DOCSLIB.ORG

The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans J L Bannister,* C M Kemper,** R M Warneke***

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans J L Bannister,* C M Kemper,** R M Warneke*** The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans J L Bannister,* C M Kemper,** R M Warneke*** *c/- WA Museum, Francis Street, Perth WA 6000 ** SA Museum, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000 ***Blackwood Lodge, RSD 273 Mount Hicks Road, Yolla Tasmania 7325 Australian Nature Conservation Agency September 1996 The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commonwealth Government, the Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories, or the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. ISBN 0 642 21388 7 Published September 1996 © Copyright The Director of National Parks and Wildlife Australian Nature Conservation Agency GPO Box 636 Canberra ACT 2601 Cover illustration by Lyn Broomhall, Perth Copy edited by Green Words, Canberra Printer on recycled paper by Canberra Printing Services, Canberra Foreword It seems appropriate that Australia, once an active whaling nation, is now playing a leading role in whale conservation. Australia is a vocal member of the International Whaling Commission, and had a key role in the 1994 declaration of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. The last commercial Australian whaling station ceased operations in Albany in 1978, and it is encouraging to see that once heavily exploited species such as the southern right and humpback whales are showing signs of recovery. Apart from the well-known great whales, Australian waters support a rich variety of cetaceans: smaller whales, dolphins, porpoises and killer whales. Forty-three of the world’s 80 or so cetacean species are found in Australia. This diversity is a reflection of our wide range of coastal habitats, and the fact that Australia is on the main migration route of the great whales from their feeding grounds in the south to warmer breeding grounds in northern waters. While this report recommends that only five species or subspecies be listed as Endangered or Vulnerable under the Endangered Species Protection Act, this does not mean that cetaceans are relatively secure. Four species are classified here as Insufficiently Known, while a further 22 species or subspecies have no category assigned because of insufficient information. Only 1 subspecies is classified as Secure. Although killing of cetaceans in Australian waters is now illegal, many die after becoming entangled in fishing nets, buoy-nets and long-lines. A less obvious threat is ghost nets – large amounts of fish netting lost at sea which may drift for years, entangling marine life. There are a host of other threats to cetaceans including shipping strikes, oil spills and chemical pollutants, acoustic pollution from vessels and the depletion of cetacean food stocks through commercial fishing operations. Cetaceans are particularly vulnerable to broad-scale changes in the marine environment because of their high positions in marine food chains. Furthermore, cetacean populations are difficult to monitor, making it hard to evaluate the effects of threatening activities on populations. Because of this lack of information about cetaceans, and the uncertainty about their status, this Action Plan presents species synopses of all Australian cetacean species, rather than recovery outlines of threatened taxa only. The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans is the fifth in a series of action plans commissioned by the Australian Nature Conservation Agency. Already published are action plans for birds, freshwater fishes, reptiles and rodents, as well as one for marsupials and monotremes prepared by WWF/IUCN. In preparation are action plans for frogs, bats, seals and dugongs, and a revised action plan for marsupials and monotremes. Conservation overviews for non- marine invertebrates and non-marine non-vascular plants are also being prepared. This Action Plan has a key role to play in the conservation of cetaceans. It provides strong recommendations for the management and research actions most likely to protect cetaceans, at least in Australian waters. I hope this Plan will go a long way towards raising awareness of these elusive and graceful creatures. Peter Bridgewater Chief Executive Officer Australian Nature Conservation Agency Table of Contents Executive Summary Acknowledgements 1. Introduction 2. Overviews 2.1 Zoogeography 2.2 Threatening processes 2.3 Legislation 2.4 Community involvement 3. Conservation Status 3.1 Categories 3.2 Conclusions on threat categorisations 4. Species Synopses Spectacled porpoise Rough-toothed dolphin Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphin Dusky dolphin Hourglass dolphin Risso’s dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Pantropical spotted dolphin Spinner dolphin Striped dolphin Common dolphin87 Fraser’s dolphin Southern right whale dolphin Melon-headed whale Pygmy killer whale False killer whale Killer whale Long-finned pilot whale Short-finned pilot whale Irrawaddy dolphin Shepherd’s beaked whale Arnoux’s beaked whale Longman’s beaked whale Blainville’s beaked whale Strap-toothed beaked whale Hector’s beaked whale Gray’s beaked whale Andrews’ beaked whale True’s beaked whale Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale Cuvier’s beaked whale Southern bottlenose whale Sperm whale Pygmy sperm whale Dwarf sperm whale Southern right whale Pygmy right whale Minke whale Sei whale Bryde’s whale Blue whale Fin whale Humpback whale 5. Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 Actions arising from conservation status 5.2 Habitats 5.3 Disturbance and harassment 5.3.1 Acoustic effects 5.3.2 Whale and dolphin watching 5.4 Research 5.4.1 Strandings 5.4.2 Incidental take 5.4.3 Distribution and abundance 5.4.3.1 Sightings surveys 5.4.3.2 Acoustic studies 5.4.3.3 Telemetry 5.4.4 Ecosystem context 5.4.5 Photo-identification catalogues 5.4.6 The Southern Ocean Sanctuary 5.5 Legislation 5.6 Education 5.7 Advisory body 6. Flagship Taxa Appendix 1: Scope Appendix 2: Categories of threat: definitions Appendix 3: Community involvement Appendix 4: Workshop participants and respondents to draft report Appendix 5: Organisations, committees and individuals involved or potentially involved in cetacean conservation in Australia Appendix 6: Glossary and key to acronyms Executive Summary Background This report forms one of a series of action plans for Australian fauna being developed for the Endangered Species Unit, Australian Nature Conservation Agency (ANCA), by consultancy. The project’s aim was to develop a national overview of the conservation status of Australian cetaceans and recommend conservation priorities, and research and management action, with particular emphasis on endangered and vulnerable taxa. Scope The consultancy was to: • overview the conservation status of Australian cetaceans • identify key habitats for endangered or vulnerable taxa • identify threatening processes • review current conservation research and management action • recommend future priorities • identify two or more flagship taxa • develop a list of relevant experts. Work program Three collaborators, Mr John Bannister, Dr Catherine Kemper and Mr Robert Warneke, were appointed to undertake the consultancy. Initial contacts were made with over 50 relevant organisations and individuals, with a response from 67 per cent. Data were obtained from state museums and other organisations. Preliminary drafts of report sections were considered at a small workshop in Canberra in March 1994, attended by a broad range of individuals. Twenty-five responses, many detailed and comprehensive, and including some from overseas, were received to a draft report circulated in April 1994. Progress was reviewed at an Australian Mammal Society (AMS) marine mammal symposium in Hobart in July 1994. Other ANCA action plans have included ‘recovery outlines’ for threatened taxa. Given the small number (three) of Australian cetaceans already listed as endangered—the blue whale, the southern right whale and the humpback whale—and the likelihood that many would be considered insufficiently known, the decision was made to prepare species synopses for all 43 Australian species, thus providing a comprehensive basis for future research and management. To set the exercise in context, four overviews were prepared: Zoogeography, Threatening processes, Legislation and Community involvement. Given the considerable public interest in cetaceans generally, statements were sought from a number of prominent non- government organisations on their views of their role; the six received are included as Appendix 3. Definition of region For the purposes of this plan, the Australian region is taken to comprise waters under Australian jurisdiction, i.e. within the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around continental Australia and its External Territories, including Christmas and Cocos Islands in the Indian Ocean, the Coral Sea island territories and waters off the Australian subantarctic islands (Heard and Macdonald, and Macquarie) and off the Australian Antarctic Territory (Figure 1). Overviews Under Zoogeography (Item 2.1), the Australian cetacean fauna is shown to be moderately rich (with 43, i.e. 54 per cent, of the 79 species recognised worldwide), although there are no endemics. Seven families are well represented, and, as to be expected, Australia shares many faunal elements with the other southern continents and New Zealand. With the generally cosmopolitan nature of the Australian cetacean fauna and late history of scientific discovery, only three currently accepted taxa have Australian type specimens: the pygmy right whale, the southern bottlenose whale and Longman’s beaked whale. Distribution patterns are described and where possible linked to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Captive Orcas
    Captive Orcas ‘Dying to Entertain You’ The Full Story A report for Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) Chippenham, UK Produced by Vanessa Williams Contents Introduction Section 1 The showbiz orca Section 2 Life in the wild FINgerprinting techniques. Community living. Social behaviour. Intelligence. Communication. Orca studies in other parts of the world. Fact file. Latest news on northern/southern residents. Section 3 The world orca trade Capture sites and methods. Legislation. Holding areas [USA/Canada /Iceland/Japan]. Effects of capture upon remaining animals. Potential future capture sites. Transport from the wild. Transport from tank to tank. “Orca laundering”. Breeding loan. Special deals. Section 4 Life in the tank Standards and regulations for captive display [USA/Canada/UK/Japan]. Conditions in captivity: Pool size. Pool design and water quality. Feeding. Acoustics and ambient noise. Social composition and companionship. Solitary confinement. Health of captive orcas: Survival rates and longevity. Causes of death. Stress. Aggressive behaviour towards other orcas. Aggression towards trainers. Section 5 Marine park myths Education. Conservation. Captive breeding. Research. Section 6 The display industry makes a killing Marketing the image. Lobbying. Dubious bedfellows. Drive fisheries. Over-capturing. Section 7 The times they are a-changing The future of marine parks. Changing climate of public opinion. Ethics. Alternatives to display. Whale watching. Cetacean-free facilities. Future of current captives. Release programmes. Section 8 Conclusions and recommendations Appendix: Location of current captives, and details of wild-caught orcas References The information contained in this report is believed to be correct at the time of last publication: 30th April 2001. Some information is inevitably date-sensitive: please notify the author with any comments or updated information.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1297 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 917B
    Page 1297 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 917b 1923, as amended’’ on authority of Pub. L. 89–554, § 7(b), classified principally to chapter 38 (§ 1801 et seq.) of this Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 631 (the first section of which en- title. For complete classification of this Act to the acted Title 5, Government Organization and Employ- Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1801 of ees), and of section 1106(a) of act Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, this title and Tables. title XI, 63 Stat. 972, which provided that references in MENDMENTS other laws to the Classification Act of 1923 shall be con- A sidered to mean the Classification Act of 1949. 1996—Par. (3). Pub. L. 104–208 substituted ‘‘Magnuson- In cl. (b), ‘‘subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5 and Stevens Fishery’’ for ‘‘Magnuson Fishery’’. section 5731(a) of title 5’’ substituted for ‘‘the Travel 1980—Par. (3). Pub. L. 96–561 substituted ‘‘Magnuson Expense Act of 1949 and section 10 of the Act of March Fishery Conservation and Management Act’’ for ‘‘Fish- 3, 1933 (U.S.C., title 5, sec. 73b)’’ on authority of Pub. L. ery Conservation and Management Act of 1976’’. 89–554, § 7(b), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 631, the first section of which enacted Title 5. EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1996 AMENDMENT In cl. (e), ‘‘section 501 of title 44’’ substituted for Section 101(a) [title II, § 211(b)] of div. A of Pub. L. ‘‘section 11 of the Act of March 1, 1919 (U.S.C., title 44, 104–208 provided that the amendment made by that sec- sec.
    [Show full text]
  • Whale Conservation in Coastal Ecuador : Environmentalism of the Poor Or Neoliberal Conservation ?*
    Revista Iberoamericana 25.2 (2014 ): 1-33. Whale Conservation in Coastal Ecuador : Environmentalism of the Poor or Neoliberal Conservation ?* Bradley Tatar Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology [UNIST] Tatar, Bradley (2014), Whale Conservation in Coastal Ecuador: Environmentali sm of the Poor or Neoliberal Conservation? In this p aper, I examine the interaction between transnational activist Abstract networks, conservation scientists, government authorities, and artisanal fish ing communities in coastal Ecuador. Focusing on the problem of cetacean bycatch, I employ the concept of the “discourse of nature” to identify contrasting languages of valuation used by the stakeholders for marine coastal environments. NGOs utilize a scientific evaluation to portray artisanal fishing as a hazard to the survival of hum pback whales, but this coincides with the attempt by government and development agencies to portray artisanal fisheries as inefficient and ecologically harmful. In contrast, a survey I carried out in a coastal fishing community shows that local residents contest this portrayal of fishing as ecologically harmful, drawing upon their discourses of livelihood, indigenous identity, territorial claims, and social marginality. Focusing on the social conflict surrounding the marine protected area [MPA] of Machalilla National Park, I argue that additional restrictions on fishing to mitigate the incidence of cetacean bycatch will not have adequate social acceptance by local artisan fishing communities. Hence, the language of whale conservation which appears to be a pro-poor environmentalism at the macro (international) level, appears to local actors as a threat to their livelihoods. To offset this micro/macro discrepancy, whale conservation NGOs should support local aspirations to continue fishing as a livelihood, thereby * This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2012S1A5A8024090).
    [Show full text]
  • The Regulatory Framework for Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises in European Waters
    The Regulatory Framework for Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises in European Waters Andrea Ripol, Seas At Risk, Brussels, Belgium and Mirta Zupan, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences and Ghent University, Belgium No EU citizen wants to eat fish that has been caught at the expense of iconic species like dolphins or whales. The legal framework to prevent the killing of marine mammals exists, now it is just a matter of political will to implement it. Andrea Ripol © Tilen Genov, Morigenos © Tilen Genov, 28 Overview of Cetacean Species in European Waters (including Red List Status) Introduction Interest in whale conservation began in earnest in the late 1940s largely as a response to the unsustainable pressure placed on whale populations by intensified commercial whaling. At first, the aim was to conserve populations in order to continue harvesting them. In the 1970s, as environmental activism heightened, several international agreements for nature protection were signed, including the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). Today, in addition, cetaceans in European Union (EU) waters are strictly protected by the EU‘s Habitats Directive, as well as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which intends to prevent human-induced decline of biodiversity, targets various pressures and threats and tries to achieve a good environmental status in EU waters. Legal framework in Europe Habitats Directive and the Natura 2000 network The protection of cetaceans in the EU is primarily driven by the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC), a cornerstone of EU legislation for nature protection, adopted in 1992 (Council of the European Communities, 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • SOLUTION: Gathering and Sonic Blasts for Oil Exploration Because These Practices Can Harm and Kill Whales
    ENDANGEREDWHALES © Nolan/Greenpeace WE HAVE A PROBLEM: WHAT YOU CAN DO: • Many whale species still face extinction. • Tell the Bush administration to strongly support whale protection so whaling countries get the • Blue whales, the largest animals ever, may now number as message. few as 400.1 • Ask elected officials to press Iceland, Japan • Rogue nations Japan, Norway and Iceland flout the and Norway to respect the commercial whaling international ban on commercial whaling. moratorium. • Other threats facing whales include global warming, toxic • Demand that the U.S. curb global warming pollution dumping, noise pollution and lethal “bycatch” from fishing. and sign the Stockholm Convention, which bans the most harmful chemicals on the planet. • Tell Congress that you oppose sonar intelligence SOLUTION: gathering and sonic blasts for oil exploration because these practices can harm and kill whales. • Japan, Norway and Iceland must join the rest of the world and respect the moratorium on commercial whaling. • The loophole Japan exploits to carry out whaling for “Tomostpeople,whalingisallnineteenth- “scientific” research should be closed. centurystuff.Theyhavenoideaabout • Fishing operations causing large numbers of whale hugefloatingslaughterhouses,steel-hulled bycatch deaths must be cleaned up or stopped. chaserboatswithsonartostalkwhales, • Concerted international action must be taken to stop andharpoonsfiredfromcannons.” other threats to whales including global warming, noise Bob Hunter, pollution, ship strikes and toxic contamination.
    [Show full text]
  • The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Signed at Washington Under Date of December 2, 1946
    1946 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE REGULATION OF WHALING Adopted in Washington, USA on 2 December 1946 [http://iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm] ARTICLE I ................................................................................................................................. 4 ARTICLE II ................................................................................................................................ 4 ARTICLE III ............................................................................................................................... 4 ARTICLE IV ............................................................................................................................... 5 ARTICLE V ................................................................................................................................ 5 ARTICLE VI ............................................................................................................................... 6 ARTICLE VII .............................................................................................................................. 7 ARTICLE VIII ............................................................................................................................. 7 ARTICLE IX ............................................................................................................................... 7 ARTICLE X ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Crowdsourcing Modern and Historical Data Identifies Sperm Whale
    ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 15 September 2016 doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00167 Crowdsourcing Modern and Historical Data Identifies Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) Habitat Offshore of South-Western Australia Christopher M. Johnson 1, 2, 3*, Lynnath E. Beckley 1, Halina Kobryn 1, Genevieve E. Johnson 2, Iain Kerr 2 and Roger Payne 2 1 School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia, 2 Ocean Alliance, Gloucester, MA, USA, 3 WWF Australia, Carlton, VIC, Australia The distribution and use of pelagic habitat by sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) is poorly understood in the south-eastern Indian Ocean off Western Australia. However, a variety of data are available via online portals where records of historical expeditions, commercial whaling operations, and modern scientific research voyages can now be accessed. Crowdsourcing these online data allows collation of presence-only information Edited by: of animals and provides a valuable tool to help augment areas of low research effort. Rob Harcourt, Four data sources were examined, the primary one being the Voyage of the Odyssey Macquarie University, Australia expedition, a 5-year global study of sperm whales and ocean pollution. From December Reviewed by: 2001 to May 2002, acoustic surveys were conducted along 5200 nautical miles of Clive Reginald McMahon, Sydney Institute of Marine Science, transects off Western Australia including the Perth Canyon and historical whaling grounds Australia off Albany; 60 tissue biopsy samples were also collected. To augment areas not surveyed Gail Schofield, Deakin University, Australia by the RV Odyssey, historical Yankee whaling data (1712–1920), commercial whaling *Correspondence: data (1904–1999), and citizen science reports of sperm whale sightings (1990–2003) Christopher M.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 75/Wednesday, April 21, 2021
    21082 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 21, 2021 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Network, and the Wishtoyo Foundation Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected filed a complaint seeking court-ordered National Oceanic and Atmospheric Resources, 301–427–8466. deadlines for the issuance of proposed Administration SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and final rules to designate critical habitat for the CAM, MX, and WNP 50 CFR Parts 223, 224, and 226 Background DPSs of humpback whales. See Center Under the ESA, we are responsible for for Biological Diversity et al. v. National [Docket No. 210415–0080] determining whether certain species are Marine Fisheries Service, et al., No. threatened or endangered, and, to the 3:18–cv–01628–EDL (N.D. Cal.). The RIN 0648–BI06 maximum extent prudent and parties entered into a settlement determinable, designating critical agreement with the approval and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife habitat for endangered and threatened oversight of the court, and subsequently and Plants: Designating Critical species at the time of listing (16 U.S.C. amended the dates specified in the Habitat for the Central America, 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)). On September 8, 2016, original order. The amended settlement Mexico, and Western North Pacific we published a final rule that revised agreement stipulated that NMFS submit Distinct Population Segments of the listing of humpback whales under a proposed determination concerning Humpback Whales the ESA by removing the original, the designation of critical habitat for taxonomic-level species listing, and in these three DPSs to the Federal Register AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries its place listing four DPSs as endangered by September 26, 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex
    OIL from a WHALE 0. OIL from a WHALE - Story Preface 1. THE CREW of the ESSEX 2. FACTS and MYTHS about SPERM WHALES 3. KNOCKDOWN of the ESSEX 4. CAPTAIN POLLARD MAKES MISTAKES 5. WHALING LINGO and the NANTUCKET SLEIGH RIDE 6. OIL from a WHALE 7. HOW WHALE BLUBBER BECOMES OIL 8. ESSEX and the OFFSHORE GROUNDS 9. A WHALE ATTACKS the ESSEX 10. A WHALE DESTROYS the ESSEX 11. GEORGE POLLARD and OWEN CHASE 12. SURVIVING the ESSEX DISASTER 13. RESCUE of the ESSEX SURVIVORS 14. LIFE after the WRECK of the ESSEX By 1904, when this photo was taken aboard a bark called Sunbeam, not much had changed in the method by which whalers removed spermaceti (high-quality whale oil) from the head of a sperm whale (cachalot). Spermaceti is located in the part of the whale's head known as the "case." Photo, by C. W. Ashley, circa 1904. Online via Mystic Seaport. Towing a huge whale back to the main ship was slow-going. Rowers could travel about one mile per hour. Sometimes it was dark when the crew returned. With a whale to butcher, the Essex—like other similar whaleships—became a factory at sea. The first job, to extract a whale’s oil, was to remove its blubber in twenty-foot strips. Those strips were lowered to the vessel’s blubber room where they were cut into smaller pieces. Once the whale was completely stripped of its blubber, it had to be decapitated. The head of a sperm whale (cachalot)—whose scientific name is Physeter macrocephalus—is around a third of its total length.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing the Catches of Whales in the Southern Hemisphere
    SHARING THE CATCHES OF WHALES IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE S.J. Holt 4 Upper House Farm,Crickhowell, NP8 1BZ, Wales (UK) <[email protected]> 1. INTRODUCTION What historians have labelled modern whaling is largely a twentieth century enterprise. Its defining feature is the cannon-fired harpoon with an explosive head, launched from a motorised catcher boat.1 This system was first devised about 1865 by Svend Foyn, the son of a ship-owner from Tønsberg, in Vestfold, southeast Norway. Foyn believed that “God had let the whale inhabit the waters for the benefit and blessing of mankind, and consequently I considered it my vocation to promote these fisheries”. He has been described as “...a man with great singularity of vision, since virtually everything he did ...was dedicated to the profitable killing of whales”. Foyn’s system allowed for the first time the systematic hunting and killing of the largest and fastest swimming species of whales, the rorquals, a sub-class of whalebone whales (Mysticetes spp.). The basic technology was supplemented by significant developments in cabling, winches and related hardware and in processing. Powered vessels could not only tow the dead rorquals back to land bases quickly and thus in good condition for processing, but could provide ample compressed air to keep them afloat. Modern whaling could not, however, have become a major industry world-wide, without other technological developments. Other kinds of whales had already been killed in enormous numbers, primarily for their oil, for over a century.2 In 1905 it was discovered that oil from baleen whales could be hydrogenated and the resulting product could be used in the manufacture of soap and food products.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimates of the Current Global Population Size and Historical Trajectory for Sperm Whales
    MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 242: 295–304, 2002 Published October 25 Mar Ecol Prog Ser Estimates of the current global population size and historical trajectory for sperm whales Hal Whitehead1, 2,* 1Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax B3H4JI, Nova Scotia, Canada 2Max Planck Institute for Behavioural Physiology, PO Box 1564, 82305 Starnberg, Germany ABSTRACT: Assessments of sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus abundance based on invalid analyses of whaling data are common in the literature. Modern visual surveys have produced popu- lation estimates for a total of 24% of the sperm whale’s global habitat. I corrected these assessments for whales missed on the track line and then used 3 methods to scale up to a global population. Scal- ing using habitat area, plots of 19th century catches and primary production produced consistent global population estimates of about 360 000 whales (CV = 0.36). This is approximately 20% of the numbers reproduced in current literature from invalid whaling-based estimates. A population model, based on that used by the International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee, and which con- siders uncertainty in population parameters and catch data, was used to estimate population trajec- tories. Results suggest that pre-whaling numbers were about 1 110 000 whales (95% CI: 672 000 to 1512 000), and that the population was about 71% (95% CI: 52 to 100%) of its original level in 1880 as open-boat whaling drew to a close and about 32% (95% CI: 19 to 62%) of its original level in 1999, 10 yr after the end of large-scale hunting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rms – a Question of Confidence?
    THE RMS – A QUESTION OF CONFIDENCE? - Manipulations and Falsifications in Whaling A review by Dr. Sandra Altherr, Kitty Block and Sue Fisher - 2 - RMS: A Question of Confidence? – Manipulations and Falsifications in Whaling Content 1. The RMS Process in 2005 and Remaining Questions ................................................................................ 3 2. RMP................................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1. Tuning Level ............................................................................................................................................. 4 2.2. Phasing in the RMP.................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3. Current RMS Discussion on the RMP....................................................................................................... 4 3. Catch Verification through International Observers................................................................................... 5 3.1. Misreporting and Underreporting in Past Whaling Activities ..................................................................... 5 3.2. Manipulations of Sex Ratio and Body-Length Data .................................................................................. 6 3.3. Hampering of Inspectors and Observers .................................................................................................. 7 3.4.
    [Show full text]