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.)

Some ecological roles of Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibious Linn. 1758) in fish production: possibilities for integrated fish-cum Agric production system

The common hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibious Linn. 1758) contributes to the productivity of aquatic systems where it lives. This paper reviews ecological roles of the hippo in this regard. Desk review of available literature information complemented with field observations were employed in the data collection. The ecological roles of the common hippopotamus being presented draw examples from East, West, Central and South African sub regions. The nutritional importance of the amphibious hippopotamus to rural communities was highlighted. In Southern Ethiopia, the Bodi, Bacha and Mura tribes eat hippo meat and this has led to severe hunting consequences on the wild populations of the animal. The important relationships between the hippopotamus and fish were presented. Hippopotamuses usually defecate in water and their excrements enrich the nutrients in the water resulting in favourable conditions for large fish populations. Some fish, including Labeo spp. were observed to feed on the micro-organisms and algae that grow on the skin of the hippotamus. A strong case was made for hippo-cum-fish integrated farm development in Nigeria based on ecological relationships so observed between the amphibious mammals and fish. This is one of the meeting points of fisheries and wildlife management that should be exploited for the benefits of the teeming Nigerian population

Diet and condition of American Alligators (Alligator mississippiensis)in three central Florida lakes

Understanding the diet of crocodilians is important because diet affects condition, behavior, growth, and reproduction. By examining the diet of crocodilians, valuable knowledge is gained about predator-prey interactions and prey utilization among habitats. In this study, I examined the diet and condition of adult American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) in three central Florida lakes, Griffin, Apopka, and Woodruff. Two hundred adult alligators were captured and lavaged from March through October 2001, from April through October 2002, and from April through August 2003. Alligators ate a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate prey, but vertebrates were more abundant and fish dominated alligator diets in the lakes. Species composition of fish varied among the lakes. The majority of the diet of alligators from Lakes Apopka and Woodruff was fish, 90% and 84% respectively. Lake Apopka alligators consumed a significantly (P = 0.006) higher proportion of fish in their diet. Fish were 54% of the diet of Lake Griffin alligators and the infrequent occurrence of reptiles, mammals, birds, and amphibians often resulted in a large biomass. Differences in alligator diets among lakes may be due to differences in sample size (higher numbers of samples from Lake Griffin), prey availability, habitat, prey vulnerability, or prey size. Alligator condition (Fulton’s Condition Factor, K) was significantly (P < 0.001) different among the lakes. Alligators from Lake Apopka had the highest condition, followed by those from Lake Griffin, and alligators from Lake Woodruff had the lowest condition. Composition of fish along with diversity and equitability of fish in alligator diets may have contributed to differences in condition among lakes. Condition was probably also due to factors other than diet such as alligator hunting behavior, alligator density, or year-round optimal temperature that prolongs feeding. The observed diet and condition differences probably reflect both habitat differences and prey availability in these three lakes.

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).

Nineteenth-century Ship-based Catches of Gray Whales, Eschrichtius robustus, in the Eastern North Pacific

The 19th century commercial ship-based fishery for gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, in the eastern North Pacific began in 1846 and continued until the mid 1870’s in southern areas and the 1880’s in the north. Henderson identified three periods in the southern part of the fishery: Initial, 1846–1854; Bonanza, 1855–1865; and Declining, 1866–1874. The largest catches were made by “lagoon whaling” in or immediately outside the whale population’s main wintering areas in Mexico—Magdalena Bay, Scammon’s Lagoon, and San Ignacio Lagoon. Large catches were also made by “coastal” or “alongshore” whaling where the whalers attacked animals as they migrated along the coast. Gray whales were also hunted to a limited extent on their feeding grounds in the Bering and Chukchi Seas in summer. Using all available sources, we identified 657 visits by whaling vessels to the Mexican whaling grounds during the gray whale breeding and calving seasons between 1846 and 1874. We then estimated the total number of such visits in which the whalers engaged in gray whaling. We also read logbooks from a sample of known visits to estimate catch per visit and the rate at which struck animals were lost. This resulted in an overall estimate of 5,269 gray whales (SE = 223.4) landed by the ship-based fleet (including both American and foreign vessels) in the Mexican whaling grounds from 1846 to 1874. Our “best” estimate of the number of gray whales removed from the eastern North Pacific (i.e. catch plus hunting loss) lies somewhere between 6,124 and 8,021, depending on assumptions about survival of struck-but-lost whales. Our estimates can be compared to those by Henderson (1984), who estimated that 5,542–5,507 gray whales were secured and processed by ship-based whalers between 1846 and 1874; Scammon (1874), who believed the total kill over the same period (of eastern gray whales by all whalers in all areas) did not exceed 10,800; and Best (1987), who estimated the total landed catch of gray whales (eastern and western) by American ship-based whalers at 2,665 or 3,013 (method-dependent) from 1850 to 1879. Our new estimates are not high enough to resolve apparent inconsistencies between the catch history and estimates of historical abundance based on genetic variability. We suggest several lines of further research that may help resolve these inconsistencies.

A. A. Berzin and His Memoir

Alfred A. Berzin began to study whales in 1955 at the Pacific Research and Fisheries Center (TINRO) in Vladivostok where he is still working at the present time. In the years before the rapid development of Soviet whaling only two fleets (Aleut and Second Kuril) were hunting whales.

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.

Beluga, Delphinapterus leucas, Habitat Associations in Cook Inlet, Alaska

A review of available information describing habitat associations for belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet was undertaken to complement population assessment surveys from 1993-2000. Available data for physical, biological, and anthropogenic factors in Cook Inlet are summarized followed by a provisional description of seasonal habitat associations. To summarize habitat preferences, the beluga summer distribution pattern was used to partition Cook Inlet into three regions. In general, belugas congregate in shallow, relatively warm, low-salinity water near major river outflows in upper Cook Inlet during summer (defined as their primary habitat), where prey availability is comparatively high and predator occurrence relatively low. In winter, belugas are seen in the central inlet, but sightings are fewer in number, and whales more dispersed compared to summer. Belugas are associated with a range of ice conditions in winter, from ice-free to 60% ice-covered water. Natural catastrophic events, such as fires, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, have had no reported effect on beluga habitat, although such events likely affect water quality and, potentially, prey availability. Similarly, although sewage effluent and discharges from industrial and military activities along Cook Inlet negatively affect water quality, analyses of organochlorines and heavy metal burdens indicate that Cook Inlet belugas are not assimilating contaminant loads greater than any other Alaska beluga stocks. Offshore oil and gas activities and vessel traffic are high in the central inlet compared with other Alaska waters, although belugas in Cook Inlet seem habituated to these anthropogenic factors. Anthropogenic factors that have the highest potential negative impacts on belugas include subsistence hunts (not discussed in this report), noise from transportation and offshore oil and gas extraction (ship transits and aircraft overflights), and water quality degradation (from urban runoff and sewage treatment facilities). Although significant impacts from anthropogenic factors other than hunting are not yet apparent, assessment of potential impacts from human activities, especially those that may effect prey availability, are needed.

Harvest History of Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska

Belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, represent a unique and isolated marine mammal population that has been hunted for a variety of purposes since prehistoric times. Archeological studies have shown that both Alutiiq Eskimos and Dena'ina Atabaskan Indians have long utilized many marine resources in Cook Inlet, including belugas. Over the past century, commercial whaling and sport hunting also occurred periodically in Cook Inlet prior to the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA). During the 1990's, the hunting mortality by Alaska Natives apparently increased to 40-70 whales per year, which led to the decling of this stock and its subsequent designation in 2000 as depleted under the MMPA. Concerns about the decline of the Cook Inlet stock resulted in a voluntary suspension of the subsistenc hunt by Alaska Natives in 1999. The difficulty in obtaining accurate estimates for the harvest of these whales is due to the inability to identify all of the hunters and, in turn, the size of the harvest. Attempts to reconstruct harvest records based on hunters' recollections and interviews from only a few households have been subject to a wide degree of speculation. To adequately monitor the beluga harvest, the National Marine Fisheries Service established marking and reporting regulations in October 1999. These rules require that Alaska Natives who hunt belugas in Cook Inlet must collect the lowere left jaw from harvested whales and complete a report that includes date and time of the harvest, coloration of the whale, harvest location, and method of harvest. The MMPA was amended in 2000 to require a cooperative agreement between the National Marine Fisheries Service and Alaska Native organizations before hunting could be resumed.

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.