The traceability/trackability of illegal trade in whale products: a proposal to evaluate the technical functionality of DNA registers

The Government of Japan, through the Institute for Cetacean Research (Tokyo), has established a DNA register for whales taken under special permit or otherwise destined for commercial markets (IWC 2005; IWC 2010a). The functionality of this DNA register, for the purposes of traceability/trackability, is critical to the current negotiations on the future of the IWC (IWC 2010b). Here we request access to the DNA register for 3 species of whales (fin, sei and Antarctic minke) for the purposes of tracking the origins of whale products purchased at commercial outlets in Seoul, South Korea and Santa Monica, US, as described in the Baker et al. (2010). The attached proposal was included as Supplementary Material to this published article and submitted for consideration to the IWC Data Availability Group (DAG) on 12 April 2010. However, the DAG declined to forward the proposal to the data holders, recommending that we “wait until the Scientific Committee has reviewed the proposed DNA register/market sampling text in the draft Consensus Decision in accordance with the Commission's instructions and then reported to the Commission itself” (email 16 May 2010). We assume that this will take place at SC/62 in Agadir and request that this proposal be considered for endorsement by the DNA subcommittee.

Estimating the number of whales entering trade using DNA profiling and capture-recapture analysis of market products

Surveys of commercial markets combined with molecular taxonomy (i.e. molecular monitoring) provide a means to detect products from illegal, unregulated and/or unreported (IUU) exploitation, including the sale of fisheries bycatch and wild meat (bushmeat). Capture-recapture analyses of market products using DNA profiling have the potential to estimate the total number of individuals entering the market. However, these analyses are not directly analogous to those of living individuals because a ‘market individual’ does not die suddenly but, instead, remains available for a time in decreasing quantities, rather like the exponential decay of a radioactive isotope. Here we use mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and microsatellite genotypes to individually identify products from North Pacific minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata ssp.) purchased in 12 surveys of markets in the Republic of (South) Korea from 1999 to 2003. By applying a novel capture-recapture model with a decay rate parameter to the 205 unique DNA profiles found among 289 products, we estimated that the total number of whales entering trade across the five-year survey period was 827 (SE, 164; CV, 0.20) and that the average ‘half-life’ of products from an individual whale on the market was 1.82 months (SE, 0.24; CV, 0.13). Our estimate of whales in trade (reflecting the true numbers killed) was significantly greater than the officially reported bycatch of 458 whales for this period. This unregulated exploitation has serious implications for the survival of this genetically distinct coastal population. Although our capture-recapture model was developed for specific application to the Korean whale-meat markets, the exponential decay function could be modified to improve the estimates of trade in other wildmeat or fisheries markets or abundance of living populations by noninvasive genotyping.

Distribution of North Pacific right whales (Eubalaena japonica) as shown by 19th and 20th century whaling catch and sighting records

North Pacific right whales (Eubalaena japonica) were extensively exploited in the 19th century, and their recovery was further retarded (severely so in the eastern population) by illegal Soviet catches in the 20th century, primarily in the 1960s. Monthly plots of right whale sightings and catches from both the 19th and 20th centuries are provided, using data summarized by Scarff (1991, from the whale charts of Matthew Fontaine Maury) and Brownell et al. (2001), respectively. Right whales had an extensive offshore distribution in the 19th century, and were common in areas (such as the Gulf of Alaska and Sea of Japan) where few or no right whales occur today. Seasonal movements of right whales are apparent in the data, although to some extent these reflect survey and whaling effort. That said, these seasonal movements indicate a general northward migration in spring from lower latitudes, and major concentrations above 40°N in summer. Sightings diminished and occurred further south in autumn, and few animals were recorded anywhere in winter. These north-south migratory movements support the hypothesis of two largely discrete populations of right whales in the eastern and western North Pacific. Overall, these analyses confirm that the size and range of the right whale population is now considerably diminished in the North Pacific relative to the situation during the peak period of whaling for this species in the 19th century. For management purposes, new surveys are urgently required to establish the present distribution of this species; existing data suggest that the Bering Sea, the Gulf of Alaska, the Okhotsk Sea, the Kuril Islands and the coast of Kamchatka are the areas with the greatest likelihood of finding right whales today.

Catches of Humpback Whales in the Southern Ocean, 1947-1973

We review catches of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Southern Ocean during the period following World War II, with an emphasis on Areas IV, V and VI (the principal regions of illegal Soviet whaling on this species). Where possible, we summarize legal and illegal Soviet catches by year, Area and factory fleet, and also include information on takes by other nations. Soviet humpback catches between 1947 and 1973 totaled 48702 and break down as follows: 649 (Area I), 1412 (Area II), 921 (Area III), 8779 (Area IV), 22569 (Area V) and 7195 (Area VI), with 7177 catches not assignable to area. In all, at least 72542 humpback whales were killed by all operations (Soviet plus other nations) after World War 2 in Areas IV (27201), V (38146) and VI (7195). More than a third of these (25474 whales, of which 25192 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 Norfolk Island. When compared to recent estimates of abundance, 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.

Whaling dispute continues

Apparently alarmed that an advertisement in Nature referencing the study of Baker and Palumbi (Science 265, 1538; 1994) might lend undeserved credence to the notion that illegal whale products find their way into Japanese markets, Milton Freeman (Nature 376, 11; 1995) reiterates the arguments of the Fisheries Agency of Japan (FAJ) that the study is fundamentally flawed. As Freeman's letter contains several serious errors, we feel obliged to comment.

BIRD CONTROL UNDER A STATE FISH AND GAME PERMIT SYSTEM

I guess the impetus for laws in our state, really was the action of the city of Boston in 1963, when the Parks and Recreation Department felt that it was time to do something about massive populations of pigeons on the Boston Commons and in the city. The Parks Department came to our agency to find out what could be done. We immediately found as a result of a reorganization and recodification of the laws some 20 years before, that it was illegal to use or apply poisons for the purpose of killing any birds or mammals in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Property owners were given the privilege to destroy animals that were doing damage to their property, but only through mechanical means, certainly not by the use of toxicants. We helped the city of Boston draft a bill in 1963, which allowed our agency, the Division of Fisheries and Game, the agency responsible for all wildlife species in the state, the opportunity to issue certain permits for the use of poison, giving full authority to the director of Fisheries and Game with, of course, approval of my board. This allowed certain discretion on our part.