR Amendments primarily focus on the approach distance, and regulations around drones: which are some of the biggest factors causing acoustic and physical disturbances to this population. These disturbances often lead to vessel strikes, and interfere with fundamental life processes like feeding and foraging due to perturbation in their ability to echolocate. The ‘What We Heard’ report published by DFO last year states that they had received ‘over 400’ responses from the public consultation survey—a number too low considering that 500,000 members of the public recently voted the orca as the symbol of British Columbia. So let’s amp up our efforts this year. If there’s anything we have learnt in this process, it is that advocacy works!
The link to the DFO consultation portal is provided below, along with suggested responses. Please feel free to use these responses, or modify them into your own! If you or anyone you know have questions about this process, please feel free to email us at gsa@georgiastrait.org.
The Consultation
Timeline:
Responses to the consultation will be accepted from March 7th 2026 to April 21st 2026.
Access:
To access the DFO consultation portal, click on this link.
Submission:
- Through ‘My Gazette Account’: Creating a ‘My Gazette Account’ will allow users to save progress and complete the responses through multiple sessions. In addition, users can view submitted comments after submission. Users can register by using sign-in partner or via GCkey sign up. We understand that this process can be quite cumbersome. We look forward to communicating this with DFO to encourage more public participation rather than less.
- Anonymous submission: If you’d rather submit responses anonymously (skip the extra steps the DFO has put in place, not the consultation!), that’s an option too. Scroll down to the end of the consultation and follow Step 1 to 3.
- Email: Participants are strongly encouraged by DFO to provide comments online via the Canada Gazette but if email is your only option, direct it to Brett Gilchrist, Director, National Programs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. email: DFO.NCRFMMMRconsultation-consultationRMMGPRCN.MPO@dfo-mpo.gc.ca.
Suggested comment for ‘Issues’ section
The Issues section correctly explains that Southern Resident killer whales are endangered and that past efforts to improve their protection, including Emergency Order petitions in 2018 and 2024, were not successful. However, it could do more to show how urgent the situation is. There are now fewer than 75 orcas left, and the small population size, low birth rates, and limited number of breeding females make them even more at risk.
Vessel traffic is an important issue, but it should not take attention away from other major threats like lack of Chinook salmon, underwater noise, and pollution. These threats work together and make it harder for the whales to survive, communicate, and reproduce. Underwater noise in particular is a serious ongoing problem that still needs stronger action.
I support moving from temporary Interim Orders of 400-metre approach distance under Transport Canada’s to a permanent rule under the Marine Mammal Regulations. Increasing the distance to 1,000 metres is a positive step and is also consistent with rules in the United States.
Overall, the section should better explain how all these threats are connected, because looking at them separately does not fully show what the whales are facing. A staggered approach does not represent the urgency required to protect this population’s future.
Suggested comment for ‘Background’ section
The context and regulatory information provided in the background section are helpful. However, clarification on the following would be particularly beneficial:
- While the 1000m approach distance will benefit the SRKW population, simultaneously reducing it to 200m to all other killer whales undermines the need for their protection and challenges they face, and puts them at a risk of disturbance and vessel-related harm. We request considerations to be made for other cetaceans as well, maybe through a parallel process.
- Informing stakeholders of what the implications to whale watching operators would be would provide more clarity. Since the MMR will state the avoidance distance to all other killer whales will be 200m, will an authorization permit still be required? If not, how will this be communicated effectively?
- How will regulatory enforcement be strengthened, and how will effective coordination between agencies be ensured to fully realize the regulation’s intended outcomes?
Suggested comment for ‘Objective’ section
I am satisfied with the Objective section as it elaborates on the need to move from annual TC IOs to a more permanent change in the Marine Mammal Regulations.
Suggested comment for ‘Description’ section
We support including drones under the definition of “aircraft” in the Canadian Aviation Regulations. This is an important and positive step, as drones are an increasing source of disturbance to marine mammals and should be clearly regulated.
The proposed changes would also remove the need for duplicate permits when someone already has permission under the Species at Risk Act. This makes the process simpler and reduces unnecessary paperwork. However, it would be helpful to explain how protections will remain just as strong under both laws, so there are no gaps.
Clarifying that permits to disturb marine mammals are officially treated as “licences” under the Fisheries Act is also a positive step. This helps with enforcement, because it makes it clearer when someone is breaking the rules. Still, it would be helpful to be more transparent about how these licences are given out—for example, what criteria are used and what conditions must be followed.
The change that gives the Minister more discretion when deciding whether to approve a marine mammal transportation licence is also important. It means harmful activities can be refused instead of automatically approved. However, clear guidelines should be set for how these decisions are made, so the process is fair, consistent, and focused on protecting marine mammals.
Overall, these amendments improve clarity and make the rules easier to enforce. Adding more detail and clear safeguards would help ensure they provide strong and consistent protection for marine mammals.
Suggested comment for ‘Regulatory development’ section
The consultation process reflects a broad and multi-layered effort to engage stakeholders, and this is both necessary and commendable. Protecting Southern Resident killer whales (SRKWs) requires collaborative decision-making, and meaningful engagement must remain central to any regulatory approach.
However, the decision to reject the Emergency Order under the Species at Risk Act and instead rely on interim and incremental measures raises serious concerns. Given that the population is facing imminent threats, there must be clear evidence that these alternative measures will deliver protections that are equal to, or stronger than, those that would have been provided under an Emergency Order. Without this clarity, there is a real risk that critical time is being lost for a population already on the brink.
In addition, maintaining a 200 m approach distance for other killer whale populations fails to reflect the growing pressures they also face. This approach risks normalizing close vessel interactions and increasing disturbance, potentially creating long-term impacts across species. A more precautionary and ecosystem-based approach is needed, including consideration of stronger protections for other cetaceans through parallel or future processes.
While there is strong support for enforcement and public education, the proposal lacks detail on how these will actually be carried out. This is a critical gap. Regulations are only as effective as their implementation—without adequate enforcement, monitoring, and public awareness, even the strongest rules risk becoming symbolic rather than impactful. Clear commitments on enforcement capacity, compliance monitoring, and education are essential to ensure these measures lead to real, measurable reductions in disturbance.
Finally, we support the transition from Transport Canada Interim Orders to permanent measures under the Marine Mammal Regulations. This is an important step toward long-term stability. However, permanence must be matched with effectiveness. Without strong implementation, even permanent protections will fall short of what is needed to ensure the survival and recovery of this critically endangered population.
Suggested comment for ‘Regulatory Analysis’ section
The proposed Amendments represent a critical step forward in strengthening measures for SRKWs. An increase in approach distance, inclusion of drones under ‘aircrafts’, reduction of duplicative processes, enforcement clarity, and alignment with US measures are positive developments. These measures can provide a strong foundation on which further protections and implementation details can be built.
Suggested comment for ‘PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT’ section
According to this section, participants are strongly encouraged to use the Canada Gazette portal to provide feedback. However, the process to log in or create an account is cumbersome and can act as a barrier to do so. The only options provided are ‘sign-in partner’, ‘GCkey’, and ‘anonymous feedback’, which is less than ideal. The non-anonymised options require personal information that might create hesitation to participate during the comment period. If DFO encourages participation through the portal, we request the portal to be made more user-friendly, and efficient to galvanize interest.
Suggested comment for ‘Amendments’ section
I am satisfied with the updates on the amendments section that reflect the proposed changes throughout this publication.
Why is this action important?
Southern Resident killer whales are a long-lived population with males living up to 50-60 years and females living up to 80-90 years. However, despite their natural longevity, the compounding threats to this population has resulted in untimely deaths of individuals from the pods. Underwater noise, reduced availability of fatty Chinook as prey, and proliferation of marine contaminants in SRKW habitat are the three main threats to the population’s ability to survive in the Salish Sea. These threats interact with each other significantly deteriorating the population’s ability to forage, reproduce, or communicate—all fundamental life processes critical for survival.
As you read this, there are currently 74 individuals.
The situation takes an ominous turn when we consider industrial expansion and growth in marine traffic in the Salish Sea. The Transmountain Pipeline alone has caused a 900% increase in marine shipping, and now there stands a proposal to dredge Burrard Inlet to increase shipping capacity through the terminal. Add to the list Tilbury, WoodFibre LNG, and Roberts Bank Terminal 2, and the Salish Sea has become an extremely noisy and dangerous place for these orcas to reside in, and it is only going to get worse.
Long-term, stringent and cohesive measures are critical to safeguard this population’s well-being and its ability to persist in the waters they have inhabited since time immemorial. The urgency of protection is underscored by the cumulative and escalating threats these individuals continue to face in their prime habitat.
Stories from the pods
The identified threats to this population are clearly documented with stories to corroborate the urgency of stronger, long-term measures.
Rhapsody, J-32
Rhapsody, J-32 was a female Southern Resident orca, close to 20 years of age around the time of her death. In 2014, she was found deceased in northwest Georgia Strait, British Columbia. At the time of her death, Rhapsody had a full-term fetus in her fetus that had passed before she did. Necropsy reports concluded that she died due to starvation which was made evident by an oil-free and abnormally thin layer of blubber on her. Rhapsody’s skeletal remains are now displayed at the Royal Museum of BC in Victoria, BC.
Everett, J-18
Everett was a 23 year old male orca who washed up in Centennial Beach in Tsawwassen, British Columbia in 2000. When necropsied, results suggested that Everett suffered from a bacterial infection his body lacked immunity towards. Additionally, his poorly developed testes and sperm count led to the discovery of a high PCB load in his body.
As apex predators, SRKWs are highly susceptible to high concentrations of PCBs through biomagnification. The Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) get stored in their fatty tissue, and the negative impacts of the POPs are exacerbated when these mammals starve, and start metabolizing their fat stores.
Doublestuf, J-34
Doublestuf, J-34 was found dead at 18 years old near Sechelt, BC, on December 20th 2016. Necropsy results indicated that Doublestuf suffered blunt force trauma on the dorsal side of his body. Based on the findings, the most plausible explanation was that Doublestuf was hit by a vessel, still alive at the time of his injury.
Source: https://killerwhales.fandom.com/wiki/Killer_Whale_Wiki