Feeding Ecology of Humpback Whales in Continental Shelf Waters near Cordell Bank, California

Daytime feeding behavior of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Gulf of the Farallones, California, and adjacent waters was observed during autumn of 1988 to 1990. Bodega Canyon, Cordell Bank, and the Farallon Islands were the primary sites of feeding activity. Fecal samples of whales and zooplankton tows contained euphausiids exclusively, dominated by Thysanoessa spinifera (79%), with lesser amounts of Euphausia pacifica (14%), Nyctiphanes simplex (4%), and Nematoscelis difficilis (3%). In 1988 and 1990, whales also were infrequently observed feeding on small schooling fish, presumably Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), and juvenile rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Feeding was the most common behavior observed (52%), and less frequently traveling (23%), milling (21 %), and resting (4%). Whales used different methods to consume euphausiid prey at the surface (0-10 m), in shallow water (11-60 m), and deep water (61-140 m). Humpback whales fed at the surface 56% of time in 1988 and 32% of time in 1990, using primarily lateral lunges to capture swarms of euphausiids. In 1989, no surface feeding was observed; however, deep, long-duration dives were followed by extended surface intervals with many respirations. These 1989 observations coincided with increased prey depth as indicated by depth sounder records of diving whales and prey scattering layers. In 1989, increased prey depth and associated feeding behaviors were strongly associated with unusually high surface temperatures, calm seas, and changes in water circulation. Environmental conditions in 1989 triggered the most intense and wide-spread occurrence of red tide in this region since 1980. Red tide samples collected throughout this period contained Alexandrium (=Gonyaulax) catenella and Noctiluca scintillans. Surface feeding was observed only in 1988 and 1990, when surface prey were available and red tides were very limited in extent, duration, and intensity. Annual variations in humpback whale feeding behavior were related to prey availability which is affected by corresponding environmental conditions. (PDF contains 94 pages)

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

Historical Catches of Humpback Whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the North Atlantic Ocean: Estimates of Landings and Removals

Whaling for humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the North At- lantic Ocean has occurred in various forms (e.g. for local subsistence, for oil to be sold commercially, using hand harpoons and deck-mounted cannons, using oar-driven open boats and modern powered catcher boats) from the early 1600’s to the present. Several previous attempts to estimate the total numbers of humpback whales removed were considered close to comprehensive, but some uncertainties remained. Moreover, the statistical uncertainty was not consistently presented with the previous estimates. Therefore, we have pursued several avenues of additional data collection and conducted further analyses to close outstanding data gaps and address remaining issues. Our new estimates of landings and total removals of humpback whales from the North Atlantic are 21,476 (SE=214) and 30,842 (SE=655), respectively. These results include statistical uncertainty, reflect new data and improved analysis methods, and take account of some fisheries for which estimates had not been made previously. The new estimates are not sufficiently different from previous ones to resolve the major inconsistencies and discrepancies encountered in efforts to determine the conservation status of humpback whale populations in the North Atlantic.

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).

Catches of Humpback Whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, by the Soviet Union and Other Nations in the Southern Ocean, 1947–1973

From 1947 to 1973, the U.S.S.R. conducted a huge campaign of illegal whaling worldwide. We review Soviet catches of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the Southern Ocean during this period, with an emphasis on the International Whaling Commission’s Antarctic Management Areas IV, V, and VI (the principal regions of illegal Soviet whaling on this species, south of Australia and western Oceania). Where possible, we summarize legal and illegal Soviet catches by year, Management Area, and factory fleet, and also include information on takes by other nations. Soviet humpback catches between 1947 and 1973 totaled 48,702 and break down as follows: 649 (Area I), 1,412 (Area II), 921 (Area III), 8,779 (Area IV), 22,569 (Area V), and 7,195 (Area VI), with 7,177 catches not currently assignable to area. In all, at least 72,542 humpback whales were killed by all operations (Soviet plus other nations) after World War II in Areas IV (27,201), V (38,146), and VI (7,195). More than one-third of these (25,474 whales, of which 25,192 came from Areas V and VI) were taken in just two seasons, 1959–60 and 1960–61. The impact of these takes, and of those from Area IV in the late 1950’s, is evident in the sometimes dramatic declines in catches at shore stations in Australia, New Zealand, and at Norfolk Island. When compared to recent estimates of abundance and initial population size, the large removals from Areas IV and V indicate that the populations in these regions remain well below pre-exploitation levels despite reported strong growth rates off eastern and western Australia. Populations in many areas of Oceania continue to be small, indicating that the catches from Area VI and eastern Area V had long-term impacts on recovery.

Distribution and abundance of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) and other marine mammals off the northern Washington coast

We examined the summer distribution of marine mammals off the northern Washington coast based on six ship transect surveys conducted between 1995 and 2002, primarily from the NOAA ship McArthur. Additionally, small boat surveys were conducted in the same region between 1989 and 2002 to gather photographic identification data on humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) and killer whales (Orcinus orca) to examine movements and population structure. In the six years of ship survey effort, 706 sightings of 15 marine mammal species were made. Humpback whales were the most common large cetacean species and were seen every year and a total of 232 sightings of 402 animals were recorded during ship surveys. Highest numbers were observed in 2002, when there were 79 sightings of 139 whales. Line-transect estimates for humpback whales indicated that about 100 humpback whales inhabited these waters each year between 1995 and 2000; in 2002, however, the estimate was 562 (CV= 0.21) whales. A total of 191 unique individuals were identified photographically and mark recapture estimates also indicated that the number of animals increased from under 100 to over 200 from 1995 to 2002. There was only limited interchange of humpback whales between this area and feeding areas off Oregon and California. Killer whales were also seen on every ship survey and represented all known ecotypes of the Pacific Northwest, including southern and northern residents, transients, and offshore-type killer whales. Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli) were the most frequently sighted small cetacean; abundance was estimated at 181−291 individuals, except for 2002 when we observed dramatically higher numbers (876, CV= 0.30). Northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) and elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) were the most common pinnipeds observed. There were clear habitat differences related to distance offshore and water depth for different species.

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.

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.

Strandings as indicators of marine mammal biodiversity and human interactions off the coast of North Carolina

The adjacency of 2 marine biogeographic regions off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (NC), and the proximity of the Gulf Stream result in a high biodiversity of species from northern and southern provinces and from coastal and pelagic habitats. We examined spatiotemporal patterns of marine mammal strandings and evidence of human interaction for these strandings along NC shorelines and evaluated whether the spatiotemporal patterns and species diversity of the stranded animals reflected published records of populations in NC waters. During the period of 1997–2008, 1847 stranded animals were documented from 1777 reported events. These animals represented 9 families and 34 species that ranged from tropical delphinids to pagophilic seals. This biodiversity is higher than levels observed in other regions. Most strandings were of coastal bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) (56%), harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) (14%), and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) (4%). Overall, strandings of northern species peaked in spring. Bottlenose dolphin strandings peaked in spring and fall. Almost half of the strandings, including southern delphinids, occurred north of Cape Hatteras, on only 30% of NC’s coastline. Most stranded animals that were positive for human interaction showed evidence of having been entangled in fishing gear, particularly bottlenose dolphins, harbor porpoises, short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus), harbor seals, and humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Spatiotemporal patterns of bottlenose dolphin strandings were similar to ocean gillnet fishing effort. Biodiversity of the animals stranded on the beaches reflected biodiversity in the waters off NC, albeit not always proportional to the relative abundance of species (e.g., Kogia species). Changes in the spatiotemporal patterns of strandings can serve as indicators of underlying changes due to anthropogenic or naturally occurring events in the source populations.

Forty Years of Winter: Cetaceans Observed During the Southbound Migration of Gray Whales, Eschrichtius robustus, Near Granite Canyon, Central California

From December to February in most years from 1967 to 2007, observers counted gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, from shore sites south of Carmel in central California. In addition to gray whales, other cetacean species were also recorded. These observations were summarized and compared among survey platforms and to ocean conditions. Eleven cetacean species were identified including eight odontocete species (killer whale, Orcinus orca; Pacific white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obliquidens; common dolphin, Delphinus spp.; bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus, northern right whale dolphin, Lissodelphis borealis; Risso’s dolphin, Grampus griseus; Dall’s porpoise, Phocoenoides dalli; and harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena) and three mysticete species (humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae; minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata; and blue whale, Balaenoptera musculus). As expected, the detection of certain species among survey platforms (shore-based census watches, 25-power “Big Eye” binocular watches, and aerial surveys) was limited by species surfacing behavior and/or bathymetric preference. Comparisons among the shore-based census efforts showed a significant difference in sightings rates from 1967–84 (n = 14, mean = 0.11, SD = 0.11) to 1985–2007 (n = 11, mean = 1.48, SD = 0.47; t-Test: p < 0.001, df = 23). The warm period observed during the 1990’s may partially explain the increase in sighting rates and diversity of species observed at the census site compared to the much cooler temperatures of the 1970’s.

Whales, dolphins, and porpoises of the eastern North Pacific and adjacent Arctic waters: a guide to their identification

This is an identification guide for cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), that was designed to assist laymen in identifying cetaceans encountered in eastern North Pacific and Arctic waters. It was intended for use by ongoing cetacean observer programs. This is a revision of an earlier guide with the same title published in 1972 by the Naval Undersa Center and the National Marine Fisheries Service. It includes sections on identifying cetaceans at sea as well as stranded animals on shore. Species accounts are divided by body size and presence or lack of a dorsal fin. Appendices include illustrations of tags on whales, dolphins, and porpoises, by Larry Hobbs; how to record data from observed cetaceans at sea and for stranded cetaceans; and a list of cetacean names in Japanese and Russian. (Document contains 245 pages - file takes considerable time to open)

Whales, dolphins, and porpoises of the western North Atlantic: a guide to their identification

This is an identification guide for cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises). It was designed to assist laypersons in identifying cetaceans encountered in the western North Atlantic Ocean and was intended for use by ongoing cetacean observer programs. This publication includes sections on identifying cetaceans at sea as well as stranded animals on shore. Species accounts are divided by body size and presence or lack of a dorsal fin. Appendices cover tags used on cetacean species; how to record and report cetacean observations at see and for stranded cetaceans; and a list of contacts for reporting cetacean strandings. (Document pdf contains 183 pages - file takes considerable time to open)

Whales and Sonar: Environmental Exemptions for the Navy’s Mid-Frequency Active Sonar Training

Mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar emits pulses of sound from an underwater transmitter to help determine the size, distance, and speed of objects. The sound waves bounce off objects and reflect back to underwater acoustic receivers as an echo. MFA sonar has been used since World War II, and the Navy indicates it is the only reliable way to track submarines, especially more recently designed submarines that operate more quietly, making them more difficult to detect. Scientists have asserted that sonar may harm certain marine mammals under certain conditions, especially beaked whales. Depending on the exposure, they believe that sonar may damage the ears of the mammals, causing hemorrhaging and/or disorientation. The Navy agrees that the sonar may harm some marine mammals, but says it has taken protective measures so that animals are not harmed. MFA training must comply with a variety of environmental laws, unless an exemption is granted by the appropriate authority. Marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and some under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The training program must also comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in some cases the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Each of these laws provides some exemption for certain federal actions. The Navy has invoked all of the exemptions to continue its sonar training exercises. Litigation challenging the MFA training off the coast of Southern California ended with a November 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court said that the lower court had improperly favored the possibility of injuring marine animals over the importance of military readiness. The Supreme Court’s ruling allowed the training to continue without the limitations imposed on it by other courts. (pdf contains 20pp.)

Report on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Event UMESE0501Sp: Multispecies Mass Stranding of Pilot Whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus), Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), and Dwarf Sperm Whales (Kogia sima) in North Carolina on 15-16 January 2005

On 15-16 January 2005, three offshore species of cetaceans (33 short-finned pilot whales, Globicephala macrorhynchus, one minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata, and two dwarf sperm whales, Kogia sima) stranded alive on the beaches of North Carolina. The pilot whales stranded near Oregon Inlet, the minke whale in northern North Carolina, and the dwarf sperm whales near Cape Hatteras. Live strandings of three species in one weekend was unique in North Carolina and qualified as an Unusual Mortality Event. Gross necropsies were conducted on 16-17 January 2005 on 27 pilot whales, two dwarf sperm whales, and the minke whale. Samples were collected for clinical pathology, parasitology, gross pathology, histopathology, microbiology and serology. There was variation in the number of animals sampled for each collection type, however, due to carcasses washing off the beach or degradation in carcass condition during the course of the response. Comprehensive histologic examination was conducted on 16 pilot whales, both dwarf sperm whales, and the minke whale. Limited organ or only head tissue suites were obtained from nine pilot whales. Histologic examination of tissues began in February 2005 and concluded in December 2005 when final sampling was concluded. Neither the pilot whales nor dwarf sperm whales were emaciated although none had recently ingested prey in their stomachs. The minke whale was emaciated; it was likely a dependent calf that became separated from the female. Most serum biochemistry abnormalities appear to have resulted from the stranding and indicated deteriorating condition from being on land for an extended period. Three pilot whales had clinical evidence of pre-existing systemic inflammation, which was supported by histopathologic findings. Although gross and histologic lesions involving all organ systems were noted, consistent lesions were not observed across species. Verminous pterygoid sinusitis and healed fishery interactions were seen in pilot whales but neither of these changes were causes of debilitation or death. In three pilot whales and one dwarf sperm whale there was evidence of clinically significant disease in postcranial tissues which led to chronic debilitation. Cardiovascular disease was present in one pilot whale and one dwarf sperm whale; musculoskeletal disease and intra-abdominal granulomas were present in two pilot whales. These lesions were possible, but not definitive, causal factors in the stranding. Remaining lesions were incidental or post-stranding. The minke whale and three of five tested pilot whales had positive morbillivirus titers (≥1:8 with one at >1:256), but there was no histologic evidence of active viral infection. Parasites (nematodes, cestodes, and trematodes) were collected from 26 pilot whales and two dwarf sperm whales. Sites of collection included stomach, nasal/pterygoid, peribullar sinuses, blubber, and abdominal cavity. Parasite species, locations and loads were within normal limits for free-ranging cetaceans and were not considered causative for the stranding event. Gas emboli lesions which were considered consistent with or diagnostic of sonarassociated strandings of beaked whales or small cetaceans were not found in the whales stranded as part of UMESE0501Sp. Twenty-five heads were examined with nine specific anatomic locations of interest: extramandibular fat, intramandibular fat, auditory meatus, peribullar acoustic fat, peribullar soft tissue, peribullar sinus, pterygoid sinus, melon, and brain. The common finding in all examined heads was verminous pterygoid sinusitis. Intramandibular adipose tissue reddening, typically adjacent to the vascular plexus, was observed in some individuals and could represent localized hemorrhage resulting from vascular rete rupture, hypostatic congestion, or erythrocyte rupture during the freeze/thaw cycle. One cetacean had peracute to acute subdural hemorrhage that likely occurred from thrashing on the beach post-stranding, although its occurrence prior to stranding cannot be excluded. Information provided to NMFS by the U.S. Navy indicated routine tactical mid-frequency sonar operations from individual surface vessels over relatively short durations and small spatial scales within the area and time period investigated. No marine mammals were detected by marine mammal observers on operational vessels; standard operating procedure for surface naval vessels operating mid-frequency sonar is the use of trained visual lookouts using high-powered binoculars. Sound propagation modeling using information provided to NMFS indicated that acoustic conditions in the vicinity likely depended heavily on position of the receivers (e.g., range, bearing, depth) relative to that of the sources. Absent explicit information on the location of animals meant that it was not possible to estimate received acoustic exposures from active sonar transmissions. Nonetheless, the event was associated in time and space with naval activity using mid-frequency active sonar. It also had a number of features in common (e.g., the “atypical” distribution of strandings involving multiple offshore species, all stranding alive, and without evidence of common infectious or other disease process) with other sonar-related cetacean mass stranding events. Given that this event was the only stranding of offshore species to occur within a 2-3 day period in the region on record (i.e., a very rare event), and given the occurrence of the event simultaneously in time and space with a naval exercise using active sonar, the association between the naval sonar activity and the location and timing of the event could be a causal rather than a coincidental relationship. However, evidence supporting a definitive association is lacking, and, in particular, there are differences in operational/environmental characteristics between this event and previous events where sonar has apparently played a role in marine mammal strandings. This does not preclude behavorial avoidance of noise exposure. No harmful algal blooms were present along the Atlantic coast south of the Chesapeake Bay during the months prior to the event. Environmental conditions, including strong winds, changes in upwelling- to downwelling-favorable conditions, and gently sloping bathymetry, were consistent with conditions which have been correlated with other mass strandings. In summary, we did not find commonality in gross and histologic lesions that would indicate a single cause for this stranding event. Three pilot whales and one dwarf sperm whale had debilitating conditions identified that could have contributed to stranding, one pilot whale had a debilitating condition (subdural hemorrhage) that could have been present prior to or resulting from stranding. While the pilot and dwarf sperm whale strandings may have had a common cause, the minke whale stranding was probably just coincidental. On the basis of examination of physical evidence in the affected whales, however, we cannot definitively conclude that there was or was not a causal link between anthropogenic sonar activity or environmental conditions (or a combination of these factors) and the strandings. Overall, the cause of UMESE0501Sp in North Carolina is not and likely will not be definitively known. (PDF contains 240 pages)

A Photographic Catalog of Killer Whales, Orcinus orca, frOIll the Central Gulf of Alaska to the Southeastern Bering Sea

In 1992 and 1993, researchers from the National Marine Mammal Laboratory initiated photo-identification studies on Alaskan killer whales, Orcinus orca. Waters from Kodiak Island west to the central and eastern Aleutian Islands and southeastern Bering Sea were surveyed. A total of 289 individual whales were identified. A photographic record of the whales encountered during these surveys is presented. When photographs of the 289 individual whales were compared among various regions in Alaska (Prince William Sound and Southeast Alaska) and areas outside Alaska (British Columbia, Washington, and California), 11 matches were found. The count is conservative because the 1992 and 1993 surveys were limited in geographical range, restricted to summer periods, and whales may have been missed along the survey trackline. Future research incorporating both photoidentification studies and line transect surveys will provide reliable abundance estimates of Alaskan killer whales. (PDF file contains 58 pages.)