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.

Whaling as Science

In an open letter published last year in the New York Times, 21 distinguished scientists (including three Nobel laureates) criticized Japan's program of scientific research whaling, noting its poor design and unjustified reliance upon lethal sampling. In a recent Forum article in BioScience, Aron, Burke, and Freeman (2002) castigate the letter's signers and accuse them of meddling in political issues without sufficient knowledge of the science involved in those issues.

The whaling issue: Conservation, confusion, and casuistry

Morishita’s “multiple analysis”of the whaling issue [Morishita J. Multiple analysis of the whaling issue: Understanding the dispute by a matrix. Marine Policy 2006;30:802–8] is essentially a restatement of the Government of Japan’s whaling policy, which confuses the issue through selective use of data, unsubstantiated facts, and the vilification of opposing perspectives. Here, we deconstruct the major problems with Morishita’s article and provide an alternative view of the whaling dispute. For many people in this debate, the issue is not that some whales are not abundant, but that the whaling industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself or to honestly assess the status of potentially exploitable populations. This suspicion has its origin in Japan’s poor use of science, its often implausible stock assessments, its insistence that culling is an appropriate way to manage marine mammal populations, and its relatively recent falsification of whaling and fisheries catch data combined with a refusal to accept true transparency in catch and market monitoring. Japanese policy on whaling cannot be viewed in isolation, but is part of a larger framework involving a perceived right to secure unlimited access to global marine resources. Whaling is inextricably tied to the international fisheries agreements on which Japan is strongly dependent; thus, concessions made at the IWC would have potentially serious ramifications in other fora.

Japan’s whaling plan under scrutiny

Eighteen years after initiating scientific whaling in Antarctic waters, Japan presented a new and more ambitious program to the International Whaling Commission (IWC); the proposal was made in early June during the IWC’s annual meeting in Ulsan, Korea. Japan now wishes to more than double its annual catch of Antarctic minke whales (from about 440 to 935), and to expand lethal sampling to include an additional yearly take of 50 humpback and 50 fin whales. Unlike catches for commercial whaling, scientific catches are unregulated. Since 1987, Japan has taken some 6,800 minke whales from Antarctic waters, despite ongoing criticism of the relevance and direction of Japan’s research. The IWC was set up to regulate commercial whaling and to conserve whale populations, under the authority of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Following a well-documented failure of management that led to the collapse of most global whale populations, the IWC set a zero quota for commercial whaling (the moratorium). This was made effective from 1986. Norway, the former Soviet Union and Japan initially objected to the moratorium, but Japan withdrew its objection and ceased commercial whaling in 1988.

Whaling error

You published recently (Nature 374, 587; 1995) a report headed "Error re-opens 'scientific' whaling debate". The error in question, however, relates to commercial whaling, not to scientific whaling. Although Norway cites science as a basis for the way in which it sets its own quota. scientific whaling means something quite different. namely killing whales for research purposes. Any member of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has the right to conduct a research catch under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. 1946. The IWC has reviewed new research or scientific whaling programs for Japan and Norway since the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling began in 1986. In every case, the IWC advised Japan and Norway to reconsider the lethal aspects of their research programs. Last year, however, Norway started a commercial hunt in combination with its scientific catch, despite the IWC moratorium.

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.

Further Scrutiny of Scientific Whaling

Normile reports on Japan's expanded scientific whaling program and notes that "Canada, the United States, the Soviet Union, South Africa, and Japan were among several countries that [conducted scientific whaling] before 1982 [the year the IWC passed the worldwide commercial moratorium on whaling], but in recent years Japan has stood alone." Although true, this statement omits three equally important points.

Determining spatial and temporal scales for management: lessons from whaling

Selection of the appropriate management unit is critical to the conservation of animal populations. Defining such units depends upon knowledge of population structure and upon the timescale being considered. Here, we examine the trajectory of eleven subpopulations of five species of baleen whales to investigate temporal and spatial scales in management. These subpopulations were all extirpated by commercial whaling, and no recovery or repopulation has occurred since. In these cases, time elapsed since commercial extinction ranges from four decades to almost four centuries. We propose that these subpopulations did not recover either because cultural memory of the habitat has been lost, because widespread whaling among adjacent stocks eliminated these as sources for repopulation, and/or because segregation following exploitation produced the abandonment of certain areas. Spatial scales associated with the extirpated subpopulations are frequently smaller than those typically employed in management. Overall, the evidence indicates that: (1) the time frame for management should be at most decadal in scope (i.e., <100 yr) and based on both genetic and nongenetic evidence of population substructure, and (2) at least some stocks should be defined on a smaller spatial scale than they currently are.

Historical Observations of Humpback And Blue Whales in the North Atlantic Ocean: Clues to Migratory Routes and Possibly Additional Feeding Grounds

The seasonal distributions of humpback and blue whales (Megaptera novaeangliae and Balaenoptera musculus, respectively) in the North Atlantic Ocean are not fully understood. Although humpbacks have been studied intensively in nearshore or coastal feeding and breeding areas, their migratory movements between these areas have been largely inferred. Blue whales have only been studied intensively along the north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and their seasonal occurrence and movements elsewhere in the North Atlantic are poorly known. We investigated the historical seasonal distributions of these two species using sighting and catch data extracted from American 18th and 19th century whaling logbooks. These data suggest that humpback whales migrated seasonally from low-latitude calving/ breeding grounds over a protracted period, and that some of them traveled far offshore rather than following coastal routes. Also, at least some humpbacks apparently fed early in the summer west of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, well south of their known present-day feeding grounds. In assessing the present status of the North Atlantic humpback population, it will be important to determine whether such offshore feeding does in fact occur. Blue whales were present across the southern half of the North Atlantic during the autumn and winter months, and farther north in spring and summer, but we had too few data points to support inferences about these whales’ migratory timing and routes.

Eastern temperate North Pacific offshore killer whales (Orcinus orca): Occurrence, movements, and insights into feeding ecology

Beginning in the late 1980s, large groups of previously unidentified killer whales (Orcinus orca) were sighted off the west coast of Vancouver Island and in the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia. Scientists working in this region produced two killer whale photo-identification catalogues that included both transient (mammal-eating) whales and 65 individual whales that investigators believed represented a distinct killer whale community (Ford et al. 1992, Heise et al. 1993). It was thought that these killer whales maintained a generally offshore distribution and were provisionally termed “offshores”; a term that has since been used as a population identifier for the eastern temperate North Pacific offshore killer whale population. Then in September 1992, 75 unidentified whales entered the Strait of Juan de Fuca just south and east of Victoria, British Columbia (Walters et al. 1992). Although most of these whales had not been seen before, two were matched to killer whales in the Queen Charlotte photo-identification catalogue (Ford et al. 1992, Heise et al. 1993) and were thus listed as “offshore” killer whales. During a similar time period, other large groups of killer whales, previously unidentified, were also being sighted off Alaska and California (Dahlheim et al. 1997; Nancy Black and Alisa Schulman- Janiger, unpublished data, respectively).

Results from the April 2009 Gulf of Alaska Line Transect Survey (GOALS) in the Navy Training Exercise Area

Little is known about the present-day occurrence of cetaceans found in offshore waters in the Gulf of Alaska; however, whaling records and a few recent surveys have shown this area to be important habitat. The U.S. Navy maintains a maritime training area in the central Gulf of Alaska, east of Kodiak Island, and has requested additional information on marine mammal presence and use of this area. To describe the occurrence and distribution of marine mammals in and around the U.S. Navy training area, a line transect visual and acoustic survey was conducted 10-20 April 2009 from the NOAA ship Oscar Dyson. The primary survey area encompassed nearshore and offshore pelagic waters of the central Gulf of Alaska. Survey lines were designed to provide equal coverage of the nearshore and offshore habitat.