NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-126

The U.S. Whale Watching Industry 

of Greater Puget Sound

A Description and Baseline Analysis

March 2014

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northwest Fisheries Science Center
NOAA Technical Memorandum

NMFS-NWFSC Series

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of NOAA’s

National Marine Fisheries Service uses the NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC series to issue scientific and 

technical publications. Manuscripts have been peer reviewed 

and edited. Documents published in this series can be cited 

in the scientific and technical literature.

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center’s NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC series continues the NMFSF/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest and

Alaska Fisheries Science Center, which subsequently was 

divided into the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The latter center uses the 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC series.

Reference throughout this document to trade names does not 

imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Reference this document as follows:

Russell, S., and M.S. Ruff. 2014. The U.S. whale watching 

industry of Greater Puget Sound: A description and baseline 

analysis. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-126.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-126

The U.S. Whale Watching Industry 

of Greater Puget Sound

A Description and Baseline Analysis

Suzanne Russell and Morgan Schniedler Ruff*

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Conservation Biology Division

2725 Montlake Boulevard East

Seattle, Washington 98112

*Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Present affiliation: Tulalip Tribes

Tulalip Fisheries and Natural Resources

7515 Totem Beach Road

Tulalip, Washington 98271

March 2014

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service
Most NOAA Technical Memorandums

NMFS-NWFSC are available at the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Web site, http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov

Copies are also available from the

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

Phone orders: 1-800-553-6847

E-mail orders: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

ii
iii

Contents

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................vii

List of Tables.............................................................................................................................................xiii

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................xv

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................................xxiii

Introduction...................................................................................................................................................1

Context: Humans and Ecosystems................................................................................................................3

Biological Context: Southern Resident Killer Whales.............................................................................3

Human Context: Humans and Killer Whales ...........................................................................................5

Economic Context: U.S. SRKW Watching Industry................................................................................7

Policy Context: U.S. SRKWs and Regulatory Protections.......................................................................8

The Study: Background and Development .................................................................................................10

Background.............................................................................................................................................10

Literature Review...............................................................................................................................12

Meetings.............................................................................................................................................12

Secondary Source Research ...............................................................................................................13

Survey Development and Administration ..............................................................................................13

Universe of SRKW Companies..........................................................................................................13

Survey Development..........................................................................................................................15

Survey Administration .......................................................................................................................16

Interviews...........................................................................................................................................17

Survey Responses...............................................................................................................................18

Results.........................................................................................................................................................20

Data Analysis..........................................................................................................................................20

Regional and Tier Aggregation Development....................................................................................20

Development Basis.............................................................................................................................21

Organization of Results..........................................................................................................................23

People in the SRKW Watching Industry ....................................................................................................25

Demographics.........................................................................................................................................25

Demographic Summary......................................................................................................................25
iv

Demographic Figures and Table ........................................................................................................25

Individual Participation ..........................................................................................................................31

Individual Participation Summary .....................................................................................................31

Individual Participation Figures and Tables.......................................................................................32

Motorized Vessel Personnel........................................................................................................................44

Demographics.........................................................................................................................................44

Demographic Summary......................................................................................................................44

Demographic Figures.........................................................................................................................44

Individual Participation ..........................................................................................................................48

Individual Participation Summary .....................................................................................................48

Individual Participation Figures and Tables.......................................................................................51

Motorized Vessel Business.........................................................................................................................68

Business Information..............................................................................................................................68

Business Information Summary .........................................................................................................68

Business Information Tables and Figures..........................................................................................69

Business Operations ...............................................................................................................................78

Business Operations Summary...........................................................................................................78

Business Operations Figures and Table .............................................................................................79

Regional Personnel .....................................................................................................................................86

Demographics.........................................................................................................................................86

Demographic Summary......................................................................................................................86

Demographic Figures.........................................................................................................................86

Individual Participation ..........................................................................................................................90

Individual Participation Summary .....................................................................................................90

Individual Participation Figures and Tables.......................................................................................91

Regional Business Operations ..................................................................................................................102

Business Operations Summary.............................................................................................................102

Business Operations Figures and Table................................................................................................102

Kayak Sector and Land Sector Personnel.................................................................................................109

Demographics.......................................................................................................................................109

Demographic Summary....................................................................................................................109

Demographic Figures.......................................................................................................................109

Individual Participation ........................................................................................................................113

Individual Participation Summary ...................................................................................................113

Individual Participation Figures and Tables.....................................................................................114
v

Kayak Sector and Land Sector Business Operations................................................................................125

Business Operations Summary.............................................................................................................125

Business Operations Figures ................................................................................................................126

SRKW Watching Industry Trends............................................................................................................131

Trends Summary...................................................................................................................................131

Trends Figures......................................................................................................................................132

Effects on the Community ........................................................................................................................137

Effects Summary ..................................................................................................................................137

Effects Figures......................................................................................................................................138

Concluding Discussion .............................................................................................................................155

Demographics.......................................................................................................................................155

Individual Participation ........................................................................................................................157

Business Operations .............................................................................................................................162

Industry Trends.....................................................................................................................................165

Effects on the Community....................................................................................................................165

Additional Analysis..............................................................................................................................166

Final Remarks.......................................................................................................................................166

References.................................................................................................................................................169
vi
vii

Figures

Figure 1. Locations of SRKW motorized vessel viewing companies........................................................14

Figure 2. Tier system decisional flow chart illustrating how federal regulations apply to 

commercial whale watching vessels...........................................................................................................22

Figure 3. Gender distribution in the SRKW watching industry compared to Washington state 

and the United States ..................................................................................................................................26

Figure 4. Age range in employed labor force for the SRKW watching industry, Washington state, 

and the United States ..................................................................................................................................27

Figure 5. Educational attainment levels for the SRKW watching industry, Washington state, and 

the United States.........................................................................................................................................27

Figure 6. Location of permanent residency of SRKW watching industry members .................................28

Figure 7. Total annual income ...................................................................................................................28

Figure 8. Household income in 1999 is the most recent year covered in the 2000 Census for 

Washington state and the United States......................................................................................................29

Figure 9. Total annual income by owner and non-owner ..........................................................................29

Figure 10. Percent of income derived from the SRKW watching industry ...............................................30

Figure 11. Percent of income derived from the industry sorted by owner and non-owner........................30

Figure 12. Survey participant’s roles within the industry..........................................................................33

Figure 13. Types of additional training......................................................................................................34

Figure 14. General types of USCG licenses held by those participants using licenses in the industry .....34

Figure 15. USCG tonnage descriptions......................................................................................................35

Figure 16. Entry year in the industry .........................................................................................................35

Figure 17. Tenure in the industry...............................................................................................................36

Figure 18. Number of years participants have been working in the industry sorted by owner and 

non-owner responses...................................................................................................................................36

Figure 19. Months respondents worked in the 2006 SRKW watching season ..........................................37

Figure 20. Work schedules of respondents................................................................................................37

Figure 21. Description of participants’ involvement in multiple jobs.......................................................38

Figure 22. Season in which multiple jobs were worked in the SRKW watching industry ........................38

Figure 23. Types of jobs held during the whale watching season .............................................................39

Figure 24. Number of hours individuals worked per week in the SRKW watching industry, 

non-whale watching tourism, and non-tourism–related jobs......................................................................39

Figure 25. Off-season work descriptions...................................................................................................40
viii

Figure 26. Past work history ......................................................................................................................40

Figure 27. Types of maritime industry positions participants worked prior to participating in 

the SRKW watching industry .....................................................................................................................41

Figure 28. Locations where respondents participated in maritime industries............................................41

Figure 29. Number of years participants have worked in previously identified maritime positions.........42

Figure 30. Likert scale responses on why respondents participated in the industry ..................................43

Figure 31. Gender distribution by company tier........................................................................................45

Figure 32. Age distribution by tier.............................................................................................................45

Figure 33. Educational attainment by company tier ..................................................................................46

Figure 34. Permanent residence by tier......................................................................................................46

Figure 35. Income by tier...........................................................................................................................47

Figure 36. Percent estimated income derived from SRKW watching industry by tier..............................47

Figure 37. Roles held by participants by company tier..............................................................................53

Figure 38. Description of additional professional training by company tier .............................................54

Figure 39. Tenure by company tier............................................................................................................56

Figure 40. Months worked in the SRKW watching industry by company tier..........................................57

Figure 41. Work schedules by company tier..............................................................................................58

Figure 42. Description of work schedules and multiple work positions sorted by tier..............................58

Figure 43. Seasons when participants work multiple jobs.........................................................................59

Figure 44. Types of additional jobs held during the whale watching season by tier .................................59

Figure 45. Number of hours worked per week in three job categories by Tier 1 companies ....................60

Figure 46. Number of hours worked per week in three job categories by Tier 2 companies ....................60

Figure 47. Number of hours worked per week in three job categories by Tier 3 companies ....................61

Figure 48. Number of hours worked per week in three job categories by Tier 4 companies ....................61

Figure 49. Description of past work history using U.S. Census categories by company tier....................63

Figure 50. Description of past maritime positions held by participants by company tier..........................64

Figure 51. Location of maritime industry experience by tier.....................................................................65

Figure 52. Number of years worked in maritime industry by tier .............................................................66

Figure 53. SRKW watching vessel characteristics ....................................................................................74

Figure 54. SRKW watching vessel characteristics by tier.........................................................................75

Figure 55. Qualitative responses to a question asking participants to list advantages of the type 

of vessel they worked on or owned.............................................................................................................76

Figure 56. Qualitative responses to a question asking participants to list disadvantages of the type 

of vessel they worked on or owned.............................................................................................................77

Figure 57. Tour descriptions provided by motorized vessel companies....................................................80

Figure 58. Percent of motorized vessel activity dedicated to SRKW watching ........................................80
ix

Figure 59. Number of tours offered by the number of companies.............................................................81

Figure 60. Number of tours offered per day by company and company tier.............................................81

Figure 61. Duration of whale watching trips and number of companies that conduct the trips.................82

Figure 62. Duration of whale watching tours by company by tier.............................................................83

Figure 63. Whale watching tour departure times.......................................................................................83

Figure 64. Whale watching tour departure times by company by tier.......................................................84

Figure 65. Percent occupancy for the whale watching industry during peak, low, and off-season ...........84

Figure 66. Percent of additional commercial activities conducted by whale watching vessels.................85

Figure 67. Seasons in which additional commercial activities occurred ...................................................85

Figure 68. Gender distribution by region...................................................................................................87

Figure 69. Age distribution by region........................................................................................................87

Figure 70. Education level by region.........................................................................................................88

Figure 71. Distribution of income before taxes by region .........................................................................88

Figure 72. Percent of income derived from working in the SRKW watching industry by region.............89

Figure 73. Permanent residence by region and county ..............................................................................89

Figure 74. Role by region ..........................................................................................................................92

Figure 75. Additional training by region ...................................................................................................93

Figure 76. Entry year into the industry by region ......................................................................................94

Figure 77. Tenure in industry by region ....................................................................................................94

Figure 78. Months worked in the industry by region.................................................................................95

Figure 79. Work schedules by region ........................................................................................................95

Figure 80. Percent of multiple jobs being worked by region.....................................................................96

Figure 81. Seasons when multiple jobs are worked by region...................................................................96

Figure 82. Other types of roles occupied during the active SRKW viewing season .................................97

Figure 83. Hours worked during the active SRKW viewing season by region .........................................97

Figure 84. Off-season work descriptions by region...................................................................................98

Figure 85. Past work history by region......................................................................................................98

Figure 86. Maritime position descriptions held by region .........................................................................99

Figure 87. Locations where the maritime positions were held by region ..................................................99

Figure 88. Number of years worked in maritime positions by region .....................................................100

Figure 89. Tier distribution by region......................................................................................................103

Figure 90. Tour descriptions by region....................................................................................................104

Figure 91. Percent of vessel activity dedicated to SRKW viewing by region .........................................105

Figure 92. Number of tours offered by the number of companies by region...........................................105
x

Figure 93. Duration of whale watching trips and number of companies that conducted the trips 

by region ...................................................................................................................................................106

Figure 94. SRKW watching tour departure times by company by region ...............................................107

Figure 95. Occupancy rates by region during peak, low, and off-season activities.................................107

Figure 96. Percent of additional commercial activities by region ...........................................................108

Figure 97. Seasons during which additional commercial activities occur...............................................108

Figure 98. Gender by kayak and land sectors..........................................................................................110

Figure 99. Age by kayak and land sectors...............................................................................................110

Figure 100. Educational attainment by kayak and land sectors...............................................................111

Figure 101. Income by kayak and land sectors........................................................................................111

Figure 102. Income from the SRKW watching industry by kayak and land sectors...............................112

Figure 103. Income from the SRKW watching industry by owner and non-owner by kayak and 

land sectors................................................................................................................................................112

Figure 104. Permanent residence by kayak and land sectors...................................................................113

Figure 105. Role by kayak and land sectors ............................................................................................115

Figure 106. Additional training by kayak and land sectors .....................................................................116

Figure 107. Entry year into industry by sector.........................................................................................117

Figure 108. Tenure by kayak and land sectors.........................................................................................117

Figure 109. Tenure by owner and non-owner by kayak and land sectors................................................118

Figure 110. Months worked in the whale watching industry by kayak and land sectors.........................118

Figure 111. Work schedules by kayak and land sectors..........................................................................119

Figure 112. Percent of multiple jobs worked by kayak and land sectors.................................................119

Figure 113. Other roles by kayak and land sectors..................................................................................120

Figure 114. Number of hours worked for the kayak sector .....................................................................120

Figure 115. Number of hours worked for the land sector........................................................................121

Figure 116. Off-season work by sector....................................................................................................121

Figure 117. Past work history by kayak and land sectors........................................................................122

Figure 118. Maritime industry positions by kayak and land sectors........................................................122

Figure 119. Locations where maritime positions were held by kayak and land sector participants........123

Figure 120. Number of years worked in maritime positions by kayak and land sector participants.......123

Figure 121. Description of whale watching tours provided by kayak and land sectors...........................127

Figure 122. Percent of company tour activity dedicated to SRKW viewing by sector............................128

Figure 123. Estimated number and duration of trips for the kayak sector based on secondary data .......128

Figure 124. Percent occupancy for the peak season by kayak and land sectors......................................129

Figure 125. Percent of additional commercial activities by sector ..........................................................129
xi

Figure 126. Seasons in which additional commercial activities were conducted by sector.....................130

Figure 127. Expanded SRKW viewing opportunities by industry members...........................................132

Figure 128. Expanded viewing opportunities to include other wildlife by SRKW watching 

industry members......................................................................................................................................133

Figure 129. Changes in the ownership structure in the industry..............................................................133

Figure 130. Changes in the SRKW watching industry vessels................................................................134

Figure 131. Perceived change in the number of vessels in the U.S. SRKW watching industry ..............134

Figure 132. Perceived change in tourists in the SRKW watching industry .............................................135

Figure 133. Perceived change in the number of non-U.S. vessels in the SRKW watching industry.......135

Figure 134. Perceived change in the number of recreational vessels around the SRKWs.......................136

Figure 135. Types of partnerships with other tourism entities.................................................................139

Figure 136. Location where partnerships with other tourism entities occurred.......................................139

Figure 137. Shore support services described and sorted by the first, second, and third vessels ............140

Figure 138. Location of shore support services by percent .....................................................................141

Figure 139. Qualitative responses to a question asking participants to describe the significance of 

the SRKW watching industry to their local communities.........................................................................142

Figure 140. Qualitative responses to a question asking participants to describe the significance of 

the SRKW watching industry to the general public..................................................................................146

Figure 141. Qualitative responses to a question asking participants to provide any additional 

comments to identify the important and unique characteristics of the SRKW watching industry ...........151
xii
xiii

Tables

Table 1. Whale watching company and vessel trends by year.....................................................................7

Table 2. Operational communities and related regional assignments........................................................15

Table 3. Field schedule to administer surveys...........................................................................................17

Table 4. Distribution of whale watching companies into tier groups based on the vessels 

operated by the companies and the application of the tier decisional analysis...........................................23

Table 5. Estimated percent of income derived from the SRKW watching industry compared to 

total household income of surveyed members............................................................................................31

Table 6. Number of roles indicated by survey participants .......................................................................33

Table 7. Number of roles held by participants by company tier................................................................54

Table 8. Percent of participants who held a USCG license by company tier ............................................55

Table 9. Percent of participants who held a USCG license and used it in the SRKW watching 

industry by tier............................................................................................................................................55

Table 10. Percent of types of USCG licenses held and used in the industry by company tier ..................55

Table 11. Percent description of USCG license tonnage used in the industry by tier ...............................55

Table 12. Entry year into industry by tier..................................................................................................56

Table 13. Work conducted in the off-season years prior to and after the study years of 2005/2006 

and 2006/2007.............................................................................................................................................62

Table 14. Historical participation in maritime industry by tier by percent................................................63

Table 15. Likert scale description of reasons to participate in the industry by company tier....................67

Table 16. Vessel characteristics.................................................................................................................70

Table 17. Trip information summary.........................................................................................................82

Table 18. Number of roles by region .........................................................................................................93

Table 19. Likert scale description of reasons to participate in the industry by region.............................101

Table 20. Trip information summary by region.......................................................................................106

Table 21. Number of roles by sector........................................................................................................116

Table 22. Likert scale description of reasons to participate in the industry by kayak and land sectors...124
xiv
xv

Executive Summary

Background

Southern Resident killer whales (SRKWs) were listed as an endangered species in 2005. 

This triggered the requirement for a recovery plan that was released in 2008. Extensive 

biological studies are focused on determining the causes for the decline of the killer whales and 

how to conserve and recover the population.

Being a charismatic megafauna, a focal point of tourism in aquariums and parks such as 

SeaWorld, as well as the subject of a series of films, killer whales have become a main attraction 

for marine viewing. SRKWs occupy a unique geographic area in Greater Puget Sound for part 

of the year. As a result, an extensive tourism industry has developed. This industry aims to 

provide SRKW viewing opportunities to the public.

While the industry provides tourism opportunities to view the whales, evidence indicates 

some characteristics of the industry may be risk factors for the SRKW. While biological 

scientists study the biological issues surrounding the SRKW, this study considers the industry 

and the people who make up the industry in order to gain a better understanding of the ecosystem 

that surrounds the SRKW.

Overview of the Industry

The whale watching industry is diverse and well organized. The Pacific Whale Watch 

Association has a range of member companies that abide by association mandates and operate 

via guidelines. Most companies that are members of this organization are motorized vessel 

companies. In addition, kayak companies and land-based viewing companies exist in this 

particular industry. Tourism companies are also distributed between the United States and 

British Columbia. The industry is highly diverse both geographically and based on its platforms. 

This research is focused on understanding those companies that operate in the U.S. portion of the 

industry. During the study year, 18 U.S. motorized vessel companies operated 23 vessels out of 

multiple ports in the San Juan Islands, the Olympic Peninsula, and Puget Sound coastlines.

Research

Using social science tools, this research aims to create a baseline description of the 

industry. A survey instrument, distributed primarily in person, and unstructured interviews were 

the mechanisms for extensive data collection efforts. Information obtained included 

demographics, individual participation, business characteristics, industry trends, and effects on 

the community. Data were collected from individuals who participated in the industry either 

through paid or volunteer positions during the 2006 active whale watching season.
xvi

Response rates were complex, but averaged a 61% return, yielding 112 completed 

surveys. Larger companies with more employees, where there was less one-on-one interaction 

between employees and researchers, had the lowest response rates. The motorized vessel sector

had the highest response rates and the San Juan Island region had slightly higher response rates 

than the mainland region.

Data were analyzed with various different types of aggregations in an attempt to clarify 

the results and show the most accurate representation of the data. Overall analysis of all data 

included representation of all sectors of the industry independent of the type of company, its 

geographic location, or size. Regional analysis sorted companies based on their geographic 

locations, as some companies are more remote, located on the San Juan Islands, while others are 

accessible from the Interstate 5 corridor. Sector analysis sorted the data by sector: motorized 

vessel, kayak, and land. This allowed for a better understanding of differences between types of 

companies.

The motorized vessel sector was further aggregated to protect confidentiality and sorted 

by vessel types. Vessels in the industry were compared to United States Coast Guard (USCG) 

vessel regulations. The regulations identify different vessel types based on various 

characteristics such as length and passenger capacity. The companies affiliated with the vessels 

were sorted into four groups based on the USCG vessel types. Tier 1 companies represent those 

larger vessels the USCG defines as motor vessels (greater than 65 feet long). Tier 2 companies 

operated one or more USCG-defined T-type small passenger vessels (under 100 gross tons and 

carries 150 or less passengers) that participated in the whale watching industry. Tier 3 

companies include those operating only a single T-type small passenger vessel. Tier 4 

companies operated USGC-defined uninspected passenger vessels (at least 100 gross tons and 

carries no more than 12 passengers). This analysis allowed for matching companies with similar 

traits and comparing the differences between the types of vessels operating in the industry.

Results

Findings were extensive. Unique results are discussed here. The type of analysis or 

analysis aggregation respective to each result is provided for data clarity. Sample results are 

shown for each section of the survey.

Demographics

Demographic results under the overall analysis of age data show the industry was

comprised of a higher percentage of older individuals working, as compared to U.S. Census data 

for Washington state or the nation. Further regional analysis of this data shows a higher 

percentage of people over the age of 45 years old working, living, and operating businesses out 

of the island region.

Overall analysis shows industry members were more highly educated than the average 

reported in the U.S. Census for both Washington state and the nation. A majority of those 

individuals with a bachelor’s degree or a higher degree were found in the island region per 

regional analysis. Motorized vessel tier analysis shows them more prominently in Tier 2 and 

Tier 3 companies.
xvii

Overall findings indicate residence was primarily in Western Washington, with a 

majority of individuals residing in San Juan County, followed by King County and Whatcom 

County. Regional analysis shows that individuals residing in the island region work close to 

where they live, primarily in San Juan County, while individuals working in the mainland region 

reside in a broader range of counties, such as Whatcom, King, and Skagit counties.

Overall income results show most participants earned between $10,000 and $30,000. 

Regional analysis further clarifies that this trend was prominent in the island region. In the 

mainland region, a majority of the individuals earned between $31,000 and $50,000. Analysis 

also shows a majority of those earning more than $50,000 a year were owners of companies. 

When asked what percent of their income came from working in the SRKW industry, overall 

results indicate a majority received 0–25% of their income from the industry. Of those receiving 

more than 50% of their income from the industry, the majority were owners. Tier analysis shows

they worked on Tier 2 and Tier 3 vessels. Regional analysis shows they primarily operated out 

of the island region.

Demographic data assisted in a better understanding of age variation by geography. It 

also provided insight into how to communicate based on the high levels of education. Residency 

provided an understanding of possible impacts on the communities, where island and smaller 

communities that are more remote may be less resilient to change than those closer to large 

metropolitan areas. Income information provided some insight into the importance of the 

industry to the income and livelihoods of those working in the industry. Together, these 

indicators can assist in understanding social impacts any regulatory or other changes might have 

on the industry members.

Individual Participation

Individual participation data expanded on demographic data by asking more extensive 

and informative questions about the individuals. Some interesting results include entry years 

into the industry and the number of years worked in the industry. Overall analysis shows the 

first entry into the industry in 1978, with additional peaks in 1998, 2004, and 2006. Regional 

analysis indicates a majority entering in 2006 in the mainland region. Peaks in entry in the island 

region were in 1997 and 2004. Sector analysis shows a prominent peak of entrants in the kayak 

sector in 2006, contributing to an overall high peak of entrants in 2006.

Considering the number of years individuals had worked, overall analysis shows the 

majority had worked in the industry for 2–5 years, followed by 6–10 years and up to 26–30 

years. Regional analysis reveals a majority of those working 2–5 years were in the mainland, 

while a slight majority of those working in the island region had worked 6–10 years. Tier 

analysis provides further clarification, indicating that Tier 1 and Tier 3 companies had a majority 

with tenure of 2–5 years, while Tier 3 and Tier 4 had high numbers of individuals with tenure of 

6–10 years. Of those with the highest tenures, 26–30 years, they worked in the mainland, kayak 

sector, and Tier 1 and Tier 2 companies.

Various questions were asked regarding work schedules. When asked what months most 

participants worked, as this industry is primarily a seasonal industry, overall results show a 

steady increase beginning in March, peaking in July, slowly decreasing into October, and 
xviii

stabilizing again with a reduced number of people working all year. This trend varied slightly in 

percent between types of analysis, but the trend is consistent in all other types of analysis. 

Overall analysis indicates most individuals worked more than 40 hours a week during the season, 

closely followed by those working 40 hours (full time) or less than 40 hours (part time). 

Regional analysis shows a majority in both regions worked part-time jobs, more individuals in 

the mainland region worked more than full-time hours, and full-time workers are comparable 

between regions.

Results from this section helped understand an individual’s investments and dependence 

on the industry in which they participated. Concepts such as tenure and the link to vessel size 

helped derive more questions to pursue. For example, is it easier to start a company with a small 

boat, then expand the operations if successful?

Business Operations

When considering business operations, questions focused on types of tours, the details of 

the tours offered, and vessel characteristics. Study participants described the types of tours that 

were provided by motorized vessels on a Likert scale. Overall analysis indicates the highest 

levels of agreement described the tours as boat-based tours on which the SRKW is a focal point, 

followed by a description of “wildlife tours” and tours on which the SRKW is the “exclusive 

intent” of the tour. Kayak results show an overwhelming response, 88.9%, that their tours were 

“exclusively” kayak tours. The land sector shows a high percent of responses, 75%, as selecting 

“strongly applies” for the description of land-based whale watching tours.

Tour description data were followed by a question asking what percent of a vessel’s 

activity was dedicated to SRKW viewing. The highest responses in the motorized vessel 

analysis show that 42.9% said 91–100% of vessel activity was dedicated to SRKW viewing. The 

highest responses in the regional analysis show that 23.3% of mainland and 44.3% of island 

respondents said 91–100% of their vessel activity was dedicated to SRKW viewing. The highest 

responses in the kayak sector analysis had 47.8% selecting a “not applicable” answer, indicating 

the perspective that their companies did not dedicate tour activities for SRKW viewing. The 

land sector results show 60% of respondents dedicated 1–20% of the tour activity to SRKW 

viewing.

When asking questions about the number of tours offered, departure times, and duration

in hours, the data returned were very complex and too difficult to condense in a meaningful way. 

As a result, we turned to secondary data including the Internet and print media to try and 

determine tour information. From the review of advertised or otherwise communicated tours, we 

compiled estimates from secondary data to discuss tour information. Our analysis indicated that 

17 companies identified (of 18 companies, data were only available from 17 companies for this 

analysis) offered 37 tours daily in 2006. The ability to offer multiple tours is directly linked to 

the composition of the business and the associated fleet of vessels and vessel type. Larger, faster 

vessels may provide either longer tours once a day or shorter tours several times a day. In 

addition, some companies operated multiple vessels that were dedicated to some level of SRKW 

viewing activities. Results show that most companies, seven, operated only one tour per day and 

five companies operated two tours a day. Additional results indicate some other variations; 

however, only two companies offered five tours per day. Further tier analysis shows all Tier 1, 
xix

the largest vessels, operated only one tour per day, where Tier 2 had the most diversity in tour 

offerings, 1–5 per day. Tier 3 and Tier 4 companies operated 1–3 tours per day. Regional 

analysis shows all but one of the mainland companies offered one tour per day. The island 

region offered the greatest range of tour options.

Tour duration results show great diversity as well. They ranged from 2.5 hours to 7 

hours. Results shown are aggregated by companies with similar tour durations and reported on 

the number of combined companies offering specific tour durations. Further tier analysis shows

duration time varied across tiers. The majority of 4-hour trips were offered in Tier 2 and Tier 3 

companies while 7-hour trips were offered by Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 4 companies. Regional 

data indicate the most variation in the mainland, with tour duration operations from 2.5 to 7 

hours. Island region companies offered tours for either 3 or 4 hours.

Tour departure times provided another measurement to describe tours. The motorized 

vessel analysis shows a small majority of tours departing prior to noon, followed by several 

departing after noon and even fewer departing in the evening. Tier analysis shows Tier 1 had the 

greatest percentage of tours departing in the early morning, which supports their long tour 

durations of 7 hours. Otherwise tour departures prior to noon were very similar across all other 

tiers. Tier 4 had the majority of tours departing in the late afternoon. Regional analysis shows

departure time throughout the day for both regions. A majority of the tours in the mainland 

region departed before noon, with fewer tours leaving after noon. Island region results show 

steady departures from midmorning throughout the day. These results align well with the tier 

analysis.

These tour data can assist in the understanding of how the companies work, vessel size, 

the number of vessels a company may operate, and the number of tours offered. Data revealed

regional variations that may be clearly linked to the vessel characteristics. These same 

characteristics may be the primary driver for the tour designs. This speaks not only to the 

experience aboard these vessels, but the tour characteristics as discussed, to include the number 

of tours offered in a day as well as the tour durations and departure times. It is very important to 

clarify and reiterate that these tour results are based on secondary data and represent the number 

of tours offered, not the actual number of tours operated on any given day.

Industry Trends

The industry trends section of the survey provides some information on how the industry

had changed. Results here are slightly different from the other sections, as many new or recent 

entrants into the industry did not feel they had enough background to answer the questions. 

Consequently, the response rates were lower. However, those who did answer had higher 

tenures and may represent a more accurate vision of the industry trends. Results in this section 

are limited to an overall analysis of all survey respondents.

One question asked respondents to describe changes in the vessels in the industry over 

time. Results indicate a 76.8% response that vessels were now faster and a 75% response that 

vessels were larger. This was closely followed by a 60.7% response that vessels had increased 

passenger capacity.
xx

Ownership structure information was also pursued to try to understand whether existing 

businesses are expanding or new businesses are entering the industry. Responses show that 72% 

said existing owners are buying new boats, 61% said new owners are entering the industry with 

new boats, and 50% said new owners are entering the industry and purchasing boats that were 

already operating in the industry.

A series of Likert scale responses from strongly disagree to strongly agree were asked in 

relation to the state of the U.S. vessels in the SRKW industry, tourists in the U.S. industry, 

vessels in the non-U.S. industry, and recreational vessels. Regarding vessels in the U.S. SRKW 

industry, in an aggregate of the positive responses of strongly agree and agree, a majority of 

responses indicate that the number of U.S. vessels in the industry was either growing, 45.2%, or 

saturated, 45%. A close response indicates that 38.6% felt the number of U.S. vessels in the 

industry was stable. Additional results show that an aggregate of the disagree responses, 62.3%, 

did not agree that the number of U.S. vessels operating in the SKRW industry was declining.

A second question asked participants to rate descriptions about the state of the tourists in 

the U.S. SRKW industry. Aggregate agree responses show 52.5% said the number of tourists 

was growing. Aggregate disagree responses show 71% said the number of tourists in the 

industry was not declining, and 67% said they disagree that the number of tourists was saturated. 

As a result, an interpretation of this question suggests that there was room for more growth in 

tourist numbers, and as of the study year of 2006, there was no decline in the number of tourists.

Another line of questioning asked about the non-U.S. SRKW vessels, more specifically 

those Canadian vessels participating in the industry. When asked whether the number of 

Canadian vessels was declining, stable, growing, or saturated, 62% of positive aggregate 

responses agreed that the number of vessels was growing and 40% said they were saturated. 

This is supported by the aggregation of the disagree responses; 66% disagreed the number of 

vessels is declining and 51.5% disagreed the number of vessels is stable.

The final Likert scale questions asked participants to rate the number of recreational 

vessels around the SRKW. The aggregate agree responses show 55% said the number of 

recreational vessels was growing, which was further supported by a 66% disagree aggregate 

response that the number of vessels was declining.

Information gathered in this line of questioning helps us understand the trends within the 

industry from the perceptions of the study participants. Insight into the vessel activity in the U.S. 

and Canadian fleets is useful information in projecting where the industry may move in the 

future. It provides a glance at industry member perceptions of tourists and recreational vessels, 

and the possible future capacity of tourism in this industry. Gaining perspectives on recreational 

vessels helps with the larger question of presence of other vessels on the water, which may have

their own impacts to the SRKW.

Effects on the Community

The whale watching industry and its effects are not limited to the vessels and land 

businesses, but may be connected to the local communities in which the businesses operate. 

Connections to other tourism entities was acknowledged, where 47.5% held a membership in the 
xxi

chamber of commerce, 37.6% had partnerships with vacation resorts, and 35.6% had

partnerships with other tourism companies. The location of these partnerships also contributed 

to understanding the connection between the industry and their communities. Results show that 

75% of these partnerships were local and 66.2% were in the Greater Puget Sound region.

Shore support services are another way to see the connection between industry businesses 

and the local community. Shore support services results indicate a majority of respondents, 

84.8%, obtained fuel, while 73.7% used graphics/printing services, and 70.7% used Web and 

office rental services. Other services obtained included marketing, ticketing kiosks, vessel 

maintenance, and food services. When asked to distinguish where these support services were 

obtained, a distinction was made between the home port, where the vessel was permanently 

moored, or the operational port, where the vessel docked for tours, but was not permanently 

moored. Results indicate that 48.2% of participants used the services in their home port 76–

100% of the time. Fewer companies had operational ports and most said operational ports were 

not applicable to them. However, for those with operational ports, 23.2% used the support 

services 76–100% of the time.

When asked to describe the significance of the industry to the local community in which 

the business operated, qualitative analysis identified several themes. The themes include

tourism, education, and local community perspectives. The majority of responses, 119, fell 

within a theme of tourism. This is where the industry provides an economic benefit to the local 

community, draws visitors/customers, provides direct and indirect jobs, provides entertainment, 

and serves as a tourism draw to the local community. An exemplary response follows.

I think a substantial amount of visitation to San Juan Island is generated by the 

presence of SRKWs. Many, many day visitors come to the island to go whale 

watching or kayaking, and spend money on ferries, food, gifts, and lodging, 

providing many jobs and lots of tax revenue. Many ... businesses can stay open 

year-round to provide services to residents because of the influx of visitors in 

season—many hoping to experience the SRKW.

Another question asked participants to comment on the significance of the industry to the 

general public. Again, qualitative analysis identified themes. Those themes include the SRKW, 

education, tourism, no impact to the general public, nature, and the economy. The majority of 

respondents, 88, spoke to the theme of education. This included concepts such as the SKRW 

industry contributing to education of nature/natural history, awareness of the ecosystem, attitudes 

and personal responsibility, values and the significance of nature and the whales, advocacy, and 

working with local schools and teachers. An exemplary response follows.

I think the opportunity to view SRKW population from a water platform provides 

an experience that helps people build bridges between personal values and 

conservation/environmental ethics. It gives people a real sense of wild animals in 

their natural habitat. I believe this becomes foundational in a paradigm that helps 

translate into action ... consumer decisions, votes, conservation, etc.

Results in this section provide some indication of how the businesses are connected to 

their communities. Many businesses indicated they not only contributed to the local economies 

through jobs, tourism, attracting tourists, purchasing supplies and services in their local 
xxii

communities, but also communicated with the general public aiming to foster a higher level of 

education about nature.

Discussion

This research provides a broad range of sociocultural information regarding the U.S. 

SRKW whale watching industry in Puget Sound, Washington. Combined, this may help to

contribute more information not only to the management of the SRKW, but to those interested in 

the industry as well. Information on the people of the industry may assist in learning how to best 

communicate with the industry, understand their level of investment in the industry, and provide 

insight into their connections with their local communities. Business operations information 

provides clarification on vessel types, differences between regions, tour type information, 

schedules, and levels of activity in the industry. Industry trends information from the industry 

members themselves can be coupled with historical data to contribute local observations. Effects 

on the community are the first step in gaining some insight into a broader question of the 

connection of the industry to their local communities. This information may be used to inform 

single or multiple questions or goals of the SRKW recovery plan. In addition, it provides a 

baseline for the comparison of similar future data collection, as well as ideas for other areas of 

future data collection.
xxiii

Acknowledgments

Many individuals contributed in various capacities to this research effort. We appreciate 

our National Marine Fisheries Service colleagues, Lynne Barre, Brent Norberg, Linda Jones, 

Brad Hanson, and Dawn Noren, for their assistance in the background meetings while 

establishing this study and input throughout the research process.

Many thanks to the Whale Museum staff, Rich Osbourne, Jenny Atkinson, and especially 

Kari Koski, former Soundwatch program coordinator. We greatly appreciate their assistance in

learning about the industry, support during and after the data collection, and the opportunity to 

learn more about Soundwatch.

We also appreciate the board of the former Whale Watch Operator’s Association 

Northwest (currently Pacific Whale Watching Association) for participating in the pilot testing of 

the survey document.

Finally, we thank all the participants who made time in their schedules to work with us. 

As this research study needed to be conducted during the peak season of the industry, individuals 

were very gracious to grant us some time to collect the information.
xxiv
Introduction

Killer whales (Orcinus orca), also known as orcas, are cultural icons for the human 

residents of the Pacific Northwest Puget Sound region. The importance of killer whales is 

clearly evident in the tribal and nontribal cultures of the area. Whales are represented in past and 

contemporary tribal art as well as Pacific Northwest promotional materials. In 2005 Governor 

Christine Gregoire signed legislation designating the killer whale as the official marine mammal 

of Washington.

The presence of killer whales in the Puget Sound basin brings these animals in close 

proximity to humans, fostering development of a whale watching industry that provides

opportunities to observe the whales. These opportunities are not only sought out by out-of-state 

and in-state tourists, but also embraced by local residents as well. This industry is dependent on 

the healthy existence of the whales and their continued return to Puget Sound.

In 2003 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Southern Resident 

Killer Whale (SRKW) population, which spends much of its time in the Puget Sound region, as 

depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. This listing resulted in the 

development of a proposed conservation plan that outlined steps to conserve and restore the 

species. In 2005 the agency also listed SRKWs as endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (ESA). The NMFS Northwest Regional Office (NRO) took the proposed Marine 

Mammal Protection Act conservation plan, addressed comments on it, and incorporated ESA 

elements into a proposed ESA recovery plan, which was released for comment in November 

2006. The agency incorporated comments and new research results and references, then 

finalized and released an ESA Recovery Plan for Puget Sound killer whales in January 2008

(NMFS 2008).

Ongoing biological studies related to the SRKW seek to better understand the animals 

and their ecosystem. These studies focus on issues surrounding the SRKW such as their diet, 

behavior, and habitat. Social science considers the human components of the ecosystem. 

Studies from this discipline focus on tourists, local residents, and industry members to better 

understand issues such as the values of the resource and dependence on it. Together, the 

biological and social sciences can complement one another, leading to a more integrated 

understanding of the entire ecosystem. The link between the SRKW and the whale watching 

industry in Greater Puget Sound provides a unique opportunity for conducting studies in both the 

biological and social sciences. This specific study is sociocultural, noneconomic in nature, and 

seeks to provide information about the people who work in the U.S. SRKW watching industry

and describe the members that comprise it.

This technical memorandum is organized in several sections. The next section on 

humans and ecosystems discusses background information related to the study. Topics include 

biological information on the whales and how their unique characteristics contribute to human 
2

interest. The section also provides a short history of the whales from a human perspective and a 

review of the industry and its organization, followed by an overview of the regulations that 

surround the actions being taken to restore the killer whales. The following section discusses the 

study’s background and development, touching on methods and materials, survey development

and administration, and survey response. Then the section on results discusses how the data 

were analyzed, the various aggregations used, how they were determined, and the organization of 

the results. The next nine sections include the data. Each section contains a summary and tables 

or figures showing results specific to that section. These data sections are followed by a 

Concluding Discussion section, which pulls together points for each of the various types of 

analysis and summarizes them, as well as offers some final remarks.
3

Context: Humans and Ecosystems

Humans are as intricately woven into ecosystems as any other element. For example, 

scientists study the biological factors of the health, habitat, abundance, etc., of commercial 

fisheries; however, the fisheries themselves are driven by humans. Humans can impact the 

health of a fish stock by negatively altering water quality, damaging or destroying habitat for 

commercial fish species, or overfishing species. The human impacts are not limited to negative 

ones. Humans can improve water quality, protect habitat through setting aside protected areas or 

altering commercial fishing gear that could otherwise damage habitat, and manage the resource 

in order to recover or retain the abundance of a fish species. All of these aspects of the 

ecosystem surrounding a marine species are directly related to human interaction.

The same concepts apply when considering marine mammals. Negative impacts such as 

net entanglements, oil spills, or ship strikes of large marine mammals are all human-driven 

impacts. These impacts can also can be mitigated by human activity. Alterations in net design 

and vessel operation with nets, modifications to vessels to minimize the release of oil, and 

altering shipping lanes to minimize strikes with large vessels are all ways humans have altered 

their interactions with marine ecosystems.

The social sciences can provide information on people, how they use a resource, their 

behaviors that may harm or benefit the resource, the importance of the resource to the public, and 

the culture surrounding the resource, among others. Understanding the relationship between 

people and the resource creates the potential to incorporate the resource users into decision 

making, models, and projects and to better understand how the resource can be managed. This 

management has the potential of being more complete with the incorporation of social science.

As scientists embrace the context of management through ecosystem research, the 

incorporation of people into the equation becomes more apparent. An interdisciplinary approach 

including researchers in the natural and social sciences makes the ecosystem puzzle fit together 

nicely. The research conducted by this study seeks to contribute to the understanding of people 

in the complex ecosystem surrounding the SRKW. This research in conjunction with ongoing 

biological research can paint a more complete picture of the SRKW ecosystem.

Biological Context: Southern Resident Killer Whales

Killer whales, the world’s largest dolphin, are considered to be the most widely 

distributed cetacean species in the world (Carwadine et al. 1998, Ford 2002, NMFS 2008, 2013). 

In the northeastern Pacific Ocean, scientists have identified three types of killer whales: 

residents, transients, and offshores (Ford et al. 2000, NMFS 2008). Resident killer whales,

distributed from Russia to California, are further broken down into multiple distinct 

communities, one of which is the SRKW (Krahn et al. 2002, 2004, NMFS 2008). The SRKW is 

considered a distinct population consisting of three pods. These pods are identified as the J, K, 

and L pods (Ford et al. 2000, Krahn et al. 2002, 2004). These whales reside in the inland 
4

waterways of Greater Puget Sound, which includes the Strait of Georgia, Strait of Juan de Fuca, 

and Puget Sound in Washington state and British Columbia (Ford et al. 2000, Krahn et al. 2002, 

NMFS 2008). The whales are present in this locality primarily during summer and fall.

Fish, primarily Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), are thought to be the major source of 

food for the SRKW (NMFS 2008). Specifically, Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) are the 

preferred prey, followed by other salmonid species and nonsalmonids (Ford and Ellis 2006, 

NMFS 2008, Hanson et al. 2010). Ford and Ellis (2006) reported a small number of 

nonsalmonid prey species including herring (Clupea pallasii), sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria), 

yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), quillback rockfish (S. maliger), and Pacific halibut

(Hippoglossus stenolepis). Hanson et al. (2010) further identify nonsalmonid summer prey 

selection to include lingcod (Ophiodon elongates), rockfish (Sebastes spp.), and Dover sole 

(Microstomus pacificus), as well as the halibut found by Ford and Ellis (2006). Research 

indicates that SRKWs spend about 50–60% of their time foraging for food (NMFS 2008). Other 

SRKW activities include traveling, resting, and socializing (Ford 2002, NMFS 2008).

Life expectancy in killer whales varies by gender. Research indicates that the average 

life expectancy of a female killer is 50 years, but individuals may live up to 90 years. The 

average life expectancy of males is 30 years, but individuals may live up to 50–60 years (Ford 

2002, NMFS 2008). Population estimates for the SRKW indicate there were about 86 whales in 

2006 and 87–88 by late fall of 2007 (NMFS 2008, Center for Whale Research1

). More recent 

updates indicate an estimated population of 86 individuals by the end of 2010 and 84 individuals 

by the end of 2012 (NMFS 2011, Center for Whale Research2

). Some information suggests the 

population estimates were greater than 200 animals around the mid to late 1800s, suggesting a 

drop in the current population (NMFS 2008).

Killer whales generally reside in a pod, which is a “group of related matrilines that likely 

share a common maternal ancestor in the recent past” (Ford et al. 2000). A matriline is further 

defined as a “group of closely related whales linked by maternal descent” (Ford et al. 2000). 

Killer whales are highly social and may temporarily congregate around sources of food for social 

interaction or for breeding purposes. Social behavior includes play, where whales exhibit 

extraordinary activities such as breaching, tail slapping, spyhopping, flipper slapping, and aerial 

displays (NMFS 2008). In addition, whales have been seen occasionally playing with items such 

as kelp or in the wake of passing vessels (Ford et al. 2000). Evidence of these social displays has

been extensively documented by researchers and whale watching enthusiasts alike.

The coloration of killer whales is black and white with a touch of gray. The animal is 

primarily black on its dorsal side and white on the ventral region (NMFS 2008, Ford 2002). 

Several white areas include an oval patch above and behind the eye, a “saddle” patch behind the 

dorsal fin, and a white belly marking extending from the ventral white coloration up toward the 

lower rear flank. In infants the white coloration is yellow or orange (Krahn et al. 2002, NMFS 

2008). Of importance concerning coloration are variations in the color patterns, specifically the 

white patches, that are unique to each individual. These variations, in addition to scars and other 

marks, enable the identification of specific individuals (Ford et al. 2000, NMFS 2008, Center for 

 1 Center for Whale Research, online at http://www.whaleresearch.com/research.html. 2 See footnote 1.
5

Whale Research3). Along with coloring, development of the dorsal fin and its characteristics 

contribute not only to the ability to distinguish whales by gender, but also help to distinguish 

between populations. Resident, transient, and offshore populations have different dorsal fin 

characteristics with variations in size, curvature, and saddle patch placement (Ford et al. 2000). 

The ability to identify specific individuals is important not only in terms of management, but also 

in how people can relate to a specific individual.

Since the early 1970s, photo identification has been used and updated annually to build 

genealogical maps of the SRKW population (Ford et al. 2000, NMFS 2008, Center for Whale 

Research4, 5

). In addition to using photographs to identify whales, a naming structure was 

developed using an alphanumeric system, such as J2 and L72 (Ford et al. 2000). This 

strengthened the ability to identify specific individuals. Further research and understanding of 

life histories as well as other aspects of the killer whale societies was also facilitated (Ford et al.

2000). To this day, these photo identification records and the ability to identify specific 

individuals are maintained and provide a key tool in biological research. The usefulness of these 

identification techniques is not limited to biological research only; they are also a valuable 

resource in the tourism industry.

These biological aspects of killer whales also play a role in the ability of members of the 

public to be enthralled by merely seeing the whales. Their sheer size makes them easy to see 

from a distance. Their longevity allows people to identify the whales year after year, observe

how the whales grow and change over time, or just simply hope that a favorite whale returns the 

following year. The ability to identify individual whales also enables people to develop personal 

relationships with specific whales. This is simplified in the naming hierarchy. In addition to 

scientific alphanumeric identifications, individual whales have been given common names with 

which the public can easily identify. For example J-1’s common name was Ruffles and L-55’s 

common name is Nugget. This further personalizes the whales. Their social habits, especially 

aerial displays and other behaviors, bring the whales out of the water, allowing people to see 

more of the whales without having to be underwater. The social relationships between whales, 

such as familial bonds, provide a correlation to human relationships. Other characteristics hint at 

the personalities of individual whales, further enthralling the public. All these biological features 

feed into the concept of charismatic megafauna surrounding the killer whales.

Human Context: Humans and Killer Whales

The relationship between people and killer whales has changed over time. Historically 

the whales were termed “killers” due to eyewitness accounts of killer whale behaviors (NMFS 

2008). From a Roman scholar who stated “A killer whale cannot be properly depicted or 

described except as an enormous mass of flesh armed with savage teeth,” to 18th century 

Spanish whalers witnessing orcas feeding on larger whales, and descriptions of 20th century 

fishermen who lost catch to killer whales, they were viewed as savage hunters of the oceans.6 

Even recent footage portrayed in the Discovery Channel’s Blue Planet television series captures 

 3 Center for Whale Research, online at http://www.rockisland.com/~orcasurv/identify.htm. 4 Center for Whale Research, online at http://www.whaleresearch.com/orca_ID_pods.html. 5 Center for Whale Research, online at http://www.rockisland.com/~orcasurv/survey.htm. 6 Center for Whale Research, online at http://www.rockisland.com/~orcasurv/early.htm.
6

a pod of killer whales attacking a gray whale calf. Killer whales were typically feared and 

avoided.

In the 1960s, events began to change public perceptions surrounding killer whales. Live 

capture events including the efforts of Marineland of the Pacific in California resulted in the 

death of two killer whales, followed by the capture and death of “Moby Doll” by Samuel Burich, 

a sculptor commissioned by the Vancouver Aquarium to fashion a life-sized model of the killer 

whale (Hoyt 1990, Center for Whale Research7). Hoyt (1990) states that the events surrounding 

the capture and death of Moby Doll “reflected the first positive press ever about killer whales.” 

Live capture events progressed. By 1965 a successful capture of a male who was snared in a 

fishing net off Namu, British Columbia, resulted in its public display and eventually training in 

captivity to the point where it performed for 11 months before dying of a bacterial infection.8

The success of this public display of the killer whale served two functions. It portrayed killer 

whales in a different light, one that was not so killer oriented, and it drove the aquarium industry 

to pursue the capture of additional whales.

By the mid 1970s capture efforts were estimated to have taken 275–307 killer whales 

from the Pacific Northwest, of which 12–13 died during capture (primarily in nets), 55 were 

kept, 16 died within the first year of captivity, and 208–240 were thought to have escaped or 

were released (Hoyt 1990, NMFS 2008). During the capture events, weaned juveniles were 

targeted as it was thought they “posed less risk during transportation and they still possessed the 

mental flexibility to adapt to a captive situation.”9

 Reports indicate approximately 47 or 48 

animals were SRKWs, resulting in the reduction of the population and the removal of part of the 

reproductive population that resulted in a skewed age and sex composition (Hoyt 1990, NMFS 

2008). Of the SRKW captures, only one is currently living: Lolita, who is in captivity at the 

Miami Seaquarium (NMFS 2008). The British Columbia government prohibited live captures in 

1975, and the U.S. Government issued a moratorium on the capture of killer whales in 1976.

The public now enjoys viewing the whales in various aquaria displays as well as on 

whale watching excursions. During tours in the SRKW watching industry, naturalists, guides, 

captains, and other personnel see the whales often and assist tourists in identifying them, 

reinforcing a unique link between the public and the whales. Movies such as Free Willy (1993) 

and Free Willy 2 (1995) portray killer whales in ways that encourage people to relate to them

and develop emotional ties. Similar to the “Flipper Effect,” where a generation connected with a 

television dolphin, another generation has been affected by Free Willy (Sepez 2006). Just as the 

“Flipper Effect” may be attributed to the growth of the “swim with the dolphins” industry, Free 

Willy is thought to have contributed to demand for viewing killer whales. Humans have had 

increasing contact with killer whales and the resultant experiences and increased exposure have 

changed the perception of killer whales to that of a less fearsome animal.

 7 Center for Whale Research, online at http://www.rockisland.com/~orcasurv/changing.htm. 8 See footnote 6.

9 See footnote 6.
7

Economic Context: U.S. SRKW Watching Industry

Changing human perceptions created a new atmosphere surrounding killer whales, which 

provided the proper conditions for the development and growth of a viewing industry. The 

whale watching industry in Greater Puget Sound began in the mid 1970s. Growth was minimal 

until the mid 1980s, which began a steady increase in activity until the late 1990s (Osbourne 

1991, Koski 2006, NMFS 2008). Activity included both an increase in the number of companies 

and the number of vessels they used. By the mid to late 1990s, a shift in the composition of the 

industry resulted in a reduction of the vessels from the United States and an increase in vessels 

from Canada (Koski 2006). This transition has been fairly consistent and continues today. The 

U.S. side of the industry has seen a small variation in the number of vessels, which has leveled 

out in the last few years (Table 1).

In the Puget Sound region, by 1985 the sale of whale watching tickets grossed more than 

$10,000 annually, increasing to more than $1 million by the end of the 1991 season and $5.7 

million in 1997 (including U.S. and Canadian companies) (Koski 2006). The number of 

passengers on whale watching vessels was 3,793 in 1986, 6,134 in 1987, an estimated 250,000 in 

1997, and more than 500,000 in 2006 (Osbourne 1991, Koski 2006, NMFS 2008).

Vessel types have also changed, especially between the U.S. and Canadian fleets. 

Vessels in the U.S. industry have generally increased in size, with a larger passenger carrying 

capacity, higher viewing platforms, fewer daily trips, and more tourist amenities. The Canadian 

fleet has historically been comprised of smaller, outboard engine, rigid hull inflatable boats

(RHIBs), with a smaller passenger capacity, faster engines, shorter trip times, and more trips per 

day. Vessel size in the Canadian fleet has seen a minimal increase and the type of boat is very 

consistent.

In addition to vessel-based whale watching companies, kayak companies began to 

increase. From 1979/1980 there was a steady increase until a 2-year plateau in 1983. This was 

followed by a slight decline and a steady increase into the late 1980s (Osbourne 1991). By 2007 

there were approximately six companies that target whale watching and 18 companies that view 

the whales occasionally (NMFS 2008).

Land viewing opportunities also increased over time. Lime Kiln State Park on San Juan 

Island is a prime location to view the SRKWs. Since the park opened in 1984, the number of 

Table 1. Whale watching company and vessel trends by year (Koski 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 

Eisenhardt 2013). No report available with 2006 data.

2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total no. of companies 39 34 37 35 35 33 37

Total no. of vessels 74 76 76 73 76 76 79

No. of U.S. companies 17 15 21 16 16 17 18

No. of U.S. vessels 19 21 22 20 23 22 25

No. of Canadian companies 22 19 18 19 19 16 19

No. of Canadian vessels 55 55 54 53 53 54 54
8

people viewing the whales has increased through 1996 and has maintained at nearly 200,000 

visitors annually (Koski 2006).

The Pacific Whale Watch Association (PWWA), formerly the Whale Watch Operators 

Association Northwest, was established in 1994 and provided the opportunity for any whale 

watching companies in the U.S. or Canadian fleets to become members. These commercial 

operators are “committed ... to responsible wildlife viewing.”10 They have developed a set of

viewing guidelines and seek to improve communication between commercial whale watching 

companies (NMFS 2008). Membership benefits of the PWWA include a resource listing on its 

Web site for tourists to locate member companies and the opportunity for members to place the 

association logo on their vessels signifying “safe, professional, and respectful”11 operators.

Policy Context: U.S. SRKWs and Regulatory Protections

As noted, NMFS listed the SRKW as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act

in 2003 and developed a conservation plan. This was followed in 2005 by listing the SRKW as 

endangered under the ESA. In 2008 a recovery plan was released building on the conservation 

plan and providing a recovery strategy. NMFS completed an environmental assessment on killer 

whale vessel regulations in 2010 and adopted those regulations in 2011.

12 In addition to legal 

requirements to address biological aspects of species preservation and recovery and vessel 

effects, requirements also address the human element of biological systems. Regulatory 

requirements have incorporated the consideration of social science information to inform several

management processes. Laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 

Executive Order 12898 of 1994, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), and the ESA all 

address human, community, and social sciences aspects.

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the interactions of natural and human 

environments and the impacts on both systems of any changes due to governmental activities or 

policies. This consideration is achieved through the use of “a systematic, interdisciplinary 

approach that will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences ... in planning and 

decision-making which may have an impact on man’s environment” (NEPA Section 102 (2) 

(A)). Under NEPA, an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment is 

required to consider the impacts on the human environment of any federal activity. NEPA 

specifies that the term “human environment” shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the 

natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment (NEPA 

Section 102 (C)).

Executive Order 12898 of 11 February 1994 on Environmental Justice requires federal 

agencies to consider the impacts of any action on disadvantaged, at risk, and minority 

populations. To evaluate these impacts, information about the vulnerability of certain 

stakeholders must be better understood. Indicators of vulnerability can include but are not 

limited to income, race and ethnicity, household structure, education levels, and age. Although 

 10 PWWA, online at http://pacificwhalewatch.org. 11 See footnote 10. 12 Regulations online at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/marine_mammals/killer_whale/vessel

_regulations.html
9

some general information related to this issue is available through census and other quantitative 

data, these sources do not disaggregate those individuals or groups that are affected by changes 

in marine resource management. Therefore, other types of data collection tools must be used to 

gather information related to this executive order.

In the event regulatory action is deemed necessary in conjunction with the listing of the 

SRKW, ESA requirements are implemented. The ESA states:

(2) The Secretary shall designate critical habitat, and make revisions thereto, 

under subsection (a)(3) on the basis of the best scientific data available and after 

taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of 

specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude any 

area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless 

he determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, that the 

failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 

species concerned.

While the connection between the results of this study and the ESA are less direct, information in 

this research will contribute to enhancing the best scientific data available.

The RFA requires federal agencies to prepare an initial and final regulatory flexibility 

analysis that “shall describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” The initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis “shall also contain a description of any significant alternatives to 

the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which 

minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities” (RFA Section 

603 (b) (5) (c)). In addition, each final regulatory flexibility analysis shall contain “a description 

of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities”

(RFA Section 604 (a) (5)). As a majority of the businesses operating in the tourist industry 

surrounding the SRKW are likely to be considered small entities and are likely to be impacted by 

any regulatory change, this regulation is important. Baseline data obtained through this research 

will contribute to an understanding of the existing human dimension surrounding the SRKW. 

This baseline data can then be compared to future research results to obtain a better 

representation of impacts and changes in the human dimension of the SRKW ecosystem.
10

The Study: Background and Development

Human interaction with the ecosystem is as prevalent and important as any other element 

in an ecosystem. Studying the human element and gaining an understanding of these interactions 

can inform research and policy. This field of study, as it applies to marine resource use, has long 

been neglected and is still in its infancy. Researchers have pointed this out for years. Hanna 

(2001) specifically states that “the management of marine ecosystems illustrates the difficulty of 

making this transition (integration of human and ecological systems) ... fisheries have frequently 

been cited as examples of the failure to effectively manage the human-ecological interface.” 

Endter-Wada et al. (1998) state that, “While ecologists recognize that the social-political 

component of ecosystem management is important, the social scientific contributions to 

ecosystem management are often ignored or misunderstood.” Stepp et al. (2003) state that “The 

gap between biological ecology and human ecology is mainly the result of past failures to 

include relevant information and sociocultural systems in biological system models.” While 

historically the social sciences have been neglected, they are gradually being incorporated into 

marine research and management.

For social scientists, the opportunity to conduct this study in such a unique environment 

is an important one. This study will serve as a foundation to understanding the human element 

of this ecosystem. In this section, we provide information on the background and development 

of the research. We review how we approached this study and developed the necessary tools to 

accomplish the task. The first portion focuses on the details of the background research, while 

the second speaks to the development and survey administration.

Background

People of Puget Sound are part of the greater ecosystem that is being studied as a result 

of the current ESA listing of the SRKW. Several issues considered potential threats to the 

SRKW are being studied by our biological science colleagues, including prey availability, 

environmental contaminants, and vessel effects and sound, to name a few (NMFS 2008). All of 

these issues involve interactions with humans at one level or another. Fishermen may be 

competing for the same fish the SRKWs prey upon. Humans generate pollution and 

contaminants that impact the whales. Humans operate various types of vessels that generate 

various sounds and effects such as occupying surface area where whales may be swimming and 

breaching. These potential threats are largely the result of human activity.

Various groups of people relate to the whales differently. These include people who live 

in the area, but do not directly associate with the whales. Some local people who live in the San 

Juan Islands and Greater Puget Sound region have a more knowledgeable and direct relationship 

with the whales. Then there are those who depend on the whales for all or part of their 

livelihood. There are also visitors who come to view the whales and participate in tourist 

activities in the region. It would be very difficult to study all the people who have a connection 

to this ecosystem at once. As a result, we chose to study a specific group of people: those who 
11

depend on the whales for all or part of their livelihood. Future research can focus on other 

aspects of the human connections to SRKWs in this ecosystem.

There is considerable completed and ongoing research on tourists and tourist attitudes. 

Andersen (2004) completed a master’s thesis on environmental education in the whale watching 

industry of the San Juan Islands (Andersen and Miller 2006). Other studies include Meinhold 

(2003), Orams (2000), Finkler and Higham (2004), Lück (2003), and Milstein (2007). Otis spent 

more than a decade at Lime Kiln State Park studying whale behavior and surveying tourists.13, 14 

This wealth of information led us away from conducting additional tourism research.

In light of the research that has been conducted on tourism, it was important to 

understand the people who work in the whale watching industry. Industry members may be 

considered as having one of the strongest relationships to the SRKWs. People in the industry 

provide opportunities for others to view whales. In providing these services, industry members 

observe the whales on a daily basis, developing a connection or relationship to the whales. 

Industry members also may be impacted by the listing of the SRKWs. Their actions can either 

negatively or positively affect the whales. For example, noise generated by engines may 

negatively impact whales, while the outreach and education provided during tours to clientele 

may benefit the whales. These issues are just the beginning of the complex relationship between 

the industry and the SRKWs.

Regulations require an understanding of the human or social aspects of an issue. Similar 

to focusing on fishermen when a fishing regulation is required, here we focus on whale watching 

industry members. The associated regulation is the endangered species listing of the SKRW and 

its required recovery plan. This study chose to focus on those individuals, paid or volunteer, 

who provide the opportunity to view SRKWs—the whale watching industry. The study was 

limited to those members of the industry who work for U.S. companies, as limited resources and 

transborder issues made it difficult to target both Canadian and U.S. industry members. 

However, the possibility still exists to study the Canadian fleet in the same manner in the future.

The purpose of this study is to obtain sociocultural baseline data to contribute to the 

generation of a social description and a better understanding of the U.S. SRKW watching 

industry. This description can then be used by all those interested to contribute to management 

needs and a greater understanding of the human dimension of the whale watching industry 

surrounding the SRKWs.

By generating the sociocultural description, this research addresses the following 

questions:

• Who works in the whale watching industry?

• How long have people who work in the industry participated in it?

• Are people who work in the industry local to the geographic region?

• What are their work patterns during the active whale watching season?

 13 R. Otis, Ripon College, Ripon, WI. Pers. commun., 20 June 2006. 14 K. Koski, The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, WA. Pers. commun., 11 January 2006.
12

• What types of companies do they work for?

• What are the characteristics of those companies?

The answers to these questions and others can help us understand why people work in the 

industry and lay the foundation for future research that can answer more questions and inform 

the human dimension of ecosystem science surrounding the SRKWs.

Literature Review

An extensive literature review was conducted for several purposes. Information gathered

directly informed the study and provided for a greater understanding of the biological issues and 

corresponding science surrounding the SRKWs. In addition we achieved a greater understanding 

of other wildlife and whale watching activities occurring around the world. A primary focus of 

the literature review was to locate other research that had been conducted on the human 

dimension of whale watching.

As part of the literature review, we conducted an extensive review of regulations and 

guidelines. This effort not only focused on activities in the United States, but also looked at 

systems worldwide. In addition to understanding the federal regulations that require social 

science research, as mentioned above, these efforts sought to understand existing regulations or 

guidelines that are actively managing current whale watching or wildlife watching activities. We 

were interested in knowing whether management tools were established in other systems that 

might be applicable to management efforts in the SRKW system.

Meetings

Programs within the Northwest Fisheries Science Center and the NMFS NRO

specifically focus research and activity on the SRKWs; therefore, we were interested in meeting 

with program personnel. We thought it was important to understand the issues from their 

perspective. We held a focus group meeting with marine mammal personnel to discuss relevant 

issues. In addition, we were interested in learning what information they might like to see 

developed from this social science study. We used the information gained to contribute to the 

questions included in the survey. As a result, some of the questions in the survey were designed, 

in part or entirely, to answer some of the questions the marine mammal personnel raised during 

this meeting. In addition, when discussing results in this document, we chose to focus attention 

on those linked to answering some of the questions raised. This process contributed to the 

greater goal of this research in providing information to multiple parties working on SRKW 

issues.

In addition to speaking with NMFS personnel, we visited the Whale Museum at Friday 

Harbor and held a briefing meeting on our activities. Whale Museum personnel are extensively 

active in the SRKW viewing activities, thus we were interested in learning from them any 

information about viewing activities that was pertinent to the research. This was helpful in 

building background information, understanding who was currently active in viewing activities,

and finding where they were located. In addition, we were better able to understand the activities 

conducted by the museum’s Soundwatch Program and the research it conducts in the area.
13

Secondary Source Research

In an effort to avoid asking questions of research participants where the information was 

available through other sources, we extensively referred to secondary resources. To avoid 

duplication of research efforts, secondary sources were also used to identify, clarify, and enhance 

information obtained through this research. Secondary sources included items such as print 

media, Web site materials, and directories.

Trip data provide an example of how secondary data were used. A specific question 

sought to determine how many trips whale watching companies conducted per day, the duration 

of the trips, and what times the trips are conducted. The results were highly complex. 

Comparing survey data to secondary research from brochures and Web sites that posted trip 

information helped to simplify and clarify the data. Where secondary source data were used to 

clarify research data, a notation is provided in this report.

Survey Development and Administration

A number of social science tools are available to study human populations. In this study 

two tools were combined: a survey instrument and interviews. This approach was used to 

increase the understanding of information gained from the study participants and to gain 

consistent information from each study participant. The survey was the main tool of this 

research. In this subsection, we describe the development of the survey, its administration to 

study participants, survey response rates, and a review and summary of the interview activity.

Universe of SRKW Companies

Whale watching companies were identified to determine participants for this research. A 

four-pronged approach was used to confirm participation in the industry for the study year of 

2006. First, membership in the PWWA indicated that a company was active in the industry. 

Second, the Whale Museum’s Soundwatch Boater Education Program provided additional

information identifying active companies. Third, NMFS NRO provided a directory of active 

companies. Fourth, a thorough search of Web sites, phone directories, local chambers of 

commerce, flyers and brochures, and other media indicating whale watching opportunities 

confirmed a company’s activity in the industry. Cross-referencing the information collected 

through each of these approaches reduced duplication and resulted in a comprehensive list of 

active whale watching companies.

Once companies were identified, we divided them into three groups: motorized whale 

watching vessels and companies, kayak companies, and land-based viewing companies.15 The 

largest segment of the industry was motorized vessels, classified by “providing the opportunity”

for tourists to participate in whale watching activities aboard their vessel. Kayak companies 

were identified if their advertisements included the opportunity to see whales or a reference to 

whale watching. Land-based tours include transportation to whale watching sites on San Juan 

Island, the most popular being Lime Kiln State Park. If a company advertised land-based whale 

 15 In the event where a motorized vessel company had both motorized vessels and kayaks, its data was applied to the 

motorized vessel analysis where applicable and to the kayak analysis where distinguishable.
14

watching tours, it was included as a land-based company. All companies surveyed were 

privately owned except for one land-based entity.

Having determined the companies, we mapped the locations where they operated (Figure 

1). Company locations were based on the site of the company office and, in the case of vesselbased companies, their operational port. We labeled these communities “operational 

communities.” Once the locations were determined, it was easy to see correlations in the 

concentration of companies. This was important for several reasons, including how to organize 

our field sessions to conduct in-person surveys. Communities were then distributed into four 

areas (Table 2). The first was the mainland, including Seattle and Everett. The second was the 

northern mainland, including La Conner, Anacortes, and Bellingham. Mainland areas were 

distinguished by their proximity to the Interstate 5 highway corridor and their geographic 

location in relation to Seattle and the other adjoining operational communities. The third area 

was the San Juan Islands, including Friday Harbor, Roche Harbor, Snug Harbor, Orcas Landing, 

and Deer Harbor. The fourth was the Olympic Peninsula, including Port Townsend. When 

conducting this research, areas were visited by region to increase our efficiency in conducting 

surveys.

Figure 1. Locations of SRKW motorized vessel viewing companies.
15

Table 2. Operational communities and related regional assignments. Roche Harbor was included, 

however, a single company based out of Friday Harbor operated vessels out of Friday Harbor and 

Roche Harbor.

Location Area

Seattle Mainland

Everett Mainland

La Conner North mainland

Bellingham North mainland

Anacortes North mainland

Port Townsend Olympic Peninsula

Orcas Landing San Juan Islands

Deer Harbor San Juan Islands

Friday Harbor San Juan Islands

Roche Harbor San Juan Islands

Snug Harbor San Juan Islands

Survey Development

Once the background information had been collected, we developed the survey 

instrument. The purposes of the survey were to collect data from individuals working in the U.S. 

SRKW watching industry and to use these data to increase our understanding of the industry. 

The survey was organized into five sections: Demographics, Individual Participation, Business 

Characteristics, Industry Trends, and Effects on the Community.

The Demographics section elicited information on the respondent, including gender, age, 

household and marital status, race, ethnicity, level of education, and annual income, among 

others. The demographic questions were formatted in accordance with U.S. Census Bureau 

requirements. This information allowed for a comparison of members of the SRKW watching 

industry to larger communities, counties, Washington state, and the nation. This section also 

requested information on how income was received and how individuals were paid. This 

information could be related to specifics of how the industry operates tours and could then be 

used to better understand impacts on individuals if regulatory actions changed how tours were 

operated. Residential information was also requested to better understand the movement of 

individuals between different communities during the SRKW watching seasons, which might 

then be used to describe attachments to a community, local economic growth or decline, and 

multiple occupations.

The Individual Participation section of the survey sought to describe participation in the 

industry, including individual roles, movement throughout the industry, investment in the 

industry, history of activity, and off-season activities. Information in this section might

contribute to an understanding of specific occupations that lead to participation in this industry, 

career trends, and tenure in the industry. It could also help to determine commitments to the 

industry through the longevity of employee participation and highlight how individuals 

maintained the flexibility to participate in a seasonal industry.

The Business Characteristics section elicited information on the respondents’ 

perspectives of the types of businesses that participate in the industry, formal membership in 
16

industry organizations, vessel characteristics, types of tours provided, their frequency of 

operations, and additional services offered. These data could help determine whether there are 

similarities or differences between the companies, and could contribute to our understanding of 

what is required to maintain a viable whale watching business.

The Industry Trends section of the survey asked questions on respondents’ knowledge of 

the industry and how it had changed over time. Questions targeted information regarding 

changes in vessel type and structure, ownership structure, tourism changes, and the potential for 

growth in different segments in the industry. Additional questions touched on the external 

influences on the industry, such as noncommercial recreational vessels and non-U.S. vessels that 

also provide SRKW watching opportunities. This information combined with historical 

information obtained through secondary sources could help describe the industry changes over 

time.

The Effects on the Community section garnered information on the connections SRKW 

watching industry members have within their communities, for example, business relationships 

with other boats, tourism agencies, and shore support. This section could assist in understanding 

social and economic networks within the industry and participating communities, and provide

some insight into the dependence of the community on the industry.

Together, each of the survey sections and their data provided information about the 

members of the industry, the companies within it, and the dynamics surrounding the industry. 

Using survey information in combination with interview data and secondary information created

the potential to dramatically increase our understanding of the SRKW watching industry.

Survey Administration

Survey participation was voluntary. Anyone who worked or volunteered for a company 

in the whale watching industry was given the opportunity to participate. The role an individual 

played was not a factor; neither were the number of hours working nor the tenure of the 

individual. The only factor taken into consideration was the employment or volunteer status of 

the individual. Thus surveys were distributed not only to owners, but also to operators, 

naturalists, guides, engineers, accountants, and office staff. Surveys were distributed from June 

to November of 2006. Surveys were available in hard copy, via e-mail as a downloadable

electronic document, or to be completed and submitted online. Hard copy surveys were 

primarily distributed in person. Various options were provided for return of hard copy surveys. 

These included in-person pickups and mail. The mail option was used on few occasions.

Company owners were initially contacted by mail and invited to participate in the study. 

Two weeks after the letters were mailed, follow-up phone calls were made to the owners to 

schedule appointments at a location of their choice. Owners were introduced to the project staff, 

briefed more thoroughly on the project, provided the opportunity to complete the survey, and 

interviewed. Employee information and the estimation of employee numbers for individual 

companies were obtained at this time as well. Some owners provided employee contact 

information directly to us. Other owners preferred to handle the communication with the 

employees on our behalf. In this event, contact information and surveys were left with the 
17

owners to distribute to staff. Most of the surveys left for distribution were with owners of larger 

companies that managed more than 10 staff members.

After initial contact with company owners, appointments were scheduled with employees

(Table 3). Dates were scheduled for visits to different field locations. Visits ranged from one 

week at a time for the San Juan Islands to day trips to companies operating in mainland 

communities. Visits to each location were arranged based on the most efficient use of time and 

travel resources. On occasion, several employees for a single company met at the same time; 

however, the majority of meetings were conducted with a single study participant. During the 

meetings with the employees, they were briefed on the study, provided an opportunity to 

complete the survey, and interviewed.

Options for how and when to complete the survey were provided for all survey 

participants. The main goal was to honor the participants’ time and maintain flexibility to gain 

the greatest rate of participation. Most surveys were conducted in person, resulting in the survey 

administrators being present while the participant completed the survey. Typically, two 

researchers were involved. The average time to complete the survey was 1 hour and meetings 

ranged from 30 minutes to 4 hours. This range of time included administering the survey and 

any interviewing that occurred. If time was limited, typically a study briefing and interviews 

were conducted and the participant was provided a survey to complete at a later time. 

Arrangements were made with the survey participant to collect the completed survey in person or 

return it by mail. Also, it was not uncommon to set a future date and time to pick up surveys 

from a company office or provide prepaid, preaddressed envelopes for their return.

Interviews

Supplementary to the survey tool, unstructured interviews were conducted with industry 

members. Interviews were primarily in-person, typically during the survey administration 

period. Interviews often followed the completion of the survey. There was no specific list of 

Table 3. Field schedule to administer surveys.

Trip no. Location 2006 field dates

1 San Juan Island 19–21 June

Orcas Island 22 June

San Juan Island 23 June

2 Seattle 29 June

3 San Juan Island 10–14 July

4 Bellingham 17 July

Anacortes 18 July

5 La Conner 2 August

6 Everett 3 August

7 Orcas Island 7–8 August

San Juan Island 9–11 August

8 Port Townsend 23–24 August

9 Anacortes 28–30 August

10 San Juan Island 18–22 September
18

interview questions; however, when we began seeing trends in issues that arose in interviews, we

would ask others their opinion on the issue. Interviews were conducted most often with both 

researchers present, but on occasion were conducted by one researcher. The duration of the 

interviews varied from 15 minutes to 4 hours, depending on the participant; most averaged 30 

minutes. One purpose of the interviews was to further discuss issues that were important to the 

industry member. As a result, the interests and concerns of the industry members were

represented.

In the event an industry member did not wish to participate in the survey, he or she was 

provided an option to meet for an interview. An interview without a survey still provided the 

opportunity to gain some information from the participant. Upon the conclusion of the study, 93 

interviews had been conducted with whale watching industry participants. There were six cases 

that yielded interviews without survey completion. Three were with participants who believed

they did not qualify for the study because their companies were not active enough in the industry 

for the study year. Their participation in the past, however, was considered significant enough to 

conduct an interview. With this option, a majority of the companies that were considered active 

were captured, either through survey and interview participation or interview participation alone.

Survey Responses

By the conclusion of the survey period, 184 surveys had been distributed. Of these, 112 

completed surveys were received either in hard copy or via the Internet for a 61% response rate. 

In addition to the overall survey response rate, rates were calculated by company in each industry 

sector. A company was included if at least one owner or employee participated in any aspect of 

the study. We determined that the industry was comprised of 18 active motorized vessel whale 

watching companies, 11 kayak companies, and 2 land-based companies. Two motorized vessel 

companies that were active in the 2005 season were identified as inactive in the 2006 study year. 

One kayak company believed its services did not pertain to this study and was not included in the 

study. Overall 34 companies participated in the research, 97% in the survey and 100% in the 

interviews. Of the motorized vessel companies, 94% participated in the survey and 100% 

participated in the interview process. Of the kayak companies, 100% of the companies 

participated in both the survey and interview process, as did 100% of the land-based companies.

Understanding why surveys were not returned is important. We need to be clear where 

participant representation is good and where it is not. Trends in nonresponse were evident 

during the field visits. Of the 184 surveys distributed, 72 were not returned. The majority of the 

surveys that were not returned (83.3%) were those that were dropped off with owners to 

distribute to staff for completion, and 64% of the nonresponses were from companies that had 

more than an estimated 10 employees. Generally these were companies where surveys were 

dropped off with the owners. A small percent of the surveys (9.7%) distributed in-person after 

meeting with the study participant were not returned. Reasons provided by participants for their 

nonresponse included their belief that the survey did not apply to them or their unwillingness to 

participate in a survey. The high nonresponse rate for dropped off surveys, and the low rate for 

those in-person scenarios signify to us the importance of personally meeting with participants to 

clarify the research and encourage participation, which generally yielded a response. 

Geographically, 57% of the nonresponse were from companies in the San Juan Islands, while 

43% were from mainland or Olympic Peninsula companies Seventy-nine percent of the 
19

nonresponse were in the motorized vessel sector, while 21% were in the kayak sector; there was 

full participation in the land-based sector.

It appears that people who worked for larger companies in the San Juan Islands and 

elsewhere were not highly represented in this sample. Smaller companies, kayak companies, and 

land companies were more highly represented. It is important to consider that many larger 

companies may be more diversified in the services they provide. As a result, the lack of 

response from all employees may be a result of the study not being applicable to all the roles 

played in the larger company.
20

Results

Various factors came into play when deciding how to analyze the data collected and what 

information should be presented. Due to the extensive nature of the survey, a large amount of 

data contributed to extensive analysis. The analysis aimed to provide the most significant

information necessary. Consequently, the data were analyzed based on separate organizational 

parameters, and the results are discussed based both on the goals of the study overall and with 

some interpretation of information that may support data needs as identified in the SRKW 

recovery plan.

The organization of this section flows from the methods of data analysis to the selection 

of the results that were chosen for further discussion. The Data Analysis subsection discusses 

standard data analysis and development of the tier analysis system. This system aggregates 

vessel data in order to compare data between tiers while protecting confidentiality. Then the 

Organization of Results subsection discusses the logic behind the selection of the results to be 

displayed.

Data Analysis

Survey data were analyzed with Pearson SPSS version 15.0 software (Pearson Education 

Inc.). Data were entered into SPSS, cleaned, corrected, coded, and analyzed. Tabular and 

graphic results were generated in SPSS, then data were transferred to Microsoft Excel to 

customize graphs. Qualitative data from the survey and the interviews were analyzed using

Atlas.ti version 5.2 (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH). In addition to Atlas.ti, 

Microsoft Excel was used to organize the data.

Data were analyzed in several ways. First, the overall data were analyzed inclusive of all 

the surveys completed. Second, the data were analyzed by sector: motorized vessel, kayak, and 

land. This level of analysis sought to highlight the difference between the types of companies. 

Third, we looked at the motorized vessel industry in more depth by comparing companies. 

Confidentiality concerns arose, resulting in the inability to analyze individual companies for 

comparison between companies. As a result, we developed two options to analyze the data. The 

first aggregated the data based on the regional distributions of the companies. The second 

aggregated companies with similar traits. This aggregation methodology is the tier system.

Regional and Tier Aggregation Development

The first method of aggregation involved sorting the companies by the regions in which 

they operate. This methodology was based on our identification of regions in which to conduct

our field visits for survey distribution (Figure 1, Table 2). We identified four regions: the San 

Juan Islands, the Olympic Peninsula–Port Townsend area, mainland, and north mainland. We 

identified differences between the communities on the mainland, specifically those that are easily 

accessible from Interstate 5 and those that are not. To address confidentiality concerns and 
21

further simplify the analysis yet maintain its integrity, mainland communities were further 

aggregated into one mainland community region. This resulted in the communities being

aggregated into three regions: San Juan Islands, mainland, and Olympic Peninsula. We were 

unable to include Olympic Peninsula data in the analysis because confidentially could not be 

protected. In addition, the Olympic Peninsula data were so unique that it was not appropriate to 

aggregate them with either of the other two remaining regions. The data from Olympic 

Peninsula region were removed from the regional analysis entirely. It is important to note that 

the Olympic Peninsula data are used and represented in all the other methods of analysis. The 

resulting regional aggregations and analysis are thus based on two regions, the San Juan Islands 

and the mainland.

The tier system of data analysis relates only to motorized vessel companies. The purpose 

of the tier analysis is to determine whether the data illustrate trends within or between types of 

motorized vessel companies. Review of preliminary data and participant observations suggested 

differences and similarities between companies. It was therefore hypothesized that companies 

could be grouped or sorted based on a set of similar characteristics, then further analyzed. The 

tier system is the resultant method to aggregate companies. This aggregation also protected the 

confidentiality of smaller companies. What is important about these data is that they are from 

the perspective of the survey participants and how they described the companies they work for.

Development Basis

The tier system was developed based on U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) passenger vessel 

regulations. The concept here is multifold. First, operating a company in the motorized sector

requires a vessel; the type and size is the choice of the vessel owner. Second, motorized vessels 

are subject to USCG regulations and related requirements to keep the vessel operating within 

these regulations. Third, the size of the vessel determines the infrastructure required to support 

it, including USCG inspection requirements. The infrastructure needed to support a vessel 

directly affects the businesses characteristics and strategy of the owning company. USCG 

regulations identified in Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations on shipping (USCG 

46CFR24.10 and 46CFR175.110) were applied to primary and secondary data describing the 

vessels and their related companies. Categorizations representing large to small vessels were 

applied as described in the vessel regulations. These included motor vessel (greater than 65 feet 

long), motorboat (less than 65 feet), small passenger vessel T-type (under 100 gross tons and 

carries 150 or less passengers), and uninspected passenger vessel (at least 100 gross tons and 

carries no more than 12 passengers). A decisional flow chart (Figure 2) describes how 

regulations were applied. Taking each vessel through the flow chart allowed us to categorize

each into one of four tier groups (Table 4).

Companies allocated to a particular tier are not identical. Also, the data used to describe 

the companies within the tier system come from individuals who work for those companies, so 

the result is a description based on survey respondent perceptions of the companies. The intent 

here is to posit that boats of similar USCG classifications have to meet the same USCG 

requirements and have similar pier space requirements, similar passenger capacities, and other 

infrastructural similarities. How companies with the same types of boats choose to operate 

makes companies either similar or unique.
22

Figure 2. Tier system decisional flow chart illustrating how federal regulations apply to commercial 

whale watching vessels.

Vessel is a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)-

defined motor vessel (MV)–(46CFR24.10-1)

No

The vessel is ...

• a USCG-defined T-type small 

passenger vessel–(46CFR175.110 

subchapter T)

and

• company operates multiple vessels 

with at least one engaging in whale 

watching

Stop

Tier 2 

company

The vessel is ...

• a USCG-defined T-type small 

passenger vessel–-(46CFR175.110 

subchapter T)

and

• company operates only one vessel

Yes

Stop

Tier 3 

company

Stop

Tier 4 

company

Yes

The vessel is ...

• a USCG-defined uninspected 

passenger vessel–(46CFR24.10-1)

and

• company operates only one vessel

Yes

Stop

Tier 1 

company

Yes

Yes

Vessel is a USCG-defined motorboat (MB)–(46CFR24.10-1)

No

No
23

Table 4. Distribution of whale watching companies into tier groups based on the vessels operated by the 

companies and the application of the tier decisional analysis. N = total number of vessels in tier. 

Note that all companies identified and tier placements are per data collected in 2006.

Company Location N Respondents

Tier 1 19 20.4%

Clipper Navigation Seattle

Mystic Sea Anacortes

Island Mariner Bellingham

Tier 2 36 38.7%

San Juan Boat Tours Bellingham

San Juan Safaris Friday Harbor

Island Adventures Inc. Anacortes

Deer Harbor Charters Deer Harbor

Puget Sound Express Port Townsend

Tier 3 33 35.5%

San Juan Excursions Friday Harbor

Western Prince Whale and Wildlife Tours Friday Harbor

Viking Cruises La Conner

Orcas Island Eclipse Charters Orcas Island

Salish Sea Charters Snug Harbor

Deep Sea Charters Anacortes

Tier 4 5 5.4%

Maya Charters Snug Harbor

Private whale watching.com La Conner

Captain Carli’s Charters Friday Harbor

Organization of Results

While there are various options to present the results from this study, we chose to narrow 

our results to nine topics. The topics were determined to contribute to our research goals, reflect 

what information would be useful to the marine mammal scientists within the agency, and 

contribute to meeting recovery plan measures. The topics are 1) Description of the people in the 

SRKW watching industry, 2) Motorized vessel personnel descriptions, 3) Motorized vessel 

business descriptions, 4) Regional personnel descriptions, 5) Regional business operations, 

6) Kayak and land sector personnel descriptions, 7) Kayak and land sector business operations, 

8) Industry trends, and 9) Effects on the community.

In the first section, a description of the people, we address the primary goal of this study:

to generate a sociocultural description of the whale watching industry. Results shown within this 

topic include demographic and individual participation results. They are from the overall survey 

analysis. Secondary information from the U.S. Census Bureau is used for comparison where 

appropriate. Information such as gender, age distribution, education, training, tenure, and roles 

in the industry are shown in this section. This analysis is then repeated, yet sorted by motorized 

vessel responses, regional analysis, and kayak and land sector responses.
24

In the motorized vessel business description section, we provide baseline information to 

include vessel information and tour information. The analysis in this section is then repeated and 

sorted for the regional analysis and the kayak and land sector analysis. Data in these sections 

may inform several recovery plan measures. For example, under the measure to assess threats to 

SRKWs, there is a requirement to determine vessel characteristics that affect SRKWs. While 

extensive biological studies will focus on the specific threats, data in this section can provide the 

actual characteristics of the fleet. Results may be further analyzed to determine how prevelant 

specific characteristics are in the fleet. Additional information will provide insight into tour 

types, departures, and durations. These data can supplement existing knowledge to better 

understand how many vessels are on the water at any time during the day. These data can serve 

as a baseline and be measured for change over time.

The regional analysis topic provides results similar to the motorized vessel analysis, 

however, sorted by regions. To clarify, this is still motorized vessel data, just sorted by region 

instead of tier or overall analysis. During the study, we observed differences between companies 

in the San Juan Islands and other regions. As a result, we though it was important to sort the data 

by regions to see if our observations were supported in the data. The purpose of this analysis is

to highlight any variances between the regions.

In addition to the motorized vessel sector, other sectors offer opportunities to view killer 

whales that have little or no impact on the whales. Members of both the kayak and land-based

sectors were also invited to participate in the study. Response from the land sector was high, 

while the kayak sector was more difficult to capture. As a result, information from the kayak 

sector was not as strong as from other sectors, but still provided representative information on 

this sector. The results provided information similar to that covered for the motorized vessel 

results sections. This information can serve as a baseline to monitor future changes in the 

industry specific to the kayak and land-based sectors.

The industry trends analysis focused questions on the history of activity in the SRKW 

industry from the perspective of the study participants. These questions aimed to understand 

what the industry looked like historically and what has changed over time. It was expected that 

those with higher tenures in the industry would have the greatest amount to contribute to this line 

of questioning.

The effects on the community section aimed to understand how whale watching 

companies were connected to both their local communities and the larger communities as a 

whole. Questions were designed to get an understanding of business relationships between 

whale watch companies and other companies within and outside the industry. Participants were 

also asked to speak to the industry’s significance to the local and larger communities.

These various types of analysis attempt to provide the most accurate and specific results 

to the larger data set. Unique analysis will highlight the differences in the data and illustrate 

characteristics of certain sectors, regions, or perspectives as a whole.
25

People in the SRKW Watching Industry

This section describes the people in the SRKW watching industry through demographics 

and an examination of their individual participation in the industry. Demographic information, 

standard to social science, is used here to describe basic characteristics of the people in the 

industry (e.g., gender, age, education). These characteristics can then be compared to other data 

sources such as the U.S. Census to gain an understanding of the similarities and differences of 

individuals in this industry to the state or national population. The following information is from 

this study and compared where appropriate with the U.S. Census data from 2000.

To further describe the people in the SRKW watching industry, the survey also examined 

individual participation in it. This includes roles worked in the industry, months worked, hours 

per week worked, tenure, additional training, past work history, and reasons for participating. 

These items combine with demographic data to provide an expansive description of individuals 

in the industry.

Demographics

Demographic Summary

Results shown here reflect the demographics of the personnel in the industry. Generally 

within the SRKW watching industry there were more men than women, though the gender 

distribution appeared to be similar to that of Washington state and the United States. Industry 

members appeared to be older than those employed in Washington state or the nation. Whale 

watching industry members also appeared to be more highly educated than those in Washington 

state or nationally, with 60% of respondents indicating they held a bachelor’s degree or higher. 

Residency ranged broadly; however, a majority of participants indicated they maintained a 

permanent residence in San Juan County, followed by King and Whatcom counties. The 

majority of industry members made between $10,000 and $30,000 per year, followed closely by 

income up to $50,000 per year. Further clarifying income sources, 40.4% of participants indicate

they derived 0–25% of their income from the SRKW watching industry while obtaining most of 

their income from some other source. The data also show that 34% of participants received more 

than half of their income from the industry.

Demographic Figures and Table

The nine figures and one table listed here are sequentially provided below.

Figure 3. Gender distribution in the SRKW watching industry compared to Washington state 

and the United States.

Figure 4. Age range in the employed labor force for the SRKW watching industry, Washington 

state, and the United States.
26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Male Female

Percent

SRKW industry Washington state United States

SRKW industry 98.2% response

Figure 5. Educational attainment for the SRKW watching industry, Washington state, and the 

United States.

Figure 6. Location of permanent residency of industry members by county.

Figure 7. Income ranges by percent for industry members.

Figure 8. Household income in 1999 for Washington state and United States.

Figure 9. Income ranges by percent for owners and non-owners.

Figure 10. Percent of income derived from the SRKW watching industry.

Figure 11. Percent of income derived from the industry sorted by owner and non-owner.

Table 5. Estimated percent of income derived from the SRKW watching industry compared to 

total household income of surveyed members.

Figure 3. Gender distribution in the SRKW watching industry compared to Washington state and the 

United States (data from 2000 U.S. Census). Results show a similar trend in gender distribution 

between each data set.
27

0

10

20

30

40

50

Some high

school

High school

diploma or

equivalent

Some college

or vocational,

no degree

Bachelors

degree

Graduate or

professional

degree

Percent

SRKW industry Washington state United States

97.3% response

Figure 4. Age range in employed labor force for the SRKW watching industry, Washington state, and the 

United States. Members of the industry show a trend of being older that those represented by 

Washington state and U.S. Census labor force data. Washington and U.S. statistics begin count at 

16 years of age. The SRKW data begin count at 17 and under.

Figure 5. Educational attainment levels for the SRKW watching industry, Washington state, and the 

United States. Members of the industry show a trend of being more educated than Washington 

state and U.S. Census respondents. This is especially the case in the attainment of bachelor’s 

degrees and less so with the attainment of graduate or professional degrees.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

24 and under 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65+

SRKW industry Washington state United States

97.3% response Percent
28

0

10

20

30

40

50

San Juan

King

Whatcom

Skagit

Snohomish

Jefferson

Other

County

Percent

85.8% response

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Less than

$10,000

$10,000–

$30,000

$31,000–

$50,000

$51,000–

$70,000

$71,000–

$90,000

Above

$90,000

Percent

94.6% response 

Figure 6. Location of permanent residency of SRKW watching industry members. Data representing 

where industry members reside show that most permanent residences occurred where companies 

were located. Additional analysis of these data follows in other sections of this analysis. 

Figure 7. Total annual income. Most respondents, 31.1%, reported income of $10,000–$30,000, 

followed by 24.5% with incomes of $31,000–$50,000. Refer to the following graph for 

comparisons to Washington state and the United States.
29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Less than 

$10,000

$10,000–

$29,999

$30,000–

$49,999

$50,000–

$99,999

$100,000

and over

Percent

Washington state United States

Figure 9. Total annual income by owner and non-owner. Results show that the majority of those earning 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Less than

$10,000

$10,000– 

$30,000

$31,000– 

$50,000

$51,000– 

$70,000

$71,000– 

$90,000

Above

$90,000

Percent

Owner

Figure 8. Household income in 1999 is the most recent year covered in the 2000 Census for Washington 

state and the United States. Scales for the income data reported for Washington state and the U.S. 

Census were slightly different than those in the survey; therefore, the data are shown in two bars. 

Washington state and U.S. Census data show the majority of people, 33.0 % and 29.7% 

respectively, reported incomes of $50,000–$99,999 in 1999. This is higher than what was 

reported by industry members. 

more than $50,000 per year were owners.
30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0–25 26–50 51–75 76–100

Percent of income

Owner 

Percent

Figure 10. Percent of income derived from the SRKW watching industry; 40.4% of participants said 

0–25% of their income comes from the industry, followed by 25.4% with 26–50% of their 

income from the industry.

Figure 11. Percent of income derived from the industry sorted by owner and non-owner. Most of the 

individuals who earned more than 50% of their income from the industry are owners.

0

10

20

30

40

50

0–25 26–50 51–75 76–100

Percent of income

Percent 

95% response
31

Table 5. Estimated percent of income derived from the SRKW watching industry compared to total 

household income of surveyed members.

Total household income

Percent income

0–25 26–50 51–75 76–100 Total

Less than $10,000 44.4 27.8 11.1 16.7 100.0

$10,000–$30,000 25.0 40.6 9.4 25.0 100.0

$31,000–$50,000 46.2 19.2 15.4 19.2 100.0

$51,000–$70,000 60.0 13.3 6.7 20.0 100.0

$71,000–$90,000 33.3 16.7 50.0 0.0 100.0

More than $90,000 37.5 37.5 0.0 25.0 100.0

Individual Participation

Individual Participation Summary

Information described in this subsection is more in-depth, expanding beyond 

demographic results and gathering information on the roles that individuals play in the industry. 

The top three roles participants identified with were naturalist, operator, and working in 

administration. The majority of the participants in the SRKW watching industry said they held 

more than one role while working within the industry. Most individuals indicated they worked 

two roles, followed by a single role, and three roles. Further analysis reveals that common role 

combinations included naturalist/deck hand, naturalist/operator, and owner/operator/naturalist.

Additional training industry members pursued included the Marine Naturalist Training 

Program sponsored by the Whale Museum, Friday Harbor; Standards of Training, Certification,

and Watchkeeping (STCW); and other maritime training. Answers to questions regarding USCG 

licensing show that a majority of those who held maritime licenses held a master’s license. Most 

of those licenses had 100 ton inland certificates, followed by 100 ton near coastal.

The survey also aimed at understanding when participants entered the industry and how 

long had they worked in the industry. Answers indicate several peak years where many people 

entered the industry including in 1992, 1998, 2004, and 2006. Tenure results show 36% had

worked in the industry for 2–5 years, followed by 25.5% working for 6–10 years. Of the 

respondents, 21.6% had worked in the industry for more than a decade. To further explore the 

issue of tenure, data were analyzed by owner/non-owner to see who had been working in the 

industry for longer periods of time. Results indicate that a majority of the individuals with 

tenure more than a decade long were owners, where individuals with tenure less than a decade 

were non-owners.

Additional information was sought regarding seasonal work schedules. Data indicate an 

increase in people working in the industry starting in April and growing until July, followed by a 

slow decline until October, with a small number of individuals remaining active from November 

through March of the following year. A small number worked throughout the entire year. Daily 

work schedule data reveal that the majority of participants (28.7%) worked more than full time, 

followed closely by both full-time and part-time schedules, 27.7% each. Data were also sought 

to determine whether participants worked more than one job while active in the industry. 

Responses indicate that 41% only worked one full-time job, while 28% worked multiple part-
32

time jobs. To further clarify this data, participants were asked when they worked multiple 

positions. Most individuals, 41%, worked multiple jobs during both peak and low seasons, while 

34.5% worked during peak season. To understand the participants’ distribution within and 

outside of the industry, we asked where they worked multiple roles during the active watching 

season. Responses show 50% selected the other option to describe their multiple roles. 

Examples of other descriptions include volunteering, teaching, and construction. An additional 

30.8% of responses indicate they worked in another maritime-related role, followed by 21.2% 

working in tourism-related jobs. Respondents were asked how many hours a week they worked

in each of three categories during the whale watching season. The first category included the 

number of hours worked in the whale watching industry. Responses indicate that 23.9% worked

31–40 hours/week in the SRKW watching industry, followed by 16.8% working 41–50 hours, 

and 13.3% working 21–30 hours. Of those that worked in either non-whale watching tourism 

jobs or in non-tourism–related jobs, 8.8% of participants worked in each category for 1–10 

hours/week. When considering off-season activities, results indicate a majority of respondents 

traveled in both years (i.e., the season prior to the study year in 2005/2006 off-season and the 

study season of 2006/2007), 29.7% and 33.3% respectively, followed by working in marine 

tourism jobs in the current location, 28.7%, and 29.4% respectively.

Past work history information was sought. The majority of participants worked in other

occupations, 39.1%, followed by 34.5% in education, and 27.3% working in 

accommodation/food service and recreation/entertainment, respectively. Further information to 

describe the “other” category included various maritime positions and military positions. 

Participants were also asked about past maritime involvement. Though fishing was the 

predominant activity, respondents also had experience in marine ecotourism, shipyard work, 

cruise ships/charters, and other sailing activities. This past maritime work was based primarily 

in Greater Puget Sound or Alaska. Most survey respondents participated in additional maritime 

activities for 1–5 years prior to joining the SRKW watching industry.

When asked their reasons to participate in the industry, in a Likert scale question format, 

60.4% of participants strongly agreed that working outside and on the water was their top reason, 

followed by 59.2% working in the region, and 56.6% educating the public. When the results 

took into consideration the sum of both the agree and strongly agree responses, the top answers 

shifted slightly. With the combined positive responses, the top reasons were 98.1% “other,”

86.8% to work outside on the water, and 85.8% educate the public. Descriptors provided to 

clarify the “other” response included to gain sea time working towards a captain’s license, 

maintain family heritage in the San Juan Islands, and share passions with others.

Individual Participation Figures and Tables

The 19 figures and 1 table listed here are sequentially provided below.

Figure 12. Survey participants’ roles within the industry.

Table 6. Number of roles indicated by survey participants.

Figure 13. Types of additional training.

Figure 14. General types of USCG licenses held.

Figure 15. USCG tonnage descriptions.
33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Owner

Operator

Naturalist

Assistant naturalist

Guide

Engineer

Deck hand

Logistics

Administration

Maintenance

Volunteer

Other

Percent

98.2% response

Figure 16. Entry year into industry.

Figure 17. Tenure in the industry.

Figure 18. Tenure in industry by owner/non-owner.

Figure 19. Months worked in industry during the study year of 2006.

Figure 20. Work schedules.

Figure 21. Involvement in multiple jobs while working in the industry.

Figure 22. Seasons when multiple jobs are worked.

Figure 23. Types of jobs held during whale watching season.

Figure 24. Number of hours worked per week.

Figure 25. Off-season work descriptions.

Figure 26. Past work history.

Figure 27. Maritime industry participation.

Figure 28. Location of maritime industry participation.

Figure 29. Number of years participating in maritime positions.

Figure 30. Reasons to participate in the industry.

Figure 12. Survey participant’s roles within the industry. Respondents reported all roles that applied. 

Examples of multiple roles are owner/operator and operator/naturalist.

Table 6. Number of roles indicated by survey participants. Participants were encouraged to acknowledge 

all the roles that they occupy while working in the industry.

No. of roles Percent of respondents

1 26.4

2 32.1

3 13.2

4 12.3

5 5.7

6 6.6

7 or more 3.8
34

Figure 13. Types of additional training. In addition to formal education, we were interested in additional

training opportunities participants may seize during their tenure in the industry. Training 

opportunities applicable to this industry were readily available in local settings. Such 

opportunities as the Whale Museum’s Marine Naturalist Training were well attended, as well as 

STCW training and other maritime opportunities. The 100% response rate is based on 63.6% of 

respondents who said they engaged in additional training.

Figure 14. General types of USCG licenses held by those participants using licenses in the industry. The 

majority of those licenses are master’s licenses, as shown above. A total of 43.2% of respondents 

said they held a USCG license. Of those who held a USCG license, 83% reported they used this 

license while working in the industry. Of those who held and used their USCG license, 100% 

responded to the question above describing the license type.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

WM naturalist

training

STCW

Maritime

training

First aid

Biology or equiv.

degree 

Kayak instructor

or kayak skills

Self study

Biological or

environmental

conferences

Other

Percent

100% response

0

20

40

60

80

100

Able bodied seaman Merchant Marine Master

License 

Percent

100% response
35

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1978197919801985

1986

1987198819911992199319941995199619971998

1999200020012002

2003200420052006

99.1% response Percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

100 500 50 100 200 500 1,600

Percent

Inland Near coastal Ocean

100% response 

Figure 15. USCG tonnage descriptions. Many respondents with licenses held inland 100 ton licenses,

followed by near coastal licenses. Participants may hold more than one license, such as a 100 ton 

inland and 100 ton near coastal. Of the 100% who responded to subsequent licensing questions, 

100% who held a license used it and provided further descriptions of their licenses including 

information on license tonnage.

Figure 16. Entry year in the industry. The majority of participants reported they entered the industry in 

2006, followed by 2004, 2005, and 1998.
36

Figure 16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 26–30

Percent

99.1% response

Figure 17. Tenure (number of years) in the industry. Results indicate that most individuals, 36%, have 

worked in the industry 2–5 years, followed by 25.5% at 6–10 years and 17.1% at 1 year.

 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 26–30

Percent

Non-owner Owner 

100% response

Figure 18. Number of years participants had been working in the industry (tenure) sorted by owner and 

non-owner responses. Data indicate there may be a difference between those participants who 

were owners and those who were not. The results support a conclusion that a difference existed 

between the two parties; therefore, the results here were sorted to highlight the differences. 

Owners show a longer tenure than non-owners. 
37

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Part-time Full-time More than

full-time

Part-time low,

full-time peak

Other

Percent

96.4% response

Figure 19. Months respondents worked in the 2006 SRKW watching season. As expected, more people 

worked in the industry during the peak season months of June through September. A smaller 

number of individuals worked throughout the year.

Figure 20. Work schedules of respondents. Respondents were asked what their schedules were during a 

typical week in the industry. A slight plurality of participants, 28.7%, worked more than fulltime positions, while 27.8% worked part-time positions and 27.8% worked full-time positions.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All 

Percent

96.4% response
38

0

10

20

30

40

50

Only one

part-time

Multiple

part-time

Only one

full-time

Multiple

full-time

Both full-time

and part-time

Percent

97.3% response

Figure 21. Description of participants’ involvement in multiple jobs. Results show that 41.3% of 

respondents worked only one full-time job, followed by 28.4% working multiple part-time jobs 

and 19.3% working both full-time and part-time jobs.

Figure 22. Season in which multiple jobs were worked in the SRKW watching industry. The response 

rate is based on the 97.3% of respondents who indicated they worked multiple jobs.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Peak Low Both peak

and low

Percent

92.6% response
39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Other boat,

same role

Other boat,

different role

Other role

entirely

Maritime

related

Tourism

related

Volunteer

SRKW

Other

Percent

100% response

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 +100

Percent

In SRKW industry In non-whale watching In non-tourism–related jobs

94.1% response

Figure 23. Types of jobs held during the whale watching season. Of those who responded that they work 

multiple jobs, most participants provided descriptions of other roles not categorized in the 

questions. Descriptions of other roles include education, construction and maintenance, 

accounting, and other non-SRKW volunteer activities.

Figure 24. Number of hours individuals worked per week in the SRKW watching industry, non-whale 

watching tourism, and non-tourism–related jobs. Most respondents reported that they worked 

31–40 hours per week in the industry, followed by 41–50 hours and 21–30 hours.
40

0

5

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Education

Accom

modations 

and food services

Recreation and 

entertainment

Retail

Professional 

Scientific

Fishing

Building trades

Agriculture

Health and social

Natural resources

Public administration

No 

prior 

work history

Other

98.2 % response

10

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Whale Watch

different location

Marine tourism in

current location

Marine tourism in

different location

Non-marine tourism

in current location

Non-marine tourism

in different location

Non-tourism in

current location

Non-tourism in

different location

Travel

Retire

Attend School

Other

Percent 

2005/2006 2006/2007

Figure 25. Off-season work descriptions. Results show that travel and marine tourism in a current 

location were the most common activities conducted during the off-season for both years.

Figure 26. Past work history. In describing past work history, common U.S. Census categories were 

used. While the response for education was high, the “other” category yielded the greatest 

response. Descriptions of other categories include various maritime occupations such as cruise 

boats, oil spill response, and tug boats among others. Other descriptions include computer 

technology, real estate, environmental policy, environmental education, and environmental 

management.
41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Shipyard

Fishing

Ferry

Tug/tow

Sail/sailboat

Charters

Cruise ships

USCG

Private vessels

Marine surveying

Marine sales

Scuba diving

Education and

ecotourism

Guide

Volunteer

Percent

100% response

0

10

20

30

40

50

Anacortes, WA

Bellingham, WA

Everett, WA

Port Townsend, WA

San Juan Islands, WA

Seattle, WA

Other, WA

Greater Puget Sound

Alaska

Oregon

California

Hawaii

British Columbia

Mexico

International

Other

Percent

81.8% response

`

Figure 27. Types of maritime industry positions participants worked prior to participating in the SRKW 

watching industry. Individuals may have participated in more than one maritime position type. 

The response rate is based on the 99.1% of respondents who had prior maritime experience.

Figure 28. Locations where respondents participated in maritime industries. Participants could list 

multiple locations. The values represented as Greater Puget Sound are aggregate values of those 

communities that are part of Puget Sound. The response rate is based on the 99.1% of 

respondents who said they had prior maritime experience.
42

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 +25

Percent

83.6% response

Figure 29. Number of years participants had worked in previously identified maritime positions. The 

response rate is based on the 99.1% of respondents who said they had prior maritime experience.
43

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Make money

Transition from

maritime position

Work in region

Educate public

Interact with

co-workers

Work outside

and on water

Seasonal job

Spend timewith SRKW

Other

Percent

93.7% mean response rate

Strongly

agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

disagree

`

Reasons

Figure 30. Likert scale responses on why respondents participated in the industry. The scale ranges from 

strongly agree to strongly disagree. The mean response rate is provided due to the nature of a 

multiple response question. Reasons provided by the participants to describe their “other” 

response include to maintain maritime licenses and accrue sea time, operate a business in the San 

Juan Islands, share passions with other people, and educate people other than the public.
44

Motorized Vessel Personnel

Results in this section present a more in-depth look at the data, based on tier analysis. 

Tier 1 consists of companies with large boats of more than 65 feet in length, Tier 2 represents 

more than one boat, Tier 3 consists of smaller boats less than 65 feet, and Tier 4 represents six 

pack or small passenger boats.

Demographics

Demographic Summary

Gender analysis shows more males than females participated in Tier 1 and Tier 4 

companies, whereas the genders were more evenly balanced in Tier 2 and Tier 3 companies. 

Age distribution results show a larger number of participants older than 45 years worked in Tier 

3 and Tier 4 companies. Tier 2 and Tier 1 companies employed the highest number of 

participants younger than 24. Tier 2 had the highest number of employees with postgraduate 

education, followed by Tier 3 and Tier 1. Residence data show the majority of individuals in 

Tier 3 and Tier 4 companies lived in the San Juan Islands, while residency for those in Tier 1 and 

Tier 2 companies varied, including San Juan Island, King, and Whatcom counties.

Income data vary greatly between tiers. Income data show 31 % of Tier 1 participants

earned $51,000–$70,000, followed by 25% who earned $10,000–$30,000. Tier 2 results indicate

34% earned $10,000–$30,000, followed by 26% who earned $31,000–50,000. Tier 3 responses

show 24% earned $31,000–$50,000, while 21% earned $10,000–$30,000. Tier 4 results indicate 

50% of respondents earned $31,000–$50,000 a year. An additional question asked how much 

annual income was derived from the SRKW watching industry and again the responses varied

between tiers. Tier 1 responses indicate 44% derived up to 25% of their income from the 

industry, followed closely by 39% deriving 26–50% of their income from the industry. The top 

two results for Tier 2 are 26% of individuals deriving 26–50% of their income from the industry

and 27% deriving 76–100%. Tier 3 responses indicate 52% derived up to 25% of their income

from the industry, followed by 21% deriving 51–75%. Tier 4 results show 50% of participants 

derived up to 25% of their income from the industry.

Demographic Figures

The six figures listed below are sequentially provided after the list.

Figure 31. Gender distributions by company tier.

Figure 32. Age distribution by tier.

Figure 33. Educational attainments by tier.

Figure 34. Permanent residence by tier.
45

0

20

40

60

80

100

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Percent

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

17 and under

18

–24 years

25

–34 years

35

–44 years

45

–54 years

55

–64 years

65 years +

17 and under

18

–24 years

25

–34 years

35

–44 years

45

–54 years

55

–64 years

65 years +

17 and under

18

–24 years

25

–34 years

35

–44 years

45

–54 years

55

–64 years

65 years +

17 and under

18

–24 years

25

–34 years

35

–44 years

45

–54 years

55

–64 years

65 years +

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 

Percent

Figure 35. Income by tier.

Figure 36. Percent income from industry by tier.

Figure 31. Gender distribution by company tier. Results indicate a higher percent of males than females 

in Tier 1 (64.8% male, 26.3% female) and Tier 4 (80% male, 20% female) companies. Gender in 

Tier 2 and Tier 3 companies is more evenly distributed.

Figure 32. Age distribution by tier. Results indicate a greater variation in age distribution in Tiers 1 

through 3, while Tier 4 shows a higher percent of older individuals.
46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Some HS

HS or equiv.

Some 

college or 

voc.

Bachelor's degree

Grad. 

or professional

Some HS

HS or equiv.

Some 

college or 

voc.

Bachelor's degree

Grad. 

or professional

Some HS

HS or equiv.

Some 

college or 

voc.

Bachelor's degree

Grad. 

or professional

Some HS

HS or equiv.

Some 

college or 

voc.

Bachelor's degree

Grad. 

or professional

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Percent

Figure 33. Educational attainment by company tier. HS = high school, Voc. = vocational, Grad. = 

graduate degree. The majority of Tier 1 participants, 50%, had some college education or 

vocational school. The majority of Tier 2 and most of Tier 3 participants had bachelor’s degrees, 

58.3% and 42.4% respectively. The majority of Tier 4 participants, 80%, had some college or 

vocational education.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

King

Whatcom

Skagit

Snohomish

Other

San Juan

King

Whatcom

Skagit

Jefferson

None

Other

San Juan

King

Skagit

Snohomish

None

Other

San Juan

Whatcom

Snohomish

Other

Percent

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Figure 34. Permanent residence by tier. Most of the individuals who worked in Tier 1 companies, 32%, 

resided in King County, while many participants in the other tiers resided in San Juan County. 

Participants in Tier 2 companies show 25% each resided in San Juan County and Whatcom 

County. Participants in Tier 3 and Tier 4 companies show most, 67%, and 40% respectively, 

resided in San Juan County. 
47

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0–25%

26

–50%

51

–75%

76

–100%

0–25%

26

–50%

51

–75%

76

–100%

0–25%

26

–50%

51

–75%

76

–100%

0–25%

26

–50%

51

–75%

76

–100%

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Less than $10,000

$10,000

–30,000

$31,000

–50,000

$51,000

–70,000

$71,000

–90,000

More than $90,000

Less than $10,000

$10,000

–30,000

$31,000

–50,000

$51,000

–70,000

$71,000

–90,000

More than $90,000

Less than $10,000

$10,000

–30,000

$31,000

–50,000

$51,000

–70,000

$71,000

–90,000

More than $90,000

Less than $10,000

$10,000

–30,000

$31,000

–50,000

$51,000

–70,000

$71,000

–90,000

More than $90,000

Percent

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Figure 35. Income by tier. Results show 31% of participants in Tier 1 companies had income of 

$51,000–$70,000, 34% in Tier 2 companies had income of $10,000–$30,000, 24% in Tier 3 

companies had income of $31,000–$50,000, and 50% in Tier 4 companies had income of 

$31,000–$50,000. 

Figure 36. Percent estimated income derived from SRKW watching industry by tier. Results indicate 

that most participants in Tier 1, Tier 3, and Tier 4 companies derived 0–25% of their income from 

the industry. Most individuals in Tier 2 companies derived 26–50% of their income from the 

industry. 
48

Individual Participation

Individual Participation Summary

Results for roles analyzed by tier show some consistency between all tiers. The role of 

naturalist was prominent in the top two selections across all tiers. Similarly, the role of operator 

was consistently among the top three roles across all tiers. The majority of people working 

aboard Tier 1 vessels occupied a single role. A few worked up to three roles and even fewer 

worked six or more roles. The range in the number of roles that people occupied in Tier 2 and 

Tier 3 companies varies from one to five or six roles, respectively. Tier 4 companies were 

similar to Tier 1 companies in that most participants worked one to three roles, with a small 

percent working six or more roles.

The study asked people working in the industry when they had begun. Tier 1 results 

show a small percent started in 1978, followed by small percentages between 1991 and 1995. 

More individuals started working in the industry in Tier 1 companies after 2001, with most 

individuals entering in 2003. Tier 2 participants entered the industry over a greater time span. A 

small percent entered in the late 1970s through the 1980s. More entered the industry throughout 

the 1990s, followed by a break until 2004. The highest number of people in Tier 2 companies 

began work in the 2006 study year. Tier 3 companies show some entrants in the early 1990s,

with more people entering in 1997 and continuing to 2006. In this tier, the greatest percentage 

entered in 2004. Tier 4 companies show a few entrants in the early 1990s, while the rest entered 

between 1996 and 1998.

Another question asked how long participants had worked in the industry. For Tier 1 

participants, 57.9% reported a tenure of 2–5 years. This result corresponds with findings that 

most people in Tier 1 companies started in the early to mid 2000s. Tier 2 results show 30.6% 

worked for 1 year, and 22.2% each worked for 2–5 years and 6–10 years. Again, these findings 

are in line with the start years that people entered the industry. Tier 3 results indicate the greatest 

number of people, 42.4%, worked for 2–5 years, closely followed by 39.4% working 6–10 years. 

Tier 4 results show 40% worked for 6–10 years, and 20% each worked 2–5 years, 11–15 years, 

and 16–20 years.

The top three responses across all tiers for additional training were: STCW, the Whale 

Museum’s marine naturalist training, and other maritime training. The top three varied in their 

order between tiers, but were consistently the top three across all tiers. Questions regarding

USCG licenses provided insight into maritime training pursued to work in the industry. Tier 1 

and Tier 4 companies show that the majority of individuals held a USCG license, while Tier 2 

and Tier 3 companies had a slight majority who did not hold licenses. Of those who did hold a 

license, a majority across tier groups used their license as part of their jobs in the industry. Data 

also show that across tiers, master’s licenses accounted for the majority held. Tier 1 licenses 

held include 1,600 ton ocean endorsements, 100 ton inland endorsements, and 100 and 1,600 ton 

licenses with no endorsements clarified (referred to as general tonnage). Tier 2 licenses include

100 and 500 ton near coastal endorsements, inland endorsements, and general tonnage. Tier 3 

licenses include 500 and 100 ton near coastal endorsements, 100 ton inland endorsements, and 

50 and 100 general tonnage. Tier 4 licenses include 100 and 200 near coastal endorsements, 100 

ton inland endorsements, and 25, 100, and 200 general tonnage.
49

Survey questions requested information on work schedules. Most participants across 

tiers worked in the industry from May through September. The number of people working 

varied slightly between tiers, but results show a climb to peaks in June and July. Generally, 

numbers started to decline in August and continued into the fall months. A small number of 

participants in each tier worked year-round. Most individuals in Tier 1 worked more than fulltime hours (>40 hours per week), followed by full time and part time. Tier 2 participants worked

primarily a full-time week, followed by more than 40 hours per week and part time. Most Tier 3

individuals worked part time, followed by full time and other combinations. A majority in Tier 4

worked a part-time schedule.

Given the option to work part time, we asked whether participants worked more than one 

job. Responses indicate that the majority of employees in Tier 1 companies worked only one 

full-time job, followed by multiple part-time positions, and both a full- and part-time position. 

Tier 2 companies show a majority worked only one full-time position, followed by multiple parttime positions and only one part time. Tier 3 results show an overwhelming number of 

employees worked multiple part-time positions, followed by both full time and part time and 

only one part time. Tier 4 results indicate most participants worked multiple part-time positions, 

with the same number of participants working in each of the other work hour categories.

A supplemental question asked when people worked multiple jobs. Tier 1 respondents

worked multiple jobs mostly during the peak season and during peak and low seasons. Tier 2 

participants worked multiple jobs primarily in low season, followed by a combination of low and 

peak seasons. Tier 3 participants worked multiple jobs during peak and low seasons, followed 

by peak seasons. Tier 4 participants worked multiple jobs during peak and low seasons.

To better understand where the opportunities lie to work multiple jobs, we asked what 

other jobs individuals worked during the active whale watching season. Across all tiers, results 

indicate that some participants worked in other maritime-related positions. The majority of Tier 

1 participants selected the “other” category. Examples include teaching and various construction 

positions. Most Tier 2 participants worked in tourism-related jobs. Tier 3 had the greatest 

diversity, with many participants working in tourism, as volunteers, and on other whale watching 

boats in the same role that they occupied on their primary vessels. Tier 4 respondents also 

reported volunteer activities and other positions.

The survey provided three options to indicate the number of hours worked by 

participants: number of hours within the SRKW watching industry, hours worked in a non-whale 

watching tourism positions, and hours worked in non-tourism–related jobs. Results across tiers 

indicate most of the hours were worked in the SRKW industry. Many Tier 1 participants, 36.8%, 

worked 41–50 hours per week, followed by 15.8% each working 31–40 and 21–30 hours per 

week. Tier 2 responses show 45.5% worked 31–40 hours and 18.2% worked 41–50 hours, all 

within the SRKW industry. Tier 3 results indicate 24.2% each worked 31–40 hours per week 

and 1–10 hours per week. Tier 4 results vary slightly, with 20% of participants working 1–20

hours per week in both the SRKW industry and non-tourism–related jobs.

Additionally, understanding off-season activities contributes more information on the 

annual activities of those in the industry. Tier 1 results indicate a majority of individuals 

continued working in marine tourism positions in the current location where they were employed 
50

for both years (i.e., the season prior to the study year in 2005/2006 off-season and the study 

season of 2006/2007). This was followed by “other” responses, including year-round 

employment. Tier 2 responses show more individuals participated in marine tourism jobs in the 

current location in 2005/2006 with slightly fewer in 2006/2007, while many traveled in 

2005/2006 and an increase in travel was anticipated for 2006/2007. Tier 3 results indicate a

majority of individuals worked both years in a non-tourism job in the current location, followed 

by other, and a marine tourism job in the current location. Tier 4 shows equal participation in 

non-marine tourism jobs in the current location, a non-tourism job in a different location, and 

travel for the 2005/2006 year. Responses for the 2006/2007 year show equal participation in a 

non-marine tourism job in the current location, a non-tourism job in the current and different 

locations, travel, and to attend school.

Participants were asked to describe past work history. Tier 1 results indicate 84% had 

past work history in the “other” category, including high participation in various maritime 

occupations such as the cruise ship industry and commercial diving. Additionally in Tier 1, 32% 

worked in building trades, while 21% worked in education, fishing, and recreation and 

entertainment, respectively (respondents were able to select all options that applied to their 

situations). Tier 2 results show 44% worked in the accommodation and food industry, 32% in 

retail, and 29% in both education and scientific positions. Tier 3 reported 50% worked in 

education, and 31% worked in both accommodation and food, and recreational and entertainment 

industries. Tier 4 had the greatest participation in the “other” category, 80%, including 

occupations in other maritime industries. Both the education and accommodation and food 

industries were selected by 50% of respondents.

A focus on experience in the maritime industry provided insight into other maritime jobs 

held. Of those who acknowledged prior participation in any maritime industry, participants in 

Tier 1 and Tier 4 companies possessed the greatest background. Across all tiers, at least some 

level of participation in fishing activities was identified. Tier 1 participants reported experience 

in the cruise ship industry as well as ferries, tug boats, and USCG. Tier 2 and Tier 3 participants 

had backgrounds in scuba diving and education/ecotourism. Tier 4 participants had experience 

in multiple categories, with the percent of participants working in each being equal. 

Complementing the types of maritime jobs, the location of positions was also determined. The 

highest emphasis across tiers was in Greater Puget Sound and Alaska. In addition to these 

locations, Tier 3 participants worked in areas classified as “other” from those described, and 

additional locations for Tier 4 participants included Mexico, California, Oregon, and Anacortes, 

Washington.

A final question asked participants the number of years they had worked in maritime 

industries. Tier 1 results indicate 50% of participants had worked 1–5 years in maritime 

industries and 25% had more than 25 years of experience. Tier 2 responses indicate 43% had 

worked for 1–5 years, while an equivalent number of individuals, 14.3%, had worked for 11–15 

years, 21–25 years, and more than 25 years, respectively. Tier 3 results show 41.7% of 

participants had worked 1–5 years, 25% had worked 6–10 years, and 16.7% each had worked

16–20 years and more than 25 years. Tier 4 results are split with 66.7% of participants having 

worked in the maritime industries for 1–5 years and 33.3% for more than 25 years.
51

In response to the Likert scale question of why people work in the industry, reasons 

varied only slightly between tiers. Tier 1 results show the top three reasons participants strongly 

agreed with were 50% to work outside on the water, 44.4% to work in the region, and 38.9% to 

make money. When the agree and strongly agree responses were combined to provide an overall 

agreement response, the reasons changed slightly for Tier 1 results. The top three reasons 

changed to 94% “other”, 90.3% to work in the region, and 88% to educate the public. The top 

three reasons with a strongly agree response for Tier 2 participants were 48.5% to work outside 

on the water, 48.5% to spend time with the SRKWs, and 45.4% to educate the public. When 

agreement responses were combined, the results shifted slightly to 94% selecting “other”

reasons, 90.3% to work in the region, and 87.9% to educate the public. Tier 3 participants 

reported their strongest agreement was for both educating the public and working outside on the 

water, 68.8% each, followed by 59.4% to spend time with the SRKWs. Aggregated agreement 

responses slightly shifted results with 100% indicating “other,” 90.6% to work outside on the 

water, and 87.5% to educate the public. The Tier 4 results for strongly agree are 100% to work 

outside on the water, with 80% of participants selecting all of the following reasons: to work in 

the region, educate the public, and spend time with the SRKWs. Aggregated agreement 

responses slightly altered the responses to show 100% want to work in the region, educate the 

public, work outside on the water, and spend time with the SRKWs.

Individual Participation Figures and Tables

The 16 figures and 9 tables listed here are sequentially provided below.

Figure 37. Role by company tier.

Table 7. Number of roles occupied by tier.

Figure 38. Professional training by tier.

Table 8. USCG licenses held by tier.

Table 9. USCG license use by tier.

Table10. USCG license type by tier.

Table 11. USCG license description by tonnage by tier.

Table 12. Entry year by tier.

Figure 39. Tenure by tier.

Figure 40. Months worked by tier.

Figure 41. Work schedules by tier.

Figure 42. Multiple work positions by tier.

Figure 43. Seasons when participants work multiple jobs.

Figure 44. Types of jobs held during the whale watching season by tier.

Figure 45. Number of hours worked by job category for Tier 1 companies.

Figure 46. Number of hours worked by job category by Tier 2 companies.

Figure 47. Number of hours worked by job category by Tier 3 companies.
52

Figure 48. Number of hours worked by job category by Tier 4 companies.

Table 13. Work conducted in the off-season.

Figure 49. Past work history by tier.

Table 14. Historical participation in the maritime industry by tier.

Figure 50. Maritime positions by tier.

Figure 51. Location of maritime industry experience by tier.

Figure 52. Number of years worked in the maritime industry by tier.

Table 15. Reasons to participate by tier.
53 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Owner

Operator

Engineer

Deck hand

Naturalist

Assistant naturalist

Guide

Logistics

Administration

Maintenance

Volunteer

Other role

Owner

Operator

Engineer

Deck hand

Naturalist

Assistant naturalist

Guide

Logistics

Administration

Maintenance

Volunteer

Other role

Owner

Operator

Engineer

Deck hand

Naturalist

Assistant naturalist

Guide

Logistics

Administration

Maintenance

Volunteer

Other role

Owner

Operator

Engineer

Deck hand

Naturalist

Assistant naturalist

Guide

Logistics

Administration

Maintenance

Volunteer

Other role

Percent

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Figure 37. Roles held by participants by company tier. In this question, since participants were able to mark all roles that apply, several 

acknowledged that more than one role applied to their situation. 
54 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

WM naturalist training

STCW

First aid

Maritime training 

Biology or equiv. degree

Self study

Biology/enviro. conferences

Other

WM naturalist training

STCW

First aid

Maritime training 

Biology or equiv. degree 

Self study

Biology/enviro. conferences

Other

WM naturalist training

STCW

First aid

Maritime training 

Biology or equiv. degree

Self study

Biology/enviro. conferences

Other

WM naturalist training

STCW

First aid

Maritime training 

Biology or equiv. degree

Self study

Biology/enviro. conferences

Other

Percent

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Table 7. Number of roles held by participants by company tier. 

Percent of respondents

No. of roles Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

1 55.6 28.6 22.6 20.0

2 16.7 28.6 41.9 20.0

3 5.6 14.3 16.1 20.0

4 — 11.4 9.7 —

5 — 8.6 9.7 —

6 11.1 5.7 — 20.0

7 or more 11.1 — — 20.0

Figure 38. Description of additional professional training by company tier. 
55

Table 8. Percent of participants who held a USCG license by company tier.

Tier Yes No

1 52.6 47.4

2 41.7 58.3

3 45.5 54.5

4 100.0 —

Table 9. Percent of participants who held a USCG license and used it in the SRKW watching industry by

tier.

Tier Yes No N/A

1 36.8 21.1 42.1

2 38.9 8.3 52.8

3 37.5 12.5 50.0

4 100.0 — —

Table 10. Percent of types of USCG licenses held and used in the industry by company tier.

Tier

Able bodied 

seaman

Merchant 

Marine Master

1 30 30 70

2 — — 100

3 — — 100

4 — — 100

Table 11. Percent description of USCG license tonnage used in the industry by tier. General tonnage is 

the category description where responses provided no additional detail information or tonnage 

listing.

General tonnage Inland Near coastal Ocean

Tier 25 50 100 200 500 1,600 100 500 50 100 200 500 1,600

1 — — 57.1 — — 42.9 100.0 — — — — — 100.0

2 — — 86.7 — 13.2 — 80.0 20.0 — 75.0 — 25.0 —

3 — 13.3 86.7 — — — 100.0 — 14.3 85.7 — — —

4 20.0 — 60.0 20.0 — — 100.0 — — 50.0 50.0 — —
56 

Table 12. Entry year into industry by tier (values in percent). 

Entry Year Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

1978 5.26 — — —

1979 — 2.78 — —

1985 — 2.78 — —

1988 — 2.78 — —

1991 5.26 — — 20.00

1992 — 5.56 6.06 20.00

1993 5.26 — 3.03 —

1994 — 2.78 — —

1995 15.79 2.78 6.06 —

1996 — 13.89 — 20.00

1997 — 5.56 15.15 20.00

1998 — 2.78 12.12 20.00

1999 — 8.33 3.03 —

2000 — — 12.12 —

2001 10.53 — 3.03 —

2002 10.53 — 6.06 —

2003 15.79 — 9.09 —

2004 10.53 5.56 18.18 —

2005 10.53 13.89 3.03 —

2006 10.53 30.56 3.03 —

Figure 39. Tenure by company tier. This survey question asked participants how many years they had 

participated in the industry. It also allowed individuals to account for intermittent time, where a 

participant may have left the industry for a few years and returned. Overall, many participants in 

each tier had worked in the industry for 2–5 years. The longest tenures fell in the Tier 1 and Tier 

2 companies. Previous analysis of this question shown in Figure 18 indicates that those with the 

longest tenures were primarily company owners.
57 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

AugSep

Oct

Nov

Dec

All 

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

AugSep

Oct

NovDec

All 

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

AugSep

Oct

NovDec

All 

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

AugSep

Oct

Nov

Dec

All 

Percent

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Figure 40. Months worked in the SRKW watching industry by company tier. In addition to individual months, there was an opportunity to select 

“all” to indicate working all year-round in the industry. As expected due to the seasonal nature of the industry, there was a peak in 

participation in the industry during the summer months. 
58

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

PT

FT (40 hours)

FT +

PT low, FT peak

Other

PT

FT (40 hours)

FT +

PT low, FT peak

Other

PT

FT (40 hours)

FT +

PT low, FT peak

Other

PT

FT (40 hours)

FT +

PT low, FT peak

Other

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Only one PT

Multiple PT

Both FT and PT

Only one FT

Multiple FT

Only one PT

Multiple PT

Both FT and PT

Only one FT

Multiple FT

Only one PT

Multiple PT

Both FT and PT

Only one FT

Multiple FT

Only one PT

Multiple PT

Both FT and PT

Only one FT

Multiple FT

Percent

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Figure 41. Work schedules by company tier. The largest proportion of Tier 1 company employees, 

36.8%, worked more than full-time (FT), 37.1% in Tier 2 companies worked full-time, and the 

greatest proportion of respondents in Tier 3 and Tier 4 companies worked part-time (PT) 

positions, 37.5% and 80%, respectively.

Figure 42. Description of work schedules and multiple work positions held by participants sorted by tier. 

Employees of Tier 1 and Tier 2 companies worked primarily only one full-time (FT) position. 

Employees of Tier 3 and Tier 4 companies who primarily worked part-time (PT) positions show 

in these results that they worked multiple part-time positions. 
59

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Peak 

Lo

w

Both peak

And low 

Peak

Low

Both peak

and low

Peak

Low

Both peak

and low

Peak

Low

Both peak

and low

Percent

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

0

10

20

30

40

Maritime related

Volunteer

Other

Other SRKW boat, 

different role

Maritime related

Tourism

Other SRKW boat, 

different role

Other SRKW role entirely

Maritime related

Tourism

Volunteer

Maritime related

Volunteer

Other

Percent

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 

Other SRKW boat, same roleOther SRKW boat, same role

Other SRKW boat, same role

Figure 43. Seasons when participants work multiple jobs. These vary greatly between tiers.

Figure 44. Types of additional jobs held during the whale watching season by tier. Participants in each 

tier show variation in the types of jobs held and each tier has some level of participation in 

maritime-related positions.
60

0

10

20

30

40

50

1–10

11

–20

21

–30

31

–40

41

–50

51

–60

61

–70

71

–80

Percent

In SRKW industry In non-whale watching In non-tourism jobs

0

10

20

30

40

50

1–10

11

–20

21

–30

31

–40

41

–50

51

–60

61–70

71

–80

Percent

In SRKW industry In non-whale watching In non-tourism jobs

Figure 45. Number of hours worked per week in three job categories by Tier 1 companies: the SKRW 

watching industry, non-whale watching tourism jobs, and non-tourism–related jobs. The majority 

of hours worked in multiple jobs are in the SRKW industry.

Figure 46. Number of hours worked per week in three job categories by Tier 2 companies: the SKRW 

watching industry, non-whale watching tourism jobs, and non-tourism–related jobs. The majority 

of hours worked in multiple jobs are in the SRKW industry.
61

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1–10

11

–20

21

–30

31

–40

41

–50

51

–60

61

–70

71

–80

81

–90

Percent

In SRKW industry In non-whale watching In non-tourism jobs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1–10

11

–20

21

–30

31

–40

41

–50

51

–60

Percent

In SRKW industry In non-whale watching In non-tourism jobs

Figure 47. Number of hours worked per week in three job categories by Tier 3 companies: the SKRW 

watching industry, non-whale watching tourism jobs, and non-tourism–related jobs. Results 

indicate a greater distribution of hours between all categories with the majority occurring in the 

SRKW industry.

Figure 48. Number of hours worked per week in three job categories by Tier 4 companies: the SKRW 

watching industry, non-whale watching tourism jobs, and non-tourism–related jobs. The majority 

of hours worked are in the SRKW watching industry, with a significant number of hours worked 

in non-tourism jobs as well.
62

Table 13. Work conducted in the off-season years prior to and after the study years of 2005/2006 and 

2006/2007. The first three tiers have high responses in working in marine tourism in the current 

location during both years selected. Tiers 2 and 4 have high responses in travel as an off-season 

activity. Other areas of high response are in the “other” category, non-marine tourism in a 

different location, non-tourism in the current location, and non-tourism job in a different 

location.

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

05/06 06/07 05/06 06/07 05/06 06/07 05/06 06/07

Whale watch different location — 13.0 6.5 6.3 4 4 — —

Marine tourism current location 41.0 44.0 29.0 28.0 28 28 — —

Marine tourism different location 17.6 18.8 9.7 6.3 8 8 — —

Non-marine tourism current location — — 6.5 3.1 16 20 33 25

Non-marine tourism different location — — 3.2 6.3 4 4 — —

Non-tourism current location 17.6 12.5 12.9 18.8 32 40 — 25

Non-tourism different location 5.9 6.3 19.4 12.5 16 16 33 25

Travel 17.6 12.5 25.8 34.4 20 28 33 25

Retired 5.9 6.3 6.5 9.4 — — — —

Attend school 17.6 12.5 16.1 21.9 12 16 — 25

Other 29.4 25.0 22.6 21.9 28 28 — —
63 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Agriculture

Fishing

Education

Scientific

Accom

modation, food

Recreation, entertainment

Building trades

Retail

Professional

Agriculture

Fishing

Natural resources

Education

Scientific

Health and social

Accom

modation, food

Recreation, entertainment

Building trades

Retail

Professional

Public 

administration

Agriculture

Fishing

Natural resources

Education

Scientific

Health and social

Acco

mmodation, food

Recreation, entertainment

Building trades

Retail

Professional

Fishing

Education

Health and social

Accom

modation, food

Recreation, entertainment

Retail

Percent

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Figure 49. Description of past work history using U.S. Census categories by company tier. 

Table 14. Historical participation in maritime industry by tier by percent. 

Tier Yes No

1 78.95 21.05

2 44.44 55.56

3 42.42 57.58

4 80.00 20.00
64 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Shipyard

Fishing

Ferry

Tug/tow

Charters

Cruise

USCG

SCUBA

Educ./ecotourism

Volunteer

Shipyard

Fishing

Tug/tow

Sail/sailboat

Charters

Cruise

Private

Marine

SCUBA

Educ./ecotourism

Volunteer

Shipyard

Fishing

Ferry

Tug/tow

Sail/sailboat

Charters

Cruise

Private

SCUBA

Educ./ecotourism

Guide

Shipyard

Fishing

Tug/tow

Sail/sailboat

Charters

Educ./ecotourism

Percent

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Figure 50. Description of past maritime positions held by participants by company tier. 
65 

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Anacortes, WA 

Bellingham, WA

Everett, WA

Port Townsend, WA

San Juan Islands,WA

Seattle, WA

Other, WA

Greater Puget Sound

Alaska

Oregon

California

Hawaii

British Columbia

Mexico

International 

Other 

Percent

Tier 1Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Figure 51. Location of maritime industry experience by tier. 
66

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1–5

6–10

11

–15

16

–20

21

–25

+25

1–5

6–10

11

–15

16

–20

21

–25

+25

1–5

6–10

11

–15

16

–20

21

–25

+25

1–5

6–10

11

–15

16

–20

21

–25

+25

Percent

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Figure 52. Number of years worked in maritime industry by tier. Most tiers show a distribution of 

experience in maritime industries.
67

Table 15. Likert scale description of reasons to participate in the industry by company tier (values in percent).

Tier Response

Make 

money

Transition 

to maritime

Work in 

region

Educate 

public

Interact 

with coworkers

Work 

outside on 

the water

Seasonal 

job

Spend 

time with 

SRKWs Other

1 Strongly agree 38.9 5.6 44.4 44.4 22.2 50.0 16.7 22.2 5.3

Agree 38.9 27.8 55.6 27.8 38.9 44.4 22.2 66.7 94.7

Neutral 5.6 38.9 — 27.8 38.9 — 16.7 5.6 —

Disagree 11.1 16.7 — — — — 22.2 — —

Strongly disagree 5.6 11.1 — — — 5.6 22.2 5.6 —

2 Strongly agree 38.2 — 64.5 45.5 26.5 48.5 29.4 48.5 9.1

Agree 44.1 10.3 25.8 42.4 41.2 30.3 17.6 — 84.8

Neutral 5.9 34.5 9.7 9.1 26.5 15.2 23.5 — 3.0

Disagree 11.8 27.6 — 3.0 2.9 6.1 20.6 — —

Strongly disagree — 27.6 — — 2.9 — 8.8 — 3.0

3 Strongly agree 28.1 7.4 46.9 68.8 34.4 68.8 15.6 59.4 9.4

Agree 34.4 7.4 34.4 15.6 34.4 21.9 18.8 28.1 90.6

Neutral 3.1 40.7 18.8 15.6 25.0 9.4 59.4 12.5 –

Disagree 18.8 18.5 — — 3.1 — — — —

Strongly disagree 15.6 25.9 — — 3.1 — — — —

4 Strongly agree 20.0 — 80.0 80.0 20.0 100.0 25.0 80.0 20.0

Agree 40.0 — 20.0 20.0 40.0 — 25.0 20.0 80.0

Neutral 20.0 40.0 — — 40.0 — 25.0 — —

Disagree 20.0 40.0 — — — — 25.0 — —

Strongly disagree — 20.0 — — — — — — —
68

Motorized Vessel Business

Business Information

Business Information Summary

Results in this subsection describe businesses in the SRKW watching industry through 

the vessels that they operate and their home ports. We sought a better understanding of specific 

vessel characteristics such as inside seating, outside seating, restrooms, binoculars, hydrophones, 

food sales, the Orca Spotting Network, and a galley. Data were analyzed by company tiers. 

Primary characteristics shared by all Tier 1 companies include inside seating, outside seating, 

restrooms, and a galley. In Tier 2, 97.2% of the vessels had restrooms and 94.4% had

indoor/outdoor seating. In Tier 3, 100% of the vessels had indoor/outdoor seating and restrooms

and 97% had binoculars, a hydrophone, and food sales. In Tier 4, 100% of the vessels had

outdoor seating, restrooms, and binoculars.

Vessel advantages were aggregated into several categories including vessel 

characteristics, environment, and additional amenities. Both large and small vessels had

advantages. Large vessels were described as being more stable and safer. Small vessels were 

described as providing a more personal experience for their clients, with fewer passengers and 

operating close to shore. Both fast and slow vessels had advantages. Fast vessels were described 

as having greater range and more access to whale viewing, as well as more flexible schedules

and less travel time to see wildlife. Slow vessels were described as having greater stability and 

opportunities to view other wildlife up close.

Participants also indicated environmental advantages in subcategories of education, 

engines, and impact on whales. The education provided by naturalists and others in the industry 

was considered an advantage. Engine advantages included the use of biofuel, fuel efficiency, 

reduced noise, and contained exhaust emissions. Advantages specific to impact on whales

included the fact that large vessels had higher decks that enable viewing at a greater distance 

from the whales. Large vessels also meant more passengers and fewer boats on the water,

therefore, less acoustic and spatial impacts on the whales.

Additional amenities listed as advantages included inside seating, which provided

viewing in a protected, heated climate, and outer decks, which provided the advantage of better 

and wraparound viewing. Accommodation advantages for senior citizens and families included 

wheelhouse access and snack bar availability. Safety was also mentioned as an advantage, where 

items like high handrails and larger, more stable vessels make the trips safer.

Disadvantages were also described; categories were the same as for advantages. Slow 

speeds may result in missing whales and other wildlife. Large vessels were decried as less 

comfortable, often with too many passengers, despite passenger capacity ratings. Small vessels
69

often had tight spaces on walkways and vessel decks. Large vessels with many passengers made 

it difficult to pass on an educational message, especially when the public address system had the 

naturalist’s back to the clients. Engine disadvantages included the amount and type (nonbiodiesel) of fuel used. Some engines were loud and propellers created jets of water. Poor 

engine maintenance can result in smoke, fuel, and sewage leaks that may negatively impact the 

environment.

Respondents repeated that sometimes reaching the full vessel capacity reduced the 

comfort of the passengers; insufficient indoor seating during bad weather also was a 

disadvantage. Weather-related disadvantages included instability in high seas, the cold and wind 

penetrating the cabin, and movement of the vessel in high seas, specifically rolling, which 

drastically reduced the comfort of passengers and employees.

Business Information Tables and Figures

The one table and four figures listed here are sequentially provided below.

Table 16. Vessel characteristics.

Figure 53. SRKW watching vessel characteristics.

Figure 54. SRKW watching vessel characteristics by tier.

Figure 55. Advantages of vessels.

Figure 56. Disadvantages of vessels.
70

Table 16. Vessel characteristics.*

Vessel ID number 1 2 3 4 5 6

Operational port Anacortes Anacortes Anacortes Bellingham Bellingham Deer Harbor

Home port Anacortes Anacortes Homer Bellingham Bellingham Deer Harbor

Length (feet) 46 65 100 110 50 36

Beam (feet) 15 23 22 21 15 12

Draft (feet) 4 5 5 6 5 3

Height (feet) 15 25 18 13 12 —

No. viewing decks 2 2 1 2 2 1

Height of view 

decks (feet)

10 0 5 18 5, 12 15

Inboard/outboard Inboard Inboard Inboard Inboard Inboard Inboard

Engine description Caterpillar 330 b 

355 hp

2406 × 3, 535hp ×

3 Diesel Prop/Cat

Detroit Diesel 

16v71 600 hp (2)

Detroit Diesel 

16v71 600 hp (2)

Detroit Diesel 

671

Volvo 480

Fuel capacity (gal.) 400 — 2,400 8,600 — 200

Tonnage 26 77 99 97 37 25

Hull type Mono Mono Mono Mono Mono Mono

Average operating 

speed (knots)

10 17 12 13 12 19

Passenger capacity 40 102 77 149 66 20

Operational 

passenger capacity

30 75 77 100 42 20

No. crew required 2 2 2 3 2 2

No. operating crew 2–3 3 2 4 2 2
71

Table 16 continued horizontally. Vessel characteristics.*

Vessel ID number 7 8 9 10 11 12

Operational port Deer Harbor Everett Friday Harbor Friday Harbor Friday Harbor Friday Harbor

Home port Deer Harbor Everett Friday Harbor Friday Harbor Friday Harbor Friday Harbor

Length (feet) 43 70 67 55 46 25

Beam (feet) 16 20 18 16 14 8

Draft (feet) 4 4 5 5 5 2

Height (feet) 10 18 16 20 15 6

No. viewing decks 2 2 2 1 1 2

Height of view 

decks (feet)

15 12 10 4 3 9

Inboard/outboard Inboard Inboard Inboard Inboard Inboard Outboard

Engine description Detroit Diesel 671 

360 (2)

Luggers 600 hp 

(3)

Volvo Diesel 

T-120-A 400 hp

Cummins Honda 4-

stroke 135 hp

Fuel capacity (gal.) 250 1,800 1,100 250 350 100

Tonnage 25 65 58 — 36 2

Hull type Mono Mono Mono Mono Mono Mono

Average operating 

speed (knots)

13 20 11 0 21 18

Passenger capacity 49 110 97 49 35 6

Operational 

passenger capacity

32 101 80 44 30 6

No. crew required 2 4 3 2 2 1

No. operating crew 2 4 — 3 — 1
72

Table 16 continued horizontally. Vessel characteristics.*

Vessel ID number 13 14 15 16 17 18

Operational port LaConner/Everett LaConner Orcas Port Townsend Port Townsend Roche Harbor

Home port Everett LaConner Orcas Port Townsend Port Townsend Roche Harbor

Length (feet) 25 58 56 65 42 31

Beam (feet) 8 18 17 15 14 12

Draft (feet) 2 6 5 6 3 4

Height (feet) 4 8 4 15 12 4

No. viewing decks 1 1 2 1 2 1

Height of view 

decks (feet)

2 8 — 0 3, 7 2

Inboard/outboard Outboard Inboard Inboard Inboard Inboard Inboard

Engine description Suzuki 4-stroke 

115 hp

Detroit Diesel 400 

hp (2)

Detroit Diesel 734 

hp (2)

Detroit Diesel 

8V92 TI 600 hp (2)

Volvo 235 hp 

(3)

Caterpillar 320 

hp

Fuel capacity (gal.) 130 900 700 1,500 250 200

Tonnage 3 48 59 65 20 12

Hull type Dual Mono Mono Mono Dual Mono

Average operating 

speed (knots)

26 10 18 17 22 17

Passenger capacity 7 49 48 72 49 24

Operational 

passenger capacity

6 51 48 72 25 16

No. crew required 1 2 3 2 2 2

No. operating crew 1 2–3 2–3 15–45 passengers, 

2 crew; 45–72 

passengers, 3 crew

2 2
73

Table 16 continued horizontally. Vessel characteristics.*

Vessel ID number 19 20 21 22 23

Operational port Roche Harbor Seattle Skyline Marina Snug Harbor Snug Harbor

Home port Roche Harbor Seattle Anacortes Snug Harbor Snug Harbor

Length (feet) 42 114 37 40 22

Beam (feet) 14 29 14 14 8

Draft (feet) 5 6 3 4 3

Height (feet) 20 44 10 13 —

No. viewing decks 1 3 1 1 2

Height of view 

decks (feet)

4 — 2 5 6

Inboard/outboard Inboard Inboard Inboard Inboard Outboard

Engine description Detroit Diesel 

6V92 375 hp

Detroit Diesel V16 

149 1,600 hp

Diesel jet pump John Deere diesel 

235 hp (2)

Yamaha 90

4-stroke

Fuel capacity (gal.) 300 1,300 — 300 104

Tonnage 18 98 — 15 25

Hull type Mono Dual Dual Mono Mono

Average operating 

speed (knots)

11 25 32 14 18

Passenger capacity 28 237 37 20 10

Operational 

passenger capacity

24 200 32 20 8

No. crew required 2 4 2 2 1

No. operating crew 2 6 2 2 1

* The table describes 23 of the 24 commercial vessels identified as active in the U.S. SRKW watching industry during the 2006 season. Since data for one of the 

vessels were not accessible (not reported in the survey, not given verbally, nor published in marketing materials), that vessel was excluded from the table. All 

respondents were asked to provide vessel descriptive information to the best of their ability. To create what was thought to be the most accurate and complete 

description of the vessels, owner responses were prioritized. In addition, some secondary source data from company Web sites and brochures were used to 

complete the descriptions. Vessel and company names were replaced with an arbitrary vessel ID number.
74

0

20

40

60

80

100

Inside seating

Outside seating

Restroom (head)

Binoculars provided

Hydrophone

Food sales

Orca Spotting Network

Galley

Food included with tour

Underwater camera

Percent

95.8% response

Figure 53. SRKW watching vessel characteristics.
75 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Inside seating

Outside seating

Restroom (head)

Binoculars

Hydrophone

Food sales

Orca 

Spotting Network

Galley

Food included

Underwater camera

Inside seating

Outside seating

Restroom (head)

Binoculars

Hydrophone

Food sales

Orca 

Spotting Network

Galley

Food included

Underwater camera

Inside seating

Outside seating

Restroom (head)

Binoculars

Hydrophone

Food sales

Orca 

Spotting Network

Galley

Food included

Underwater camera

Inside seating

Outside seating

Restroom (head)

Binoculars

Hydrophone

Food for sale

Orca 

Spotting Network

Galley

Food included

Underwater camera

Percent

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Figure 54. SRKW watching vessel characteristics by tier.
76

Figure 55. Qualitative responses to a question asking participants to list advantages of the type of vessel they worked on or owned. The 

qualitative analysis begins on the left, indicating that these responses are directly tied to vessel advantages, followed by three overarching 

themes with sample size parenthetically provided. Following the three themes, several subthemes further clarify the analysis. The final 

branches of the figure, indicated in italics, are detailed data representing actual responses to the question.
77

Figure 56. Qualitative responses to a question asking participants to list disadvantages of the type of vessel they worked on or owned. The 

qualitative analysis begins on the left, indicating that these responses are directly tied to vessel disadvantages, followed by three 

overarching themes with sample size parenthetically provided. Following the three themes, several subthemes further clarify the analysis. 

The final branches of the figure, indicated in italics, are detailed data representing actual responses to the question.
78

Business Operations

Business Operations Summary

The data in this subsection present results of questions concerning business operations. 

First we sought to better understand the types of tours different companies offered and did so 

using a Likert scale format question. The scale ranged from strongly applies to not applicable. 

The responses indicate that boat-based tours where SRKWs are the focal point amidst other 

wildlife were the most commonly offered tours, 58%, followed by boat-based wildlife tours, 

32.1%, and boat-based tours where viewing SKRWs is the exclusive intent, 19.1%.

Respondents were asked what percent of the vessel’s activity was dedicated to SRKW 

watching trips. As some companies operate multiple vessels, it was logical to presume that some 

individuals worked on multiple vessels in one company and even on multiple vessels for 

different companies. Thus respondents could report their percent of activity on up to three 

vessels. Results were run based on only the first vessel for which data were provided, as well as 

on the aggregate of all vessels where data were provided. The trend in the data was similar. 

Results show that most, 43%, said 91–100% of their vessel’s activity was dedicated to SRKW 

watching. While this is significant, it is not a majority. The range in the results is extensive. Of 

remaining respondents reporting percent of the vessel’s activity dedicated to SRKW viewing,

15% said 81–90% dedicated to SRKW viewing, 12% said 1–10%, 10.5% said 41–50%, and all 

other responses were below 10%.

Information requested also included the number of tours offered. The responses were 

highly complex and difficult to summarize succinctly. Therefore, secondary source data were

also used to gain a better understanding of the number of tours conducted per day. Results 

indicate that of the 17 companies identified as active during the 2006 viewing season (of 18 

companies identified, data were only available and reported for 17), seven offered one tour per 

day, five offered two tours per day, two offered three tours per day, one offered four tours per 

day, and two companies offered five tours per day. Further analysis of the data shows the 

majority of the single tours per day were in the larger Tier 1 companies, while those companies 

that provided four and five tours a day were Tier 2 companies with multiple vessels. Tier 3 and 

Tier 4 companies generally provided one to two tours a day. This analysis indicates that, for any 

given day in the peak season of 2006, all the whale watching companies collectively offered 37 

tours a day. Whether all the offered tours were actually conducted each day is not known.

Duration data show trips lasted from 2.5 hours to 7 hours per day; the most common 

length was 4 hours. Further analysis shows the duration of trips were spread out across tiers, 

with all tiers providing a combination of shorter and longer trips. A majority of trips departed

during the mid-morning from 10 a.m. to noon, followed by early morning from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m.

and midday from noon to 2 p.m. Tier 1 companies show the most departures in the morning,

which closely correlates with the longer duration trips they provide. The other tiers show various 

departure times during the days, which also correlates to the higher frequency of trips offered

during a day. Occupancy data indicate how many passengers were on the tours. During the peak 

viewing season, 26.7% of vessels had an occupancy rate of 71–80%, 20.1% had an occupancy 

rate of 81–90%, and 16.7% had a rate of 91–100%.
79

A majority of respondents, 61.9%, said their vessels or the vessels they worked on 

conducted additional commercial activities outside of whale watching. Of the positive 

responses, 44.1% said the activities occurred year-round. The majority were described as charter 

services.

Business Operations Figures and Table

The 11 figures and 1 table listed here are sequentially provided below.

Figure 57. Tour descriptions.

Figure 58. Percent of vessel activity dedicated to SRKW watching.

Figure 59. Number of tours offered by the number of companies.

Figure 60. Number of tours offered per day by company and company tier.

Table 17. Trip information summary.

Figure 61. Duration of whale watching trips and the number of companies that conduct trips.

Figure 62. Duration of whale watching tours by company tier.

Figure 63. Whale watching tour departure times.

Figure 64. Whale watching tour departure times by company by tier.

Figure 65. Percent occupancy for the whale watching industry during peak, low, and off-season.

Figure 66. Percent of additional commercial activities conducted by whale watching vessels.

Figure 67. Seasons in which additional commercial activities occurred.
80

0

10

20

30

40

50

1–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–70 71–80 81–90 91–100

Percent of vessel activity

Percent

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SRKW

exclusive

SRKW

focal

point

Wildlife

tours

Kayak

SRKW

focal

Kayak

tour

exclusively

Land

based

Private 

vessel

charter

Transit

service

Strongly applies Applies Occasionally applies Not applicable

89.4% mean response rate

Figure 57. Tour descriptions provided by motorized vessel companies. Types of tours were provided in 

this Likert scale question and participants were asked to rate their level of agreement. The 

majority of individuals, 58%, strongly agree that the tours provided by the company they worked

for were boat-based wildlife tours where SRKWs are the focal point.

Figure 58. Percent of motorized vessel activity dedicated to SRKW watching. The question allowed 

participants to indicate the activity levels for up to three vessels of the company they owned or 

worked for. Data were aggregated to represent all vessels represented in the data set. The 

majority, 42.9%, indicate that 91–100% of vessel activity was dedicated to SRKW watching.

16

 

16 On review of responses for this question, it appeared that some individuals interpreted this question differently. 

While the question asked to provide the percent of the vessel’s activity dedicated to SRKW viewing, some of the 

low percent responses suggest respondents indicated the number of trips dedicated to SRKW viewing. As a result, 

the 1–10% responses is more likely representative of the number of trips, not the percent. For clarity, the data are 

represented as collected. 
81

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 1 3 4 5 1 2 2 3 

Tours

Percent

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 3 4 5

Tours

Companies

Total no. of companies = 17

Figure 59. Number of tours offered by the number of companies. The results are based on secondary 

source information. The data for this question were overly complex and removed due to 

inconclusive analysis. However, similar data were obtained using secondary source information 

from Web sites and brochures. All data represent peak season activity.

Figure 60. Number of tours offered per day by company and company tier. The results are based on 

secondary source information. Tier 1 = 3 companies, Tier 2 = 5 companies, Tier 3 = 6 

companies, and Tier 4 = 3 companies. 
82

0

4

8

12

16

20

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Uk

Hours

Frequency

No. of companies No. of trips

17 companies

37 trips

Table 17. Trip information summary. Information is based on secondary source data and based on the 

number of trips or tours offered by companies, not the actual number of trips that were conducted. 

The results indicate that 17 companies offer a total of 37 trips daily. Most of the companies that 

offered multiple trips per day operated multiple vessels that specifically conducted whale 

watching trips. One company was removed from analysis, as there was no supporting data to 

determine its activity other than an advertisement that suggested a vessel.

No. of tours (a)

No. of companies 

offering tours (b)

Total no. of tours

(a × b)

1 7 7

2 5 10

3 2 6

4 1 4

5 2 10

Total: 17 37

Figure 61. Duration of whale watching trips and number of companies that conduct the trips. Durations 

range from 2.5 hours to 7 hours. Six companies offer 17 trips daily for 4 hours, three offer 7 trips 

daily for 3 hours, and three offer 4 trips daily for 7 hours. The data reflect the number of trips 

offered, not necessarily the number of trips conducted. Uk = unknown.
83

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2.5 5 7 3.5 4 6 3 4 7 3 7

Hours

Percent

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Sunrise, 

before 8 a.m.

Morning,

8–10 a.m.

Mid-morning,

10 a.m.

–noon

Midday,

noon

–2 p.m.

Afternoon,

2–4 p.m.

Late afternoon,

4–6 p.m.

Evening

after 6 p.m.

Other

Percent of 

companies

Figure 62. Duration of whale watching tours by company by tier. The results are based on secondary 

source information. In Tier 1 companies, 33% each offer 2.5-hour, 5-hour, and 7-hour tours. In

Tier 2 companies, 20% offer 3.5-hour tours, 60% for 4 hours, and 20% for 6 hours. In Tier 3 

companies, 17% offer 3-hour tours, 50% for 4 hours, and 33% for 7 hours. In Tier 4 companies, 

67% offer 3-hour tours and 33% for 7 hours. Tier 1 = 3 companies, Tier 2 = 5 companies, Tier 3 

= 6 companies, and Tier 4 = 3 companies. 

Figure 63. Whale watching tour departure times. The results are based on secondary source information. 

The data reflect the percent of companies that conduct tours within the designated departure 

times, thus 26.3% of companies depart between 10 a.m. and noon, 21% depart between 8 a.m. 

and 10 a.m., and 18.4% between noon and 2 p.m.
84

0

10

20

30

40

Morning, 8–10

Mid-morning, 10–noon

Evening 

after 6

Morning, 8–10

Mid-morning, 10–noon

Midday, noon–2

Afternoon, 2–4

Late 

afternoon, 4–6

Morning, 8–10

Mid-morning, 10–noon

Midday, Noon–2

Afternoon, 2–4

Late 

afternoon, 4–6

Evening 

after 6

Morning, 8–10

Mid-morning, 10–noon

Midday, noon–2

Late 

afternoon, 4–6

Percent of companies

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Figure 64. Whale watching tour departure times by company by tier. The results are based on secondary 

source information. The data reflect the percent of companies that conducted tours within the 

designated departure times sorted by tiers. Tier 1 = 3 companies, Tier 2 = 5 companies, Tier 3 = 

6 companies, and Tier 4 = 3 companies.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0–10

11

–20

21

–30

31

–40

41

–50

51

–60

61

–70

71

–80

81

–90

91

–100

0–10

11

–20

21

–30

31

–40

41

–50

51

–60

61

–70

71

–80

81

–90

91

–100

0–10

11

–20

21

–30

31

–40

41

–50

51

–60

61

–70

71

–80

81

–90

91

–100

Percent occupancy

Peak season

91.7% response

Low season

91.7% response

Off-season

90.8% response

Percent

Figure 65. Percent occupancy for the whale watching industry during peak, low, and off-season. 

Generally during peak season, respondents reported an occupancy rate of 70% or higher, while in 

the low season occupancy was reported as less than 50%.
85

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yes No

Percent

94.1% response

Figure 66. Percent of additional commercial activities conducted by whale watching vessels. The results 

indicate that 61.9% of respondents agree that additional commercial activities were conducted. 

Additional services were described as private vessel charters, other nature tours, and 

transportation services such as water taxi and ferry service.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Peak Low Off-season Year-round

Percent

92.5% response

Figure 67. Seasons in which additional commercial activities occurred. Participants were asked, in 

addition to their whale watching activities, whether the vessels they owned or worked on 

conducted additional commercial activities, and if so, when these activities occurred. The 

majority of responses, 44.1%, indicate they occurred year-around. 
86

Regional Personnel

Results in this section reflect the same types of data previously displayed and discussed. 

Data in this section, however, were sorted into a regional analysis. As previously noted, the 

mainland is the aggregation of the mainland and north mainland communities that are all 

accessible via the Interstate 5 corridor. The island region is comprised of the San Juan Islands. 

The two regions compared are the mainland and the island regions. As noted, the Olympic 

Peninsula region was removed from analysis to protect confidentiality.

Demographics

Demographic Summary

The male gender was predominant in both regions. Age distribution results show more

individuals were older in the island region than the mainland region. That noted, the youngest 

participants in the industry also worked in the island region. Island region individuals had more 

bachelor’s degrees (53.1%) than in the mainland region (27.5%). However, the mainland had

more individuals working with graduate or professional degrees, 17.5% for the mainland region 

compared to 12.2% for the island region. Income results show some variation between regions. 

In the mainland, 31.6% earned $31,000–50,000, 23.7% earned $10,000–$31,000, and 15.8% 

earned less than $10,000. In the island region, 22% earned $51,000–$70,000, 18.4% earned

$31,000–$50,000, and 26.5% earned $10,000–$30,000. When comparing income levels above

$90,000, the regions are similar: the island region reported 12.2% and the mainland region

reported 10.5%. The percent of earned income derived from the SRKW watching industry also 

varies by region. In the mainland region, 42.1% derived 0–25% and 39.5% derived 26–50% of 

their income from the industry. In the island region, 36.2% derived 0–25%, 23.4% derived 51–

75%, and 21.3% derived 76–100% of their income from the industry.

Residency varies greatly. In the mainland, it was greatest in Whatcom County, followed 

by King and Skagit counties. In the island region, residency was dominated by San Juan County, 

with small numbers residing in King County and other locations.

Demographic Figures

The six figures listed here are sequentially provided below.

Figure 68. Gender distribution by region.

Figure 69. Age distribution by region.

Figure 70. Education by region.

Figure 71. Income by region.
87

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

17 and under

18

–24

25

–34

35

–44

45

–54

55

–64

65 and older

17 and under

18

–24

25

–34

35

–44

45

–54

55

–64

65 and older

Age range

Percent

Mainland Island

Figure 72. Percent income derived from SRKW watching industry by region. 

Figure 73. Permanent residence by region and county. 

Figure 68. Gender distribution by region. Results indicate a slightly higher percent of the male gender in 

the mainland than in the island region, 62.5% vs. 53.1%. 

Figure 69. Age distribution by region. Age distribution in the mainland is more diversified, with more 

younger individuals working in the industry. In contrast, the island region has more individuals 

who were older and still working in the industry.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Male Female Male Female

Percent

Mainland Island
88

Figure 70. Education level by region. The mainland has more individuals with high school degrees or 

some college and graduate degrees. The island region has more individuals with some college or 

bachelor’s degrees.

Figure 71. Distribution of income before taxes by region. Income comparisons between regions show 

similarities for the income category of $71,000–$90,000 and clear differences in the income 

ranges of $31,000–$50,000 and $51,000–$70,000.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

HS or equiv.

Some college

or vocational

Bachelor's

Graduate or

professional

Some HS

HS or equiv.

Some college

or vocational

Bachelor's

Graduate or

professional

Percent

Mainland Island

0

10

20

30

Less than

$10,000

$10,000

–$30,000

$31,000

–$50,000

$51,000

–$70,000

$71,000

–$90,000

Above $90,000

Less than

$10,000

$10,000

–$30,000

$31,000

–$50,000

$51,000

–$70,000

$71,000

–$90,000

Above $90,000

Percent

Mainland Island
89

Figure 72. Percent of income derived from working in the SRKW watching industry by region. Island 

region participants derive a greater percent of their income from the industry; of those who derive

more than 50% of their income from the industry, the island region had 44.7% compared to 

18.4% for the mainland region.

Figure 73. Permanent residence by region and county. Results indicate a greater distribution of 

participants in the mainland region throughout several counties, while a majority of those 

working in the island region, 67.3%, reside in San Juan County. Note that the none response 

indicates having no permanent residence.

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

–25

26

–50

51

–75

76

–100

0

–25

26

–50

51

–75

76

–100

Income percent range

Percent

Mainland Island

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

San Juan

King

Whatcom

Skagit 

Snohomish

None

Other

San Juan

King

Skagit 

None

Other

County

Percent

Mainland Island
90

Individual Participation

Individual Participation Summary

The results in this section analyze the individual participation questions sorted by

mainland and island regions. The top three roles individuals played while working in the 

industry varied slightly by region. The top three in the mainland region were deck hand, 

naturalist, and administration; the top three in the island region were naturalist, operator, and 

administration. The majority of participants in the mainland region worked one role, followed 

by two roles, while the majority in the island region worked two roles, followed by three roles.

Entry year data show differences between the regions. A majority of individuals in the 

mainland region, 21.4%, entered the industry in 2006, followed by 14.3% in 2005 and 9.5% in 

2003. In the island region, the highest number of entrants were 16.7% in 1997 and 16.7% in 

2004, followed by 10.4% in 1998 and 10.4% in 2006. The greatest tenure was reported in the 

mainland, where 4.8% of individuals acknowledged they had worked in the industry for 26–30 

years. The highest tenure in the mainland was 42.9% who had worked in the industry for 2–5 

years, followed by 23.8% who had worked for 1 year. In the island region, 39.6% of individuals 

had worked for 6–10 years, 31.3% for 2–5 years, and 16.7% for 11–15 years.

The months individuals worked is similar between regions. The majority of individuals 

worked during June, July, and August for both regions. Variations occurred between the start 

and end months, with more individuals working in March for the mainland region and more 

working in September for the island region. Work schedules varied slightly between regions. In 

both regions, most individuals worked part-time schedules: 33.3% mainland and 28.3% island. 

In the mainland region that was followed by 28.6% working more than full-time schedules and 

26.2% working full-time schedules. In the island region that was followed by 26.1% working 

full time and 23.9% working more than full time. Holding multiple jobs varied by region. In the 

mainland, 39% worked one full-time position, 29.3% held multiple part-time positions, and 22% 

held both full-time and part-time positions. In the island region, 44.7% held multiple part-time 

positions, 27.7% held one full-time position, 12.8% held a single part-time position, and 12.8% 

held both full-time and part-time positions. Participants were asked what other roles they played

in their additional jobs. For both regions, the greatest response was “other,” suggesting 

something other than the categories provided for the response. Descriptors of other include

teaching, volunteering, and construction. Additional results for the mainland show 59% worked 

“other” positions, 45.5% worked in maritime-related positions, followed by 13.6% each working 

on other SRKW watching boats as well as in volunteer positions. In the island region, 40% 

worked in “other” positions, 30% worked in tourism positions, and 20% each worked in 

volunteer positions and other SRKW watching boats.

The numbers of hours worked in the industry varies by region. Mainland region results 

show 29.3% of participants worked 31–40 hours, 24.4% worked 41–50 hours, and 17.1% worked

21.30 hours. In the island region, 32.6% worked 21–30 hours and 13% worked either 11–20 

hours or 31–40 hours. Off-season activities vary between regions. The majority of mainland 

respondents worked in a marine tourism job in the current location for both years, while the 

majority of island region respondents participated in travel opportunities both years.
91

Past work history data are highly varied between the regions. In the mainland region, the 

majority (53.7%) chose the “other” category to describe their past work history. That category 

includes maritime positions, military positions, and computer and information technology 

positions. After the “other” selection, 24.4% worked in the accommodation and food industry 

and 22% worked in education. In the island region, 46.8% worked in education, 40.4% worked 

in accommodation and food, and 34% indicated “other.” Other descriptions followed those 

indicated in the mainland results and includes maritime positions, military, and various 

environmental positions.

Maritime participation data in both regions also show the “other” category as receiving

the highest responses: 40.7% mainland and 38.1% island. Descriptions provided for other 

included marine sales, marine surveying, sailing and sailboats, and guide positions. In the 

mainland, 33.3% participated in fishing and 18.5% participated in education or ecotourism 

activities. In the island region, 33.3% participated in scuba diving and 28.6% participated in 

commercial fishing. Individuals working in the mainland region participated in maritime 

positions primarily located in Anacortes, followed by Port Townsend and other Washington 

areas. Locations where individuals participated in maritime jobs vary more greatly for the island 

region, where the San Juan Islands were slightly higher than other locations, followed by other 

Washington locations and Alaska. The number of years respondents worked in maritime 

positions vary between regions, with the exception that a majority of individuals in each region 

worked for 1–5 years (42.9% mainland and 47.4% island). Additional mainland data show that 

28.6% worked in maritime positions for more than 25 years and 14.3% for 11–15 years. In the 

island region, 15.9% worked for 6–10 years, and 10.3% each worked for 16–20 years, 21–25 

years, and more than 25 years.

The final section asked the survey participants to indicate on a Likert scale why they 

were in the industry. In the mainland region, the top three strongly agree reasons were 26.4% to 

work in the region, 50% to work outside on the water, and 35% to spend time with the SRKWs. 

Aggregated agree and strongly agree responses altered the reasons slightly. The “other” category 

received the highest response, followed by to work in the region and work outside on the water. 

Island results are different. Strong agreement, 66.7%, was given to work outside on the water, 

64.4% to educate the public, and 62.2% to spend time with the SRKWs. The sum of the agree 

responses altered the responses slightly. The “other” category had the highest response, 

followed by to work outside on the water, with educate the public and spend time with the 

SRKWs receiving the same response.

Individual Participation Figures and Tables

The 15 figures and 2 tables listed here are sequentially provided below.

Figure 74. Role by region.

Table 18. Number of roles by region.

Figure 75. Additional training by region.

Figure 76. Entry year into industry by region.

Figure 77. Tenure in industry by region.
92

Figure 78. Months worked in the industry by region.

Figure 79. Work schedules by region.

Figure 80. Percent of multiple jobs being worked by region.

Figure 81. Seasons when multiple jobs are worked by region.

Figure 82. Other types of roles occupied during the active SRKW viewing season by region.

Figure 83. Hours worked during the active SRKW viewing season by region.

Figure 84. Off-season work descriptions.

Figure 85. Past work history by region.

Figure 86. Maritime position descriptions held by region.

Figure 87. Locations where the maritime positions were held by region.

Figure 88. Number of years worked in maritime positions by region.

Table 19. Reasons to participate in industry by region.

Figure 74. Role by region. This question allowed participants to mark all roles that applied. Island 

region participants show a greater association with the naturalist role, while the mainland region 

indicates a greater association with the roles of deck hand, administration, and engineer.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Owner

Operator

Engineer

Deck hand

Naturalist

Assistant

Guide

Logistics

Administration

Maintenance

Volunteer

Other role

Owner

Operator

Engineer

Deck hand

Naturalist

Assistant

Guide

Logistics

Administration

Maintenance

Volunteer

Other role

Percent

Mainland Island
93

Table 18. Number of roles by region. Participants working in the island region identify with more roles 

than those working in the mainland region. In addition, a few individuals in the mainland region 

identify with more than seven roles.

No. roles Mainland Island 

1 18 8

2 10 17

3 1 10

4 1 8

5 3 8

6 3 1

7 1 —

8 1 —

9 1 —

Figure 75. Additional training by region. Participants in both regions pursue additional training from the 

Whale Museum and in other maritime skill areas. STCW = Standards of Training, Certification, 

and Watchkeeping.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Whale 

Museum

naturalist training

STCW

Maritime training

Biology or equiv. degree

Self study

Other

Whale 

Museum

naturalist training

STCW

First aid

Maritime training

Biology or equiv. degree

Self study

Biological/environmental

conference

Other

Percent

Mainland Island
94

0

5

10

15

20

25

1978197919911992

1993199419951996

19981999200020012002200320042005200619881992199319951996

1997199819992000200120022003200420052006

Percent

Mainland Island

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 26–30 1 2–5 6–10 11–15 16–20

Percent

Mainland Island

`

Figure 76. Entry year into the industry by region. Mainland region results show increased entrance in the 

last 6 years. Island region results indicate increased entrance in the mid to late 1990s and again in 

2004 and 2006.

Figure 77. Tenure (years) in industry by region. Most participants in the mainland region had worked in 

the industry for 2–5 years (42.9%), while in the island region, most (39.6%) had worked for 6–10 

years. The longest tenure in the mainland industry is 26–30 years, while in the island region it is

16–20 years.
95

0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

AugSep

Oct

Nov

Dec

All

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

AugSep

Oct

Nov

Dec

All

Percent

Mainland Island

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Part-time

Full-time

Over full-time

Part-time low,

full-time peak

Other

Part-time

Full-time

Over full-time

Part-time low,

full-time

peak

Other

Percent

Mainland Island

Figure 78. Months worked in the industry by region. The results indicate in both regions that most 

participants worked the core seasonal months of May through September. Island results indicate 

more individuals working the side months of April and October, as well as more working offseason months.

Figure 79. Work schedules by region. In addition to the months that participants worked, information on 

work schedules was sought. More mainland individuals worked part-time positions and positions 

over 40 hours per week. More island participants worked a mixed schedule of part-time during 

the low season and full-time during the peak season.
96

Figure 80. Percent of multiple jobs being worked by region. The results indicate diversity in both 

regions when working many jobs. Island respondents worked more multiple part-time positions, 

44.7%, compared to the mainland region, 29.3%. Mainland respondents worked more single fulltime positions, 39%, and both full-time and part-time positions, 22%, compared to the island 

region.

Figure 81. Seasons when multiple jobs are worked by region. The island region and the mainland region 

show a majority of individuals, 29% and 26%, respectively, worked multiple jobs all year long.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Only one

part-time

position

Multiple

part-timepositions

Only one

part-time

position

Percent

Mainland Island Only one full-time position Both positions Multiple part-time positions Only one full-time position

Multiple

full-time

positions

Both

positions

Peak

Low

Both peak

and low

Peak

Low

Both peak

and low
97

Figure 82. Other types of roles occupied during the active SRKW viewing season. The majority of 

individuals in the mainland region worked other jobs in maritime-related or other positions. In 

the island region, individuals worked in other positions, tourism positions, and volunteer or other 

SRKW watching boat/same role positions. The “other” category includes teaching, contractors, 

construction, and clarification of other volunteer activities.

Figure 83. Hours worked during the active SRKW viewing season by region. Data were sorted into three 

categories: hours worked in the SRKW watching industry, hours worked in other tourist 

positions, and hours worked in non-tourism positions. The mainland region shows a greater 

distribution of hours across all three categories, as well as more hours in the SRKW industry.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Other boat,

same position

Other boat,

different position

Other SRKW

role entirely

Maritime related

Tourism

Volunteer

Other

Other boat, 

same position

Other boat,

different position

Other SRKW

role entirely

Maritime related

Tourism

Volunteer

Other

Percent

Mainland Island

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1–10

11

–20

21

–30

31

–40

41

–50

51

–60

61

–

0

71

–80

1–10

11

–20

21

–30

31

–40

41

–50

51

–60

61

–70

71

–80

Percent

In SRKW Other tourism Non-tourism

Mainland Island

`
98

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Percent

2005/2006 2006/2007

Mainland Island

Figure 84. Off-season work descriptions by region. The mainland region shows top activity in marine 

tourism jobs in the current location for both years, followed by non-tourism jobs in the current 

location and travel. The island region shows participation in travel, other categories, and a 

marine tourism job in the same location.

Figure 85. Past work history by region. Categories for past work history descriptions are based on the 

U.S. Census. The results for the mainland show a peak only in the “other” category. Island 

region results show peaks in education, accommodation and food services, and recreation and 

entertainment. Examples in the “other” category include other maritime occupations, military, 

and real estate.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Agriculture

Fishing

Natural resources

Education

Scientific

Health and social

Accom

modation, food

Rec., entertainment

Building trades

Retail

Professional

Public administration

Other

Agriculture

Fishing

Natural resources

Education

Scientific

Health and social

Accom

modation, food

Rec., entertainment

Building trades

Retail

Professional

Public administration

Other

Percent

Mainland Island
99

0

10

20

30

40

Shipyard

Fishing

Ferry

Tug, towing 

Charters

Cruise USCG

Private

Scuba 

diving

Educ., ecotourism

Volunteer

Other

Shipyard

Fishing

Ferry

Tug, towing

Charters

Cruise

USCG

Private

Scuba diving

Educ., ecotourism

Volunteer

Other

Percent

Mainland Island

Figure 86. Maritime position descriptions held by region. Mainland results show the top three 

descriptions as other, fishing, and education/ecotourism. Island region results indicate the top 

three as other, scuba diving, and fishing.

Figure 87. Locations where the maritime positions were held by region. Mainland results show a 

majority worked in Anacortes. Island region results indicate a slight plurality in the San Juan 

Islands.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Anacortes, WA

Port Townsend, WA

San Juan Islands, WA

Seattle, WA

Other, WA

Alaska

California

Hawaii

Mexico

International

Other

Bellingham, WA

Port Townsend, WA

San Juan Islands, WA

Other, WA

Alaska

Hawaii

Mexico

Other

Percent

Mainland Island
100

Figure 88. Number of years worked in maritime positions by region. Mainland results show most

respondents worked in maritime positions for 1–5 years, followed by more than 25 years. Island 

results indicate a near majority worked in maritime positions for 1–5 years.

0

10

20

30

40

50

1–

5

6

–10

11

–15

16

–20

21

–25

+25

1–

5

6

–10

11

–15

16

–20

21

–25

Percent

Mainland Island
101

Table 19. Likert scale description of reasons to participate in the industry by region (values in percent). Based on the agree and strongly agree 

responses, the top three reasons to participate for the mainland region are “other,” work in the region, and work outside on the water. For 

the island region, the top three responses are “other,” work outside on the water, and educate the public along with spend time with 

SKRWs, respectively. (Note that some columns do not add up to 100% due to rounding.)

Make 

money

Transition to 

maritime

Work in 

region

Educate 

public

Interact 

with coworkers

Work 

outside on 

the water

Seasonal 

job

Spend 

time with 

SRKWs Other

Mainland

Strongly agree 34.1 2.6 56.4 47.5 26.8 50.0 17.1 35.0 7.1

Agree 48.8 21.1 41.0 32.5 39.0 35.0 19.5 42.5 92.9

Neutral 2.4 36.8 2.6 20.0 31.7 7.5 26.8 7.5 —

Disagree 9.8 23.7 — — 2.4 5.0 19.5 12.5 —

Strongly disagree 4.9 15.8 — — — 2.5 17.1 2.5 —

Island

Strongly agree 33.3 5.3 54.5 64.4 31.1 66.7 27.3 62.2 11.4

Agree 28.9 5.3 29.5 24.4 40.0 24.4 18.2 26.7 86.4

Neutral 8.9 36.8 15.9 11.1 24.4 8.9 40.9 8.9 2.3

Disagree 20.0 23.7 — — 2.2 — 11.4 2.2 —

Strongly disagree 8.9 28.9 — — 2.2 — 2.3 — —
102

Regional Business Operations

Business Operations Summary

Business operations data in this section were sorted by region. The number of trips 

offered by companies varies between regions. Results are based on secondary data that were

summarized and sorted for this regional analysis. In the mainland region, six companies offered

one tour per day, one company offered two tours a day, and one company offered five tours a 

day. In the island region, one company offered one trip per day, four companies offered two 

trips per day, one company offered three trips per day, one offered four trips per day, and another 

offered five trips per day. In total—between the two regions and the 16 companies in those 

regions (after one company was removed from analysis to protect confidentiality)—34 tours 

were offered per day. Of the 34 tours, 13 were offered out of the mainland region and 21 were

offered out of the island region.

The duration of the tours is very different in each region. In the mainland region, one 

company offered five tours lasting 6 hours each, three companies offered four tours of 7 hours

each, and one company offered one tour for 2.5 hours, one for 3.5 hours, and one for 5 hours. In 

the island region, three companies offered seven tours of 3 hours each, while five companies 

offered 14 tours for 4 hours each. Departure times for the mainland were primarily from 8 a.m.

to 10 a.m. and again from 10 a.m. to noon, with five companies having trips departing at those 

times. For the island region, five companies had tours departing from noon to 2 p.m., while four

companies had tours departing during 10 a.m. to noon, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Occupancy rate data were categorized by peak, low, and off-season. In the mainland,

43.2% reported an occupancy rate of 76–100% during the peak season, 31.9% had a rate of 51–

75% during the low season, and 13.6% had a rate of 26–50% in the off-season. In the island 

region, 62% reported an occupancy rate of 76–100% during the peak season, 25.4% had a rate of 

51–75% during the low season, and 7.9% had a rate of 26–50% during the off-season.

Business Operations Figures and Table

The nine figures and one table listed here are sequentially provided below.

Figure 89. Tier distribution by region.

Figure 90. Tour descriptions by region.

Figure 91. Percent of vessel activity dedicated to SRKW viewing.

Figure 92. Number of tours offered by the number of companies by region.

Table 20. Trip information summary.

Figure 93. Duration of trips and the number of companies that conducted the trips by region.
103

0

1

2

3

4

5

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Mainland Island

Count

Figure 94. SRKW watching tour departure times by company by region.

Figure 95. Occupancy rates for the SRKW watching industry during peak, low, and off-season.

Figure 96. Percent of additional commercial activities by region.

Figure 97. Seasons during which additional commercial activities occur.

Figure 89. Tier distribution by region. All Tier 1 companies, which have the larger boats, operate out of 

the mainland region. Most of the Tier 3 and Tier 4 companies operate out of the island region.
104

Figure 90. Tour descriptions by region. The results indicate that both regions strongly agree that the types of tours they provided were boat-based 

tours with SRKWs as the focal point. This is followed by agreement that boat-based wildlife tours were provided and tours where 

SRKWs were the exclusive purpose of the tour.

0

20

40

60

80

100

SRKW exclusive

SRKW focal point

Boat-based

wildlife tour

Kayak SRKW

focal

Kayak tourexclusively

Land based

Private vessel

charter

Transit service

SRKW exclusive

SRKW focal point

Boat-based

wildlife tour

Kayak SRKW

focal

Kayak tour

exclusively

Land based

Private vessel

charter

Transit service

Percent

Strongly applies Applies Not applicable

Mainland Island

Occasionally applies
105

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1–10

11

–20

21

–30

31

–40

41

–50

51

–60

71

–80

81

–90

91

–100

1–10

11

–20

21

–30

31

–40

71

–80

81

–90

91

–100

Percent of vessel activity

Percent

Mainland Island

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Tours

Mainland Island

Companies

Figure 91. Percent of vessel activity dedicated to SRKW viewing by region. Both regions indicate that 

most their vessel activity was dedicated to SRKW viewing.

Figure 92. Number of tours offered by the number of companies by region. The data for this question 

were overly complex and removed due to inconclusive analysis. The results are based on

secondary source information from Web sites and brochures.
106

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2.5 3 3.5 4 5 6 7 2.5 3 3.5 4 5 6 7

Hours

Frequency

No. of companies No. of trips

Mainland Island

Table 20. Trip information summary by region. Information is based on secondary source data. The 

results are based on the number of trips and tours offered by companies, not the actual number of 

trips conducted. The results indicate that 16 companies offered 34 trips daily (one of 17 

companies was removed from analysis due to lack of supporting data to determine its activity). 

Note that the businesses in the Olympic Penninsula region were removed from this analysis to 

protect confidentiality. As a result the number of trips represented in the table omits the Olympic 

Penninsula reponses, reducing the total number of trips to those conducted by mainland and 

island companies only. Most of the companies offering multiple trips per day operated multiple 

vessels that specifically conducted whale watching trips.

No. of 

tours (a)

No. of companies 

offering tours (b)

Total no. of 

tours (a × b)

Mainland

1 6 6

2 1 2

3 — —

4 — —

5 1 5

Island

1 1 1

2 4 8

3 1 3

4 1 4

5 1 5

Total: 16 34

Figure 93. Duration of whale watching trips and number of companies that conducted the trips by region. 

Note that one mainland company was removed from the analysis, as we were not able to confirm 

the trip duration.
107

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Sunrise 

before 8

a.m.

Morning, 8

–10 a.m.

Mid-morning, 10 a.m.

–noon

Midday, noon

–2 p.m.

Afternoon, 2

–

4 p.m.

Late afternoon, 4

–

6 p.m.

Evening 

after 6 p.m.

Sunrise 

before 8

a.m.

Morning, 8

–10 a.m.

Mid-morning, 10 a.m.

–noon

Midday, noon

–

2 p.m.

Afternoon, 2

–

4 p.m.

Late afternoon, 4

–

6 p.m.

Evening 

after 6 p.m.

Number of companies

Mainland Island

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Unknown

0

–25

26

–50

51

–75

76

–100

Unknown

0

–25

26

–50

51

–75

76

–100

Unknown

0

–25

26

–50

51

–75

76

–100

Unknown

0

–25

26

–50

51

–75

76

–100

Unknown

0

–25

26

–50

51

–75

76

–100

Unknown

0

–25

26

–50

51

–75

76

–100

Percent occupancy

Percent

Peak Low Off-season Peak Low Off-season

Figure 94. SRKW watching tour departure times by company by region. The results are based on 

secondary source information. The data reflect the percent of companies that conducted tours 

within the designated departure times sorted by region.

 Mainland Island

Figure 95. Occupancy rates by region during peak, low, and off-season activities. The “unknown”

category reflects the number of survey participants who did not answer the question.
108

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Yes Yes No

Percent

Mainland Island

No

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Peak

Low

Off

Yearround

Peak

Low

Off

Yearround

Percent

Mainland Island

Figure 96. Percent of additional commercial activities by region.

Figure 97. Seasons during which additional commercial activities occur.
109

Kayak Sector and Land Sector Personnel

Demographics

Demographic Summary

Results shown in this section follow the previous analysis for demographics, but were 

sorted by the kayak and land sectors. As previously noted, kayak data were more difficult to 

acquire and have some unique characteristics. Participants in the land sector were more 

accessible. Gender distribution across sectors indicates a higher percent of males in the kayak 

sector and an even distribution of genders in the land sector. Age data show a majority of 

participants in the kayak sector, 55.6%, were younger, ranging 25–34 years old, compared to 

75% in the land sector ranging 45–57 years old.

Educational attainment results show 72.2% of the kayak sector participants held a 

bachelor’s degree, while 11.1% held graduate degrees. Further analysis reveals 83.3% in the 

kayak sector had advanced education. Land sector results show an equal distribution of 

participants either had some college or vocational education or held a bachelor’s degree.

Income results vary. Of kayak sector participants, 42% had an income between $10,000 

and $30,000, while 75% of land sector participants had income of less than $10,000. When 

asked how much of this income was derived from the SRKW industry, the kayak sector reported 

43.7% derived 0–25% from the industry and 31.6% derived 76–100% from the industry. Land 

respondents had an equal number of individuals deriving either 0–25% or 26–50% of their 

income from the industry. Further analysis sorting owners from non-owners provided some 

interesting results. Of kayak owners, 27.7% derived 0–25% and 11.1% derived 76–100% from 

the industry. All owner respondents in the land sector derived 26–50% of their income from the 

industry.

Permanent residence data show a majority of individuals across both sectors resided in 

the San Juan Islands. With that said, the kayak sector shows a greater distribution of residences 

across King, Skagit, and Yakima Counties, with some residing in California. Residency in the 

land sector was limited to San Juan County and Snohomish County.

Demographic Figures

The seven figures listed here are sequentially provided below.

Figure 98. Gender by kayak and land sectors.

Figure 99. Age by kayak and land sectors.

Figure 100. Educational attainment by kayak and land sectors.
110

0

20

40

60

80

100

Male Female Male Female

Percent

Kayak Land 

100% response 100% response

Figure 101. Income by kayak and land sectors.

Figure 102. Income from the SRKW watching industry by kayak and land sectors.

Figure 103. Income from the industry by owner/non-owner by kayak and land sectors.

Figure 104. Permanent residence by kayak and land sectors.

Figure 98. Gender by kayak and land sectors. The kayak sector shows a greater percent of male 

participants, 62% male to 38% female. The land sector is equally distributed at 50% each.

Figure 99. Age by kayak and land sectors. Age ranges within each sector vary greatly. In the kayak 

sector, 55.6% of participants fall in the age range 25–34 years, while in the land sector, 75% of 

participants fall in the age range 45–54 years.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 35–44 45–54

Percent

Kayak Land 

94.7% response 100% response
111

Figure 100. Educational attainment by kayak and land sectors. In the kayak sector, 72% of participants 

hold bachelor’s degrees, while the land sector has an equal distribution between bachelor’s

degrees and some college or vocational education.

Figure 101. Income by kayak and land sectors. The results for the sectors vary. In the kayak sector, 42% 

of participants have income between $10,000 and $30,000. In the land sector, 75% of 

participants have income of less than $10,000.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

High school

or equivalent

Some college

or vocational

Bachelor’s

Graduate or

professional

Some college

or vocational

Bachelor’s

Percent

Kayak Land 

94.7% response 100% response

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Less than $10,000

$10,000

–30,000

$31,000

–50,000

$51,000

–70,000

$71,000

–90,000

Above $90,000

Less than $10,000

$10,000

–30,000

Percent

100% response 100% response 

Kayak Land 
112

Figure 102. Income from the SRKW watching industry by kayak and land sectors. The kayak sector 

shows 47.3% of participants derived 0–25% of their income from the industry, while the land 

sector shows an equal distribution between 0–25% and 26–50% of income derived from the

industry.

Figure 103. Income from the SRKW watching industry by owner and non-owner by kayak and land 

sectors. The kayak sector shows 27.7% of owners derived 0–25% of their income from the 

industry, while 11% of the owners derived 76–100% from the industry. The land sector shows

owners derived 26–50% of their income from the industry.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

–25%

26

–50%

51

–75%

76

–100%

0

–25%

26

–50%

Percent

Kayak Land

100% response 100% response

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

–25%

26

–50%

76

–100%

0

–25%

26

–50%

76

–100%

Percent

Owner

Kayak Land
113

Figure 104. Permanent residence by kayak and land sectors. Both sectors show most participants 

residing in the San Juan Islands.

Individual Participation

Individual Participation Summary

This subsection sorts individual data by kayak and land sectors. Both sectors reported

that the role of a guide was the highest priority. In the kayak sector, this was followed by 

naturalist and administration. In the land sector, it was followed by an “other” role and a 

naturalist. The majority of kayak participants said they worked two consecutive roles followed 

by four roles, up to 10 roles. Land sector participants said they worked either two or three 

consecutive roles at any given time. Additional types of training sought by kayak participants 

included kayak skills, the Whale Museum’s marine naturalist training, and first aid training. 

Land sector responses show equivalent effort in seeking additional training in the areas of the 

Whale Museum’s marine naturalist training, STCW, biology or other equivalent degrees, or self 

study.

Kayak sector data indicate the greatest number of individuals entered the SRKW 

watching industry in 2006, with equal numbers entering in 2005, 2001, and 1998. The first 

industry entrant did so in 1980. Land sector data show an equal number of entrants in 2004, 

2000, 1999, and 1994. Tenure data show most individuals had worked in the kayak industry 2–5 

years, followed by 6–10 years, and 1 year. Land sector data show a majority had worked for 2–5 

years, and an equal number of participants had worked 6–10 years and 11–15 years. Further 

analysis of tenure data by owner and non-owner reveals the highest tenures in both sectors were 

owners.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

San Juan

County

King County

Skagit County

Yakima

California

San Juan

County

Snohomish

County

Percent

Kayak Land

100% response 100% response
114

Work schedule data show kayak participants most likely worked in July and August, 

followed closely by June and September. Land sector participants worked at their highest levels 

from May through September. Kayak sector participants worked primarily full-time or more 

than full-time schedules. Land sector participants worked more than full-time as well. Kayak 

sector responses show the majority of individuals worked only full-time and those working parttime had more than one job. Land sector responses were split between those working only one 

full-time position and some working multiple part-time positions. An additional question asked

participants to indicate what type of work they performed in multiple positions. Kayak sector 

responses acknowledged other jobs in different roles in the SRKW watching industry, as well as 

different jobs in the maritime industry, and “other” jobs altogether. Land sector responses

reported jobs in other tourism fields, maritime-related positions, and volunteer positions. In the 

kayak sector, the majority of individuals worked 51–60 hours in the SRKW watching industry, 

followed by 0–10 hours and more than 100 hours. In the land sector, the majority worked 0–10 

hours in the industry, followed by 21–30 hours and 61–70 hours. Off-season activity responses

in the kayak sector show most participated in travel activities, 50% for each year (i.e., the offseason of prior year 2005/2006 and the off-season after the active season of the study year

2006/2007). This was followed by many individuals working in marine tourism in the current 

location, 33.3% and 38.9% for the 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 years respectively. Land sector 

results also show a majority, 75%, partook in travel activities during both years indicated. Other 

activities were equally distributed such as whale watch activities in a different location for both 

years, marine tourism in a different location for 2006/2007, non-marine tourism work in a 

different location for 2005/2006, to attend school for 2006/2007, and “other” for both years. Past 

work history responses show a majority of kayak sector participants had backgrounds in 

education, followed by recreation and entertainment, and public administration. Land sector 

participants had backgrounds in categories “other” than those indicated, followed by an equal 

number of participants with backgrounds in recreation and entertainment, building trades, and

retail.

Most strongly agree responses for the kayak sector indicate that participants were in the 

industry to work outside on the water, work in the region, and educate the public. Aggregated 

strongly agree and agree responses for the kayak sector show the top three reasons as “other,” to 

educate the public, and work outside on the water. While the “other” category was heavily 

selected as an agree response, participants did not offer further description of other reasons, so 

they cannot be further clarified here. In the land sector, the top three strongly agree responses all 

had an equivalent percent response, so are weighted equally: to work in the region, educate the 

public, and spend time with the SRKWs. Aggregate agreement responses altered the reasons 

slightly. The top two reasons received the same weight, namely, to educate the public and spend 

time with the SRKWs. Two other reasons also received the same weight, but slightly less than

the top two reasons: to work in the region and work outside on the water.

Individual Participation Figures and Tables

The 16 figures and 2 tables listed here are sequentially provided below.

Figure 105. Role by kayak and land sectors.

Table 21. Number of roles.

Figure 106. Additional training by kayak and land sectors.
115

Figure 107. Entry year into industry.

Figure 108. Tenure by kayak and land sectors.

Figure 109. Tenure by owner/non-owner by kayak and land sectors.

Figure 110. Months worked in the SRKW watching industry.

Figure 111. Work schedules by kayak and land sectors.

Figure 112. Percent of multiple jobs.

Figure 113. Other types of roles.

Figure 114. Hours worked by the kayak sector.

Figure 115. Hours worked by the land sector.

Figure 116. Off-season work descriptions.

Figure 117. Past work history by kayak and land sectors.

Figure 118. Maritime industry positions by kayak and land sectors.

Figure 119. Locations where maritime positions were held by kayak and land sectors.

Figure 120. Number of years worked in maritime positions.

Table 22. Reasons to participate.

Figure 105. Role by kayak and land sectors. Both sectors highly identify with the role of a guide. In the 

land sector, the high “other” selection was further described as the role of a driver.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Owner

Operator

Engineer

Deck hand

Naturalist

Guide

Logistics

Administration

Maintenance

Volunteer 

Other

Owner

Operator

Engineer

Deck hand

Naturalist

Guide

Logistics

Administration

Maintenance

Volunteer 

Other

Percent

Kayak Land
116

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Whale 

Museum

naturalist training

STCW

First 

aid

Maritime training

Biology or

equiv. degree

Self study

Biological/

environ.

conferences

Kayak skills

Other

Whale 

Museum

naturalist training

STCW

First 

aid

Maritime training

Biology or

equiv. degree

Self study

Percent

Kayak Land

100% response 100% response

Table 21. Number of roles by sector.

No. roles Kayak Land

1 2 —

2 6 2

3 2 2

4 5 —

5 1 —

6 2 —

10 1 —

Figure 106. Additional training by kayak and land sectors. Both sectors participate in additional training, 

specifically the Whale Museum’s marine naturalist training. The kayak sector also specializes in 

kayak skills training.
117

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1980 1986 1987 1991 1996 1998 1999 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 1994 1999 2000 2004

Percent

Kayak Land

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1

2

–

5

6

–10

11

–15

16

–20

21

–

2

5

26

–30

1

2

–

5

6

–10

11

–15

16

–20

21

–

2

5

26

–30

Percent

94.7% response 100% response

Kayak Land

Figure 107. Entry year into industry by sector. The majority in the kayak sector entered in 2006. For the 

land industry, an equivalent number of individuals entered the industry in 1994, 1999, 2000, and 

2004.

Figure 108. Tenure (years) by kayak and land sectors. Kayak sector results show 33.3% of participants

had worked in the industry 2–5 years, followed closely by 27.8% at 6–10 years. Land sector 

results show 50% had worked in the industry for 2–5 years.
118

0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

All

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

All

Percent

Kayak Land

100% response 100% response

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1

2

–

5

6

–10

11

–15

16

–20

21

–

2

5

26

–30

1

2

–

5

6

–10

11

–15

Percent

Owner

Kayak Land

94.7% response 100% response

Figure 109. Tenure (years) by owner and non-owner by kayak and land sectors. Most of those with high 

tenures in both sectors are owners.

Figure 110. Months worked in the whale watching industry by kayak and land sectors. The results 

indicate a variation between sectors. The kayak sector shows greater participation June through 

September, while the land sector shows steady participation May through September.
119

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Part-time

Full-time

More than FT

PT low, FT 

peak

Other

Part-time

Full-time

More than FT

PT low, FT 

peak

Other

Percent

Kayak Land

94.7% response 100% response

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Multiple PT

FT and PT

Multiple FT

Only 

one PT

Only one FT

Multiple PT

FT and PT

Multiple FT

Only 

one PT

Only one FT

Percent

Kayak Land

Figure 111. Work schedules by kayak and land sectors. Both show a large number of participants, 44.4% 

of kayak sector and 50% of land sector, work more than full-time (FT) schedules. Another 44.4%

in the kayak sector also work full-time schedules.

Figure 112. Percent of multiple jobs worked by kayak and land sectors. A majority of individuals in the 

kayak sector work one full-time (FT) position. Those in the land sector are evenly divided 

between working one full-time position and working multiple part-time (PT) positions.
120

0

20

40

60

80

100

Another

SRKW role

Maritime related

Other 

Maritime related

Tourism

Volunteer

Percent

Kayak Land

80% response 100% response

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–70 71–80 81–90 91–100 +100

Percent

SRKW Tourism Non-tourism

Figure 113. Other roles by kayak and land sectors. The response rate was dependent on those who 

acknowledged they worked multiple roles.

Figure 114. Number of hours worked for the kayak sector. Most individuals in the kayak industry work 

their hours in the SRKW watching industry with some working hours in tourism. The high 

number of hours reflects the types of tours that kayak companies provided.
121

0

20

40

60

80

100

0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–70 71–80 81–90

Percent

SRKW Tourism Non-tourism

Figure 115. Number of hours worked for the land sector. For those reporting hours worked in the SRKW 

watching industry, 50% work 0–10 hours, 25% work 21–30 hours, and 25% work 61–70 hours. 

In addition, 75% of respondents work 21–30 hours per week in tourism positions.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percent

2005/2006 2006/2007

Kayak Land

Figure 116. Off-season work by sector. In both sectors, the primary activity during the off-season is 

travel.
122

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Agriculture

Fishing

Natural resources

Education

Scientific

Health and social

Accom

modation, food

Recreation, entert

ainment

Building trades

Retail

Professional

Public 

administration

Other

No 

prior 

work history

Fishing

Natural resources

Scientific

Accommodation, food

Recreation, entertainment

Building trades

Retail

Other

Percent

Kayak Land

100% response 100% response

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fishing Sail Education/

ecotourism

Guide Other Fishing Marine

surveying

Percent

Kayak Land

Figure 117. Past work history by kayak and land sectors.

Figure 118. Maritime industry positions by kayak and land sectors.
123

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

San Juan

Islands,

WA

Other

WA

California Alaska Mexico Other Other

WA

Alaska

Percent

Kayak Land

0

20

40

60

80

100

1–

5

6

–10

11

–15

16

–20

21

–25

+25

1–

5

6

–10

11

–15

16

–20

21

–25

+25

Percent

Kayak Land

Figure 119. Locations where maritime positions are held by kayak and land sector participants.

Figure 120. Number of years worked in maritime positions by kayak and land sector participants.
124

Table 22. Likert scale description of reasons to participate in the industry by kayak and land sectors (values in percent). Kayak sector results 

show that 77.8% of participants strongly agree they participated in the industry to work outside on the water, 70.6% strongly agree they 

participated to work in the region, and 66.7% to educate the public. Land sector results show that 50% of participants strongly agree that 

they participated in the industry to work in the region, educate the public, and spend time with the SRKWs.

Make 

money

Transition to 

maritime

Work in 

region

Educate 

public

Interact 

with coworkers

Work 

outside on 

the water

Seasonal 

job

Spend 

time with 

SRKWs Other

Kayak

Strongly agree 44.4 12.5 70.6 66.7 44.4 77.8 16.7 38.9 16.7

Agree 27.8 — 17.6 27.8 33.3 11.1 16.7 22.2 83.3

Neutral 27.8 31.3 11.8 5.6 16.7 5.6 38.9 27.8 —

Disagree — 37.5 — — — 5.6 22.2 5.6 —

Strongly disagree — 18.8 — — 5.6 — 5.6 5.6 —

Land

Strongly agree — — 50.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 —

Agree 50.0 — 25.0 50.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 50.0 —

Neutral 50.0 33.3 25.0 – 25.0 — 25.0 — —

Disagree — 33.3 — — 25.0 25.0 — — —

Strongly disagree — 33.3 — — — — 25.0 — —
125

Kayak Sector and Land Sector 

Business Operations

Data in this section are not as complete as for the motorized vessel sector. Part of the 

reason for this is the different type of businesses involved. The kayak and land sectors are more 

flexible than the motorized vessel sector (e.g., trip data). Some companies did not have set 

schedules for daily trips, offering multiple daily trips with schedules that were on an as needed 

basis. It was often difficult to narrow down the number of tours offered per day. Therefore, 

abbreviated results are shown. Results were omitted where data were unavailable, too complex 

to sort out, or involved confidentiality issues.

Business Operations Summary

When asked to describe what types of tours were offered, participants in both sectors 

responded by defaulting to the basic tour description for the sector. For example, kayak sector 

respondents agreed (88% strongly applies) that the types of tours they offered were exclusive 

kayak tours, and land respondents indicated land-based whale watching tours (75% strongly 

applies) as the type they provided. In the kayak sector, the next highest agreement was for kayak 

tours where SRKWs were a focal point of the tour (33%). Land-based participants also 

described their tours as transit service and private charters (50% and 33% respectively). Trip 

data were very difficult to clarify using either survey data or secondary information, thus the 

number of trips offered per day was not provided.

We can confirm that kayak trips were offered in a suite of options including hourly trips, 

day trips, and multiday trips, but cannot determine the number of those trips offered. Some 

companies offered multiple hourly trips per day, but not at any given time frames during the day

(i.e., more on a first-come, first-served basis). Most companies did set aside dates and times for 

multiday trips, but these trips could vary by month and were not offered on a consistent basis. 

We were able to address the duration of trips offered and how many companies provided the 

trips. The most common duration of trips offered daily was 3 hours; seven companies offered 21

such trips daily. The most common multiday trips were 3-day trips where seven companies 

offered 12 trips within a week’s period of time.

Occupancy rate data vary between sectors. In both sectors, a majority of the respondents 

reported an occupancy rate of 71–80% during the peak seasons. However, in the kayak sector 

this was followed by an equivalent number of responses indicating occupancy rates of 81–90% 

and 91–100%. Land sector respondents had an equivalent number of responses indicating

occupancy rates of 31–40% and 51–60%.

Data regarding additional commercial activities conducted outside the SRKW watching 

industry show a majority of kayak companies did not conduct additional commercial activity. 
126

The land sector shows the reverse, where a majority of respondents acknowledged additional 

commercial activity. Such additional commercial activity in the kayak sector that did occur 

happened year-round or during the peak season. In the land sector, the additional activities 

occurred during the peak and low seasons.

An interesting piece of information learned from the kayak sector interviews is 

limitations on when participants can operate based on the weather and seasons. Where other 

sectors have weather and seasonal limitations, they still have a longer season due to the vessels 

or buses they use, which can safely operate in some rain or other poor weather conditions. This 

is not the case for the kayak sector, which is unable to extend operating seasons further into the 

shoulder seasons.

Business Operations Figures

The six figures listed here are sequentially provided below.

Figure 121. Tour description.

Figure 122. Percent of activity dedicated to SRKW viewing.

Figure 123. Estimated number and duration of trips for the kayak sector.

Figure 124. Percent occupancy.

Figure 125. Percent of additional commercial activities conducted by sector.

Figure 126. Seasons in which additional commercial activities occurred.
127

0

20

40

60

80

100

SRKW exclusive

SRKW focal point

Boat-based 

wildlife tours

Kayak SRKW focal

Kayak tour exclusively

Land based

Private vessel charter

Transit service

SRKW exclusive

SRKW focal point

Boat-based 

wildlife tours

Kayak SRKW focal

Kayak tour exclusively

Land based

Private vessel charter

Transit service

Percent

Strongly applies Applies Occasionally applies Not applicable

Kayak Land

Figure 121. Description of whale watching tours provided by kayak and land sectors. Several kayak companies used motorized vessels to 

transport their kayaks to more remote areas for tours. Therefore, the selection of boat tours is reflected in the data. As the question did not 

provide the option to select a private vehicle charter or a more specific description for the land companies, the selection of the private 

vessel charter referred to chartering a bus for a tour. Responses indicate the highest levels of agreement with tour types reflecting the

sector. In the kayak sector, 88.9% of responses (strongly applies) described tours as kayak tours exclusively. Similarly in the land sector,

75% selected strongly applies while the remaining 25% selected applies when describing their tours and land-based whale watching tours.
128

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Not

applicable

1–20

21

–40

41

–

6

0

61

–80

81

–1001–20

21

–40

41

–60

61

–80

81

–100

Percent of activity

Percent

Kayak Land

Figure 122. Percent of company tour activity dedicated to SRKW viewing by sector. Kayak sector 

results show a majority, 47.8%, did not associate their tours with dedicating time to SRKW 

viewing. Land sector results show 60% of responses dedicated 1–20% of their tour activity to 

SRKW viewing.

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 hr 2 hr 3 hr 5 hr 6 hr 7 hr Sunset 2 day 3day 4 day 5 day 6 day

Frequency

Duration

# companies # trips

Daily Weekly

Figure 123. Estimated number and duration of trips for the kayak sector based on secondary data. Kayak 

trip data are very complex and variable. These data reflect the best estimate for the number of 

trips offered by the kayak companies both in the San Juan Islands and the mainland. In addition, 

the hourly trips were daily and the multiday trips were weekly. The majority indicates seven

companies offered 21 each 3-hour daily trips and the next closest majority indicates seven

companies offered 12 each 3-day trips weekly.
129

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

–10

11

–20

21

–30

41

–50

61

–70

71

–80

81

–90

91

–100

0

–10

11

–20

21

–30

31

–40

41

–50

51

–60

61

–70

71

–80

81

–90

91

–100

Percent occupancy

Percent

Kayak Land

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Yes No Yes No

Percent

Kayak Land

90% response 75% response

Figure 124. Percent occupancy for the peak season by kayak and land sectors. The results show that 

35.3% of kayak sector respondents reported a 71–80% occupancy rate and 50% of land sector 

respondents reported a 70–80% occupancy rate.

Figure 125. Percent of additional commercial activities by sector. The kayak sector results show 66.6% 

did not use the vessels (kayaks) for additional commercial activities, while the land sector was the 

reverse, reporting 66.6% did use their vessels (vans) for other commercial activities. In the kayak 

sector, additional activities were described as kayak lessons/instruction and other non-SRKW–

related tours. For the land sector, other commercial activities were described as transit services, 

charters, and other tours.
130

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Peak Low Off Yearround

Peak Low Off Yearround

Percent

Kayak Land

85% response 75% response

Figure 126. Seasons in which additional commercial activities were conducted by sector. For those 

participants who indicated commercial activity occurs, the results show when the services 

were conducted.
131

SRKW Watching Industry Trends

Trends Summary

To better understand the history of the industry, a section of the survey was devoted to 

questions concerning trends in the industry over time. A caveat to these data is reflected in the 

response rates. Many individuals felt they did not have the knowledge to answer these questions, 

which can be matched to the large number of individuals who had recently entered the industry. 

As a result, response rates were lower. However, as the results reflected the responses of those 

individuals who had greater tenure in the industry, responses were considered to be less biased 

and more accurate. Note that data presented here are analyzed by all responses of survey 

participants and are not further aggregated by sector or region.

Respondents were asked to indicate whether owners had expanded their operations to 

include other SRKW viewing opportunities. Of the 36% who said owners had expanded their 

SRKW viewing opportunities; 54.2% noted expansion into kayaking and 29.2% indicated 

expansion into “other” categories. Examples of other categories include viewing other whale 

species, other geographic locations, and contacts with other companies to operate tours. These

responses were supported in the next question, which asked participants whether owners had 

expanded operations into other wildlife viewing opportunities. Responses indicate that 89% had 

expanded into viewing other marine mammals, 78 % had expanded into viewing other whale 

species, and 76% had expanded into viewing whales. Overall, the results show owners taking 

the opportunity to expand their businesses.

Participants were asked to indicate what changes they had seen in vessels in the U.S. 

industry over time. Seventy-seven percent said vessels were faster, 75% reported a move to 

larger vessels, and 60.7% said vessels have increased their passenger capacity. Ownership 

structure questions show that 72.2% indicated owners were purchasing new boats, 61.1% said

new owners were buying new boats, and 41.6% said new owners were absorbing existing boats.

The top three responses concerning vessel characteristics are: 77% said vessels were 

faster, 75% said vessels were larger, and 61% said vessels had a larger carrying capacity. These 

three changes appear to be the most significant observed by industry members. Other categories 

reflecting change were acknowledged at a much lower level.

Additional trends pursued include the number of vessels in the U.S. industry, tourism, the 

number of non-U.S. vessels in the industry, and the number of recreational vessels around 

SRKWs. Results were close concerning the number of U.S. vessels in the industry. The 

following results show an aggregate of the strongly agree and agree responses. The highest 

response, 45.2%, reported the number of vessels was growing, 45% said the number of vessels in 

the industry had reached a saturation point, and 38.6% agreed that the number of vessels was

stable. There was strong agreement that the number of tourists was growing as of the study year 
132

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Kayaking Shore-based

viewing

Seaplanes Other

Percent

36 % response

of 2006. The converse was also true, with 71% disagreeing that the number of tourists was 

declining. An aggregate of the agreement responses shows 62% agreed the number of non-U.S. 

vessels was growing, while 66.3% disagreed it was declining. In aggregate (sum of disagree and 

strongly disagree), 66.3% of respondents disagreed that the number of recreational vessels was

declining. Combined with a 55.3% agree aggregate response that the number of vessels was

growing, this suggests an increase in the number of recreational vessels around SRKWs.

Trends Figures

The eight figures listed here are sequentially provided below.

Figure 127. Expanded SRKW viewing opportunities by industry members.

Figure 128. Expanded viewing opportunities to include other wildlife by the industry.

Figure 129. Changes in the ownership structure in the SRKW watching industry.

Figure 130. Changes in SRKW watching industry vessels.

Figure 131. Perceived change in the number of vessels in the U.S. SRKW watching industry.

Figure 132. Perceived change of tourists in the SRKW watching industry.

Figure 133. Perceived change in the number of non-U.S. vessels in the industry.

Figure 134. Perceived change in the number of recreational vessels around the SRKWs.

Figure 127. Expanded SRKW viewing opportunities by industry members. This question did not clarify 

in which season the expanded opportunities occurred. When asked whether owners of companies 

had expanded other SRKW viewing opportunities, 36% said they agreed with the statement. The 

response rate is based on the 36% of those who agreed that viewing opportunities had expanded.
133

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Other whale

species

Other marine

mammals

Birds Other

Percent

64% response

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

New owner,

new boats

New owner,

existing boats

Existing owner

absorbing boats

Existing owner

absorbing

companies

Existing owner

buying new boats

Small business

absorbed by large

Small business

growing

Other

Percent

32.5% response

Figure 128. Expanded viewing opportunities to include other wildlife by SRKW watching industry 

members. When asked whether owners expanded their operations to include the viewing of other 

wildlife, 65% of respondents agreed. The response rate is based on the 64% of respondents who 

agreed that expanded wildlife viewing occurred.

Figure 129. Changes in the ownership structure in the industry. Regarding ownership structure, 31.5% of 

respondents agreed that changes had occurred. Most respondents, 72.2%, said existing owners 

were buying new boats. This was followed by 61% saying new owners were entering with new 

boats and 50% saying new owners were entering the industry and purchasing boats that were 

already in the SRKW fleet. The response rate is based on the 31.5% of the respondents who 

agreed that changes had occurred.
134

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Larger

Smaller

Increased

passenger

Decreased

passenger

Faster

Slower

Taller

Recreation

style

Monohull

Multihull

Rigid hull

Other

Percent

50% response

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Declining Stable Growing Saturated

Percent

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

91% mean response

Figure 130. Changes in the SRKW watching industry vessels. When asked whether the general size and 

type of vessel in the U.S. industry had changed, 50% of respondents agreed. A large majority, 

76.8%, said vessels were faster, 75% said vessels were larger, and 60.7% said they had increased 

passenger capacity. The response rate is based on the 50% of respondents who agreed that 

changes had occurred in the vessel characteristics of the industry.

Figure 131. Perceived change in the number of vessels in the U.S. SRKW watching industry. A majority 

of responses agreed that the number of vessels were either stable or growing—36.6% and 37.5%,

respectively—which concurs with the number of responses that disagreed that the number of 

vessels were declining (44%).
135

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Declining Stable Growing Saturated

Percent

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

89.5% mean response

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Declining Stable Growing Saturated

Percent

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

90.2% mean response

Figure 132. Perceived change in tourists in the SRKW watching industry. The results show 40% of 

respondents reported a relatively neutral response that the number of tourists were stable and 42% 

agreed that the number of tourists was growing.

Figure 133. Perceived change in the number of non-U.S. vessels in the SRKW watching industry. The 

results show 38.4% of responses were neutral, indicating the number of non-U.S. vessels was

stable.
136

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Declining Stable Growing Saturated

Percent

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

91% mean response

Figure 134. Perceived change in the number of recreational vessels around the SRKWs. Many

respondents (39%) agree that the number was growing around the SRKWs and 47.5% disagree 

that the number was declining.
137

Effects on the Community

Effects Summary

The commercial industry is intricately linked to a physical place and can have impacts on 

the local community where the business is based or operates. The line of questioning in this 

section aimed to achieve a preliminary understanding of the connectivity of the industry with the 

related communities. While this is an area that could be a study on its own, in conjunction with 

the goals of this research, the line of questioning is intentionally exploratory.

Tourism industries are often highly linked with various connections between different 

players in the industry. When asked whether the companies the participants own or work for had

partnerships with other members of the tourism industry, a majority of respondents 

acknowledged memberships with the local chambers of commerce, followed by partnerships 

with vacation resorts and other tourism companies. When asked where the partnerships occur, 

an overwhelming majority of respondents said they occur locally, followed by regionally and 

within Washington state.

Participants were also asked what type of shore support services they used. It is 

important to clarify for this question that respondents were given the opportunity to provide 

information for up to three vessels. Where multiple vessels were acknowledged, they were either 

multiple vessels within the same company that conducted whale watching tours or multiple 

vessels with different companies where the respondent worked for different companies. The 

distinction in the data analysis was not pursued, as the results did not alter dramatically. It was 

thought that no distinction was evident, as the vessels that were indicated as secondary and 

tertiary for some participants were primary vessels for others. Therefore, they are already 

represented in the data set. However, the information is provided here for clarification purposes. 

The graph showing the results for this question represents the aggregate for all three vessels. As 

seen in the graph, results comparing each vessel vary slightly but maintain consistency in the 

categories. Here, the focus is on the first vessel as a representation of the data set. Results show

the primary shore support service was fuel, followed by graphics/printing services, and both 

Web/computer services and office or rental space.

A supplemental question asked where these shore services occur. The locations are 

specifically correlated to the home port of the vessel or the operational port. It was noted that for 

some vessels, the home port and operational port were the same, but for others they were 

different. Results indicate that 48.2% of respondents obtained 76–100% of the shore services in 

the vessel’s home port and 23.2% of respondents obtained 76–100% of their services in the 

vessel’s operational port.

Additional analysis in this section is qualitative in nature and consequently represented in 

a different organization. Three questions were asked. The first and second were on the 
138

significance of the whale watching industry to the local community and the general public. The 

third question sought additional comments on the importance and unique characteristics of the 

industry. The results for these questions were analyzed and sorted into themes and subthemes, 

supplemented by examples of the responses.

Responses to the question of the industry’s significance to the local community resulted 

in the identification of three main themes and multiple subthemes under each theme. The themes

are tourism with 119 occurrences, education with 34 occurrences, and local/local community 

with 28 occurrences. Frequencies of themes and subthemes are provided in Figure 139, which is 

followed by a qualitative data description and exemplary excerpts of responses.

Responses to the question of the industry’s significance to the general public resulted in 

the identification of four main themes and multiple subthemes under each. The themes are 

SRKWs with 20 occurrences, education with 88 occurences, tourism with 18 occurrences, no 

impact with 7 occurrences, nature with 9 occurrences, and economy with 6 occurrences. 

Frequencies of themes and subthemes are provided in Figure 140, which is followed by a

qualitative data description and exemplary excerpts of responses.

Responses with additional comments resulted in the identification of two main themes 

and multiple subthemes under each. The themes are industry with 26 occurrences and education 

with 18 occurrences. Frequencies of themes and subthemes are provided in Figure 141, which is 

followed by a qualitative data description and exemplary excerpts of responses.

Effects Figures

The seven figures listed here are sequentially provided below. The last three are each 

followed by a qualitative data description and exemplary excerpts of responses.

Figure 135. Partnerships with other tourism entities.

Figure 136. Location where partnerships with other tourism entities occurred.

Figure 137. Description of shore support services.

Figure 138. Location of shore support services by percent.

Figure 139. Significance of the SRKW watching industry to the local community.

Figure 140. Significance of the SRKW industry to the general public.

Figure 141. Additional comments regarding the importance of the industry.
139

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Local Regional Washington National International Other

Percent

60.7% response

0

10

20

30

40

50

Booking 

agent

Chamber of commerce

Travel 

agent

Vacation resort

Private 

marina

Other tourism co. 

Other 

boat

Other

None

Percent

90.2% response

Figure 135. Types of partnerships with other tourism entities. The top three responses show 47.5% 

acknowledged membership in a chamber of commerce, 37.6% had partnerships with vacation 

resorts, and 35.6% had partnerships with other tourism companies.

Figure 136. Location where partnerships with other tourism entities occurred. Responses indicate the 

majority of partnerships, 75%, occurred in the local areas, 66.2% occurred in the region, and 40% 

occurred in Washington state.
140

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Food service

Fuel

Gift shop

Ticketing kiosk

Cleaning service

Office or rental space

Vessel maintenance

Web/computer services

Graphics/printing

Marketing

Percent

Vessel 1 Vessel 2 Vessel 3

Figure 137. Shore support services described and sorted by the first, second, and third vessels. Note that the multiple vessels can represent either 

multiple vessels a single company owned and operated in the industry or multiple vessels that a single individual worked on across 

multiple companies. Responses indicate that 84.8% accessed fuel services, 73.7% used graphics/printing services, 70.7% used

Web/computer services, and 70.7% had office or rental space.
141

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Not

applicable

0

–25

26

–50

51

–75

76

–100

Not

applicable

0

–25

26

–50

51

–75

76

–100

Percent range

Percent

Home port Operational port

Figure 138. Location of shore support services by percent. Responses for the home port show 48.2% 

used shore services in the home port of the vessel 76–100% of the time. Responses for the 

operational port indicate 23.2% used shore services in the operational port 76–100% of the time.
142

Figure 139. Qualitative responses to a question asking participants to describe the significance of the 

SRKW watching industry to their local communities. The qualitative analysis begins on the left, 

indicating that these responses are directly tied to the local community, followed by three 

overarching themes with sample size parenthetically provided. The final branches of the figure, 

indicated in italics, are detailed subthemes representing actual responses to the question.

Data in this question are qualitative in nature. Respondents were asked to comment on 

the significance of the SRKW watching industry to the local community in which their company

(i.e., the company they either own or work for) operates. As indicated in the figure, data were

aggregated into larger themes and smaller subthemes. All the themes and subthemes were 

derived from the participant responses. The themes represent the overall context of the 

comment, while the subtheme provides a deeper, more accurate context of the response.

Many of the subthemes are interconnected, but an effort was made to be as descriptive as 

possible to show the accuracy of the information collected. In the first theme of tourism, for 

example, economic benefit, jobs, and customers are intricately linked, but they are also 

independently listed in responses. So the subtheme provides a little more information on how 
143

the tourism is beneficial, whether the responses mentioned tourism as an economic benefit, 

indicating that visitors and customers contribute to economic benefit by spending money, and 

that because they spend money, direct and indirect jobs are supported. Similarly between 

themes, the concept of economic benefit and direct/indirect jobs that are provided by tourism can 

be seen as linked to the local community theme and the subtheme of a decline in the local 

community without the industry. While these subthemes are related to the economy, they are 

separated by theme, because the subtheme was not raised in the context of tourism directly, but 

was raised in the context of the local community.

Further examination of the themes is beneficial. In the tourism theme, subthemes and the 

context of the subthemes were directly linked to tourism. So for example, the concept that the 

whale watching industry is a source of tourism, benefits the local economy, attracts many 

visitors/customers to the local area, who in turn spend money, support local businesses, means 

direct and indirect jobs are linked to the tourist industry, which provides entertainment including 

whale watching for those on vacation. Excerpts of some of the responses follow.

In my opinion SRKW watching is the main tourist attraction in the community. I 

live in [San Juan Island]. I can’t imagine any other potential tourist attraction that 

would draw as many people to the San Juans as whale watching does. I think the 

whale watching industry is supporting the economy of the San Juan Islands.

The SRKW watching industry attracts people from all over the world. I see direct 

financial benefits to many local businesses, lodging, restaurants, grocery, taxi and 

bus, retail art and craft, clothing, state parks. Thousand come for the whale and 

spend dollars locally.

I think a substantial amount of visitation to San Juan Island is generated by the 

presence of SRKWs. Many, many day visitors come to the island to go whale 

watching or kayaking, and spend money on ferries, food, gifts, and lodging, 

providing many jobs and lots of tax revenue. Many varieties of businesses can 

stay open year-round to provide services to residents because of the influx of 

visitors in season—many hoping to experience the SRKW.

Attraction to local economy, hotels, motels, tourism, outlets, printing and 

graphics, fuel deposits, banking, education, etc. are all affected by the whale 

watching industry. The income from this industry is spread over a large area 

[region] and affects many people that are not aware of it.

Almost every flyer or brochure for a business on San Juan island includes a 

picture of a killer whale. People from all over the world and the United States 

and Washington state come to Friday Harbor, specifically to see a killer whale 

(preferably a breaching one!—like the rack card). They don’t feel their trip is

complete unless they see one.

The second theme in this question regards the local context—be that the local 

community, the local people, or other local factors. Subthemes were organized to very clearly 

describe the context of local. Local pride is self-explanatory, where appreciation of wildlife is a 

little different. This subtheme refers to the concept that locals do not appreciate wildlife that live 

in the same environment they do. The industry provides an opportunity for locals to access and 

experience the local wildlife through the tour process that may result in a greater appreciation of 
144

local wildlife. The decline without industry subtheme refers to a decline in the local economy 

and tourism in the absence of the industry. Recreation again speaks to the recreational 

opportunities for locals. Environmental awareness relates to the locals being aware of their 

surroundings and contributing to those surroundings in a positive manner. The industry was 

generally described as being highly significant to the local communities. This subtheme aims to 

measure the occurrence of the concept of the industry as a significant aspect of the local 

community. The subtheme of supporting nonwealthy locals provides a glimpse into the 

difference between those who have vacation or seasonal residence on the islands verses those 

who have lived there for generations and live on the island year round. Pollution is another 

subtheme that was brought up, commonly in the realm of dumping in the ocean. Excerpts of 

some of the responses follow.

Much of the whale watching supports significant economic growth and such 

things. Without the whale watching, I would think local communities would be 

greatly effected negatively.

Whale watching is very popular amongst residents and tourists. You can see the 

name/image of orcas virtually everywhere—logos for companies, our local soccer 

teams is called the Bellingham Orcas ... etc.

It is a very significant industry in the Friday Harbor area and San Juans.

In the San Juans, whale watching is a backbone and major draw to this area. 

Businesses would be greatly affected by their decline.

Very significant and if not for the SRKW there would only be retired or very 

wealthy people on the island. The whales support the non-retirees and other than 

very wealthy here. If not for the whales, a lot of us would not live on San Juan 

Island, as we would have no means of support.”

...provides this community access to the San Juan Islands, San Juan Island 

wildlife and orcas....

It is especially helpful to teach the community about the orca whales in order for 

the community to see these animals and to take in the actual environment in 

which they live. People who live near these whales will support any measures 

taken to help them if they do ‘know’ about these incredible animals.

The final theme is education. This was a prevalent theme in the analysis, but crossed 

many subthemes. Education was spoken about in a general context, in the context of educating 

locals, taking local public school kids on educational trips, educating tourists and visitors, public 

education, education in the context of environmental advocacy, and education to understand the 

linkages between people and ecosystems. Education definitely was a broad theme in the results 

of this question. Excerpts of some of the responses follow.

In my opinion, the SRKW watching industry has a significant impact on the local 

community. It has a positive effect on 1) economy, 2) education and 3) scientific 

research in the Greater Puget Sound region. Trips are open not only for tourists, 

but also for school students. They help to educate future generations about the 
145

significance of the welfare of wild animals as well as teach children important 

moral values.

Education to preserve natural environments and wildlife and natural areas....

It provides education to the people for the whales and the environment.

We provide an educational experience for locals and tourists. We offer them an 

opportunity to see the orcas in the wild and promote ‘captive free’ whales....

It is especially helpful to teach the community about the orca whales in order for 

the community to see these animals and to take in the actual environment in 

which they live. People who live near these whales will support any measures

taken to help them if they do ‘know’ about these incredible animals. [Note: This 

excerpt that appeared under the local context theme above is repeated under the 

education theme here to reflect its applicability to both themes.]

Very important to the community, for education, teaching the public about the 

whales, how important and fragile their environment is, and how important a 

person’s role is in preserving the whales environment.

Also the SRKW/wildlife tour helps to educate people about the beauty, special 

features, and ecological conditions of this area of Washington and British 

Columbia.

This analysis aims to clarify some unique themes and subthemes that occur in the 

qualitative data provided for this question. The examples provided illustrate the connectivity 

between the themes and the overlap of concepts. Overall observations of this data set connect 

the importance of the tourist industry to the economy of the local communities, while also 

providing opportunities for the education of both tourists and local residents. In addition, the 

local communities are further described to benefit and possibly depend on the industry for jobs, 

lodging, fuel, grocery, and other community infrastructure that is crucial to a functioning 

community.
146

Figure 140. Qualitative responses to a question asking participants to describe the significance of the 

SRKW watching industry to the general public. The qualitative analysis begins on the left,

indicating that these responses are directly tied to the general public, followed by six overarching 

themes with sample size parenthetically provided. The final branches of the figure, indicated in 

italics, are detailed subthemes representing actual responses to the question.

This question is the second of three questions that are qualitative in nature. Respondents 

were asked to describe the significance of the SRKW watching industry to the general public. 

While there are more themes identified for this question, the actual number of responses was less 

than in the previous question, which targeted information specific to the local community. Again 

within this theme and subtheme arrangement, there are connections between them, but the 

organization attempts to clarify the data to explore the foundational connections and concepts 

illustrated in the data.

The first theme, SRKW, highlights subthemes are were directed specifically toward the 

killer whales. Comments indicated that the SRKWs were the main focus of vacations for 
147

visitors, that education information specific to the SRKWs was discussed, and that the industry 

provided access to these whales. Education is further discussed as the fourth theme. For 

clarification, the education subtheme here refers to comments specifically tied to the SRKW. 

Excerpts of some of the responses follow.

Thousands of tourists come to the area to see and learn about the SRKW 

specifically.

The industry is highly significant to the general public!

The San Juan Islands have many appealing factors which attract visitors, and the 

SRKWs can be the icing on the cake for them or the primary reason they visit. 

The SRKW watching industry provides a means where the public can view and 

experience these amazing animals, as well as many other species of the 

environment. The industry is entertainment and education rolled into one for 

many members of the public. If people see, they can love—they can become 

advocates.

... enables people to see something they may not be able to otherwise....

For anyone anywhere who has the slightest interest in cetaceans in general and 

orcas in particular, the SRKW provides the best access to study, observe, and 

learn. For many the SRKW is the reason and focus of an entire vacation.

The second theme is that of no impact to the general public. Again this theme is an 

example of the interpretation of a negative perspective on the impact of the industry on the 

general public. This is an important theme to consider, especially in the realm of a tourist 

industry, as not everyone who partakes in tourism is looking for an educational or ecotourist 

opportunity; some rather prefer an entertainment or enjoyment factor with no strings attached. 

Excerpts of some of the responses that reflect this theme and the subtheme of the general public 

not caring follow.

It seems it matters to those involved with orcas, but most don’t care about it that 

much, in my opinion.

The general public probably does not care as a whole, many people would go to 

Sea World instead.

To the general public I don’t believe there is much significance.

It’s an amusement provider, it offers tourists an attraction. The general public 

isn’t concerned nor going to care a whole lot about a marine ecosystem unless it 

hits their wallets. We’re Americans—we are all about consumption and pursuits 

of happiness, ask those who come to whale watch what they drive. The only 

‘education’ out there is that of supply and demand—SRKWs teach kids you can 

make a buck off of another living creature....

The third theme identified for this question is that of the economy. Again, the 

importance of the industry and the resultant economy it generates through jobs, local business 

support, and money arose in the responses for this question. Excerpts of some of the responses 

follow.
148

Many of the people in town make their money in the season.

Many businesses are based on tourism and would not survive without the 

SRKWs.

Business provides jobs and helps support other local businesses.

...personal employee income, local awareness of surrounding marine ecosystems 

on a personal level....

...creates dollars into our economy.

The fourth and largest theme in this data set is education. This theme is prevalent in a 

larger percent of responses to this question. Education was spoken about in the context of the 

education surrounding nature and natural history, as well as the education about the ecosystem 

and the environmental awareness of the ecosystem. Concepts of attitude change and the 

fostering of advocacy are spoken about when the general public is exposed to information about 

the SRKW, nature, and the ecosystem. Having the opportunity to educate the public was a 

common reference. Several responses indicated that through education, the value of nature and 

the whales increases, and can be seen as interlinked with an increase in environmental awareness 

and advocacy. In addition, as in the previous question, the opportunity to educate teachers and 

students in public schools through specific tours was commonly mentioned. Excerpts of some of 

the responses follow.

We help educate the public about the whales and wildlife, their environment, and 

the issues they face. We provide a way for people to connect with nature.

Educational avenue to talk about marine wildlife and issues relating to 

sustainable—may encourage people to join as advocates for marine environment.

I think it’s incredibly important to educate the public on what’s really happening 

in the ecosystem in the Puget Sound and how it impacts the whales. For the 

public to really understand these animals and why we should conserve them and 

their habitat starts with viewing them in their natural surroundings and not in a 

tank.

This is a huge educational opportunity to teach the public about not just orcas, but 

the whole ecosystem revolving around the salmon cycle of the Pacific Northwest. 

We cannot hope to change our environmental problem without this education. 

The public needs to understand that the future of the SRKWs are deeply 

intertwined with our own. It gives the public an opportunity to ask questions in 

an informal setting.

I think the opportunity to view the SRKW population from a water platform 

provides an experience that helps people build bridges between personal values 

and conservation/environmental ethics. It gives people a real sense of wild 

animals in their natural habitat. I believe this becomes foundational in a paradigm 

that helps translate into action ... consumer decisions, votes, conservation, etc.

Whale watching can provide people with a memorable experience and possibly 

help develop an awareness of whales needs. This in turn might lead to 

advocacy/activism by concerned individuals.
149

The fifth theme of nature is further clarified with the subthemes. Comments regarding 

nature as a theme were in the context of people being provided the opportunity to connect to 

nature or the ability of the industry to assist in the monitoring of nature and contribute to the 

science and knowledge of what is going on in nature. Excerpts of some of the responses follow.

We provide a way for people to connect with nature.

I also feel that we are able to monitor the effect of Navy sonar on the wildlife.

SRKWs have made the orca the great icon of the Northwest. They are now of 

great interest too.

I believe that exposing the general public to the animals is a very important step 

to ensure their survival. It’s been said many times in one way or another—what 

people do not see, they will not understand, and what people don’t understand, 

they will not protect. I believe this viewpoint is very relevant to the whales and 

their well-being. Whale watching is very important!

Looking at the big picture of significance of the SRKW watching industry to the 

Puget Sound region is immense. It gets millions of people out on the water and 

connected with nature. In most cases the people are only expecting killer whales 

and are overjoyed to see seals, eagles, porpoises, and depending on the season, 

other types of whales, sea lions, and numerous migratory birds. Along with 

interesting and humorous information, they should walk away with a life 

experience they will never forget. The weakest link is to tactfully inspire them to 

want to be part of the solution for preserving the natural habitats in their region. 

For people whose existence is primarily in cities, it allows them the opportunity to 

see the earth uncluttered and raw and hopefully make them feel alive again. 

Essential for a healthy society and public that cares.

People love to see orcas and come to the island to do so. I think it is very 

important for people to develop connections with species that dwarf their own 

humanness, and especially outside of Sea World–esque prisons.

We are in a position to educate the public. Not only can we teach about the 

wildlife, but also about the environmental issues surrounding the health of Puget 

Sound. We are also monitors of trends in the wildlife and health of the animals.

Tourism, the sixth theme, was also mentioned in this question. However, the subthemes 

in this question varied slightly from the previous question. The subthemes were more diverse 

and represent a broader context of the theme of tourism. For example, in the check box for 

tourists subtheme, some of the responses were consistent in mentioning that the experience of 

whale watching to the general public is more of a matter of having completed the item or 

checking the experience off on a long list of things to do, with no other real connection to the 

experience. This perspective was often perceived in a negative context. In contrast to this 

subtheme, the remaining subthemes were more light and positive in response where there is 

reference to ecotourism, amazing and memorable experiences that are provided to the public, and 

experiences that are for pure enjoyment and entertainment. Excerpts of some of the responses 

follow.
150

Clean fun, enjoyment, and being a part of nature....

I would like to think that the SRKW watching industry is an educational asset to 

the general public and that it raises awareness about the Puget Sound ecosystem 

as a whole. But after spending a few years talking with tourists, I get the feeling 

that it is more like a check mark on a list of things people feel they need to do

when they visit the San Juans.

Through educating people about the natural world, we will get closer to the 

paradigm shift that must occur in the minds of human beings necessary to save 

our natural resources and wildlife. If people don’t know what is out there to save, 

they will make no effort to do so. This is part of the ‘watchable wildlife’ ideology 

and the ecotourism movement.

There are tourists who are mildly interested, dragged along by others, and then 

hard core passionate ones about SRKWs. People love getting out on the water, 

but they want to see what’s ‘advertised’—which is stated or unstated (the 

photo)—a breaching KW. Some become fascinated with the specific information

and data collected on the SRKW, some return and return (if in the Seattle or 

Washington area) to see them again....

We have guests come off our boat literally crying after seeing orcas in the wild. 

The naturalists do a great job describing their life and what makes them so 

special. The public seems awestruck by orcas.
151

Figure 141. Qualitative responses to a question asking participants to provide any additional comments to 

identify the important and unique characteristics of the SRKW watching industry. The qualitatve 

analysis begins on the left, indicating that these responses are directly tied to additional 

comments, followed by two overarching themes with sample size parenthetically provided. The 

final branches of the figure, indicated in italics, are detailed data representing actual responses to 

the question.

The final qualitative question asked respondents to provide any additional comments to 

help the researchers better understand the important and unique characteristics of the SRKW 

watching industry. While responses to this question were fewer, they were just as extensive and 

important to the research.

Two major themes were identified for this question with multiple subthemes. The first 

theme is the industry. The first subtheme of economic support/jobs is consistent with the themes 

and subthemes previously mentioned, but in this case is commonly referred to as linked to the 

industry. Essentially the existence of the industry provides economic support to the communities 

by drawing tourism to local areas, referring to and working with other aspects of the tourist 

industry such as lodging and restaurants. Respondents also referred to the jobs the industry 

creates, with some companies employing locals for extended periods of time, supporting the 

local community with job infrastructure.

The second subtheme, the concept of guidelines and self-regulation, was selected as a 

subtheme for the industry, as many responses referred to the voluntary guidelines that the 

industry follows as well as their efforts at self-regulation to protect the SRKW. Many responses 

were in praise of the voluntary guidelines and the use of those guidelines to educate the tourists 
152

aboard the vessels, as previously referred to, setting an example of how to operate around the 

whales.

The third subtheme, science/trends, refers to the industry participation in science that is 

directly correlated to the SRKWs. It also refers to the industry’s ability to observe and note 

trends occurring in nature and in public perception. As industry members are working every day 

during a season, and some have worked for years and decades, comments spoke to their level of 

knowledge of the change that has occurred over time.

The fourth subtheme connected to the industry theme is other impacts. This subtheme 

refers to the focus of the impact of the industry on the decline of the SRKW. Comments 

highlighted the other issues that are contributing to the decline of the SRKW independent of the 

whale watching industry.

The fifth subtheme of connection to the SRKWs refers to the personal connection some 

industry members feel to the SRKWs specifically. Respondents spoke about industry members 

watching the population closely and awaiting their return year after year. Reference was made to 

some industry members caring greatly for the SRKWs and hoping to contribute to their 

conservation either through educational efforts or how they operate in the vicinity of the whales.

The sixth subtheme under the industry theme is the responsible operation of motorized 

vessels and the ability of motorized vessels to provide a positive example of how to operate 

vessels around the SRKWs.

The seventh subtheme is regarding the benefit to limit commercial activity on the water. 

Comments under this subtheme alluded to the change in types of vessels from small vessels with 

a few passengers to large vessels with a greater number of passengers. This was commonly 

linked with the removal of many small vessels on the water and replacement with fewer larger 

commercial vessels, which was explained to be a benefit. Additional general comments 

supported a limit of the number of commercial vessels on the water. Excerpts of some of the 

industry theme responses follow.

The industry members (many of them) are making efforts to lessen any impact on 

the SRKWs. The industry boats can be the example for ‘how to operate’ around 

the whales. ... As an educational platform, you can take 6–60 people on one 

vessel instead of so many private boats and actually provide an opportunity to 

both view and learn—therein lies hope for positive action.

We are a very significant part of Washington state tourism, which is a very 

significant part of Washington state’s income and tax returns.

I strongly feel that whale watching boats are more of a benefit for these whales 

than people may believe. There are much bigger problems for these whales than 

boats (pollution, lack of food, the capture of these animals in the 1970s). Boats 

bring people out to these whales and teach them about these amazing creatures so 

the bigger problems can be solved. By banning or limiting whale watching, this 

would not happen. The bigger problems would still exist. Those in power are 

attacking about 2.5% of the problem rather than doing something serious for these 
153

whales. Stopping whale watch boats or pleasure boats from watching altogether 

would be a drastic mistake.

I believe that a regulated industry would be a very good thing—limits on the 

number of boats and expectations on the training and experience of the captains 

and crew (the Association is a good step—and all who belong voluntarily follow 

guidelines). I’d rather have 60 people on one boat than six people on 10 boats—

and have an educational component.

I believe there is an incredible opportunity to awaken the general public to some 

of the environmental issues facing our planet today. Whether it is the Navy’s 

sonar, global warming, or salmon restoration, all these are linked to the health of 

the whales. Because we are out on a daily basis, we can see trends developing.

SRKWs are extended family for us. Many of us count down the days in April 

until their return. Members not returning, new members (babies) are all part of 

the daily chatter amongst islanders and previous guests.

We have been in a 10-year study with Wisconsin’s Ripon University to collect 

data from our guests about the impact and perception of whale watching—Lime 

Kiln Park. We employ five people from our community and have had the same 

crew for 13 years. We retired from fishing and feel this is an environmentally 

friendly way to make our living. We help supply people with lodging, restaurants 

and seasonal gifts, care giving services, fuel, and moorage. We bring in revenue 

to many businesses in our island community and act responsibly on the water.

The captains and crews of these boats love and care for the orca. That is reflected 

in the experience of the viewer. The SRKW industry has protected and promoted 

the survival of the orca.

The second major theme is education. In the context of this question, subthemes are 

similar to those of the prior questions, but more emphasis was placed on the role of the industry 

in the education of tourists. Comments spoke to the ability of the industry to foster advocacy for 

the SRKWs, as well as providing an experience that contributes to an individual’s increased 

environmental awareness and feeling of personal responsibility for the environment. This 

contributes to the concept that, due to the experience of viewing the SRKW and immediate 

wildlife, education has the ability to influence tourists such that they think about their personal 

impact on nature and may make a change at home that benefits the environment. Other 

subthemes refer to the contribution to schools and the educational opportunities the industry 

provides to schools, whether it be simply the role of education, education within the industry, or 

the importance of education. These subthemes are similar to an additional subtheme that speaks 

to a connection to or appreciation of nature. In this case, comments were less driven towards 

advocacy or action, but more focused on the service and education provided to tourists which 

leave them with an experience of connection to nature or a greater appreciation of nature. 

Excerpts reflecting these subthemes of the education theme follow.

On our trips we talk about geology of this area, tides, currents, other wildlife we 

come across (eagles, seabirds, harbor porpoises, minke, grey or humpback 

whales, and SRKWs). We hope to educate people about the concerns there are

for Puget Sound, the Salish Sea, oceans of the world, well, the planet—and with 
154

this education, hope for political action as well as everyday personal ecological 

actions by individuals. It’s the SRKW that brings them, we hope the take home 

message is much broader.

For our community we’ve offered an intern program for the past 10 years for local 

high school marine science classes. We go into the schools and speak about 

stewardship and offer children trips on the boat as part of their class work.

I consider it to be an honor to share time in this key environment for the SRKW. 

The responsibility of informing the general public on the role they can take to 

lessen their negative impact on the environment is important to me, though I 

spend most of my energy focused on the safety of the trip and the enjoyment of 

our participants. I hope that folks walk away with a sense of wonder and 

connection to their wider environment, which will then inform the discussions 

they make on how they can lessen their impact.

For people all over the world, the orca is a mystical, larger than life creature. For 

them to be able to view them in their natural habitat is at the same time an 

educational and religious experience. They come away from the experience with 

not only a greater intellectual understanding of the orca and it’s environment, but 

as advocates for that environment.

The whale watching industry brings education about the whales and other animals 

living in and around the Salish Sea. We view our boats as floating classrooms. 

The industry also brings joy into people’s lives that have always wanted to see a 

whale and we fulfill that for them. We bring awareness to the public about issues 

that face the marine mammals, salmon, and sea birds of the Salish Sea and Puget 

Sound.
155

Concluding Discussion

The results of this research provide a foundation for understanding the people within the 

whale watching industry, the business structures, various sectors identified, and complexities 

within the system. These attributes open the opportunity to ask more complex questions of the 

community, suggest connections, and identify characteristics or trends within the system. 

Together this information provides a baseline description of the industry, which allows us to 

understand this community and its participants at the time of the study. In addition, the 

opportunity to measure change in the system over time now exists.

Demographics

Demographic data are standard information about people that helps to describe a 

population. These are foundational data that describe people and allow for comparison between 

groups with in-depth analysis. Demographic data collected were compared to U.S. Census data 

where applicable and were analyzed by all participants who took the survey, by sector, and by 

region. This discussion compares and brings together unique characterists of the various indepth analyses to paint a demographic picture of the industry. Overall results show more males 

than females working in the industry. This trend applied to all methods of analysis. The only 

place where the ratios came in close proximity was in the land sector, where an equal number of 

males and females worked. This is not surprising; examination of maritime industries suggests 

dominance by the male gender. This theory is supported by U.S. Census data that also show a 

more than two-to-one ratio of males to females in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations.

Age data show there were more people working in the industry who were more than 45 

years old. Most people working in the industry were older than those employed in Washington 

state and the United States. This can be significant as people of different ages can be impacted 

differently by change. For example, those close to retirement may be affected differently than 

those just entering the industry. Further analysis of this data shows that individuals in Tier 4 

smaller companies were predominately more than 45 years old. Tier 1 and Tier 2 companies had

more individuals working younger than age 45. Regional analysis also indicates a greater 

number of individuals older than 45 working in the island region. Kayak sector participants were

primarily younger than 45, but there were some older individuals. The majority of land sector 

participants were more than 35 years old. As a result, impacts may be more extensive in the 

island region than in the mainland region.

Education data show that many people in the industry had higher education degrees, 

bachelor’s and graduate degrees. In comparison to Washington State labor statistics and U.S. 

Census statistics, individuals in the industry were more highly educated. Additional analysis of 

the data reveals that the majority of those holding higher degrees worked in Tier 2 and Tier 3 

companies. Those working in the island region held 65% of the bachelor’s and graduate degrees. 

Levels of education may assist in understanding how to communicate with members of the 
156

industry. Those with higher levels of education may have different abilities to understand and 

interpret scientific findings, as well as make informed business decisions. In addition, varying 

levels of education may result in different impacts to members in the industry; for example, one 

with a higher degree may be more marketable for alternate jobs.

Residence data show a majority of the individuals working in the industry resided in San 

Juan County. Most of these individuals worked in Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 companies. A 

majority of those working in Tier 1 companies resided in King County. Regional data indicate

that most people lived close to where they work, although a few individuals traveled great 

distances to work in the industry, residing as far away as eastern Washington. For the kayak and 

land sectors, a majority of individuals resided in San Juan County. Other counties of note 

included Snohomish, Whatcom, and Skagit. This information contributes to our knowledge of 

local communities. For those living close to where they work, employment in the industry may 

be more important. For example, those living on the San Juan Islands may have limited 

employment opportunites. Also, those working close to home may provide a return contribution 

to their local communities in many forms. For those living farther away, one can hypothesize a 

greater connection to the work and industry that drives their motivation to work in the industry.

Income data were collected in two categories. The first is an estimation of total annual 

income and the second is the estimated percent of income derived from the SRKW watching 

industry. The results show the majority of individuals made lower incomes of less than $30,000 

a year. Less than one-third of respondents reported incomes above $50,000 a year. The income 

of those working in the industry was lower than the Washington state labor force or U.S. Census 

totals. A majority of those earning higher incomes were owners. Regional results indicate that, 

of those earning higher incomes, more lived in the island region than in the mainland region. 

Most respondents, 40%, said they received less than a quarter of their income from the industry. 

For those reporting that more than half of their income came from the industry, half were

owners. More individuals from the island region reported they received more than half of their 

income from the industry. Kayak sector responses show a greater income than land sector 

responses, with a greater percent of that income derived from the SRKW watching industry. 

Income data can provide clarification about the level of dependence of industry members on the 

industry to support their livelihood. As this is a seasonal industry, some may depend on this 

industry to provide enough income to support them all year long. Some may depend on this 

industry to provide income where other opportunities are limited due to the communities in 

which they live. Others may just participate in the industry due to personal motivations and the 

income is secondary to another source of income. Taking into consideration the differences in 

the regional results, the question that arises is the importance of the industry and how it varies 

between the island region and the mainland region.

Looking at multiple variables in concert, such as age and residence, further clarifies the 

data. Results show a large portion of older individuals working in the industry resided in the 

island region. Additional qualitative interview data speak to the importance of the industry as a 

source of jobs and income to those in the islands. Comments also suggested limited employment 

opportunities in the island region. This helped to clarify the significance of the industry to those 

living in the islands, of older ages, and of the economy of the islands.
157

Another layer of information that can be added is income. The data indicate that, while a 

majority of individuals make less than the national or state standards, in the island region a large 

percent of individuals received more than half of their income from the SRKW industry. So 

while this industry is a seasonal industry, it was a source of a large portion of the incomes of 

those living in the islands.

These multiple types of in-depth analysis applied to the demographic data have led to a 

better comprehension of those working in the industry. They allow for the understanding that 

specific groups of people have different connections to the industry and as a result may be 

affected differently by changes in the management of the industry. As further sections of the 

data are discussed, this trend will be further highlighted.

Individual Participation

The purpose of collecting data on individual participation is to gain a better 

understanding of the people working in the industry beyond the information obtained through 

demographics. As with the demographic data, these data were analyzed in-depth by tier, sector, 

and region to provide the most clear and complete understanding of the data. Here we sought to

understand the choices they made to work in the industry through the work schedules they 

maintained, maritime work history they had, training they pursued, and the reasons that they 

participated in the industry.

A commonality in maritime tourism industries, especially those surrounding maritime 

adventures, is the different jobs a single individual may hold while working in the industry. For

example, the person helping with the lines that hold the ship to the pier may also operate the 

snack bar. We wanted to know how many roles individuals played while working in the 

industry. Overall results show that the majority of people worked at least two roles, with other 

combinations ranging up to five roles. Individuals on larger vessels in the Tier 1 category 

reported they worked primarily one role. Of those who said they worked more than one role, a 

majority worked three or fewer roles. In contrast, a majority of individuals working on smaller 

vessels in the Tier 4 category stated that they worked six or more roles. This correlated with the 

regional data, where those in the mainland region were more closely associated with working 

one role and those in the island region related to more than one role. Kayak sector results show 

participants worked multiple roles, while the land sector results indicate individuals worked

fewer roles. When considering the type of role, the role most individuals associated with was 

that of the naturalist. Other common role combinations included operator/naturalist, deck 

hand/naturalist, and owner/naturalist/guide/administration. This information on roles provides us 

with a better understanding of how vessels of different sizes operate, the level of experience 

different vessels may require for their operation, and the type of experience that may be had 

aboard different vessel types.

Since this is primarily a maritime industry, USCG licensing is required to operate the 

vessels. Survey questions sought to better understand the level of licensing pursued by people in 

the industry. Of those working in the industry, 43% had and maintained an active USCG license. 

Of those who had a license, an overwhelming majority had a master license. Most had 100 ton 

inland and 100 ton near coastal master licenses. The distribution of licenses shows that a 

majority in all tiers that had licenses held master licenses. Those working in Tier 1 companies 
158

were the only individuals who reported 1,600 ton ocean licenses, in addition to other licenses. 

All tiers show a distribution of 100 ton inland licenses, with 100 ton near coastal licenses

distributed across Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 companies and 200 ton near coastal licenses limited

to those working in Tier 4 companies. Inland and near coastal 500 ton licenses were limited to 

Tier 2 companies. Additional licenses held by individuals in the industry were described as able

bodied seaman and merchant marine licenses. This distribution of licenses seems to be 

correlated to the vessel size, where Tier 1 companies have the largest vessel size and therefore 

the most comprehensive requirements for licensing. Licensing information contributes to our 

knowledge of the size and types of vessels that operate in the industry based on USCG 

requirements and illustrates the investment made by some to achieve the highest levels of 

licensing to operate larger vessels. This also reflects some of the limitations of vessel size based 

on USCG requirements.

In addition to maritime training, we collected information on other forms of training. A

large number of people working in the industry had taken the Whale Museum’s marine naturalist 

training. This was reflected across the tier, regional, and sector data. Additional maritime 

training included licenses and endorsements such as for radar, lifeboatman, firefighting, 

observers, and STCW. This training was more prominent in Tier 1 and Tier 4 companies, as 

well as on the mainland. Kayak respondents reported high levels of training in kayak and 

paddling certifications. Additional training included first aid, self study, and biological and 

environmental conferences. Training information contributes to our knowledge of the level of 

commitment industry members make to work in this industry. It also aligns with the concepts 

discussed about education; various types of training pursued increase the study participant’s level 

of knowledge and may affect one’s role in the industry.

Entry year data help to understand how long people have been working in the industry. 

Survey data indicate the years with the highest number of people entering the industry were 2006 

and 2004. The earliest year reported as a first year for entering the industry was 1978. Data 

reflect an increase in entrants from the mid 1990s until the late 1990s, then again in the mid 

2000s until the study year of 2006. Most Tier 1 entrants began after 2000, while those in Tier 2 

companies had some early entrants, then followed the general trend of entrants in the mid to late 

1990s and again in the mid 2000s. Tier 3 entrants had a continuous flow of entrants after 1997,

with peaks in 1997 and 2004. Tier 4 participants reported they entered on or before 1998. Most 

of those working in the mainland region started after 2000, while those working in the island 

region experienced entry peaks in 1997 and 2004. Kayak sector participants experienced peaks 

in 1998, 2001, 2005, and 2006. Land sector responses had some entering in the early 1990s and 

other in the early 2000s. Entry year data are one piece of the puzzle that help to understand the 

history of the industry. They help distinguish those who have participated for long periods of 

time from those who are recent participants. Combined with other data to be discussed, such as 

tenure data, they lead to understanding more about the levels of historical participation in the 

industry, as well as the size of the industry.

Tenure data show how many individuals had worked consistently in the industry over 

time. A small percentage of individuals departed the industry and returned, but the analysis

reflects a focus on those with uninterrupted participation in the industry over time. A majority of 

respondents said they had worked in the industry 2–5 years, followed by 6–10 years. Tier 1 

respondents primarily had worked 2–5 years, with some holding longer tenures. Most 
159

individuals with the longest tenure of more than 11 years in the industry worked for Tier 2 and 

Tier 4 companies. The longest tenures reported, 26–30 years, were in Tier 1 and Tier 2 

companies. The mainland region shows the greatest number of people reporting 2–5 years, while 

the island region shows the majority at 6–10 years. Further analysis reveals 33% of mainland 

respondents and 58% of island respondents had worked in the industry for more than 5 years. 

The majority of individuals in the kayak and land sectors had worked 2–5 years; however, some 

individuals in the kayak industry had 26–30 year tenures. Owners had the longest tenures. 

These tenure data are another indication of the differences between those who live and work in 

the different regions. Combined with other data, tenure data also contribute to understanding the 

importance of the industry to the island region.

Work schedule data were collected through several survey questions in order to learn

when people worked. This is important because the industry is seasonal. The results show a 

gradual increase in participants commencing work in April, peaking in July, then gradually 

decreasing into October. This trend is consistent across tiers and regions. A clarification shows

a greater number of Tier 2 and Tier 3 individuals working in April and October. This is also

reflected in the island region results. Some individuals worked year-round, primarily for Tier 1 

and Tier 4 companies. The kayak sector shows greater activity in the off-season months from 

November to March.

Work schedule data indicate a similar number of individuals work part-time, full-time 

and more than full-time. Tier 1 and Tier 2 had more individuals working full-time schedules and 

greater than full-time schedules. Tier 3 and Tier 4 had mostly part-time work schedules. Overall 

trends are also reflected in the regional data analysis. The kayak sector had more individuals 

working full-time schedules or more than full-time schedules. The land sector had the greatest 

number of people working more than full-time schedules.

Additional questions asked whether people in the industry worked multiple jobs, and if 

so, were these jobs solely within the industry. A majority of individuals worked one full-time 

job in the industry. This is reflected in Tier 1 and Tier 2 companies as well. For those working 

in part-time positions, Tier 3 and Tier 4 respondents reported they work multiple part-time jobs. 

The mainland region shows primarily one full-time job was worked, while the island region had 

more people working multiple part-time jobs. The kayak sector shows most worked one fulltime job, while the land sector shows an equal distribution of individuals working either one fulltime job or more than one full-time job.

We also addressed when multiple jobs are worked. This helps us understand whether

there were individuals who worked jobs outside the industry year-round and also worked in the 

industry during the active season. A majority of people worked multiple jobs year-round. Tier 1 

participants worked multiple jobs primarily during the peak seasons while Tier 3 and Tier 4 

individuals worked multiple jobs year-round. Both the mainland and island regions show most 

individuals worked multiple jobs all year. The kayak sector shows most worked multiple jobs 

during the peak season and the land sector shows some individuals worked during the peak 

season and others all year.

Supporting data addressed the types of additional jobs people worked. This helps us 

understand whether individuals worked multiple jobs in the industry or a job in the industry and 
160

other jobs outside the industry. Of those working multiple jobs, most worked in various “other”

jobs not described or in maritime positions. A high number of respondents across tiers worked

other maritime positions. For the mainland region, in addition to many working “other” jobs, 

many worked in maritime positions. In the island region, most worked multiple jobs in the 

tourism industry. Many kayak sector workers with multiple jobs said they worked in other 

positions within the SRKW watching industry. The land sectors reported that those working 

multiple jobs did so in tourism.

Participants were asked for the number of hours they worked in the industry, as well as 

the number of hours worked outside the industry. Within the industry, a majority of individuals 

said they worked 31–40 hours per week. This was consistent for Tier 2 and Tier 3 companies. 

Tier 1 had the greatest number of people working 41–50 hours per week. Tier 4 was distributed 

across ranges, where most worked 11–20 hours per week and an equal percent worked 1–10 

hours per week, 21–30 hours per week, and 51–60 hours per week. The mainland region had

most working 31–40 hours per week. The island region had most working 21–30 hours per 

week. The kayak sector had many individuals working 51–60 hours per week. The land sector

had half of the participants working 0–10 hours per week while others worked 61–70 hours per 

week. For those working outside the industry, Tier 4 respondents had the greatest activity in 

non-tourism jobs, ranging from 40% working 21–30 hours per week to 20% working 51–60 

hours per week. The kayak sector had a large percent, 86%, working 0–10 hours per week in 

nonindustry positions.

Information on off-season activity was also pursued to better understand those who work 

multiple jobs year-round. Overall results show the highest percent of individuals traveling in 

both years questioned, followed by working in marine tourism jobs where they currently were 

employed. This is further clarified in the tier analysis, which shows more than 40% of 

individuals in Tier 1 companies working in marine tourism positions in the current location in 

both years the data pursued. Travel activities occur across all tiers and are most prevalent in Tier

2, Tier 3, and Tier 4, with slight variations across years. This prevalence of travel activities 

across tiers contributes to revealing travel as the highest response. This is further supported by 

the regional analysis where travel activities were the highest activity in the island region and 

marine tourism work in the current location was the highest response in the mainland region. 

Both sectors also show high levels of travel activity in the off-season, where the kayak sector 

also had participation in marine tourism activities in the current location.

Past work history was collected to better understand where people had worked before 

they joined the industry. Categories were drawn from the U.S. Census. Most respondents had

past work history in categories “other” than those provided. Clarifications of the “other”

selection include other maritime occupations, military careers, real estate, public safety, and 

information technology. Survey administrators determined that other descriptions such as 

environmental education and carpentry fit into the categories provided, such as educational 

services and building trades. However, the results were left in the “other” category to remove 

any bias from the analysis. Across all tiers, many participants had backgrounds in education. 

Tier 2 and Tier 4 responses show a high emphasis in accommodation and food service, which 

was slightly less prominent but notable in Tier 3 as well. Across regions, results were consistent,

with most selecting the “other” category followed by accommodation and food services 

backgrounds. Those in the island region reported a higher percent with backgrounds in 
161

education. The kayak sector reported a majority with backgrounds in education and recreation or 

entertainment. The land sector mostly reported the “other” category.

Since this industry can be considered maritime, we wanted to know whether people who 

work in the industry had a background in other maritime aspects. Of those with a maritime 

background, the majority had worked in the fishing industry. This was closely followed by 

marine education and ecotourism. Fishing occupied the highest level of activity across all tiers. 

Tier 1 also had an emphasis in the cruise ship industry; Tier 2 in scuba, education, and ecotourism; Tier 3 in scuba; and Tier 4 was spread across several maritime industries. These were

reflected as shipyards, tug/tow, sail charters, and education and ecotourism. The mainland 

region was highest in the fishing industry while the island region was highest in scuba diving. 

Kayak and land sector individuals with maritime backgrounds also reported emphasis in the 

fishing industry.

If individuals had a background in the maritime industry, survey questions asked for 

information on the locations where individuals participated in the maritime industry. Responses

show most had participated in maritime industries in Greater Puget Sound, followed by Alaska. 

Further analysis reveals most Tier 1 individuals focused their efforts in Alaska, Tier 2 in Greater 

Puget Sound, Tier 3 in both the aforementioned locations, and Tier 4 in Greater Puget Sound and 

other Washington areas. The mainland region had activity primarily out of Anacortes, while the 

island region had activity around the San Juan Islands. The kayak sector had activity in Alaska 

and California. The land sector had activity in Alaska and other areas.

The last line of questioning in the maritime history section of the questionnaire asked the 

number of years people had worked in the maritime industry. Most participants had worked in it

1–5 years, followed by more than 25 years. Each tier had individuals who had worked in the 

maritime industry for more than 25 years. Tier 2 had the most individuals with maritime 

industry experience. Regionally, respondents in both regions had 1–5 years of experience in 

maritime industries. However, there were more individuals on the mainland with more than 25 

years of experience in maritime industries, while the island region had more individuals with 

more than 15 years of experience. The kayak sector was varied, with an emphasis in more than 

25 years, 1–5 years, and 11–15 years. The land sector had the least level of activity in maritime 

industries, but for those with experience it was 1–5 years.

The final line of questioning in the individual participation section of the questionnaire 

addressed why people worked in the industry. A Likert scale question was provided with various 

reasons and respondents were asked to rate their agreement on a scale ranging from strongly 

agree to strongly disagree. The results reflecting strongly agree responses show most individuals 

were in the industry to work outside on the water, work in the region, and educate the public. 

Overall results that aggregated the positive agree and strongly agree responses slightly altered

the reasons. The “other” category was more consistently agreed with, along with to work in the 

region and work outside on the water. Descriptors of the “other” response included to maintain 

maritime licenses, accrue sea time, and educate people other than the public.

In the motorized vessel sector, most respondents across tiers strongly agreed that they 

were in the industry to work in the region, educate the public, work outside on the water, and 

spend time with the SRKWs. The aggregate of the agree responses across tiers were to work for 
162

“other” reasons as previously described, work in the region, and work outside on the water. 

Regional results vary slightly. The mainland region strongly agreed reasons included to work in 

the region, work outside on the water, and educate the public. Agree aggregate responses 

included “other” reasons, to work in the region, and work outside on the water. Island region 

strongly agree responses were to work outside on the water, educate the public, and spend time 

with the SRKWs. Agree aggregate responses show a slight change where “other” reasons were

followed by to work outside on the water, with equal weight given to educate the public and 

spend time with SRKWs.

The kayak sector strongly agree responses followed the trend to work outside on the 

water, work in the region, and educate the public. Agree aggregate kayak responses also were

equivalent with “other” reasons, to educate the public, and work outside on the water. The land 

sector followed the trend where strongly agree responses included to work in the region, educate 

the public, and spend time with SRKWs. Land sector agree aggregate responses include to 

educate the public, spend time with the SRKWs, and work in the region. Across the board, the 

most disagreement for working in the industry was to transition from another maritime industry 

or because it was a seasonal job.

The individual participant section clarified information about the people in the industry 

beyond demographic information. We learned that, depending on the vessel, region, and sector, 

differences were identified and trends were noted. These are all very important when 

considering possible changes in the industry. This level of detail will contribute to a greater 

understanding of the impacts of change on the different sectors and regions of the industry.

Business Operations

In order to better understand the businesses operating in the industry, survey participants 

were asked to answer a series of questions about the businesses they either worked for or owned. 

It is important to note that the data provided in this section are primarily based on the survey 

responses; a few cases refer to secondary data. The resulting information shows how survey 

participants perceived the companies. This was the best way we could obtain information, but it

was conducive to the subjective tones that go along with perception. This was seen not to 

weaken the data, but rather to provide clarification.

All businesses working in this industry are dependent on tourism, thus it is understood 

that they provide tourism services, specifically in the form of tours. This survey question was 

formatted as a Likert scale question where participants were asked to indicate on a scale of 

responses from strongly applies to not applicable. Tour descriptions were provided and 

respondents were asked how the descriptions applied to the company they worked for or owned. 

Motorized vessel survey responses show the majority of participants selected the tour description 

of “boat-based tours on which the SRKWs are a focal point” as strongly applying to the types of 

tours they provide. This was followed by strong agreement with the tour description of “boatbased wildlife tours” and “boat-based tours on which SRKW viewing is the exclusive intent.” 

These same results are reflected in the regional data analysis. Responses from the kayak sector 

are different, where a clear majority reported the tour description of “kayak tours exclusively”

strongly applied to their companies. In the land sector responses, the tour descriptors of “land-
163

based whale watching tours” and “transit service on which whales are occasionally seen” are 

prominent.

Another line of questioning attempted to understand how much vessel time was dedicated 

to SRKW watching trips. Participants could provide information for multiple vessels. Results 

here reflect the aggregation of the data for all vessels provided. Motorized vessel responses

show the most, 42.9%, felt that 91–100% of the vessels activity was dedicated to SRKW 

viewing. It is important to note this is a plurality of 42.9%, therefore 57.1% felt otherwise. In 

descending order, 15% indicated 81–80% and 12% indicated 1–10% of vessels activity was 

dedicated to SRKW viewing.17 This analysis is consistent across tiers and regions. Kayak sector 

responses indicate this question was primarily not applicable; however, 22% reported 41–60% of 

activity was dedicated to SRKW viewing and 17% reported 91–100% was dedicated to SRKW 

viewing. Land sector responses show 60% reported 1–20% of the activity was dedicated to 

SRKW viewing. In combination with the tour descriptions, these data point to SRKWs being a 

focus of the tours, but other activities were occurring as well, such as other wildlife viewing.

While tour information was collected on the survey, the question and resultant data 

proved to be highly complex and very difficult to summarize. Therefore, secondary data were

used to determine the number of tours offered. All data presented are for trip data occurring 

during the peak season. Motorized vessel data suggest 17 companies offered a total of 37 tours 

daily. Tours ranged from one to five per day. Seven companies provided one tour per day, five

companies offered two tours per day, two companies offered three tours per day, two companies 

offered five tours per day, and one company offered one tour per day. Tier 1 companies offered

one tour per day, Tier 2 companies offered a range in tour numbers per day from one to five, Tier 

3 companies offered one or two tours per day, and Tier 4 companies offer two or three tours per 

day. Regional data indicate that most mainland companies offered one tour per day and island 

companies offered a range of tours from one to five per day.

Kayak sector results were more difficult to surmise from secondary data. Tours appeared

to be less fixed for some companies. Thus the data are weaker in representing kayak and land 

tours. Tours appear to be offered both on a daily basis and in various durations of multiday trips. 

The number of daily and multiday trips was difficult to estimate; however, the data show a trend 

that approximately seven kayak companies offer approximately 21 daily trips. In addition, the 

most common multiday trip appears to be a 3-day trip, where approximately seven companies 

offered 3-day trips once a week during the peak season. Land sector data vary as well, where a 

fixed tour schedule provided drop off points at SRKW viewing locations in addition to tours

specifically offered for SRKW viewing.

We also sought information on the duration of the tours. As in the tour data, secondary 

data were used. Secondary data analysis shows that tour durations ranged from 2.5 hours to 7 

hours. Motorized vessel data indicate 4-hour tours were the most common, followed by 3-hour 

tours. Tour durations were distributed across tiers. The most common trend shows that 3-4 hour 

trips were common in all tiers except Tier 1. Regional data also indicate that all trips 5 hours or 

longer departed from the mainland and all trips 4 hours or less departed from the island region. 

Kayak sector data again are varied. Daily trips appeared to range in duration from 1 to 7 hours. 

 17 See footnote 16.
164

The majority of trips offered appeared to be 3 hours. The duration of land sector trips either is 

not available or varies greatly.

Trip data include departure times. Secondary data for motorized vessels were

summarized and indicate a majority of the tours departed between 10 a.m. and noon, followed by 

8 a.m. to 10 a.m. and noon to 2 p.m. Tier 1 data show a majority of tours departing either 

between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. or 10 a.m. and noon. Tier 2 data show equivalent departures 

throughout the day with a decline in departures after 4 p.m. Tier 3 data indicate the most 

departures, 30%, leaving between noon and 2 p.m., followed by 20% departing between 8 a.m.

and 10 a.m. and 20% between 10 a.m. and noon, with a decline in activity from 2 p.m. into the 

evening. Tier 4 data show a majority of departure activity between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., followed 

by between 10 a.m. and noon. Regional data indicate most mainland tours depart between 8 a.m.

and 10 a.m. or between 10 a.m. and noon. Island region tours departed primarily between noon 

and 2 p.m., with an equivalent number of tours departing between 10 a.m. and noon, 2 p.m. and 4

p.m., as well as 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. There are insufficient data to report for the kayak and land 

sectors.

Data on occupancy rates were also sought. Data here represent results for tours held 

during the peak season. For the motorized vessel companies, responses show the highest 

occupancy rates are 71–80%. Of all the responses to this question, 64% said that occupancy 

rates were greater than 71%, indicating the majority of overall occupancy rates range 71–100%. 

A majority of regional responses, 43%, reported an occupancy rate of 76–100% for mainland 

companies and 62% reported a rate of 76–100% for island companies. Both kayak and land 

sector responses show primary occupancy rates of 71–80%.

Respondents were also asked to indicate whether the company they worked for or owned 

conducted additional commercial activity with the vessels other than SRKW viewing. Motorized 

vessel responses show 62% conducted additional commercial activity year-round. Mainland 

responses indicate 82% conducted additional commercial activity primarily year-round, while 

island region responses show 48% conducted additional commercial activity primarily yearround. Most in the kayak sector did not conduct additional activity, while the land sector 

conducted additional activity primarily during the peak season.

A summary of all business operations data suggests that most motorized vessel 

companies would describe their tours as “boat-based tours where the SRKWs are a focal point.” 

A majority of vessel activity was dedicated to SRKW viewing. Tour results using secondary 

data suggest that 17 companies offered 37 tours during the peak season. The number of tours 

ranged from one to five per day per company. The duration of tours per day ranged from 2.5 

hours to 7 hours. A majority of the tours departed between 10 a.m. and noon. The data suggest 

that the larger vessels, operating out of the mainland, offered fewer tours per day for a longer 

duration and departing earlier in the day. Companies with single boats, primarily operating out 

of the island region, offered more tours of shorter duration per day, with departure times 

throughout the day. Companies operating multiple vessels offered the most number of tours per 

day, varied in tour duration, and provided more tours departing throughout the day. Occupancy 

rates for motorized vessel companies were above 71%. Data for all motorized vessels indicate

that most conducted additional commercial activities year-round. Kayak sector responses show 
165

very little additional activity and land sector responses show additional peak season commercial 

activity.

The in-depth analysis of business operations indicates unique characteristics of the 

businesses as well as some consistencies. Differences between large and small vessels are 

notable, as well as differences between the regional locations of those vessels. Reflection of 

differences between regions suggests island resources such as pier space may be a contributing 

factor to vessel size, as well and the need to draw more tourists to the islands to fill larger boats. 

Mainland companies may have an easier time drawing tourists who do not take a ferry to the 

islands to obtain tour services. This is often clearly used as a marketing tool by those industries 

on the mainland. Land and kayak tours have different focuses, as they may be limited on range 

and seasons, so their data are again unique as compared to motorized vessel data. These analyses 

assist in understanding the way businesses function and the unique differences between 

companies.

Industry Trends

The data in the SRKW Watching Industry Trends section were analyzed using all survey 

responses. This decision was due in part to a reduced response rate in this section. As 

previously discussed, many individuals had lower tenures in the industry and did not feel they 

had the history to respond to this line of questioning. While the response rates were lower, it was 

thought they were more accurate, as they are comprised of a majority of the sample size of the 

particpants with longer tenures.

The discussion on this data section is brief, as the analysis is not comprised of any other 

aggregations for comparision. Therefore, the section summary provides comprehensive review. 

The observations about the data in this section include noted expansions in the tourism field, 

such as other types of SRKW viewing and kayaking. Respondents also reported a stability of the 

number of vessels in the U.S. industry with a slight indication of an increase in the number of 

vessels. These vessels were said to be larger, with a higher passenger capacity, and faster. 

Responses also revealed a growth in the number of tourists in the study year of 2006, as well as a 

growth in the number of non-U.S. vessels and recreational vessels. This information is useful 

when combined with other analysis, as it speaks to the drivers for more vessels and types of 

vessels, as well as trends to which the industry may be responding. In an atmosphere where 

vessel proximity and noise is a concern, industry trends may be informative.

Effects on the Community

As in the SRKW Watching Industry Trends section, data analysis in the Effects on the 

Community section, was limited to an overall analysis of all survey respondents. As a result, to 

avoid duplication, the summary in the data section for this topic has more in-depth information 

than is presented here. Key points to note in this section are the connections some businesses in 

the industry have to their local ports and communities. As a tourist industry, the whale watching 

industry makes investments in partnerships and memberships such as the local chambers of 

commerce and vacation resorts that are primarily local to the business locations. This suggests 

an investment back into the local communities. Most businesses also seek shore support services 

in their local communities, including fuel and office space. The analysis of the qualitative 
166

responses regarding the significance of the industry to the local community and general public

echo support of their local communities. References were made to supporting the communities 

by drawing tourists, who become patrons at restaurants, hotels, and gift shops, supporting local 

jobs, as well as providing educational and experiencial experiences to local children and 

community members. Information in this section highlights the connections the industry has to 

their local communities and the contribution they make, which may vary depending on the 

community.

Additional Analysis

During the process of completing this report, several actions were taken by the NMFS 

NRO’s Protected Species Division. One of these actions was the completion of the Final 

Environmental Assessment for New Regulations to Protect Killer Whales from Vessel Effects in 

Inland Waters of Washington. As this research aims to assist in the management of the killer 

whales, we worked closely with NRO staff to do so. Results were contributed and referenced in 

the environmental assessment document. The analysis conducted for the NRO compared data 

across the sections discussed in this technical memorandum. The complete analysis is not 

represented herein, but was conducted to provide specific information for the NRO and the 

environmental assessment process. Refer to the NRO document for the results of the analysis.

18

Final Remarks

The purpose of the discussion is to further clarify what we have learned, but also point 

out the importance of the manner in which the data were analyzed. This is a complex industry 

with multiple sectors, unique characteristics within the motorized vessel sector, and unique 

distinctions due to geography. Any lack of in-depth analysis would not have resulted in a clear 

understanding of the industry. These distinct and unique characteristics that vary between 

regional and sector analyses can contribute to a greater understanding of different impacts to 

different portions of the industry, either by economic factors or regulatory change.

Examples of these differences are predominant in the regional analysis combined with the 

motorized vessel analysis. Island region analysis shows participants are predominantly older and 

operate smaller vessels. Vessel size characteristics may be linked to personal preference of the 

vessel/company owner. The types of tours the smaller vessels provide is considered to be more 

personal and one-on-one. This results in a different experience for both the tourist and the daily 

operator of the vessel. In addition, resources on islands are different than on the mainland. Pier 

space, access to tourists, local wildlife, and the proximity of the SRKW viewing grounds all may 

contribute to a type of carrying capacity for the number of businesses, types of businesses, and 

vessel types that operate in the island region. Kayak and land business that have the SRKWs as 

a focus of their tours show diversity in the tour services they provide on the islands. They also

show some access and link to the SRKWs that is limited to the geographic region and would not 

be possible in other regional areas. These considerations may all be factors that are taken into 

account when operating these tourist companies in the San Juan Islands.

 18 Online at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/publications/nepa/marine%20mammals/vessel-rule-ea.pdf.
167

Mainland region companies show variations in company design where limiting factors 

are rare or nonexistent. Pier space is more diversified in various communities, allowing for 

increased vessel size and capacity. Larger vessels have the ability to travel farther and faster to 

reach the SRKWs and provide a different viewing experience than the smaller vessels. This 

experience may be one more commonly found in mass tourism operations where a multitude of 

people participate in each tour. The viewing platform may be perceived as more comfortable 

while still gaining a viewing experience. Other options also provide a combination of inside 

seating or exterior seating with exposure to the elements and a more “extreme” experience while 

wearing maritime outdoor gear and getting splashed with water during the tour. Access to the 

Interstate 5 corridor appears to make it easier to draw tourists without the additional cost of a 

ferry ride, which has been noted to be a marketing tool for some companies. This also may 

contribute to the ability to draw a larger number of tourists. These factors contribute to vessel 

size, ability, and business design in the participation in the industry. All in all, mainland tours 

provide a different viewing experience.

In considering regulations, noting the types of vessels and the unique characteristics of 

vessels may help to understand the impacts on the varying companies. For example, smaller 

vessels with outboard motors may be limited in the ability to reduce noise, where inboard larger 

vessels may have the ability to install mufflers and operate on a quieter platform. Some 

companies with larger boats have already taken this into account and made adjustments to their 

vessels. Biodiesel options may or may not be more accessible to certain engine types than 

others. Some companies have already taken advantage of this option to operate a “greener”

business. This concept is also used in marketing. Larger vessels with higher viewing decks may 

have a better viewing platform for the whales as viewing distances increase, where lower 

platforms would have a diminished viewing capacity. New regulations may further alter vessel 

characteristics or tour emphasis as companies change or alter their behavior to be in compliance 

with regulations. Smaller vessels may or may not focus more highly on overall wildlife tour 

experiences and only access the SRKWs when the circumstances allow. These varying 

characteristics of vessel types were taken into consideration by the NRO when working on the 

regulation alternatives in the environmental assessment.

The SRKWs have obviously grown to be a huge tourist draw in the region. Whether 

companies use the image, name, or concept to draw tourists to a diverse wildlife experience, or 

focus their entire company’s efforts on viewing the whales, the whales are a center of attention in 

these communities in the region. It is difficult to travel anywhere without seeing businesses 

incorporate the SRKW or orca in their business names, logos, or local artwork. The whales have 

grown to be highly incorporated into these communities from the lowest to highest levels of 

marketing. They are a unique characteristic to these communities, and as some describe it, an 

extensive source of the regional economy, not to mention an experience of a lifetime.
168
169

References

Andersen, M. S. 2004. Whale watching and onboard marine environmental education in the San Juan 

Islands, Washington: Tourists’ expectations and evaluations. Master’s thesis. Univ. Washington, 

Seattle.

Andersen, M. S., and M. Miller. 2006. Onboard marine environmental education: Whale watching in the 

San Juan Islands, Washington. Tourism Mar. Environ. 2(2):111–118.

Carwardine, M., R. E. Fordyce, P. Gill, and E. Hoyt. 1998. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises. Fog City 

Press, San Francisco.

Eisenhardt, E. P. 2013. 2012 final program report: Soundwatch Public Outreach/Boater Education 

Project. Contract RA-133F-12-CQ-0057, Tasks 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. The Whale Museum, Friday 

Harbor, WA.

Endter-Wada, J. D., R. Krannich, and M. Brunson. 1998. A framework for understanding social science 

contributions to ecosystem management. Ecol. Appl. 8(3):891–904.

Finkler, W., and J. Higham. 2004. The human dimensions of whales watching: An analysis based on 

viewing platforms. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 9:103–117.

Ford, J. K. B. 2002. Killer whale Orcinus orca. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig, and J. G. M. Thewissen

(eds.), Encyclopedia of marine mammals, p. 669–676. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Ford, J. K. B., and G. M. Ellis. 2006. Selective foraging by fish-eating killer whales Orcinus orca in 

British Columbia. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 316:185–199.

Ford, J. K. B., G. M. Ellis, and K. C. Balcomb. 2000. Killer whales. Second edition. UBC Press, 

Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Hanna, S. 2001. Managing the human-ecological interface: Marine resources as example and laboratory. 

Ecosystems 4:736–741.

Hanson, B. M., R. W. Baird, J. K. B. Ford, J. Hemplemann-Halos, D. M. Van Doornik, J. R. Candy, C. K. 

Emmons, G. S. Schorr, B. Gisborne, K. L. Ayers, S. K. Wasser, K. C. Balcomb, K. BalcombBartok, J. G. Sneva, and M. J. Ford. 2010. Species and stock identification of prey consumed by 

endangered Southern Resident killer whales in their summer range. Endanger. Species Res. 

11:69–82.

Hoyt. E. 1990. Orca: The whale called killer. Fourth edition. Camden House Publishing (imprint of 

Boydell & Brewer), Rochester, NY.

Koski, K. 2006. 2004–2005 final program report: Soundwatch Public Outreach/Boater Education 

Project. Contract AB133F-04-SE-0835. The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, WA. Online at 

http://www.whalemuseum.org/downloads/soundwatch/2006%20Soundwatch%20Vessel

%20Trends%20Update%20Report%202004-05.pdf [accessed 27 January 2011].

Koski, K. 2008. 2007 final program report: Soundwatch Public Outreach/Boater Education Project. 

Contract AB133F-04-SE-0653. The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, WA. Online at
170

http://www.whalemuseum.org/downloads/soundwatch/2007%20Soundwatch%20Vessel

%20Trends%20Report.pdf [accessed 27 January 2011].

Koski, K. 2009. 2008 final program report: Soundwatch Public Outreach/Boater Education Project. 

Contract AB133F-CN-0221, Task 007. The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, WA. Online at 

http://www.whalemuseum.org/downloads/soundwatch/2008%20Soundwatch%20Vessel

%20Trends%20Report.pdf [accessed 27 January 2011].

Koski, K. 2010. 2009 final program report: Soundwatch Public Outreach/Boater Education Project. 

Contract AB133F-07-CN-0221, Task 007. The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, WA. Online at 

http://www.whalemuseum.org/programs/soundwatch/Soundwatch%202009%20NOAA%20

Contract%20Report.pdf [accessed 27 January 2011].

Koski, K. 2011. 2010 Soundwatch Program annual contract report: Soundwatch Public Outreach/Boater 

Education Project. Contract AB133F-07-CN-221, Tasks 2.1.2 & 2.1.3. The Whale Museum, 

Friday Harbor, WA. Online at http://www.whalemuseum.org/programs/soundwatch/2010%20

Soundwatch%20NOAA%20Contract%20CN-0221%20Report.pdf [accessed 27 January 2011].

Koski, K. 2012. 2011 final program report: Soundwatch Public Outreach/Boater Education Project. 

Contract AB133F-07-CN-0221, Task 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor, WA. 

Online at http://www.whalemuseum.org/downloads/soundwatch/2011%20Soundwatch%20

NOAA%20Contract%20CN-0221%20Report.pdf [accessed 27 January 2011].

Krahn, M. M., P. R. Wade, S. T. Kalinowski, M. E. Dahlheim, B. L. Taylor, M. B. Hanson, G. M. Ylitalo, 

R. P. Angliss, J. E. Stein, and R. S. Waples. 2002. Status review of Southern Resident killer 

whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-54.

Krahn. M. M., M. J. Ford, W. F. Perrin, P. R. Wade, R. P. Angliss, M. B. Hanson, B. L. Taylor, G. M. 

Ylitalo, M. E. Dahlheim, J. E. Stein, and R. S. Waples. 2004. 2004 status review of Southern 

Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-NWFSC-62.

Lück, M. 2003. Education on marine mammal tours as agent for conservation—but do tourists want to 

be educated? Ocean Coast. Manag. 45:943–956.

Meinhold, S. L. 2003. Designing an education program to manage the undesirable effects of whale 

watching. Master’s thesis. Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC, Canada.

Milstein, T. 2007. Communication as environmental resource: An ethnographic exploration of

endangered whale watching and human-nature relations. Doctoral thesis. Univ. Washington, 

Seattle.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Recovery plan for Southern Resident killer whales

(Orcinus orca). Online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/whale_killer.pdf [accessed 

27 January 2011].

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011. Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) 

5-year review: Summary and evaluation. Online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species

/swkw_5year_review.pdf [accessed 25 March 2013].

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources). 2013. Killer whale (Orcinus 

orca). Online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/killerwhale.htm 

[accessed 25 March 2013].
171

Orams, M. B. 2000. Tourists getting close to whales, is it what whale watching is all about? Tourism 

Manag. 21:561–569.

Osborne, R. W. 1991. Trends in killer whale movements, vessel traffic, and whale watching in Haro 

Strait. Puget Sound Research Proceedings 1991. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 

Olympia, WA.

Sepez, J. 2006. Flipping for flipper: Marine mammal tourism and conservation. In The Society for 

Applied Anthropology 66th Annual Meeting, Abstracts, p. 83. Online at http://www.sfaa

.net/sfaa2006/SfAA2006Program.pdf [accessed 27 January 2011].

Stepp, J. R., E. C. Jones, M. Pavao-Zuckerman, D. Casagrande, and R. K. Zarger. 2003. Remarkable 

properties of human ecosystems. Conserv. Ecol. 7(3):11.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. American Community Survey, SF3 Tables. Online at http://www.census

.gov/acs/www/ [accessed 27 January 2011].

Recent NOAA Technical Memorandums

published by the

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC125 Sloan, C.A., B.F. Anulacion, K.A. Baugh, J.L. Bolton, D. Boyd, R.H. Boyer, D.G. Burrows, D.P. 

Herman, R.W. Pearce, and G.M. Ylitalo. 2014. Northwest Fisheries Science Center’s analyses of 

tissue, sediment, and water samples for organic contaminants by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry 

and analyses of tissue for lipid classes by thin layer chromatography/flame ionization detection. U.S. 

Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-125, 61 p. NTIS number PB2014-104055.

124 Anderson, L.E., and S.T. Lee. 2013. Washington and Oregon saltwater sportfishing surveys: 

Methodology and results. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-124, 61 p. NTIS 

number PB2014-101405.

123 Ward, E.J., M.J. Ford, R.G. Kope, J.K.B. Ford, L.A. Velez-Espino, C.K. Parken, L.W. LaVoy, 

M.B. Hanson, and K.C. Balcomb. 2013. Estimating the impacts of Chinook salmon abundance and 

prey removal by ocean fishing on Southern Resident killer whale population dynamics. U.S. Dept. 

Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-123, 71 p. NTIS number PB2013-110079.

122 Frame, E., and K. Lefebvre. 2013. ELISA methods for domoic acid quantification in multiple marine 

mammal species and sample matrices. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-122, 

20 p. NTIS number PB2013-109341.

121 Lian, C.E. 2012. West Coast limited entry groundfish cost earnings survey: Protocol and results for 

2008. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-121, 62 p. NTIS number PB2013-

104899.

120 Pollock, M.M., J.M. Wheaton, N. Bouwes, C. Volk, N. Weber, and C.E. Jordan. 2012. Working 

with beaver to restore salmon habitat in the Bridge Creek intensively monitored watershed: Design 

rationale and hypotheses. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-120, 47 p. NTIS 

number PB2013-101722.

119 Waples, R.S., K. Hindar, and J.J. Hard. 2012. Genetic risks associated with marine aquaculture. 

U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-119, 149 p. NTIS number PB2013-101344.

118 Stout, H.A., P.W. Lawson, D.L. Bottom, T.D. Cooney, M.J. Ford, C.E. Jordan, R.G. Kope, 

L.M. Kruzic, G.R. Pess, G.H. Reeves, M.D. Scheuerell, T.C. Wainwright, R.S. Waples, E. Ward, 

L.A. Weitkamp, J.G. Williams, and T.H. Williams. 2012. Scientific conclusions of the status review 

for Oregon coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-NWFSC-118, 242 p. NTIS number PB2012-113458.

Most NOAA Technical Memorandums NMFS-NWFSC are available at the

Northwest Fisheries Science Center Web site, http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov