Ascientist hypothesizes that the lack of chinook salmon is negatively affecting the orca population. would this hypothesis need to be tested by another scientist in order to become a theory? why or why not?

Yes

Even if there is an abundance of fish in the oceans, and that even if the general rule is that big things eat smaller things, it is not true with the orca population (whales).  Whales depend on chinook salmon for survival, and truly, the hypothesis that the lack of chinook salmon negatively affecting the orca population is true.

However, for a hypothesis to become lifted to the ranks of a theory once it passes a series of tests. Other scientists may claim its correctness, other may oppose to it.  So there is a need to differentiate between the hypothesis on checking and competing hypotheses.

i got something better   a catchphrase here it is

ahem  

ahem

what the squwock

explanation:

blah

explanation: bc blah