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.

Cetacean Notes. I. Sei and Rorqual Whales on the Mississippi Coast, a Correction. II. A Dwarf Sperm Whale in Mississippi Sound and Its Helminth Parasites

I. Gunter and Christmas (1973) described the events leading to the stranding of a baleen whale on Ship Island, Mississippi, in 1968, giving the species as Balaenopteru physalus, the Rorqual. Unfortunately the identification was in error, but fortunately good photographs were shown. The underside of the tail was a splotched white, but there was no black margin. The specimen also had fewer throat and belly grooves than the Rorqual, as a comparison with True’s (1904) photograph shows. Dr. James Mead (in litt.) pointed out that the animal was a Sei Whale, Balaenoptera borealis. This remains a new Mississippi record and according to Lowery’s (1974) count, it is the fifth specimen reported from the Gulf of Mexico. The stranding of a sixth Sei Whale on Anclote Keys in the Gulf, west of Tarpon Springs, Florida on 30 May 1974, was reported in the newspapers and by the Smithsonian Institution (1974). II. Gunter, Hubbs and Beal (1955) gave measurements on a Pygmy Sperm Whale, Kogia breviceps, which stranded on Mustang Island on the Texas coast and commented upon the recorded variations of proportional measurements in this species. Then according to Raun, Hoese and Moseley (1970) these questions were resolved by Handley (1966), who showed that a second species, Kogia simus, the Dwarf Sperm Whale, is also present in the western North Atlantic. Handley’s argument is based on skull comparisons and it seems to be rather indubitable. According to Raun et al. (op. cit.), the stranding of a species of Kogia on Galveston Island recorded by Caldwell, Ingles and Siebenaler (1960) was K. simus. They also say that Caldwell (in litt.) had previously come to the same conclusion. Caldwell et al. also recorded another specimen from Destin, Florida, which is now considered to have been a specimen of simus. The known status of these two little sperm whales in the Gulf is summarized by Lowery (op. cit.).

AVITROL 1973

The Federal Registration for Avitrol to be used in standing field corn restricts use to application under supervision of Governmental agencies trained in bird control. The majority of current Avitrol labels state, "For use by or under supervision of government agencies or pest control operators. Not for sale to the public." This slight difference has already caused much discussion and the matter isn't resolved yet. There are different interpretations of this statement. Also for crops the material is only registered for field corn. There is a need for the material to be registered for sweet corn and sunflowers, although I do not believe the latter were grown as widely in Ohio in 1973 as in the past few years.