DOCSLIB.ORG

Marine Mammals: a Multifaceted Resource

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Marine Mammals: a Multifaceted Resource Marine Mammals: A multifaceted Resource © NAMMCO Greenlandic boy with dried humpback whale meat © F. Ugarte To be cited as: Marine Mammals: A multifaceted Resource, NAMMCO 2017 Marine Mammals: A multifaceted Resource 1. Why not consider Marine Mammals? 5 2. Marine Mammals, an Abundant and Logical Resource in the North 6 2.1 An abundant resource in a world of scarcity. 6 2.2 An abundant resource 7 2.2.1 Pinnipeds 7 2.2.2 Cetaceans 9 2.3 A highly valued and therefore carefully managed resource 9 2.3.1 Strict management of resources ensuring healthy stocks 9 2.3.2 A responsibly managed resource – welfare issues 13 3. Marine Mammals, a Green-Blue Resource 15 3.1 A natural Resource 15 3.2 A Resource in balance with the Environment 15 3.3 A Resource contributing to Blue Growth 17 4. Marine Mammals under Threat 18 4.1 A Changing Arctic as Background 19 4.2 Uncontrolled direct removals 19 4.2.1 Ship strikes 20 4.2.2 By-catch and entanglement 20 4.3 Insidious undercover anthropogenic stressors 20 4.3.1 The soft killers: contaminants and microplastics 20 4.3.2 Anthropogenic disturbances 21 4.4 Precautionary management needed and an appeal to join forces 22 5. Marine Mammals, a Healthy Resource with Challenges 23 5.1 Nutritive value 23 5.2 Health benefits 23 5.3 Health concerns: contaminants 24 6. Marine Mammals, a Resource Contributing to Food Security 25 6.1 Food Security – a growing concern 25 6.2 The status of Food Security in the Arctic 25 6.3 Marine Mammals as contributors to Food Security? 27 6.3.1 Stable availability 27 6.3.2 Stable access 28 6.3.3 Stable utilisation 28 7. Marine Mammals, a Source of Identity and Empowerment 29 7.1 A resource entwined with identity: Faroes 30 7.2 A resource entwined with identity and social purpose: Greenland 31 7.3 A resource entwined with avant-garde conservation: Iceland 33 7.4 A resource entwined with small communities’ viability: Norway 35 7.5 A resource empowering small coastal communities 36 8. Whaling and Sealing, Past and Present but Differently 36 8.1 Two different scales of hunting pressure 36 8.2 A strong incentive for sustainability 37 9. Marine Mammals, a Forgotten Resource? 38 9.1 A general attitude against using marine mammals as food resources? 38 9.2 Marine mammals as endangered species? 39 9.3 Are marine mammal supra-mammals? 40 9.3.1 Fascinating animals 40 9.3.2 Fascinating but not “innocent” 41 9.4 An ethical issue? 42 9.5 Another side of ethics - where should the real focus be? 42 10. Conclusion: Marine Mammals – why not? 43 References 45 Appendices 49 North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission 3 | 50 Marine Mammals: A multifaceted Resource 1. WHY NOT CONSIDER MARINE MAMMALS? Since pre-historic times, stranded or hunted marine mammals have represented resources in terms of food and materials for many coastal communities worldwide, as testified by their appearance in rock carvings, legends, writings, literature and art. In the Arctic, their wide distribution and abundance make them the predominant component of the marine ecosystem. Now, as in the past, they are a logical and necessary food resource. Their year-round availability has enabled small, remote and isolated northern coastal communities to survive and to maintain a relatively high degree of self- sufficiency in food production. Small-scale coastal whaling and sealing were not only a source of food, commodities, trading currency and cash, but also represented a cultural and societal keystone and were the mainstay of many coastal communities, particularly in Greenland. Subsistence coastal whaling and sealing were conducted in a largely sustainable manner, but became undermined as commercial whaling and sealing developed. The large scale systematic hunting for profit lead to serious declines in many of the world’s populations of marine mammals, to the point of collapse of most of the major whale stocks and the extinction of some pinniped species. As a result, marine mammal hunting became a worldwide symbol of mismanagement and abuse of natural resources. The emergence of the modern environmental ethic coupled with the development of precautionary and effective management procedures (by population and stock), as well as the demise of the demand for whale and seal oil, brought an end to large scale whaling and sealing by the mid-1980s. Although a few remain critically endangered, many stocks of marine mammals have since recovered from exploitation and are considered healthy (Gambell 1999, Clapham et al. 1999, Costa et al. 2006, Laidre et al. 2015, Thomas et al. 2015, Clapham 2016, IWC1 20162, Smith et al. in UN3 2016) and are thus able to sustain controlled removals. Today whaling and sealing are still a reality for many northern coastal communities, simply because marine mammals are present, nearby and abundant, and therefore a logical resource to use in an environment of scarcity. They continue to represent an invaluable resource providing food and/or income, as well as job opportunities in places where non-marine resources are limited and/or employment opportunities are few. Although the capacity for sustainable management has been built up through progress in the development of precautionary management procedures, targeted stocks are healthy, and locally sustainably exploited marine mammals represent an ecosystem-friendly, low-carbon footprint resource, the exploitation of marine mammals remains controversial and demonised, stamped as uncivilised and barbaric – barely acceptable as subsistence activities for those marginal “aboriginals” or “natives”. Food insecurity is recognised as one of the major concerns of the 21st century and is, particularly in the Arctic, exacerbated by climate change. Some marine mammals represent valuable potential contributors to food security in many places. Nevertheless, they are ignored as potential food resources in the general discourse on food security (Godfray et al. 2010, UN 2014, 2015, FAO 2016, Potts et al. 2016, WEF 2016). The UN General Assembly (UN 2014) recognises the important role played by seafood in global food security and defines seafood as including “all marine living resources used for food, including fish, shellfish, crustaceans, marine mammals, sea turtles and algae (our emphasis)”. 1 International Whaling Commission 2 https://iwc.int/status, retrieved June 2016 3 United Nations North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission 5 | 50 Marine Mammals: A multifaceted Resource It underlines that “this definition promotes a holistic view of the contribution of seafood to global food security”. Marine mammals are mentioned as a possible important source of nutrition, in particular for certain groups of indigenous peoples and it is also noted that they are not as widely consumed for a variety of reasons. After this mention, however, the potential of marine mammals as contributors to food security is simply not examined further. With a focus on the northern regions, we examine the potential of marine mammals as a food resource in the light of both the “blue economy” and climate and environmental change, in an environmental, dietary and societal perspective. We look at their abundance, our ability to manage them sustainably, their ecological footprint and explore why marine mammal resources are currently ignored in the context of food security. Petroglyph from South Norway depicting a whale. 2. MARINE MAMMALS, AN ABUNDANT AND LOGICAL RESOURCE IN THE NORTH Marine mammals have been and are still consumed as human food all around the world (e.g., Shoemaker 2005, Robards and Reeves 2011). In the northern latitudes, marine mammals have, however, acquired a special significance because of their abundance when compared to the scarcity of land resources. 2.1 AN ABUNDANT RESOURCE IN A WORLD OF SCARCITY. The Arctic environment of the NAMMCO countries is characterised by an inhospitable environment and climate, with limited usable land resources. Both flora and fauna in this environment have low diversity and quantity, and are limited by a short summer growing season. In sharp contrast, the marine environment bursts with diverse and abundant resources, including fish, crustaceans, sea birds and marine mammals. The fish fauna is, however, impoverished compared to lower latitudes, although a few important species abound in some areas. Sometimes these abundant fish species occur in deeper waters, which until relatively recently could not be effectively taken with indigenous fishing technology (e.g. Greenland halibut, shrimp and crab). In contrast to the limited fish resources, several species of marine mammals (seals and whales) are permanent residents accessible to hunters. Migratory warm-blooded species (including birds and whales) arrive also in abundance in the summer months to feed on the seasonally available marine invertebrates (Freeman 2001). Animal diets, including those of humans, reflect the resource availability within their specific environments, leading to geographical variation within and between species. Human diets in the Arctic have been and still are dominated by marine resources and technical limitations in fishing methods North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission 6 | 50 Marine Mammals: A multifaceted Resource dictated that until recently they were heavily centred upon marine mammals. The reliance on locally available resources is reinforced by limitations in transport infrastructure due to the large distances between northern settlements and the harsh landscape. In Greenland, for example, no roads connect the towns on the mainland. Many communities are isolated for months of the year due to the presence of sea ice, and food shipments can’t get through by sea. As a result, the use of locally available wildlife, and in particular marine mammals, is enshrined in northern cultures, and are reflected in long-standing cultural traditions. Due to their abundance and widespread distribution, marine mammals represent, now as in the past, an obvious and logical food resource in the Arctic.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mahimahi (Coryphaenamahimahi Hippurus)
    mahimahi (CoryphaenaMahimahi hippurus) Mahimahi is the Hawaiian of Hawaii’s commercial landings Quality name that has become the common of mahimahi. Trollers catch nearly market name for this fish. It is also 40% of the landings. Schools of ma- Fresh mahimahi has a shelf life of known as dorado or dolphin (the himahi are common around flotsam 10 days if properly cared for. The fish, not the mammal) in other parts drifting at sea and near fish aggre- fish caught by trolling are only one of the country. When a mahimahi gation buoys. or two days on ice when landed and are typically fresher than the ma- takes the hook, its colors are bril- Although mahimahi have been liant blue and silver dappled with himahi caught by longline boats on raised successfully in tanks from extended trips. yellow. These fade quickly when the eggs to adults, the high cost has fish dies. made commercial aquaculture un- The first external evidence of de- Seasonality & How feasible to date. terioration in a whole mahimahi is They Are Caught softening and fading of bright skin Distribution: colors. In a dressed fish, discolor- Availability and Seasonality: The popularity of fresh mahimahi ation of the flesh exposed around Locally-caught mahimahi is avail- in the tourist industry and with resi- the collar bone would indicate a loss able most of the year, with peak dents has created a steady demand of quality. Mahimahi retains better catches usually March to May and for this fish and consistently good quality if it is not filleted until short- from September to November.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumption Impacts by Marine Mammals, Fish, and Seabirds on The
    83 Consumption impacts by marine mammals, fish, and seabirds on the Gulf of Maine–Georges Bank Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) complex during the years 1977–2002 W. J. Overholtz and J. S. Link Overholtz, W. J. and Link, J. S. 2007. Consumption impacts by marine mammals, fish, and seabirds on the Gulf of Maine–Georges Bank Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) complex during the years 1977–2002. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 83–96. A comprehensive study of the impact of predation during the years 1977–2002 on the Gulf of Maine–Georges Bank herring complex is presented. An uncertainty approach was used to model input variables such as predator stock size, daily ration, and diet composition. Statistical distributions were constructed on the basis of available data, producing informative and uninformative inputs for estimating herring consumption within an uncertainty framework. Consumption of herring by predators tracked herring abundance closely during the study period, as this important prey species recovered following an almost complete collapse during the late 1960s and 1970s. Annual consumption of Atlantic herring by four groups of predators, demersal fish, marine mammals, large pelagic fish, and seabirds, averaged just 58 000 t in the late 1970s, increased to 123 000 t between 1986 and 1989, 290 000 t between 1990 and 1994, and 310 000 t during the years 1998–2002. Demersal fish consumed the largest proportion of this total, followed by marine mammals, large pelagic fish, and seabirds. Sensitivity analyses suggest that future emphasis should be placed on collecting time-series of diet composition data for marine mammals, large pelagic fish, and seabirds, with additional monitoring focused on the abundance of seabirds and daily rations of all groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Orange Roughy New Zealand
    Orange Roughy Hoplostethus atlanticus Image ©Monterey Bay Aquarium New Zealand Bottom Trawl July 21, 2014 Andy Woolmer and Jess Woo, Consulting Researcher 2 About Seafood Watch® The Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild- caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the North American marketplace. Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. The program’s mission is to engage and empower consumers and businesses to purchase environmentally responsible seafood fished or farmed in ways that minimize their impact on the environment or are in a credible improvement project with the same goal. Each sustainability recommendation is supported by a seafood report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s Sustainability Criteria to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choice,” “Good Alternative,” or “Avoid.” In producing the seafood reports, Seafood Watch utilizes research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch research analysts also communicate with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying seafood reports will be updated to reflect these changes.
    [Show full text]
  • Wasted Catch: Unsolved Problems in U.S. Fisheries
    © Brian Skerry WASTED CATCH: UNSOLVED PROBLEMS IN U.S. FISHERIES Authors: Amanda Keledjian, Gib Brogan, Beth Lowell, Jon Warrenchuk, Ben Enticknap, Geoff Shester, Michael Hirshfield and Dominique Cano-Stocco CORRECTION: This report referenced a bycatch rate of 40% as determined by Davies et al. 2009, however that calculation used a broader definition of bycatch than is standard. According to bycatch as defined in this report and elsewhere, the most recent analyses show a rate of approximately 10% (Zeller et al. 2017; FAO 2018). © Brian Skerry ACCORDING TO SOME ESTIMATES, GLOBAL BYCATCH MAY AMOUNT TO 40 PERCENT OF THE WORLD’S CATCH, TOTALING 63 BILLION POUNDS PER YEAR CORRECTION: This report referenced a bycatch rate of 40% as determined by Davies et al. 2009, however that calculation used a broader definition of bycatch than is standard. According to bycatch as defined in this report and elsewhere, the most recent analyses show a rate of approximately 10% (Zeller et al. 2017; FAO 2018). CONTENTS 05 Executive Summary 06 Quick Facts 06 What Is Bycatch? 08 Bycatch Is An Undocumented Problem 10 Bycatch Occurs Every Day In The U.S. 15 Notable Progress, But No Solution 26 Nine Dirty Fisheries 37 National Policies To Minimize Bycatch 39 Recommendations 39 Conclusion 40 Oceana Reducing Bycatch: A Timeline 42 References ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Jennifer Hueting and In-House Creative for graphic design and the following individuals for their contributions during the development and review of this report: Eric Bilsky, Dustin Cranor, Mike LeVine, Susan Murray, Jackie Savitz, Amelia Vorpahl, Sara Young and Beckie Zisser.
    [Show full text]
  • AWI Comments on Resolution on Food Security (IWC/65/10 Rev
    AWI Comments on Resolution on Food Security (IWC/65/10 Rev 2). Food security is an important issue globally, nationally, and locally. With the exception of aboriginal subsistence whaling, however, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which established the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is not – and was It has been well documented that marine fish stocks are never – considered a treaty that included food security in crisis. According to the FAO, the share of marine fish as a primary concern. Instead, there are numerous other stocks that are over-exploited has increased from 10 international conventions, declarations, and agencies percent in 1970 to nearly one third in 2009. A further 52 that have, as their primary focus, food security and percent of fish stocks are considered fully exploited. related issues. Such international fora include, inter alia, According to a 2012 report “Pirate Fishing Exposed – The the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Committee on Fight Against Illegal Fishing in West Africa and the EU” by World Food Security, the International Food Security the Environmental Justice Foundation: Treaty (proposed),1 and the Food Assistance Convention2 (formerly the Food Aid Convention3). Losses (globally) due to IUU fishing are estimated to be between US$10 billion and US$23.5 billion In addition, there are numerous reports and declarations per year, representing between 11 and 26 million on the subject, including a report entitled Sustainable tonnes of fish. West African waters are estimated Contribution
    [Show full text]
  • Meat Consumption from Stranded Whales and Marine Mammals in New Zealand: Public Health and Other Issues
    Meat consumption from stranded whales and marine mammals in New Zealand: Public health and other issues M W Cawthorn Cawthorn & Associates Marine Mammals/Fisheries Consultants 53 Motuhara Road Plimmerton Wellington Published by Department of Conservation Head Office, PO Box 10-420 Wellington, New Zealand This report was commissioned by Hawke's Bay, Wellington and Otago Conservancies ISSN 1171-9834 1997 Department of Conservation, P.O. Box 10-420, Wellington, New Zealand Reference to material in this report should be cited thus: Cawthorn, M.W., 1997 Meat consumption from stranded whales and marine mammals in New Zealand: Public health and other issues. Conservation Advisory Science Notes No. 164, Department of Conservation, Wellington. Keywords: Whales, seals, food preparation (marine mammal), meat quality assessment (marine mammal), flensing, pathogens, contaminants Abstract Interest in the use of stranded whales as a source of food and the use of seals for cultural purposes has been expressed to the Department of Conservation by Ngati Hawea and Ngai Tahu Maori respectively. The known and anecdotal history of consumption of whale and seal meat in New Zealand and elsewhere is briefly discussed. Comments on the palatibility of marine mammal meat and the use of whales and seals as food are presented. Post-stranding damage and carcass contamination result in unsuitability of meat for human consump- tion. Criteria for the assessment of meat quality from stranded animals are presented. The transmission of parasites, particularly Anisakis sp., and the cumulative effects of persistent pesticides and heavy metals from consump- tion of meat from species such as pilot whales is discussed. Meat collection and storage should be conducted under the same conditions and constraints applied to terrestrial mammals.
    [Show full text]
  • CMS 25 YEARS Final
    A special report to mark the Silver Anniversary of the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species (1979–2004) OF JOURNEYS 25 YEARS Convention on Migratory Species United Nations Environment Programme 25 Years A message from the Secretary-General of the United Nations People have long marvelled at the sight of great flocks, shoals or herds of migratory creatures on the move, or have wondered at that movement’s meaning. Published by the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory animals are not only something spectacular to behold from afar; they Migratory Species of Wild Animals are an integral part of the web of life on Earth. Animal migration is essential for (CMS). healthy ecosystems, contributing to their structure and function and visibly Bonn, Germany 2004 connecting one to the other. It is a basis for activities that create livelihoods and support local and global economies. Migratory animals are among the top © 2004 CMS attractions of ecotourism, contributing to sustainable development and national Information in this publication may be wealth. And in many religious and cultural traditions, they stand out in ritual and quoted or reproduced in part or in full lore passed down from generation to generation. provided the source and authorship is As nomads of necessity, these species are highly susceptible to harm caused acknowledged, unless a copyright by destruction of ecosystems. Migratory animals are also threatened by man- symbol appears with the item. made barriers and by unsustainable hunting and fishing practices, including ISBN 3-937429-03-4 ‘bycatch’ in commercial fisheries. People tend to underestimate the vulnerability DISCLAIMER of migratory species, regarding them as hardy and plentiful.
    [Show full text]
  • Yarari Marine Mammal and Shark Sanctuary - Content
    YARARI MARINE MAMMAL & SHARK SANCTUARY Editor’s note Dutch Caribbean, 2019 The Dutch Caribbean is an important area The Yarari Marine Mammal and Shark for marine mammals, sharks and rays. More Sanctuary was established in the Dutch than twenty marine mammal and thirty shark Caribbean on September 1, 2015. The Yarari and ray species are reported in these waters. Sanctuary comprises all the waters of Bonaire These animals have important ecological and Saba, and as of September 2018, St. roles in maintaining the health of coral reefs Eustatius. The name of the sanctuary “Yarari” and open ocean ecosystems and possess is a Taíno Indian word, meaning ‘a fine place’. major potential for eco-based tourism and It is intended to provide “a fine place” for ma- recreational activities. Populations around rine mammals, sharks and rays, where they the globe are threatened by overfishing, will receive the necessary attention to ensure habitat loss and other anthropogenic their protection. pressures. This special edition of BioNews contains Marine mammals, sharks and rays rely on a information on the Yarari Marine Mammal network of interlinked habitats throughout and Shark Sanctuary and an overview of the their hundreds, or even thousands, of kilom- current knowledge on marine mammals, eters journeys. Breeding and feeding grounds sharks and rays. As it is intended to eventually and migratory routes are especially important also include the other, neighboring, Dutch for conservation. Therefore, it is of great Caribbean islands: Aruba, Curaçao and St. importance to create Maarten, we present the available shark, a network of marine protected areas within ray and marine mammal information for the the Caribbean and beyond, to safeguard entire Dutch Caribbean.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Mammal Interactions
    Butterworth, A., & Simmonds, M. P. (Eds.) (2017). People-Marine Mammal Interactions. Frontiers Media S.A. https://doi.org/10.3389/978-2-88945-231-6 Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record License (if available): CC BY Link to published version (if available): 10.3389/978-2-88945-231-6 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Frontiers at https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/4089/people---marine-mammal-interactions. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ PEOPLE – MARINE MAMMAL INTERACTIONS EDITED BY : Andrew Butterworth and Mark P. Simmonds PUBLISHED IN : Frontiers in Marine Science Frontiers Copyright Statement About Frontiers © Copyright 2007-2017 Frontiers Media SA. All rights reserved. Frontiers is more than just an open-access publisher of scholarly articles: it is a pioneering All content included on this site, approach to the world of academia, radically improving the way scholarly research such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, video/audio clips, is managed. The grand vision of Frontiers is a world where all people have an equal downloads, data compilations and software, is the property of or is opportunity to seek, share and generate knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Fishing: Orange Roughy
    sustainable fishing: Orange Roughy Orange Roughy Ecology & Fishing: Classification and name Orange Roughy belong to the Trachichthydae family. Orange Roughy were originally known by the name ‘Slimehead’ but were renamed Orange Roughy as this was thought to be a more marketable name. Can you imagine ordering ‘Slimehead’ at a fancy restaurant? Scientific name: Hoplostethus atlanticus Common name: Orange Roughy Other name(s): Slimehead, Deep Sea Perch, Red Roughy Habitat and Distribution Orange Roughy are found deep in oceans around the world. They like to live in water over steep continental slopes and ocean ridges [beyond the continental shelf]. Orange Roughy can be found at depths of 750 to 1200 metres right around Aotearoa New Zealand, although the largest fisheries are south of the middle of the North Island. In Australia, Orange Roughy are found deep in in depths of 700 – 1400 metres around the bottom half of the country. Characteristics Orange Roughy are typically 30 – 50cm in length but can grow to 75cm in length. They typically weigh 0.8kg up to 3.5kg, although have been known to be as heavy as 7kg. Life cycle Orange Roughy are slow growing. In Aotearoa New Zealand Orange Roughy are thought to start reproducing at 23 to 31 years of age. In Australia, it is thought to be 1 27-32 years of age. Orange Roughy reproduce by spawning. Females spawn [release eggs] into the water over the period of about a week. Males spawn for a 1-2 week period. In Aoteaora New Zealand spawning happens between June and August and in Australia spawning occurs in July and August.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Forage Fish Management Plan
    Oregon Forage Fish Management Plan June 15, 2016 DRAFT Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Resources Program 2040 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, OR 97365 (541) 867-4741 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/ Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife · DRAFT · 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Federal action to protect Forage Fish (2016)............................................................................................ 7 The Oregon Marine Fisheries Management Plan Framework .................................................................. 7 Relationship with Other State Policies ...................................................................................................... 7 How this Document is Organized .............................................................................................................. 8 A. Resource Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 9 A.1. Description of the species included in the Plan ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Walleye Pollock Theragra Chalcogramma
    Long-term changes in food and feeding habits of common minke whales in western North Pacific region Tsutomu Tamura1 and Hidehiro Kato2 1: The Institute of Cetacean Research, JAPAN 2: The National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries Common minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Male, Body length 7.2m Body weight 4.5t How much is the size of minke whale？ Measuring the body length Body length 7 – 8 m Measuring the body weight Body weight 5 – 6 t Stock structure Migration pattern of common minke whale (O stock) June-Sep. O stock ？ J stock ？ ？ Abundance (O stock) Apr.-May 25,000 animals IWC，1992 Mature Mature Immature Male Female Material and methods Sorting of the stomach contents 50゜N 11 45゜ 9 Objective 8 40゜ * To investigate temporal and 7 geographical variability in the feeding ecology of minke whales 35゜ * To estimate food consumption and the implication for marine ecosystem 140゜ 150゜ 160゜ 170゜E Data * Stomach contents (Commercial, Scientific) * Commercial whaling ( - 1978) * Sampling date and position * Scientific whaling (1994 - ) * Oceanographic data 150 inds. * Echo-sounder analyses Prey species of common minke whale Major prey species Krill Euphausia pacifica Squid Japanese common squid Todarodes pacificus Pisces Japanese anchovy Engraulis japonicus Pacific saury Cololabis saira Walleye pollock Theragra chalcogramma Minor prey species Copepods Neocalanus cristatus Krill Thysanoessa inermis T. inspinata T. longipes Pisces Japanese sardine Sardinops melanostictus Chub mackerel Scomber japonicus Japanese pomfret Brama japonica
    [Show full text]