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.

The Alaska Bowhead Problem: A Commentary

The continued removal of individuals from the depleted Bering Sea stock of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) by Alaskan Eskimos constitutes a risk of unknown magnitude to this last concentrated remnant of a once abundant, widely distributed species. The principal international forum for discussions of scientific, technical, management, social, and political aspects of the Bowhead Problem has been the International Whaling Commission. These discussions have been plagued by a lack of agreed definitions of terminology and by the inadequacy of historical and technical data. We trace the origins of the Bowhead Problem, define the terms necessary for a rigorous discussion of "aboriginal" and "subsistence" whale fisheries, examine the biological, nutritional, and social dimensions of the Alaskan whale hunt, and assess the relationship between the present-day whale hunting methods and traditional values. We accept the best scientific analyses available, which indicate that the only safe course for this bowhead stock is protection from any form of hunting. However, if a hunt continues for political reasons, then we conclude that a return to the traditional hunting method of fastening to the whale with a harpoon, line, and float should precede or coincide with any attempt to kill the whale. This return to the traditional method would reduce the struck-but-lost rate significantly. We also conclude that there are few, if any, specific products taken exclusively from the bowhead whale that are necessary to support the material culture of the Alaskan Eskimos. Other wildlife, including the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), has been hunted in the past as a nutritional alternative to the bowhead. Increased reliance on the gray whale would reduce hunting pressure on the bowhead and at the same time contribute to the preservation of the whaling culture. If bowhead whaling is to be continued in order to satisfy "cultural needs," then we believe that only one bowhead whale at each village with a long tradition of whaling can be justified

Historical Population Characteristics of Bowhead Whales (Balaena mysticetus) in Hudson Bay

Historical records of commercial whalers operating in northwestern Hudson Bay during the 19th century were examined for information on size, age, sex, and location of bowhead whales that were either sighted or killed. Correlations between body size and either oil yield or baleen length were used to estimate the relative age classes (calf, subadult, adult) of whales for which no explicit age-class information was reported in the whaling logbooks. Cow-calf pairs and subadults, as well as adult whales, were sighted or killed throughout the whaling season in the area extending from Wager Bay south to Marble Island. This finding indicates that whales of many different age classes were present south of Wager Bay, even during the open-water period when whaling activity shifted northward to include Repulse Bay and Lyon Inlet. Recent observations suggest that few bowhead whales occur south of Wager Bay during the open-water season and that the population in this area has not recovered from the effects of commercial whaling. It is not clear whether this group of bowheads was a separate stock or, alternatively, waters south from Wager Bay constituted a second calf-rearing area for a single Hudson Bay-Foxe Basin stock.On s'est penché sur des documents historiques provenant de baleiniers commerciaux en activité dans le nord-ouest de la baie d'Hudson au XIXe siècle, afin d'extraire de l'information sur la taille, l'âge, le sexe et l'emplacement des baleines boréales qui avaient été aperçues ou tuées. On s'est servi des corrélations entre la taille des cétacés et la production d'huile ou la longueur des fanons pour estimer les groupes d'âge relatifs (baleineau, subadulte, adulte) de baleines pour lesquelles aucune information explicite sur le groupe d'âge n'avait été rapportée dans le livre de bord des baleiniers. Des paires de baleine mère-petit et des subadultes ainsi que des mâles adultes avaient été aperçus ou tués durant toute la saison de chasse à la baleine dans la zone s'étendant de la baie Wager jusqu'à l'île Marble vers le sud. Ces résultats montrent que des baleines appartenant à de nombreux groupes d'âge se trouvaient au sud de la baie Wager, même durant la période d'eau libre quand la pêche à la baleine se déplaçait plus au nord en incluant Repulse Bay et Lyon Inlet. Des observations récentes suggèrent que peu de baleines boréales sont maintenant présentes au sud de la baie Wager durant la saison d'eau libre et que, dans cette zone, la population n'a pas récupéré des effets de la chasse commerciale à la baleine. On ne sait pas exactement si ce groupe de baleines boréales appartenait à un stock distinct, ou si, par contre, les eaux au sud de la baie Wager représentaient une deuxième zone d'élevage des petits pour un stock unique habitant la baie d'Hudson et le bassin de Foxe

Whales, dolphins, and porpoises of the eastern North Pacific and adjacent Arctic waters: a guide to their identification

This is an identification guide for cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), that was designed to assist laymen in identifying cetaceans encountered in eastern North Pacific and Arctic waters. It was intended for use by ongoing cetacean observer programs. This is a revision of an earlier guide with the same title published in 1972 by the Naval Undersa Center and the National Marine Fisheries Service. It includes sections on identifying cetaceans at sea as well as stranded animals on shore. Species accounts are divided by body size and presence or lack of a dorsal fin. Appendices include illustrations of tags on whales, dolphins, and porpoises, by Larry Hobbs; how to record data from observed cetaceans at sea and for stranded cetaceans; and a list of cetacean names in Japanese and Russian. (Document contains 245 pages - file takes considerable time to open

Belugas and Narwhals: Application of New Technology to Whale Science in the Arctic

... In the course of the research reported in this issue, there have been few observations of tagged whales after release, and this may be unavoidable, given the remoteness, harshness, and darkness of Arctic field conditions. However, on those occasions when there has been follow-up, the results have been informative and useful. For example, observations of scarred tissue on the backs of previously tagged white whales appeared to confirm the supposition that tagging has no lingering effect on animal health or behaviour .... Changes in blood constituents of animals recaptured within a few weeks after tagging ... are about what one would expect, given that some tissue damage and stress are inevitably associated with capture and tagging procedures. ... The ten studies published in this special issue are pieces of a much larger puzzle. Stock- and even site-specific studies have been typical for beluga research, largely because of management concerns. Findings, therefore, are often reported in what seems like a fragmentary manner, and this is reflected in the somewhat miscellaneous nature of the present compilation as well. Eventually, we expect a unified picture to emerge for both the beluga and the narwhal. Until it does, this collection of papers should be seen as one more in a series of benchmarks, each of which helps to elucidate what is known about the whales, the tools available for studying them, and questions that remain to be addressed. ..

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

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

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

Ballenas, delfines y marsopas del Pacifico nororiental y de las aguas árticas adyacentes

Esta guía de campo se ha diseñado para que los observadores puedan identificar los cetáceos (ballenas, delfines y marsopas) que vean en las aguas del Pacifico nororiental, incluyendo el Golfo de California, Hawaii y el Ártico occidental de Norteamérica. Los animales descritos no se agrupan por sus relaciones científicas sino por las similitudes de su apariencia en el campo. Las fotografías de los animales en su ambiente natural son la principal ayuda para su identificación. Los anexos describen como y a quienes se debe reportar la información sobre cetáceos vivos y muertos y proveen detalles para ayudar en la identificación de los cetáceos varados