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

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

Biological Background on Bottlenose Dolphins (\u3ci\u3eTursiops\u3c/i\u3e spp.) in the \u27Live-Capture\u27 Trade and Specifically on the Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin, \u3ci\u3eT. Aduncus\u3c/i\u3e

The most significant cetacean trade items until commercial whaling all but ceased in the 1990s (aside from scientific exchanges of tissues etc.) were meat and blubber from baleen whales for human consumption. Since then, live dolphins and \u27small\u27 whales for display (and to some extent for research, military use, and \u27therapy\u27) have become the most significant cetacean \u27products\u27 in international trade. Trade in live cetaceans is presently dominated by bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.), beluga whales (Debhinapterns leucas) and to a lesser extent killer whales (Orcinus orca) (Fisher and Reeves 2005). In the past, most of the dolphins in trade were common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) originating in the United States, Mexico and the Black Sea, but since the 1980s the United States has essentially stopped its capture-for-export activities and in 2001Mexico implemented a moratorium on live-captures. The source countries for dolphins in trade are now geographically diverse, but Cuba and Japan are currently major source nations for common bottlenose dolphins. Russia is the only current source for belugas. Russia and Japan have become the main potential sources for killer whales since Iceland ceased exporting them in the 1980s or early 1990s

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

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

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. ..

Distribution and Migration of the Bowhead Whale, Balaena mysticetus, in the Eastern North American Arctic

Large catches of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, were made in the Eastern Arctic of North America, principally in Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, the Lancaster Sound region, Hudson Bay, and southern Foxe Basin, between 1719 and 1915. Initial stock sizes have been estimated as 11 000 in 1825 for the "Davis Strait stock" and 680 in 1859 for the "Hudson Bay stock." The separate identity of these two putative stocks needs confirmation through direct evidence. Three sets of data were used to evaluate historic and present-day trends in the distribution of bowheads in the Eastern Arctic and to test hypotheses concerning the nature, timing, and routes of their migration. Published records from commercial whale fisheries prior to 1915, unpublished and some published records from the post-commercial whaling period 1915-1974, and reported sightings made mainly by environmental assessment personnel between 1975 and 1979, were tabulated and plotted on charts. Comments made by whalers and nineteenth-century naturalists concerning bowhead distribution and movements were summarized and critically evaluated. The major whaling grounds were: (1) the west coast of Greenland between ca. 60°N and 73°N, the spring and early summer "east side " grounds of the British whalers; (2) the spring "south-west fishing" grounds, including the northeast coast of Labrador, the mouth of Hudson Strait, southeast Baffin Island, and the pack ice edge extending east from Resolution Island; (3) the summer "west water" grounds, including Pond Inlet, the Lancaster Sound region, and Prince Regent Inlet; (4) the autumn "rock-nosing" grounds along the entire east coast of Baffin Island; (5) Cumberland Sound, a spring and fall ground; and (6) northwest Hudson Bay/southwest Foxe Basin. The belief of whalers that some segregation occurs within the "Davis Strait stock" cannot be refuted or confirmed on the above evidence. However, the evident predominance of young whales and females with calves in early season catches at the Pond Inlet floe edge and in summer catches well inside Lancaster Sound and Prince Regent Inlet suggests that the route and timing of their migration differs from that of adult males. Apparently most of the whales taken on the autumn "rock-nosing" grounds were large males. The possibility that females and calves circumnavigate Baffin Island, returning south by way of Fury and Hecla Strait, is neither proven nor unproven. Evaluation of harpoon recoveries did not yield irrefutable evidence of interchange between any presently recognized bowhead stocks; however, this evidence along with recognition of distinctive morphological features does indicate that bowheads exhibit site fidelity to some degree. The conclusion is that the bowhead population in the Eastern Arctic, severely reduced by whaling activities, continues to occupy much of its former range and follows the same migratory schedule. There is no reliable and consistent evidence of appreciable recovery in absolute abundance of any Eastern Arctic stock.Key words: bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus, distribution, migration, population identity, whaling history, Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, Lancaster Sound, West Greenland, Hudson Bay, Foxe BasinMots clés: baleine boréale, Balaena mysticetus, distribution, migration, l'identité de la population, histoire de la pêche à la baleine, le détroit de Davis, la baie de Baffin, le détroit de Lancaster, ouest Groenland, la baie d'Hudson, le bassin de Fox