Cultural-Evolution of Ecological Prudence

Animals often behave in a profligate fashion and decimate the populations of plants and animals they depend upon. They may, however, evolve prudent behaviour under special conditions, namely when such prudence greatly enhances the success of populations that are not too prone to invasions by profligate individuals. Cultural evolution in human societies can also lead to the adoption of prudent practices under similar conditions. These are more likely to be realized in stable environments in which the human populations tend to grow close to the carrying capacity, when the human groups are closed, and when the technology is stagnant. These conditions probably prevailed in the hunter—gatherer societies of the tropics and subtropics, and led to the adoption of a number of socially imposed restraints on the use of plant and animal resources. Such practices were rationalized in the form of Nature-worship. The Indian caste society became so organized as to fulfill these conditions, and gave rise to two religions, Buddhism and Jainism, which emphasize compassion towards all forms of life. The pastoral nomads of the middle east, on the other hand, lived in an environment which militated against prudence, and these societies gave rise to religions like Christianity, which declared war on nature. As the ruling elite and state have grown in power, they have tried to wrest control of natural resources from the local communities. This has sometimes resulted in conservation and prudent use under guidance from the state, but has often led to conflicts with local populations to the detriment of prudent behaviour. Modern technological progress has also often removed the need for conservation, as when availability of coal permitted the deforestation of England. While modern scientific understanding has led to a better appreciation of the need for prudence, the prevailing social and economic conditions often militate against any implementation of the understanding, as is seen from the history of whaling. However, the imperative for survival of the poor from the Third-World countries may finally bring about conditions in which ecological prudence may once again come to dominate human cultures as it might once have done with stable societies of hunter—gatherers.

The economic contribution of whalewatching to regional economies: Perspectives from two National Marine Sanctuaries

Whenever human beings have looked out on the sea, they have seen whales. First from the shore and later from ships when humanity entered the ocean realm as seafarers, we have responded to seeing these creatures with awe and wonder. Even when we hunted whales, a period well chronicled both in history and in literature, the sight of a whale brought an adrenaline rush that was not totally linked to potential economic gain. The first trips on boats specifically to watch, rather than hunt, whales began around 45 years ago in Southern California where the migrating gray whales, seen in the distance from land, drew vessels out for a closer look. Since that time whalewatching has boomed, currently conducted in over 40 countries around the world, including Antarctica, and estimated by economists at the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society to have a 1999 worldwide economic value of around $800 million USD. The economic contribution to local coastal communities is particularly significant in developing countries and those where declining fish populations (and in some cases like the Japanese, international bans on whaling) have driven harvesters to look for viable alternatives. Clearly, whalewatching is now, in many places around the world, a small but thriving part of the regional economy. Like in the days of whaling, we still get the rush, but for some, money is back contributing to the physiological response. (PDF contains 90 pages.)

Analysis of growth layers in the teeth of Tursiops truncatus using light microscopy, microradiography, and SEM

Preliminary results show microradiography and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to be more accurate methods of accessing growth layer groups (GLGs) in the teeth of Tursiops truncatus than transmitted light microscopy. Microradiography shows the rhythmic deposition of mineral as alternating radiopaque and radiolucent layers. It improves the resolution of GLGs near the pulp cavity in older individuals, better than either SEM or light microscopy. SEM of etched sections show GLGs as ridges and grooves which are easily counted from the micrograph. SEM also shows GLGs to be composed of fine incremental layers of uniform size and number which may allow for more precise age determination. Accessory layers are usually hypomineralized layers within the hypermineralized layer of the GLG and are more readily distinguishable as such in SEM of etched sections and microradiographs than in thin sections viewed under transmitted light. The neonatal line is hypomineralized, appearing translucent under transmitted light, radiolucent in a microradiograph, and as a ridge in SEM. (PDF contains 6 pages.)

The Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus L.): a bibliography

Compiled by Patricia Ann Skaptason. "This bibliography is designed to bring together literature on the fin whale, published from 1940 through 1970. newspaper articles, legal matgerial (except that by the International Whaling Commission), biochemical studies, juvenile and strictly narrative works have been omitted"

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.

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.

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.

A Whale of a Deception

In late October of 1966, an imposing ship steamed quietly through the placid waters of the Suez Canal. Clad in drab industrial gray, and flying a Soviet hammer and sickle flag at her masthead, the vessel was accompanied by a large fleet of smaller craft. Any observer able to decipher Cyrillic script could have read, in rusting metallic letters on her bow, the name Sovetskaya Ukraina. The more experienced would perhaps have identified her as a whaling factory ship, traveling with her attendant fleet of catcher boats and scouting vessels on a transit that would take them south into the Red Sea and beyond.

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.

The Geographic Distribution of Bowhead Whales, Balaena mysticetus, in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas: Evidence from Whaleship Records, 1849–1914

We have extracted, digitized, and analyzed information about bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, contained in records of whaling cruises that were undertaken in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas from 1849 to 1914. Our database consists of 65,000 days of observations which provide insights into whether this bowhead stock may comprise more than one population.

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.