Paciano II: the report of a conversation on whaling and science, 1-3 March 2008 (Paciano, Umbria)

In 2006 the UK-based charity, Global Ocean, with local support from the Third Millennium Foundation, convened a Conversation among specialists about the problems facing the conservation of whales. Called "A consultation on whaling", this gathering was held in the ancient village of Paciano, in Umbria near the border with Tuscany, 15 – 17 October 2006. There were 15 participants from 11 countries. Dr Kees Lankester served as moderator. The outcome was an Aide Memoire which served to guide the participants in the run-up to the 2007 meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), held in Anchorage, Alaska, in June. One point of agreement was that a second consultation should be held in the months following the Anchorage meeting, involving some but not necessarily all of the participants in the first, but concentrating this time on scientific issues – especially those encountered in the Scientific Committee of the IWC –with particular attention to informing a wider public about those scientific activities in relation to the problems confronting the IWC and the views of scientists about them. This document is the report of that Conversation, referred to as Paciano II. The moderator was Dr Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara and the Report was written by Kieran Mulvaney in consultation with all participants, and with reference to an Aide Memoire prepared by the Rapporteur, Dr Russell Leaper. The sponsor and organisers have agreed with the general sentiment expressed by participants in Paciano II that further such conversations should be held at roughly yearly intervals and they will try to satisfy that desire. Although these future gatherings would be concerned with the living ocean they would not necessarily be restricted in future to consideration of whales and whaling. Discussions are on-going for selection of a theme which is of both scientific interest and practical concern for conservation of marine life and management of the uses of ocean space. (Document has 18 pages)

Paciano II: a report of a conversation on whaling and science, 1-3 March 2008

In 2006 the UK-based charity, Global Ocean, with local support from the Third Millennium Foundation, convened a Conversation among specialists about the problems facing the conservation of whales. Called "A consultation on whaling", this gathering was held in the ancient village of Paciano, in Umbria near the border with Tuscany, 15 – 17 October 2006. There were 15 participants from 11 countries. Dr Kees Lankester served as moderator. The outcome was an Aide Memoire which served to guide the participants in the run-up to the 2007 meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), held in Anchorage, Alaska, in June. One point of agreement was that a second consultation should be held in the months following the Anchorage meeting, involving some but not necessarily all of the participants in the first, but concentrating this time on scientific issues – especially those encountered in the Scientific Committee of the IWC –with particular attention to informing a wider public about those scientific activities in relation to the problems confronting the IWC and the views of scientists about them. This document is the report of that Conversation, referred to as Paciano II. The moderator was Dr Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara and the Report was written by Kieran Mulvaney in consultation with all participants, and with reference to an Aide Memoire prepared by the Rapporteur, Dr Russell Leaper. The sponsor and organisers have agreed with the general sentiment expressed by participants in Paciano II that further such conversations should be held at roughly yearly intervals and they will try to satisfy that desire. Although these future gatherings would be concerned with the living ocean they would not necessarily be restricted in future to consideration of whales and whaling. Discussions are on-going for selection of a theme which is of both scientific interest and practical concern for conservation of marine life and management of the uses of ocean space. (19 page document)

History of whaling in and near North Carolina

This study aims to reconstruct the history of shore whaling in the southeastern United States, emphasizing statistics on the catch of right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, the preferred targets. The earliest record of whaling in North Carolina is of a proposed voyage from New York in 1667. Early settlers on the Outer Banks utilized whale strandings by trying out the blubber of carcasses that came ashore, and some whale oil was exported from the 1660s onward. New England whalemen whaled along the North Carolina coast during the 1720s, and possibly earlier. As some of the whalemen from the northern colonies moved to Nortb Carolina, a shore-based whale fishery developed. This activity apparently continued without interruption until the War of Independence in 1776, and continued or was reestablished after the war. The methods and techniques of the North Carolina shore whalers changed slowly: as late as the 1890s they used a drogue at the end of the harpoon line and refrained from staying fast to the harpooned whale, they seldom employed harpoon guns, and then only during the waning years of the fishery. The whaling season extended from late December to May, most successfully between February and May. Whalers believed they were intercepting whales migrating north along the coast. Although some whaling occurred as far north as Cape Hatteras, it centered on the outer coasts of Core, Shackleford, and Bogue banks, particularly near Cape Lookout. The capture of whales other than right whales was a rare event. The number of boat crews probably remained fairly stable during much of the 19th century, with some increase in effort in the late 1870s and early 1880s when numbers of boat crews reached 12 to 18. Then by the late 1880s and 1890s only about 6 crews were active. North Carolina whaling had become desultory by the early 1900s, and ended completely in 1917. Judging by export and tax records, some ocean-going vessels made good catches off this coast in about 1715-30, including an estimated 13 whales in 1719, 15 in one year during the early 1720s, 5-6 in a three-year period of the mid to late 1720s, 8 by one ship's crew in 1727, 17 by one group of whalers in 1728-29, and 8-9 by two boats working from Ocracoke prior to 1730. It is impossible to know how representative these fragmentary records are for the period as a whole. The Carolina coast declined in importance as a cruising ground for pelagic whalers by the 1740s or 1750s. Thereafter, shore whaling probably accounted for most of the (poorly documented) catch. Lifetime catches by individual whalemen on Shackleford Banks suggest that the average annual catch was at least one to two whales during 1830·80, perhaps about four during the late 1870s and early 1880s, and declining to about one by the late 1880s. Data are insufficient to estimate the hunting loss rate in the Outer Banks whale fishery. North Carolina is the only state south of New Jersey known to have had a long and well established shore whaling industry. Some whaling took place in Chesapeake Bay and along the coast of Virginia during the late 17th and early 18th centuries, but it is poorly documented. Most of the rigbt whales taken off South Carolina, Georgia, and northern Florida during the 19th century were killed by pelagic whalers. Florida is the only southeastern state with evidence of an aboriginal (pre-contact) whale fishery. Right whale calves may have been among the aboriginal whalers' principal targets. (PDF file contains 34 pages.)

Soviet Illegal Whaling: The Devil and the Details

In 1948, the U.S.S.R. began a global campaign of illegal whaling that lasted for three decades and, together with the poorly managed “legal” whaling of other nations, seriously depleted whale populations. Although the general story of this whaling has been told and the catch record largely corrected for the Southern Hemisphere, major gaps remain in the North Pacific. Furthermore, little attention has been paid to the details of this system or its economic context. Using interviews with former Soviet whalers and biologists as well as previously unavailable reports and other material in Russian, our objective is to describe how the Soviet whaling industry was structured and how it worked, from the largest scale of state industrial planning down to the daily details of the ways in which whales were caught and processed, and how data sent to the Bureau of International Whaling Statistics were falsified. Soviet whaling began with the factory ship Aleut in 1933, but by 1963 the industry had a truly global reach, with seven factory fleets (some very large). Catches were driven by a state planning system that set annual production targets. The system gave bonuses and honors only when these were met or exceeded, and it frequently increased the following year’s targets to match the previous year’s production; scientific estimates of the sustainability of the resource were largely ignored. Inevitably, this system led to whale populations being rapidly reduced. Furthermore, productivity was measured in gross output (weights of whales caught), regardless of whether carcasses were sound or rotten, or whether much of the animal was unutilized. Whaling fleets employed numerous people, including women (in one case as the captain of a catcher boat). Because of relatively high salaries and the potential for bonuses, positions in the whaling industry were much sought-after. Catching and processing of whales was highly mechanized and became increasingly efficient as the industry gained more experience. In a single day, the largest factory ships could process up to 200 small sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus; 100 humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae; or 30–35 pygmy blue whales, Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda. However, processing of many animals involved nothing more than stripping the carcass of blubber and then discarding the rest. Until 1952, the main product was whale oil; only later was baleen whale meat regularly utilized. Falsified data on catches were routinely submitted to the Bureau of International Whaling Statistics, but the true catch and biological data were preserved for research and administrative purposes. National inspectors were present at most times, but, with occasional exceptions, they worked primarily to assist fulfillment of plan targets and routinely ignored the illegal nature of many catches. In all, during 40 years of whaling in the Antarctic, the U.S.S.R. reported 185,778 whales taken but at least 338,336 were actually killed. Data for the North Pacific are currently incomplete, but from provisional data we estimate that at least 30,000 whales were killed illegally in this ocean. Overall, we judge that, worldwide, the U.S.S.R. killed approximately 180,000 whales illegally and caused a number of population crashes. Finally, we note that Soviet illegal catches continued after 1972 despite the presence of international observers on factory fleets.

Commercial Whaling, Especially for Gray Whales, Eschrichtius robustus, and Humpback Whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, at California and Baja California Shore Stations in the 19th Century (1854–1899)

Shore whaling along North America’s California and Baja California coasts during 1854–99 was ancillary to the offshore and alongshore American whale fishery, which had begun in the North Pacific in the early 1800’s and was flourishing by the 1840’s. From its inception at Monterey, Calif., in the mid 1850’s, the shore fishery, involving open boats deployed from land to catch and tow whales for processing, eventually spread from Monterey south to San Diego and Baja California and north to Crescent City near the California–Oregon border. It had declined to a relict industry by the 1880’s, although sporadic efforts continued into the early 20th century. The main target species were gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, and humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, with the valuable North Pacific right whale, Eubalaena japonica, also pursued opportunistically. Catch data are grossly incomplete for most stations; no logbooks were kept for these operations as they were for high-seas whaling voyages. Even when good information is available on catch levels, usually as number of whales landed or quantity of oil produced, it is rarely broken down by species. Therefore, we devised methods for extrapolation, interpolation, pro rationing, correction, and informed judgment to produce time series of catches. The resulting estimates of landings from 1854 to 1899 are 3,150 (SE = 112) gray whales and 1,637 (SE = 62) humpback whales. The numbers landed should be multiplied by 1.2 to account for hunting loss (i.e. whales harpooned or shot but not recovered and processed).

The Truth About Soviet Whaling: A Memoir

In November 1993, Professor Alexei Yablokov, who at the time was the Science Advisor to Russian President Boris Yeltsin, stood on a podium in Galveston, Tex., and delivered a speech to the Society for Marine Mammalogy’s biennial conference, the premier international event in the field of marine mammal science. Addressing the 1,500 scientists present, he made what amounted to a national confession: that, beginning in 1948, the U.S.S.R. had begun a huge campaign of illegal whaling. Despite being a signatory to the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (signed in Washington, D.C., just 2 years before in 1946), the Soviets set out to pillage the world’s ocean

The Truth About Soviet Whaling

I have always condemned (and to do anything more was not within our power or abilities) the illegal and sometimes destructive whaling by the Soviet Union. This opinion was expressed in numerous documents, including reports and records of presentations at scientific and other meetings; these documents are the witnesses to this condemnation. However, none of these documents ever saw the light of day: all of them were marked with the sinister stamp “secret.” When necessary in this memoir, my opinion of the whaling will be supported by data drawn from these docume

Humpback and Fin Whaling in the Gulf of Maine from 1800 to 1918

The history of whaling in the Gulf of Maine was reviewed primarily to estimate removals of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, especially during the 19th century. In the decades from 1800 to 1860, whaling effort consisted of a few localized, small-scale, shore-based enterprises on the coast of Maine and Cape Cod, Mass. Provincetown and Nantucket schooners occasionally conducted short cruises for humpback whales in New England waters. With the development of bomb-lance technology at mid century, the ease of killing humpback whales and fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus, increased. As a result, by the 1870’s there was considerable local interest in hunting rorquals (baleen whales in the family Balaenopteridae, which include the humpback and fin whales) in the Gulf of Maine. A few schooners were specially outfitted to take rorquals in the late 1870’s and 1880’s although their combined annual take was probably no more than a few tens of whales. Also in about 1880, fishing steamers began to be used to hunt whales in the Gulf of Maine. This steamer fishery grew to include about five vessels regularly engaged in whaling by the mid 1880’s but dwindled to only one vessel by the end of the decade. Fin whales constituted at least half of the catch, which exceeded 100 animals in some years. In the late 1880’s and thereafter, few whales were taken by whaling vessels in the Gulf of Maine.

History of Whaling and Estimated Kill of Right Whales, Balaena glacialis, in the Northeastern United States, 1620–1924

This study, part of a broader investigation of the history of exploitation of right whales, Balaena glacialis, in the western North Atlantic, emphasizes U.S. shore whaling from Maine to Delaware (from lat. 45°N to 38°30'N) in the period 1620–1924. Our broader study of the entire catch history is intended to provide an empirical basis for assessing past distribution and abundance of this whale population. Shore whaling may have begun at Cape Cod, Mass., in the 1620’s or 1630’s; it was certainly underway there by 1668. Right whale catches in New England waters peaked before 1725, and shore whaling at Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket continued to decline through the rest of the 18th century. Right whales continued to be taken opportunistically in Massachusetts, however, until the early 20th century. They were hunted in Narragansett Bay, R.I., as early as 1662, and desultory whaling continued in Rhode Island until at least 1828. Shore whaling in Connecticut may have begun in the middle 1600’s, continuing there until at least 1718. Long Island shore whaling spanned the period 1650–1924. From its Dutch origins in the 1630’s, a persistent shore whaling enterprise developed in Delaware Bay and along the New Jersey shore. Although this activity was most profi table in New Jersey in the early 1700’s, it continued there until at least the 1820’s. Whaling in all areas of the northeastern United States was seasonal, with most catches in the winter and spring. Historically, right whales appear to have been essentially absent from coastal waters south of Maine during the summer and autumn. Based on documented references to specific whale kills, about 750–950 right whales were taken between Maine and Delaware, from 1620 to 1924. Using production statistics in British customs records, the estimated total secured catch of right whales in New England, New York, and Pennsylvania between 1696 and 1734 was 3,839 whales based on oil and 2,049 based on baleen. After adjusting these totals for hunting loss (loss-rate correction factor = 1.2), we estimate that 4,607 (oil) or 2,459 (baleen) right whales were removed from the stock in this region during the 38-year period 1696–1734. A cumulative catch estimate of the stock’s size in 1724 is 1,100–1,200. Although recent evidence of occurrence and movements suggests that right whales continue to use their traditional migratory corridor along the U.S. east coast, the catch history indicates that this stock was much larger in the 1600’s and early 1700’s than it is today. Right whale hunting in the eastern United States ended by the early 1900’s, and the species has been protected throughout the North Atlantic since the mid 1930’s. Among the possible reasons for the relatively slow stock recovery are: the very small number of whales that survived the whaling era to become founders, a decline in environmental carrying capacity, and, especially in recent decades, mortality from ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear.

The economic contribution of whalewatching to regional economies: Perspectives from two National Marine Sanctuaries

Whenever human beings have looked out on the sea, they have seen whales. First from the shore and later from ships when humanity entered the ocean realm as seafarers, we have responded to seeing these creatures with awe and wonder. Even when we hunted whales, a period well chronicled both in history and in literature, the sight of a whale brought an adrenaline rush that was not totally linked to potential economic gain. The first trips on boats specifically to watch, rather than hunt, whales began around 45 years ago in Southern California where the migrating gray whales, seen in the distance from land, drew vessels out for a closer look. Since that time whalewatching has boomed, currently conducted in over 40 countries around the world, including Antarctica, and estimated by economists at the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society to have a 1999 worldwide economic value of around $800 million USD. The economic contribution to local coastal communities is particularly significant in developing countries and those where declining fish populations (and in some cases like the Japanese, international bans on whaling) have driven harvesters to look for viable alternatives. Clearly, whalewatching is now, in many places around the world, a small but thriving part of the regional economy. Like in the days of whaling, we still get the rush, but for some, money is back contributing to the physiological response. (PDF contains 90 pages.)

Analysis of growth layers in the teeth of Tursiops truncatus using light microscopy, microradiography, and SEM

Preliminary results show microradiography and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to be more accurate methods of accessing growth layer groups (GLGs) in the teeth of Tursiops truncatus than transmitted light microscopy. Microradiography shows the rhythmic deposition of mineral as alternating radiopaque and radiolucent layers. It improves the resolution of GLGs near the pulp cavity in older individuals, better than either SEM or light microscopy. SEM of etched sections show GLGs as ridges and grooves which are easily counted from the micrograph. SEM also shows GLGs to be composed of fine incremental layers of uniform size and number which may allow for more precise age determination. Accessory layers are usually hypomineralized layers within the hypermineralized layer of the GLG and are more readily distinguishable as such in SEM of etched sections and microradiographs than in thin sections viewed under transmitted light. The neonatal line is hypomineralized, appearing translucent under transmitted light, radiolucent in a microradiograph, and as a ridge in SEM. (PDF contains 6 pages.)

The Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus L.): a bibliography

Compiled by Patricia Ann Skaptason. "This bibliography is designed to bring together literature on the fin whale, published from 1940 through 1970. newspaper articles, legal matgerial (except that by the International Whaling Commission), biochemical studies, juvenile and strictly narrative works have been omitted"

The effect of predation (current and historical) by humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) on fish abundance near Kodiak Island, Alaska

Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) are significant marine consumers. To examine the potential effect of predation by humpback whales, consumption (kg of prey daily) and prey removal (kg of prey annually) were modeled for a current and historic feeding aggregation of humpback whales off northeastern Kodiak Island, Alaska. A current prey biomass removal rate was modeled by using an estimate of the 2002 humpback whale abundance. A historic rate of removal was modeled from a prewhaling abundance estimate (population size prior to 1926). Two provisional humpback whale diets were simulated in order to model consumption rate. One diet was based on the stomach contents of whales that were commercially harvested from Port Hobron whaling station in Kodiak, Alaska, between 1926 and 1937, and the second diet, based on local prey availability as determined by fish surveys conducted within the study area, was used to model consumption rate by the historic population. The latter diet was also used to model consumption by the current population and to project a consumption rate if the current population were to grow to reach the historic population size. Models of these simulated diets showed that the current population likely removes nearly 8.83