Bowhead whales a special report to the International Whaling Commission

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

A Special Report
to the International Whaling Commission

Li. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NO,AA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
'-'AHLESTON', SC 29405-2413

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

June 1978

Property of CSC Library

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . .1..........

I. 1978 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - AN INTERIM REPORT .. . . 3

II. 1978 RESEARCH PROGRAM - AN INTERIM REPORT. ....13

III. 1978 WEAPONS IMPROVEMENT - AN INTERIM REPORT .. 51

IV. ALASKAN ESKIMO SUBSISTENCE DEPENDENCE. ......55

APPENDICES

A. STATUS REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ALASKA
ESKIMO WHALING COMMISSION, May 1978;
MONETARY GRANT FROM THE ALASKA LEGISLATURE
IN SUPPORT OF ACTIVITIES OF THE ALASKA
ESKIMO WHALING COMMISSION. ..........A-3

B. UNITED STATES REGULATIONS FOR BOWHEAD
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. .............B-1

C. FIGURES I 5. ................C-i

or~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

SPECIAL REPORT TO THE
INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION:
BOWHEAD WHALES 1978

The bowhead whale has for centuries traditionally been hunted by
Eskimos on the North Slope of Alaska to meet their subsistence needs.
Due to commercial whaling in the 1800's, the bowhead has become one
of the endangered great whales. Concern for the protection of marine
mammals and endangered species led the United States to enact the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act
of 1973. Both Acts establish stringent controls on the taking of
marine mammals. At the same time, these Acts, as well as the
International Whaling Commission Schedules, have recognized the
importance of hunting to historical subsistence cultures, and have
provided appropriate exceptions to the controls for Alaskan native
subsistence needs.

In 1977, in response to growing concern for the bowhead whale, the
International Whaling Commission removed the exemption for native
subsistence harvest of bowhead whales and established a 1978 quota
of 12 landed or 18 struck, whichever occurred first. In response
to the action of the IWC, the United States in cooperation with
Alaskan Eskimos and other interested groups, has developed
comprehensive research and management programs aimed at increasing
our knoT<Iedcje of bowhead whales and ensuring that the bowhead whale
hunt is carried out in a manner consistent with protection of the
whale population and satisfaction of legitimate subsistence needs
of the Alaskan Eskimos.

In its management program, the United States has not only sought
to control the 1978 harvest within the limits established by the
International Whaling Commission, but has also made significant
efforts to increase the efficiency of the hunt, assure the full
utilization of all whales taken, and provide alternative means of
meeting subsistence needs to the extent that such means exist.

This effort was made possible through the full cooperation of and
substantial sacrifice displayed by the Eskimo community. Eskimo,
whalers formed the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commissioni to represent
subsistence bowhead whalers, to implement local control over the
harvest, and to meet the quota established by the IWC. The Alaska
Eskimo Whaling Commission was intimately involved in the research
and management programs.

As part of the effort to increase the efficiency of bowhead whaling,
I' ~the Eskimo whalers and the weapons manufacturers met prior to the
spring hunt to improve whaling weapons. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Commission established regulations requiring whalers to use hand-
thrown weapons with attached lines before allowing the use of
shoulder guns. The resulting increase in efficiency combined with
some improvements in the whaling weapons, substantially reduced the

loss rate. Whereas in 1977 the Eskimos lost about 75 percent (82)
of the whales struck, in 1978 they lost only 33 percent (5) of the
whales struck. Moreover, in addition to minimizing waste through
increased hunting efficiency, by all indications the Eskimo
community further minimized waste by utilizing every whale landed.

In its bowhead research program, the United States not only
conducted the most comprehensive census of its kind in history, but
also studied population dynamics and acoustic techniques. The
program included an ice-based census camp designed to count whales
traveling through a nearshore lead near Barrow, Alaska, aerial
surveys at the site of the census camps to validate observations
made by ice camp observers, and land camp observations, in conjunction
with vessel and aerial surveys, of the early and late migration
patterns. Determined to gather the best data possible, researchers
maintained a 24-hour observation schedule from two different bases,
utilizing radio checks between bases to increase accuracy. Finally,
174 hours of aerial surveys helped validate the census counts and
delineate the spatial and temporal distribution of whales during
migration.

Based on figures available as of May 30, 1978, we estimate that the
population of the stock of bowhead whales which migrates past Alaskan
aEskimo whaling villages was in the range of 1,783-2,865 whales, with
2,264 bowheads considered the best available estimate. One thousand
seven hundred thirty four bowhead whales were actually sighted. The
population estimate incorporates formulae to correct figures for
total observation time, duplicate sightings, and validation of animals
believed to have been missed. The figures will be updated after we
have included the June 1978 sightings.

This special report to the International Whaling Commission details
for the Commission and other interested parties the United States'
research and management programs, and the results of those programs
obtained so far. It is hoped that this report will be viewed as
serving a broader purpose than the mere recitation of the procedures
and results relating to the bowhead whale hunt of spring 1978. I
believe that the scientific techniques studied and developed in our
research program have broad application beyond their use here, and
that the entire research program provides a model which should prove
of benefit to similar future endeavors.

This report is presented to indicate what has been accomplished in
the continuing commitment by the United States to seek a resolution,
in cooperation with the International Whaling Commission and all
other interested parties, of the difficult problem of protecting
both an endangered species of whale and an endangered culture.

Ric~fard A. Frank
United States Commissioner to the
International Whaling Commission
2

I. 1978 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - AN INTERIM REPORT

Summary

Prior to the spring bowhead whale hunting season,
regulations were published by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) to implement the
United States'management program and the
International Whaling Commission's (IWC) Schedule
(see Appendix B). NMFS agents were trained,
equipped, and sent to the field in advance of
hunting activities. The field program was assisted
by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC)
representatives and Eskimo reporting officers.

The spring hunt generally followed the regulatory
requirements. Ten whales were taken and five
additional animals were struck and lost. In
the spring 1977 hunt, 26 whales were landed and
82 additional whales were struck and lost.

1978 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - AN INTERIM REPORT

Following the International Whaling Commission's determination
in December 1977, to establish a bowhead whale quota for 1978
of 12 landed or 18 struck, whichever comes first, the
United States embarked upon an ambitious effort to develop
a comprehensive managment and regulatory program to implement
the Commission's decision. The United States' program involved
parallel and coordinated efforts by the Federal Government and
by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (the "AEWC"), a
voluntary association of native whalers created in September
1977, to bring the hunt within the limits established by the
Commission, to insure proper monitoring of whaling activities,
to increase the efficiency of whaling techniques, and to
provide for the full utilization of all whales taken. The
following paragraphs document

(A) the rules and regulations established under the
management program;

(B) the preparations made for the 1978 whaling season;
and

A. Rules and Regulations Governing Bowhead Whaling

(1) United States Regulations

Utilizing the Whaling Convention Act of 1949 (the
"Act") , a United-States statue designed to implement provisions
of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
(the "Convention"), the United States Government published,
in April 1978, rules and regulations governing the taking of
bowhead whales by Eskimos for subsistence purposes. These
rules and regulations are set forth in Appendix B. Their
major provisions are as follows:

(a) Quotas -- The central element of the Federal
regulations is apoionfor the allocation of the overall
quota established by the Commission among the nine whaling
villages of the North Slope of Alaska.l/ This village-by-

1/The location of the villages is set out in Figure 1, Appendix
C.

village allocation scheme was worked out in cooperation with
the AEWC in recognition of the particular needs of each whaling
village. The precise allocation among the villages is as
follows:

Kaktovik - I whale landed or 2 struck,
whichever occurs first

Nuigsut - 0 whale landed or 0 struck,
whichever occurs first

Barrow - 3 whales landed or 4 struck,
whichever occurs first

Wainwright - 2 whales landed or 2 struck,
whichever occurs first

Point Hope - 2 whales landed or 2 struck,
whichever occurs first

Kivalina - I whale landed or 2 struck,
whichever occurs first

Gambell - I whale landed or 2 struck,
whichever occurs first

Savoonga - 1 whale landed or 2 struck,
whichever occurs first

Wales - I whale landed or 2 struck,
whichever occurs first

(b) Transfer of Allocations Between Villages --
Recognizing the possibility that a village may not take all of
its quota, Federal regulations provide for the transfer, upon
request, of unused allocations from one village to another.

(c) Licenses-- Both the Convention and the Act
prohibit whaling without a license. Federal regulations
implement these requirements and establish a general licensing
regime for Eskimo whalers. In addition to making provision for
individual licenses, Federal regulations, recognizing the unique
cultural circumstances on the North Slope of Alaska, provide for
the issuance of licenses to all whaling captains registered with
or belonging to a whaling association representing a significant
number of whaling captains, such as the AEWC.

(d) Reporting -- Federal regulations call for all
whaling captains to report the striking, attempted striking or
landing of any bowhead whale. Additionally, captains are
required to keep written records of their whaling activities.

(e) Prohibited Acts -- Federal regulations provide,
inter alia, that no person shall be permitted to whale except
a licensed whaling captain; that no whaling captain may continue
to whale once his village quota is reached; that no whaling
captain shall engage in whaling for any calf or any bowhead
whale accompanied by a calf; that no whaling captain shall engage
in whaling in a wasteful manner; and that no whaling captain
shall engage in whaling with a harpoon, lance or explosive
dart which does not bear his permanent mark.

(2) AEWC Regulations

Because Eskimo cooperation and self-restraint was
essential for the success of the United States management
regime, the Federal Government determined that substantial
regulatory authority should be exercised by Eskimos themselves.
The AEWC developed its own management plan to provide for
coverage of matters not directly dealt with in the Federal
rules. Among other matters the AEWC Management Plan (found
at Appendix A to this report2/) provides for registration of
captains with the AEWC; establishes reporting requirements
for all members of the association; establishes levels of
harvest on a village-by-village basis, consistent with
Federal regulations and the requirements of the Schedule;
and creates sanctions, including denial of participation in
the hunt, for any person violating the AEWC rules.

Perhaps the most significant element of the AEWC
Management Plan is the rules establishing hunting techniques
intended to improve substantially the efficiency of the hunt.
The rules provide that lines and floats must be attached to
harpoons and darting guns, and that shoulder guns may be used
only when accompanied by a harpoon, after a line has been
secured to a whale, or when pursuing a wounded whale with a
float attached to it.

B. Preparations for. the Whaling, Season

During the winter and early spring of 1978, the
United States Government undertook a number of activities
to prepare for the spring whaling season and to ensure that
the management plan it had developed would be properly
implemented. Preparations involved briefing affected members
of the Eskimo community; carrying out a personnel training
program; establishing logistical support; deploying personnel
to the whaling villages; and seeking to improve hunting
weaponry.

2/A status report of the activities of the AEWC is also found
in Appendix A.

(1) Briefing of the Eskimo Community

Representatives of the Federal Government undertook
a broad-scale effort to inform the Eskimo community of all
aspects of the Federal management plan. They solicited the
views of the Eskimo community in order to ensure that the
scheme ultimately adopted was compatible with the needs of
that community. There were almost daily contacts between
representatives of the Federal Government in the field and
representatives of the AEWC throughout the regulatory develop-
ment process, and the development of both the Federal
regulations and AEWC regulations was closely coordinated to
ensure that there were no gaps in the overall management
program.

(2) Personnel Training

Agents who were assigned to the bowhead program
completed an arctic survival training course sponsored by
the U.S. Air Force during late February and March 1978. On
April 3 and 5, 1978, they were briefed on enforcement policy,
regulations, overall field plans, personnel assignments,
equipment, relationship to local people and AEWC, and
reporting procedures.

(3) Logistics

The scarcity of support facilities and equipment
in the whaling villages required the bowhead program to be
largely self-supporting. Rental housing for agents was
arranged at Savoonga, Gambell, and Barrow. An insulated
field shelter obtained from the Naval Arctic Research
Laboratory at Barrow was flown into Point Hope. Tents or
"sleeping bag space" in school buildings were utilized at
other villages. Biologists stationed at Cape Lisburne lived
in snow caves and tents.

Transportation in the whaling areas was provided by
snow machines purchased locally and supplied with emergency
gear, including tents. Chartered aircraft were obtained for
transportation between villages and for surveillance near
Barrow.

Communications equipment by the agents included
telephones and radios. Walkie-talkies were loaned to
selected whaling crews at Kivalina, Pt. Hope, and Barrow to
augment local communication capabilities.
(4) Deployment of Personnel

Agents and Eskimo Assistants (Reporting officers
or AEWC Representatives) were assigned to the villages listed
below. As the hunt progressed, they moved between villages
according to the progress of whaling activities.

Federal Reporting
Village Agents Officers AEWC Representatives

Savoonga 2 1 1
Gambell 2 1 1
Pt. Hope 3 2 1
Kivalina 1 2 1
Barrow 4 None 1
Wainwright 2 None 1
Wales 1 None None

(5) Improvements in Hu'ntting Weaponry

Frequent malfunctions of weapons are credited with
contributing to the problem of losing whales that are struck.
In recognition of this situation, the U.S. National Marine
Fisheries Service ("NMFS") contracted with
Mr. Renton Meininger, Jr., President, Naval Company, Inc.,
to visit several whaling villages and identify needed
improvements in the weapons. During March 1978,
Mr. Meininger met with Eskimo whalers in Gambell, Savoonga,
Point Hope, and Barrow. The discussions resulted in
identifying causes for weapons failure and ideas for
enhancing the reliability and effectiveness of the weapons.

C. Results of the U.S. Management Program to Date

The spring 1978 season was carried out in compliance with
Federal regulations and the AEWC Management Plan. Overall,
only ten whales were landed, and five whales were struck but
lost, well within in the quota established by the Commission.3/
No citations were issued for any violations of either Federal
or AEWC regulations. The results of the hunt, the operation
of the regulations, and the coordination and control efforts
undertaken are described below.

(1) Results of the Hunt

(a) Hunting Effort and Success -- The principal
whaling events of the 1978 spring hunting season were as
follows:

Whales Taken: Whales Struck Number
Village Dates & Captain & Lost: Dates of Crews

Savoonga One whale None 8
April 16
Capt. Nelson Alowa

Gambell One Whale Four 21
April 21 April 19 (1)
Capt. Vern Slwooko April 21 (3)

3/Two whales remain to be taken in the fall hunt.

Whales Taken: Whales Struck Number
Village Dates & Captain & Lost: Dates of Crews

Wales None None 3

Kivalina None None 3

Pt. Hope Two Whales None 15
1st Whale - May 2
Capt. Seymour Tuzroyluk
2nd Whale - May 4
Capt. John Tingnook

Wainwright Two Whales None 5.
1st Whale - May 6
Capt. Felton Segevan
2nd Whale - May 19
Capt. Neil Panik

Barrow Four Whales May 3 (1) 27
1st Whale - May 1
Capt. Robert Aiken
2nd Whale - May 2
Capt. Jacob Adams
3rd Whale - May 2
Capt. Harry Brower
4th Whale - May 3
Capt. Jonathan Aiken

TOTAL: 10 whales 5 Lost 82 Crews

(b) Efficiency of the Hunt -- The spring 1978 bowhead
hunt was conducted in a more efficient manner than in the past.
In the spring 1977 hunt, 26 whales were landed and an
additional 82 whales were struck and lost (Figures 4 and 5,
Appendix C). In the spring of 1978, there were only five
whales known to be struck but not retrieved. Improvement in
the efficiency of the hunt can be attributed, at least in part,
to the prohibition in the AEWC regulations against the use of
the shoulder gun alone and the requirement that a whale be
struck with a harpoon or darting gun with line attached.

It is difficult to evaluate precisely how many
whales which are struck but lost are mortalities. Of the five
whales known to be struck but not retrieved in the spring of
1978, one strike would be classified as a superficial wound,
not resulting in mortality. This whale, struck once with a
harpoon near Gambell on April 21, 1978, was initially called
a miss by the whaling crew because the harpoon did not engage
firmly and the bomb apparently neither penetrated or detonated.

(c) Whale Utilization -- The Eskimo community made
conscientious efforts to utilize fully and completely every
whale which was landed. Every indication is that the Eskimos

were successful in this effort. There is no evidence that
any part of the whale which could be utilized in any manner
was wasted or improperly disposed.

(2) Operation of the Regulations -- Quotas and Transfers

With the exception of the village of Barrow, each
whaling village's activities were within the quota initially
assigned to it. On May 2, 1978, the quota for the village of
Barrow was reached. Nonetheless, several crews remained in
their whaling camps, and on May 3, two additional whales were
killed, although one was lost in the moving ice pack. Thus,
as of May 3, Barrow was one in excess of its landed quota of
three whales.

It was the view of certain leaders of the Eskimo
community, at the time the landed quota was exceeded, that two
of the whales were "Ingutuks" (small fat whales) and not
bowheads. Therefore, they concluded that it was still
permissible to continue whaling. The U.S. Commissioner
visited Barrow on May 7, at the request of the AEWC, and after
lengthy discussion with the whalers, he found that "an honest
dispute as to fact" existed as to whether the fourth whale was
actually a bowhead. However, he stressed that he had now
clarified the situation and that all whales in the herd were
considered to be bowheads by the Federal government. As a
result, there could be no excuse for violations. Whaling
thereafter ceased at Barrow. Furthermore, an unused quota
from Point Hope was transferred from that village to Barrow,
in accordance with Federal regulations, so that the final
landed quota at Barrow is equal to the number actually taken.

In addition to the transfer from Point Hope to
Barrow, two other allocations were made during the season.
The village of Savoonga, which was allocated a quota of one
whale landed or two struck, managed to land the first whale
which it struck, and transferred, with government approval,
its remaining strike to the village of Gambell. A second
request for a quota transfer was initiated by the village
of Kivalina which failed to strike the one whale alloted to
it. Kivalina proposed transferring its quota to Point Hope.
Since the migrating whales passed Point Hope before the
quota could be used, a retransfer of the quota to Bartow,
as described above, was effected.

(3) Coordination and Control

(a) Collaboration with the Eskimos -- Nominated by
the AEWC and hired by the U.S. Government, Eskimo reporting
officers acted as the primary contact between Government
agents and the whaling crews. These reporting officers and
AEWC representatives worked with NMFS agents on a daily basis

in implementing the management program. in addition, U.S.
agents became acquainted with the senior whaling captains in
all villages. These interactions between the Eskimos and the
government created a highly satisfactory and effective working
relationship which must be given great credit for the
overall success of the 1978 program.

(b) IWC Observer -- The Government of Denmark
provided an IWC observer, Mr. Elias Jacobsen, who resides in
Greenland. Mr. Jacobsen arrived in Anchorage on April 14, 1978.
Accompanied by a NMFS agent, Mr. Jacobsen went to Gambell
where he spent one week and accompanied a whaling crew for one
* ~day. The second week of his trip was spent in Barrow.
* ~Mr. Jacobsen departed Alaska on April 28, 1978.

(c) Counting Strikes -- While language barriers made
* ~it difficult for government agents to monitor activities of the
whaling crews while hunting was in progress, the reporting
officers or AEWC representatives helped to reconstruct events
upon the return of the whalers to the ice camps. Thus, while
it is impossible to have exact information concerning the
nature of strikes in unretrieved whales, the U.S. Government
is confident in the tally of strikes as recorded.

able~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

Eve~~~~~~~~~~C

..........~~~

II. 1978 RESEARCH PROGRAM - AN INTERIM REPORT

The spring 1978 bowhead whale research program was carried out by
personnel of the Arctic Whales Task, Marine Mammal Division, NMFS, NOAA.
The bowhead whale research is continuing actively; therefore, the results
in this report cover data collected through May 30, 1978. An analysis of
results of individual projects will begin when the spring research season
ends June 10, 1978. Complenentary research projects (e.g. vessel survey)
will not have begun, so a complete analysis of bowhead whale population
data, including those for the spring, summer, and fall months, will not be
available until December 1978. Since a complete determination of the size
of the western Arctic population of bowhead whales cannot be made until all
of the 1978 project results are completed, the information contained in
this report is tentative.

The objectives of the 1978 bowhead whale research plan were to:

(1) estimate the abundance of that part of the bowhead whale
population which migrates past the spring Eskimo whaling camps;

(2) determine the temporal and spatial distribution of bowheads
before, during and after the spring-summer migration period; and

(3) collect biological samples frcom the whales that were harvested
so an assessment of age and reproductive status of the whales taken could
be made.

To assess the relationship of bowhead whale movements to the
census effort, an integrated research program was conducted and included:

(1) an ice based census camp designed to count whales passing by
in the nearshore lead near Barrow, Alaska;

(2) aerial surveys conducted at the site of the census camps to
help validate sightings made by the ice camp observers;

(3) land camp observations of the early and late migration patterns
of bowheads in conjunction with aerial and vessel surveys (June 12 -
June 20, 1978); and

(4) exploration of the usefulness of active sonar and passive
recordings as tools for determining the distribution and abundance of
whales near the ice based counting camps.

The spring and summer bowhead whale research projects, including times,
locations, and personnel employed, are included in Appendix I.

During 1976 and 1977, the Marine Mammal Division, NMFS, made
population studies dealing with the distribution and abundance of bowhead
whales in the northern Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean under the Alaska Outer
Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program (OCSEAP). The OCSEAP

project was the forerunner of the expanded 1978 bowhead research effort
Several limitations in 1976 and 1977 reduced our ability to assess
adequately the population of bowhead whales. First, logistic support and
contractual arrangements through two U.S. Government organizations were
not fulfilled, which eliminated portions of our research time that
coincided with the movement of bowheads. Second, we were able to support
only one census camp at Barrow and one at Pt. Hope, with fewer numbers of
observers than would have been optimal. Third, environmental conditions
severely limited how long we could stay on the ice to count whales. And
fourth, limited funds during 1976-1977 prevented us frcm spending enough
time in all areas where bowheads migrate. This reduced our effectiveness
by diluting any specific effort at any one place or time.

Increased funds support for 1978 will enable us to make a more
precise estimate of abundance than previously (1978 funding, Figure 2,
Appendix C). Also, we have developed reliable procedures to evaluate the
biases associated with the census effort.

This report includes:

(1) a population index estimate of the number of whales migrating
past the Alaska Eskimo whaling camps and

(2) a comparison of this year's results with those obtained in 1976
and 1977. The report summarizes bowhead distribution, evaluates factors
related to the movement and behavior of whales passing the counting camps
and associated census biases, sunmarizes the 1978 spring hunt, and itemizes
the biological samples collected and the planned analyses.

Methods, Results, and Discussion

Aerial Surveys

The objectives of the aerial survey projects were to:

(1) delineate the temporal and spatial distribution of bowhead whales
during the spring and summer migration period and

(2) help validate the census counts at the Barrow ice camp. Aerial
surveys were not intended to produce a population estimate.

Between April 19 and May 23, 1978, 174 hours of aerial surveys were flown
in search of bowhead whales in the waters fran St. Lawrence Island
northeastward to Pt. Barrow, Alaska, and eastward to Banks Island, Northwest
Territory, Canada (Figure 1). In general, systematic aerial surveys were
used to delineate gross migratory routes and details of distribution and
movements of whales across the Bering Strait, across nearshore leads, and
up to 75 miles offshore frcm those leads at Pt. Lay and Pt. Barrow and
to test the efficiency of the ice camp observers who were counting whales
as they passed the counting station. By May 30, an estimated 450 bowhead
whales were seen; many were duplicates from preceding days.

ChukhI Sea

U-1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-C

USSR -.. 1CD

Diomede Ws

Mes if C

CANADA

Gambll eSavoonga

St. Lawrence Is. ,*

Gering Sea

Distribution and Migration Timing. During this season, the majority of
bowheads passing the northwest tip of St. Lawrence Island apparently
remained close to the Soviet coast, migrating through the Bering Strait west
of Big Diomede Island (Figure 1). Once north of the Bering Strait, they
followed a narrow migratory corridor, generally corresponding to the
northerly (0100 - 0200 magnetic) oriented pack ice fracture zone and passing
within a few hundred meters to as far as 45 km seaward of Pt. Hope and
Cape Lisburne. North of Cape Lisburne, the nearshore lead widened to as
much as 56 km before narrowing dramatically just south of Pt. Barrow
(Figure 2). This condition persisted throughout the survey period.

From Pt. Lay northward, the whales remained within the nearshore lead,
showing preference for the ice edges (i.e. the shorefast ice, refrozen
lead and the pack ice edges, holes in the refrozen lead, and all areas of
calmer water. Few of the animals were seen in the open waters of the leads,
and none were seen outside the nearshore lead system even though 45.4 percent
of our survey effort near Barrow was offshore (Table 1). The narrowing of
the lead near Barrow and the apparent absence of whales in offshore leads
semrs to have brought essentially all migrating bowhead whales within
viewing range of the Barrow ice camp census teams.

After the whales passed Pt. Barrow, they continued to use the nearest shore
lead system, at least to 1410 W. longitude, reaching the northwest coast of
Banks Island, Canada, by early May. Two whales were observed off NW Banks
Island on May 8 by pilots frem the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory. There
were no whales along the southwestern shore of Banks Island on May 13, 1978.
Poor weather prevented more detailed surveys of the northwest tip of Banks
Island where satellite imagery showed open water. The nearshore lead in
the Beaufort Sea was approximately 100 km offshore. Surveys of the Beaufort
Sea this year support the hypothesis proposed by Braham and Krogman
(1976) that the spring migration to the western Canadian Arctic occurs in
offshore leads.

On May 22, six bowheads were observed heading northwest, north of the
Bering Strait toward the north side of the Chukotskiy Peninsula, USSR.

Animals migrating later in the spring may avoid the nearshore lead in favor
of more open water passages west of the Bering Strait into Soviet waters of
the Chukchi Sea. Aerial surveys near the Soviet coast were not made
because the U.S. request to fly over Soviet territory was not granted by
the USSR. Additional assessment of bowhead movements, after the whaling
period ends, is planned (whale migration, Figure 3, Appendix C).

Validation of the Ice Camp Census Study. Bowhead whales passing the ice
camp counting stations were independently tallied from the aircraft as it
flew a "race track" pattern over the lead inmediately adjacent to the camps.
During the 19 simultaneous survey periods (ranging from 16 minutes to 2
hours and 39 minutes), whales were scored by both ice camp and aerial
methods; the aircraft counted 93 whales and the corrected ice camp counts
accounted for 83.5 whales (among mean pooled value for the two camps)
(Table 2).

Figure 2
Ice Conditions in the Bering, Chukchi, and
Beaufort Seas, May 12,1978

~~ r~~ ~~

/~~~~~~~~~~1

TABLE 1. Comparison of bowhead whale counts in the nearshore lead and
surveys of areas seaward of the pack ice edge in the eastern
Chukchi Sea, May 1978.

Nearshore Leads Offshore Leads
Date Area
#miles #A/ D2-/ # miles #A D

May 4 Barrow
156�-157�30' 106.2 14 .13 209.5 0 0
May 5
A Barrow
156�-157�30' 112.0 17 .15 103.5 0 0

B Pt. Lay
163�-163�30' 20.0 1 .05 75.0 0 0

C Other Areas
155�-163�00' 268.5 18 .07

May 6
A Other Areas
156030'-164010' 364.0 50 .14

B "Ice Camp"
156031'-156026' 33.0 0 0

May 7
A Barrow
156�45'-159� 90.5 2 .02

B S.W. Barrow
159�-160� 23.0 0 0 163.0 0 0

May 8
A Barrow
156�-158� 66.5 7 .11 214.0 0 0

B Other Areas
155�-156� 51.0 11 .22

May 1.0
A "Ice Camp"
156020'-156052' 67.0 0 0

B "Ice Camp"
156022'-156059' 100.0 0 0

/ #A = number of animals
2/ D = density; animals/mile

TABLE 1.- continued

Nearshore Leads Offshore Leads
Date Area
#miles #A,/ D/" # miles #A D

May 12
A Barrow-Deadhorse
156�40'-148� 215.5 27 .13 143.8 0 0

B Deadhorse-Inuvik
148�-140�35' 100.0 14 .14 64.0 0 0

May 16 "Ice Camp"
156011'-156�42' 58.0 0 0

Tobtals 1,477.2 161 .11 1,230.0 0 0

_1/ #A = number of animals
_2/ D = density; animals/mile

The difference in the number of whales counted by the two ice camp teams
and by the aircraft team ranged from -9 to +8.5 whales for a mean
difference (D) of -0.5. A paired t-test indicated no significant difference
in the number of bowhead whales counted from the air or ice. This
indicated that the ice camp observers were essentially observing all
whales present or that both survey methods were biased in the same direction.

The aerial survey test for ice camp observer efficiency resulted in a
positive correlation for paired counts collected during the simultaneous
ice camp and aerial surveys of the nearshore lead (P --0.01; where rsample
0.459 and rcrit.= 0.446 for a two tailed test at 17 d.f.). Thi s
indicated that samples were drawn frcm the same population.

The rigorousness of the aerial "race track" method leads to a confirmation
that the observers at both ice camps rarely missed animals. Only two
groups of two animals each were seen solely by the aircraft team and missed
by the ice camp observers during the simultaneous sampling period. The
four whales missed by the ice camp observers were behind unusally large ice
floes in the lead immediately across from the ice camps. This condition
was rare during the aerial survey period to May 20. The missed whales were
only 4 percent of the total number of whales counted by the aircraft team
during the 19 ice camp-aerial survey flights (Table 2). Four anomalous
sessions, numbers 16-19 in Table 2, introduces the possibility that during
scne periods, particularly during periods of high whale density., the ice
camp observers may have overcounted (estimated to be 10-20 percent). These
values, representing possible over or undercounting, have not been
systematically evaluated yet. These problems are addressed in the ice
camp census study.

Ice Camp Census Study

The objectives of the ice camp bowhead whale census were to:

(1) determine a population index for 1978;

(2) develop a method whereby a level of uncertainty can be ascribed
to the index;

(3) reduce index bias;

(4) provide a basis for comparing the 1978 index with indices
developed in 1976 and 1977;

(5) determine the effective sample space adjacent to the ice camp
which is being surveyed by observers; and

(6) collect behavioral data which may be useful toward defining the
statistical parareters used in aerial and shipboard survey.

Summary of Field Events. Bowhead whales were counted as they migrated
northeasterly through the nearshore lead system near Barrow, Alaska. The
field survey started April 15 and is expected to end during the first week

TABLE 2. Comparison of aerial and combined ice camp counts of bowheads
in the nearshore lead north of Pt. Barrow, Alaska, May 1978.

# Date Approx. Approx. Total Counts
Start End Total Time
Time Timel
~Timer Time Ice Camp/Aerial Survey Difference

1 Mav 3 78 1622 1644 22 min. 4 6 -2
2 May 4 78 1007 1225 2 hr. 18 min. 0 0 0
3 May 5 78 1919 2100 1 hr. 41 min. 6 8 -2
4 May 6 78 1001 1114 1 hr. 13 min. 6.5 5 +1.5
5 May 6 78 1129 1145 16 min. 2 1 +1
6 May 6 78 1416 1546 1 hr. 30 min. 9.5 4 +5.5
7 May 6 78 1549 1613 24 min. 2 3 -1
8 May 8 78 1010 1104 54 min. 1.5 2 -0.5
9 May 8 78 1202 1228 26 min. 1.5 2 -0.5
10 May 8 78 1443 1543 1 hr. 0 min. 5.5 4 +1.5
11 May 8 78 1657 1752 55 min. 1.5 6 -4.5
12 May 8 78 1958 2047 49 min. 4 5 -1
13 May 9 78 0935 1214 2 hr. 39 min. 4 3 +1
14 May 9 78 1424 1550 1 hr. 26 min. 6 2 +4
15 May 9 78 1556 1730 1 hr. 34 min. 0 2 -2
16 May 10 78 0945 1047 1 hr. 2 min. 2 11v/ -9
17 May 10 78 1152 1240 48 min. 2 93/ -7
18 May 10 78 1445 1634 1 hr. 49 min. 18.5 10-/ +8.5
19 May 10 78 1720 1809 49 min. 7 10/ -7

23 hr. 35 min. 83.5 93 D=-0.5

1/ Corrected ice camp total based on mean count recorded by South
Camp plus mean number of missed whales by South Camp as recorded by
North Camp.

2/ Four whales seen by aircraft on offshore side of ice floe near
pack ice edge; missed by both ice camps.

3/ Aircraft plotted two whales movinq through area which were recorded
as "new" whales from 4 to 6 times each; a third whale logged as new by
North Camp was judged by aircraft to be a duplicate.

4/ Two whales moving together logged inaccurately as new whales
on second surfacing.

of June. Because of the constant daylight during spring and summer in the
arctic, a 24-hour observation schedule was maintained. Two camps with 8
persons each were deployed on the shorefast ice next to the nearshore lead
approximately 4.8 km north of Pt. Barrow. Two observers at each camp
watched together (for a total of four observers) for shifts of three hours
in length.

The two camps, called South Camp and North Camp, were located 833 m apart.
Whales moved along the nearshore lead from South Camp toward North CamIp.
South Camp maintained the primary count of whales, while the mission of
North Camp was to estimate the number of whales missed by South Camp
observers.

To measure the uncertainty of an observer's judgments at South Camp regarding
single and multiple sightings of the same whale, each observed whale was
categorized as (1) a newly sighted whale when an observer was sure the whale
had not been seen before; (2) a duplicate whale when an observer was sure
that the whale had been seen before; and (3) a conditional duplicate whale
when an observer was unsure whether the whale had been seen before.

To determine the number of whales missed by South Camp, South Camp radio
broadcasted all sighting information on a real time basis to the North
Camp observers. By monitoring radio messages from South Camp, North Camp
observers were alerted to whales by the counting station. Communication
was one way because North Camp observers did not radio back information
which could alert South Camp to whales that South Camp had not seen yet.
For each sighting made by North Camp observers, a decision was made
whether or not the observed whale definitely was seen by South Camp or
definitely was not seen by South Camp. If the North Camp observers were
not sure the whale was observed by South Camp, a question mark was
recorded.

The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) sponsored a whale counting
camp manned by residents of the Barrow community. TWo NMFS biologists
assisted camp members of the Barrow community with data collection
procedures. Methodology employed at the AEWC camp was similar to that in
1976 and 1977 because most watches (- 65 percent) were single man watches
extending from 4 to 8 hours. The AEWC Camp was positioned approximately
5 km southwest of South Camp.

Eskimo whalers also independently participated in the spring count by
recording hours watched and numbers of whales seen in their AEWC/NMFS
whaling captains' logbooks.

A summary of the actual counts for all camps and observers follows.
Although the primary mission of North Camp was to estimate the number of
whales missed, a total count was also obtained and recorded for
comparative purposes.

Total New
Hours Sight- Conditional Total
Camp Name Period of Watch Watched ings Duplicates Sightings

South Camp April 15-May 30 867:47 1389 212 1601
North Camp April 21-May 24 505:37 1157 327 1484
AEWC Camp April 24-May 24 589:32 885 104 994
Eskimo Whalers April 29-May 2 67:30 344 - 344

Population index for 1978. Assuming the best estimate of whales passing
one location during a period not watched is a count made during that period
at a nearby location, the data from more than one camp were synthesized
(Figure 3) to achieve a total observational effort of 967 hours and 24
minutes out of a total of 1104 hours ( 87.6 percent of total time
available). The index based upon these combined data will be referred to
as the "Combined South Camp Index."

The contribution of whale counts by the AEWC Camp to the Ccobined South Camp
Index equals one as the number of whales tallied by that camp was one
during times when South Camp was not watching. The contribution of Eskimo
whalers to the Index equal 26, 213, and 129 whales based upon 24, 24, and
19 hours, 30 minutes of watch made on April 29 and 30 and May 1 when the
South Camp observers were not watching. Evaluation of counts among
different Eskimo whalers, combined with results of aerial surveys made on
April 29 and May 1 confirm that a peak number of whales moved by Barrow
during this period.

The 1978 index is a mean index and as presented in this document is the
submsation of the estimated number of whales which passed by South Camp
per day. The mean index (I-) is calculated as the average of the low
index (I ) and the high index (I ). The low index is calculated as the
iL of
summation of the products of the rate of whales per hour of watch during
each day multiplied by 24 hours, with rates based only on new sightings
(conditional duplicates are treated as duplicates thus contributing zero
(= 0) whales to the low index). The high index is calculated as the sum-
mation of the products of rates per hour times 24 hours with rates based
on new sightings plus conditional duplicates (conditional duplicates are
treated as new whales thus making a full contribution to the index). The
mean Combined South Camp Index as presented below is considered the best
estimate using available data because it is likely that some conditional
duplicates will be new whales and some will be duplicates:

IL + IH 1797 + 2017
I- = 1907
X 2 = 2

and the measure of uncertainty (Vi) is equal to:

I -
I =+ H L - 2017 - 1797= + 110
2 2

Total

South
Camp

North
Camp 4'

AEWC
Camp INK

Eskimo
Whalers

I ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. -
15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30
APRIL MAY

FIGURE 3. Watch effort summary for bowhead whale counts near Barrow,
Alaska, April 15 through May 30, 1978. Horizontal lines indicate periods
of watch. The best estimate of the number of whales passing South Camp,
during intervals when South Camp was not counting, is a count made during
the interval by observers at a nearby camp. For example, Eskimo whalers
watched April 29 through May 1 when no other camps watched, and their
counts have been included in the svnthisized total. The 1978 Combined South
Camp Index is based on this ccnbined effort with 91.4 percent effort
attributable to South Camp; and 0.1 percent to North Camp; 2.4 percent
to the AEFTC Camp: and 6.1 percent to the Eskimo whalers.,

-. 24

Therefore, the 1978 mean Ccinbined South Camp Index is equal to 1907 + 110.

Addressing conditional duplicate whales, and the potential for over-
counting, an evaluation was made of the percentage of conditional whales
within each total of the AEWC, South and North Camps. AEWC tallied 11
percent conditionals, South Camp 13.2 percent conditional, and North
Camp 22 percent conditionals. Since North Camp observers were faced with
the more rigorous problem of evaluating not only their own single versus
multiple sightings but also whales missed or not missed by South Camp
observers, the higher percent of conditionals at North Camp probably
reflected a closer measure of observer ability to discriminate new from
duplicate whales.

To adjust the mean Combined South Camp Index to include 22 percent
conditional duplicates (which results in a more conservative estimate),
one proceeds as follows:
conditionals = IH x 0.22 = 2017 x 0.22 = 444

and:

IL = IH - conditionals = 2017 - 444 = 1573

thus, a corrected mean index equals:

IL + IH 2017 + 1573
I- -1795
X 2 2

where:
IH- -IL 2017 - 1573 =+ 222
2 2

resulting in:

I- = 1795 + 222
x
The adjustment equates to a downward correction of 12,5 percent to the most
conservative index (IL); a 5.9 percent downward adjustment to the mean index
(I-); and a 0 percent downward adjustment to the least conservative index (IH)
x
This new estimate of 1795 + 222 does not take into account the number of
whales missed. Estimates using North Camp data for the percentage of whales
which passed undetected by South Camp were based on 110 two-hour sample
blocks. One method of determining the highest percentage of total whales
missed by South Camp (29.6 percent) is to accept that North Camp observers
were correct in every instance when they were sure a whale had been missed
by the South Camp. The lowest calculable estimate (11.8 percent) of the
percentage of whales missed is to allow whales missed to equal the number
missed by South Camp as recorded by North Camp minus the number of new whales
seen by South Camp. The calculated number missed is treated as zero for

every block that the number missed becomes a negative value. From these
calculations the mean estimate becomes 20.7 percent missed whales.

There was a significant but low correlation between the number of whales
by South Camp and the number of whales recorded as missed by North Camp
(P< 0.001, rsample = 0.329, rcritical = 0.187) based on a two-tailed test
with 108 d.f. Based upon the described procedure, and the resultant low
correlation, a correction should be applied once to the calculated index,
rather than to individual time periods of watch by counting stations used
for the Combined South Camp Index. The summarized adjustments, therefore,
are as follows:
Correction
Factor Combined Count Index

Lowest index (I ) 11.8 percent 1573 . (1-.118) 1783
L
Mean index (I-) 20.7 percent 1795 (1-.207) 2264
x
High index (I H) 29.6 percent 2017 (1-.296) 2865

Applying percent adjustments for number of whales missed results in a best
estimate of 2,264 whales with a total measure of uncertainty of 1,082
(IH - IL) of which 481, or 44 percent of the uncertainty, lies between the
H L
mean and the lowest estimate, whereas 601 or 56 percent lies between the
mean and the highest estimate.

Based upon this preliminary analysis, the best estimate of the number of
bowheads which passed by Barrow from April 15 through May 30 is 2,264
with the previous stated range of uncertainty.

Comparison of Indices, 1976 to 1978. The 1978 index (Figure 4) was higher
than indices achieved in 1976 (762 revised from 796 originally quoted in
Braham and Krogman (1977), and 715 in 1977). The increase in counts can be
attributed to several factors. First, increase in survey effort is
responsible for much of the change. Figure 5 partially illustrates the
increase in effort by comparing the number of hours watched per day during
the same time frame among years.

These graphs clearly illustrate the variation in watch effort among years.
For all years, the strategy was to maintain an unbroken 24-hour watch
schedule. The 1976 and 1977 watch-effort histograms illustrate how often
this strategy was diluted by fog, closed leads, and unstable ice conditions.

During 1976, observers were not able to begin counting until April 25 and
then the lead essentially remained closed until April 30. The lead was
closed again, or nearly so, one or more days preceding May 1, 6, 13, and
22. Similar events occurred in 1977 when the lead remained closed April 24-
29 and again from Mlay 2-4. During 1978, the lead partially closed once
from April 28 through May 1 in the vicinity of South Camp, but Eskimo whalers
were able to make counts where the lead was open further south. It should
be noted that in late May the lead was closed for a few days, but not until
after most whales had moved through.

Total No. Whales/Day
300 1976

250

200

150

100

APRIL MAY
15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

300 1977

250

200

150

100 go1

50 A- E

APRIL MAY
15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

300 1978

250

200 A

150

100

FIGURE 4.-- Comparison among years (1976-1978) of estimated total number of
bowhead whales migrating northwardly past Barrow, Alaska, from
April 15 through May 30. For comparison, totals are based on hourly
rates per day times (x) 24 hours.

Hours of Watch 1976
24

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
APRIL MAY
Hours of Watch 1977
24

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
APRIL MAY
Hours of Watch 1978
24 19 I N

1 976 and 1977 called for rotating single observers every four hours, he
1 28

15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
APRIL MAY

Figure 5. Comparison among years (1976-1978) of observer effort (total
hours of watch/hour) from April 15 through May 30. The schedule for
1976 and 1977 called for rotating single observers every four hours, the
1978 schedule called for two teams of two observers each (four total) to
rotate every three hours. Percent oftotal survey hours watched were:
1576'= 37.0 percent; 1977 = 35.8 percent7 1978 = 86.7 percent.

In addition to the outstanding environmental conditions, another factor
contributing to the increase in the index was a change in location of the
ice camps. During 1976 and 1977, the primary location for counting was
10 - 20 km to the southwest of Pt. Barrow where our observers stationed
themselves near Eskimo whalers. In that vicinity, the lead is
generally 11-32 km in width, whereas imnediately north of Pt. Barrow,
where the 1978 camps were located, the lead width is generally 1-11 km
wide. This year the lead was open wider than 500 meters approximately
94 percent of the time.

Another important factor contributing to a higher count this year was the
increase in observer effort. The 1978 observer schedule called for 2
people on watch rotated every 3 hours; in years past with much reduced
funding levels, the observer schedule called for 1 person on watch rotated
every 4 hours.

Observers at South Camp conducted all watches from an unusually high
perch (high ice ridges). Height of eye at the South Camp was approximately
11.8 meters above sea level yielding a view to the horizon of 10 km. More
typical of years past, observers were located on young ice with eye height
varying between 2 and 4 meters yielding a view to the horizon of 4 to 6 km.

Factors which may have contributed to the increase in 1978 are: (1) better
survey location and conditions; (2) increase in observer effort;,and (3)
adjustment for negative bias due to missed whales.

From April 25 through May 30, 18 bowhead whales were identified as calves
by the South Camp. These sightings were distributed throughout the survey
period somewhat uniformly.

Date Observed No. Calves Seen

April 25 1
27 1
May 2 7
8 1
9 3
10 1
11 1
12 1
23 1
24 1

The 18 young-of-the-year bowhead calves represents approximately 1.3 percent
of the total number of bowheads seen by the South Camp observers to May 30.
Extrapolated to the mean Combined South Camp Index of 2,264,
so far at least 29 bowhead whales may have been added to the population.
This value does not consider calf mortality and also should be viewed with
extreme caution because of the bias associated with the difficulty of seeing
calves swimming by beyond more than a few hundred yards. moreover, since
cows with calves apparently migrate quite late in the season (Marquette, 1977),
the count is incomplete, and we plan to utilize a vessel during June and July
to obtain better estimates.

Land Based Census Study

The research objectives of the Cape Lisburne land based whale study were
to:

(1) delineate the onset and termination of the bowhead whale spring
migration along the nearshore lead system and

(2) attempt to census the population migrating by Cape Lisburne.

Four researchers arrived at Cape Lisburne on April 1. During the first
week, a camp was established by digging snow caves near the western-most
bluffs of the Cape. The snow caves provided adequate shelter until early
May, when an early thaw made it imperative to use tents. Systematic watch
efforts began April 2 but were intermittent until the camp was completely
established on April 10. Observations were made frcm four sites at
different altitudes, depending upon the height of the cloud ceiling.
Behavior of whales was especially easy to observe from the 280 m high bluffs
which overlook nearly continuously open waters (Figures 1 - 2). A watch
will be in effect until the middle of June.

Between April 2 and May 24, 541 hours of systematic watch were conducted;
339 were in good to excellent visibility (Figure 6). Poor weather was
generally the limiting factor. Temperatures were recorded as low as -26�C
and winds frequently rose above 60 kts in exposed areas. Low clouds and
high winds prevented work 32 percent of the time and fog occluded parts of
the open leads 54 percent of the time. Initially, six hours were not
watched each night due to darkness, but by May 10, a 24-hour watch was
attempted.

For 16 days after the initial watch effort began, no bowhead whales were
observed. A tentative bowhead sighting was made on April 14, but might
have been an error due to observer inexperience. On April 18, a
significant number of bowhead whales were observed; therefore, we feel that
date was the beginning of the migration past Cape Lisburne. This "wave"
of animals lasted for five days (Figure 7). Because of a corresponding pulse
of whales, the season's first, occurred at the Pt. Barrow ice camps three
days later on April 21 (Figure 4), it was apparent that our census camps
were in position well in advance of the spring bowhead whale migration along
the northwest coast of Alaska.

A total of 242 bowhead whales (not including 37 tentative or potential
duplicate sightings) were seen (Table 3). Using only counts from good to
excellent visibility conditions and calculating the number of whales passing
during unobserved periods, an estimated 608 bowheads passed within our
viewing range at Cape Lisburne to May 29. The daily totals of bowhead
counts through the season are graphed in Figure 7. Due to problems with
visibility duiing periods when counts should have been high and based on
records from the Barrow ice camp, this estimate is undoubtedly low.
Counts have yet to be corrected for changes in sighting ability with
visibility, and for factors of partial obstruction of the lead relative
to the whale corridor, for site differences, and differences between
observers.

Hours of watch per day
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10

FIGURE 6. Bowhead whale watch effort at Cape Lisburne, 1978. Upper box
indicates number of hours scent on watch per day; shaded area shows
number of hours spent in good to excellent visibility.

Total whales seen
70

APRIL MAY
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

FIGURE 7. Bowhead whale sightings from Cape Lisburne, 1978* Shaded area
indicates actual counts; upper box is the estimated number of whales
passing that day based on only good to excellent visibility using actual,
conditional duplicate and tentative sightings.

Bowhead whales generally passed Cape Lisburne on a northeasterly course.
Under snome lead conditions, whales passed near the fast ice but most
were seen close to the pack ice. The further west the far shore of the
lead occurred, the further west whales were seen. A total of 170 bearings
were made on whales sighted (using a TIA theodolite). The average sighting
was 4.5 km from the observers; the maximum distance was 14.8 km, which
approaches the outer limit of reliable visibility under excellent conditions.
A frequency distribution of bearings suggests two major migration corridors,
one of 2-3 km (1-2 km beyond the fast ice) and a second at 7-10 km froman the
observers.

Sightings made at 14 km occurred on one day. It is unknown how often
whales passed at this distance on other days, nor is it known how many whales
travelled past Cape Lisburne more than 15 km to the west. Poor weather
conditions prevailed during times when we had planned to survey beyond 15 km
with an airplane.

Rates of movements based on 46 pairs of sightings were calculated using a
theodolite and a hand programmd calculator, a total of 14.3 hours of
observation covering 60.2 km of whale routes. The maximum time spent
observing any one whale was 1 hour,58 minutes.

Bowhead whales passing Cape Lisburne were clocked at 2.6 knots. The speed
of whales moving between Cape Lisburne and Barrow was estimated to be 1.0-
3.2 knots, depending on whether the April 18 peak at Cape Lisburne is compared
to the April 21 or the April 28 peaks at Barrow. Because the lead was
persistently open, it is felt that the April 18 and April 21 data are most
comparable, and that bowheads swim at a rate of 2.6-3.2 knots. Data
collected during aerial surveys show that bowheads were swimming at about
3.0 knots.

Surface and divetimes were measured on 15 bowheads and totalled 105 minutes
for 180 surfacings during 5 hour, 30 minutes of observations. The mean at-
surface-time for 101 recorded blows was 8.0 seconds. During 36 breaches
the mean was 5.0 seconds. Mean dive time made within a blow sequence was
18.4 seconds (n=144); the median was 11 seconds. Dives between blow
sequences ranged from 1 minute, 39 seconds, to over 28 mintues with no
apparent regularity.

S'xty-five, or 23 percent of all bowheads sighted, were seen breaching. As
many as 39 breaches were counted in one unbroken series. On 26 occasions,
fluke-slapping was noted with a maximum of 33 high slaps occurring in a single
series. Synchronous breaching and fluke-slapping with as many as four whales
participating was observed on several occasions suggesting that these
behaviors have a commnunicatory function. Milling and loitering, believed
to be occasions for courtship and copulation, were recorded five times.
Whales were seen resting at the surface five times.

Most whales were seen along comnon corridors with the corridors varying
according to ice conditions. There seemed to be a strong tendency for the
whales to follow each other, even to the point of selecting ccnmon breathing
sites both among scattered holes and along the far shore of the open lead.

TABLE 3. Summary of bowhead sightings at Cape Lisburne, 1978.

Date Time
Dat e Time Good-Exc. Bowhead Bowhead Est.
Observ-
ing Visibility Counts Ratel/ TotalL/
~ing Time
April 2 :10 0 0 ? 0
3 0 -
4 0 -
5 1:30 1:30 0 0.0 0
6 0 0 -
7 3:00 0 0
8 0 0 -
9 0 0 -
10 9:30 2:00 0 0.0 0
11 4:30 4:30 0 0.0 0
12 8:30 8:30 0 0.0 0
13 9:25 7:04 0 0.0 0
14 14:41 6:45 1? 0.15 3.6
15 4:27 2:58 0 0.0 0
16 14:38 0 0 0.0 0
17 16:20 14:50 0 0.0 0
18 14:45 8:20 28-29 3.48 83.5
19 18:25 16:45 31-37 2.21 53.0
20 6:44 0 2 ? 64.4
21 17:50 10:45 33-34 3.16 75.8
22 14.32 13.16 32-34 2.41 57.8
23 14:00 13:00 0 0.0 0
24 20:00 8:15 2 0.24 5.8
25 13:15 0 0 ? 2.9
26 13:40 0 0 ? 2.9
27 10:35 5:30 0 0.0 0
28 12:00 9:35 9 0.94 22.6
29 20:20 18:15 13-17 0.93 22.3
30 14:05 3:25 0 0.0 0
May 1 6:05 0 0 ? 1.2
2 12:30 9:42 1 0.10 2.4
3 18:35 13:00 19-25 1.92 46.1
4 0 0 - - 36.2
5 13:45 10:00 8-11 1.10 26.4
6 21:45 20:00 27-29 1.45 34.8
7 21:02 11:30 9-12 0.78 18.7
8 20:30 20:30 13-16 0.78 18.7
9 21:15 13:25 7-12 0.76 18.0
10 23:20 20:30 0 0 0.0
11 22.10 20.10 5 0.25 6.0
12 23:30 21:00 2 0.10 2.4
13 9:25 3:45 0 0.0 0
14 18:00 9:30 1 0.11 2.6

l/Rate of sightings is based on counts of whales seen during good to excel-
lent visibility conditions divided by the respective hours. All conditional
duplications and tentative sightings are included. Estimates include inter-
polations for days without good visibility.

TABLE 3. (Continued)

Date ObsTime rGood-Exc. Bowhead Bowhead Est.
Observ-
Oeing Visibility Counts Rate1/ Total-L
~ing Time Rate-

May 15 2:00 0 0 ?-
16 0 - - - -
17 0 0 - - -
18 10:45 0 0 ? -
19 8:50 6:15 0 0.0 0
20 8:20 0 0 -
21 8:20 2:30 0 0.0 0
22 4:05 0 0 ? -
23 0 0 - - -
24 0 0 - - -
25 3:00 - 0 - -
26 8:19 - 0 - -
27 13:00 - 0 - -
28 20:41 - 1 - -
29 2:00 - 0 - -

1/Rate of sightings is based on counts of whales seen during good to excel-
lent visibility conditions divided by the respective hours. All conditional
duplications and tentative sightings are included. Estimates include inter-
polations for days without good visibility.

Harvest Data and Biological Samples

The objectives of the harvest monitoring and biological sampling project
were to:

(1) collect biological samples for reproductive, age and growth, and
food studies and

(2) determine the nature and extent of catch and effort expended by
the Eskimos during the harvest of bowhead whales in the spring.

For the harvest monitoring activity, biologists were stationed at five
whaling villages during the whaling season (Figure 1). In each village
the NMFS observers made every effort to work closely with the local AEWC
representative and individual whaling captains to provide a team approach
to monitoring the harvest and collecting biological samples. In addition,
the biologists spent considerable time obtaining information on bowhead whale
natural history and whaling activity from local whaling captains, crew
members, and knowledgeable elders in the villages.

The biologists visited each whaling camp as often as possible and gathered
information on the number of bowheads sighted, killed and recovered, and
struck but subsequently lost. When a whale was taken the biologists
obtained morphological measurements, collected specimen material for sex
and age determination, tissue samples for chemical and biochemical analyses
(e.g. for chromosomal counts, and enzyme separation), and took photographs
for later verification of individual whales. These activities were
sanctioned by the AEWC.

During the 1978 spring season, two biologists each were stationed at Gambell
and Savoonga (combined), April 10 to May 15; Pt. Hope,April 20 to May 29;
Wainwright,April 22 to May 23; and Barrow, April 17 to May 30. Whaling
activities at Kivalina were monitored by the Pt. Hope crew, and at Wales
by the NMFS enforcement team on St. Lawrence Island.

Whaling Activities for 1978. Residents from the seven coastal villages of
Gambell and Savoonga on St. Lawrence Island, and the mainland villages of
Wales, Kivalina, Pt. Hope, Wainwright, and Barrow were actively engaged in
the 1978 spring hunt (Figure 1). Ice conditions east of Barrow do not permit
spring whaling by residents of Nuiqsut or Kaktovik, but Eskimos at these
villages participate in the fall hunt (i.e. September and October) as do
the Barrow whalers. The 1978 spring whaling activities are summarized in
Table 4.

Gambell. Whaling began at Gambell on April 14 and ended April 21
after the quota of one bowhead was filled. A total of 21 crews were
actively engaged in whaling. One whale was taken and four others were
reported struck and lost. Additional research was conducted with several
Eskimo captains after the whale was taken.

Savoonga. Eight crews at Savoonga began whaling at 0700 hours on
April 16, and by 0845 hours had filled their quota of one whale landed. No
other whales were reported struck or o.+.*

Wales. Three crews were actively engaged in whaling at the village of
Wales, but no whale has been taken to date. Information is not available
at this time on whales that may have been struck and lost.

Kivalina. Three crews were actively engaged in whaling but no whales
had been taken or struck at Kivalina by May 16. As a result of unfavorable
ice conditions, few whales were seen migrating within reach of the Kivalina
hunters and their quota of one whale was transferred to the village of Point
Hope on May 16.

Point Hope. A total of 15 crews were actively engaged in whaling at
the village of Point Hope. The whaling season began April 17 and ended
May 4 when the second whale was taken to complete their quota. On May 16,
the village of Kivalina transferred their quota of one whale to Pt. Hope
in anticipation of a better opportunity there for taking a whale during
the remainder of the spring season. Pt. Hope Eskimos often share their
whales with Kivalina villagers.

Wainwright. Although there were eight crews at Wainwright, only five
were actively engaged in whaling at any one time during the season. The
whaling season began April 27 and ended May 19 when the second whale had
been taken, filling their quota. A female, pregnant with a 37 cm (14.5
inches) fetus, was taken on May 6.

Barrow. The whaling season began on April 17 and ended on May 5 at
Barrow. A total of 27 whaling captains had registered for whaling this
spring. In the past, Barrow has had as many as 36 crews out in a single
spring season. Although the village of Barrow had been allotted three
whales, or four whales struck, a total of four whales were landed; two
were designated as "Ingutuks" by the whalers.

As of May 30, a total of 10 bowhead whales were harvested by 82 whaling
crews in five villages. This means that an autumn hunt for the remaining
two whales will be conducted by the villages of Nuiqsut and Kaktovik,
unless Pt. Hope whalers take the whale reallocated to them by Kivalina.

Whales Struck and Lost. Although it was not possible for 1?1FS enforcement
agents to monitor activities of the whaling crews while hunting was in
progress (radio conrmmnication between crews was invariably in the Eskimo
language), the Eskimo Reporting Officers or local AEWC Representatives were
helpful in reconstructing events once the hunters returned. As in past
Seasons, data on struck and lost whales were obtained primarily from
statements made by the whalers. In sore cases, these were corroborated
by entries in AEWC/NMFS Whaling Captain's Logbooks.

Five whales were reported as struck and lost during the spring hunt
(Table 4). This number is low compared with those struck and lost during
the spring hunts of previous years (Marquette, 1977):

Year No. Lost No. Crews

1973 10 45
1974 27 46
1975 26 75
1976 35 63
1977 82 90
1978 5 82

Although better information concerning the exact nature of strikes in
unretrieved whales would be desirable, we have confidence in the tally of
strikes as recorded. The probable reasons for the low struck and lost record
this year follows:

(1) the average whaling period for 1978 was about 15 days as opposed
to 35 to 40 days during 1974 to 1977;

(2) increased concern by whalers and close adherence to the AEWC
regulations; and

(3) weapon improverments.

The exact fate of unretrieved whales is still unknown. A whale that has
been struck and lost does not necessarily imply that it has been fatally
injured. Of particular importance may be that sorre bombs fired into whales
fail to explode. Table 5 indicates that out of 26 bombs used to successfully
land five whales, ten, or 38 percent failed. Survival is probably greater
for a struck and lost whale if a bomb failes to explode within it. However,
it must be noted that evidence of previous strikes, (e.g. old imbedded bombs
or harpoons), has not been founC. since NMFS began monitoring the harvest.

Table 6 summarizes the circumstances under which three whales were struck
and lost. This information was obtained from the AEWC/NMFS Whaling
Captain's Logbooks. Unfortunately, similar data were not available for the
fourth whale lost at Gambell, nor for the one lost at Barrow. After
evaluating the ccnments in the Table, it is possible that at least the
third whale could have survived after being struck. Its ultimate fate,
however, is unknown.

Table 7 provides scme limited evidence that struck and lost whales are
still alive shortly after an encounter. Unfortunately, the village and
date these whales were struck is unknown, making it impossible to estimate
how long they survived or if they continued to survive after being
sighted.

The above data are limited and conjectural. The nature of the wounds
typically inflicted by harpoons and bombs is a persuasive reason to consider
all struck whales as mortalities until more information is available to
allow modificaton of this view.

Biological Samples. All biological samples collected from whales taken this
year are sumarized in Table 8. Biological samples from 11 whales have
been sent to six cooperating scientists for establishing normal histology,

pathology, chromosome and genetics studies, comparative cetacean blood
protein chemistry, and enzyme studies on stock discreteness (Table 9).

A chromosome count on one whale (#78B4), designated as an Ingutuk,
was 2n=42. Bowhead whales characteristically have a 2n=42 count (Gordon
Jarrell, University of Alaska, pers. corm.). Other baleen whales studied,
excluding right whales which have not been tested, have a chromosome count
of 2n=44.

Additional tissue analyses will be conducted to assess stock discreteness
and whether genetic non-intermixing is occurring. Baleen, eyes, and ear
plugs will be analyzed for use in aging individual whales.

Bioacoustics and Sonar Feasibility Study

Bioacoustics. The objectives of the bioacoustics feasibility study were
to:

(1) determine logistic factors which would affect equipment operations
in a cold environment, the usefulness and reliability of a portable system
with accompanying paraphernalia, and what are the best methods of collecting
data and

(2) make recordings of bowhead whales if the whales are vocalizing.

Between May 9 and 26, twenty-seven 5-inch reel tape recordings, totalling
13 1/2 hours, were made from the North Camp using a KSP hydrophone and
Uher 4400 tape recorder. It is estimated that twenty-three of these tapes
contain bowhead vocalizations. Many of these sounds occurred when bowheads
clearly were seen passing the ice camp. None of these sounds was heard when
whales were not passing. Not all whales that passed during the recording
sessions vocalized.

We are not aware of any other verified bowhead whale recordings before this
season, in spite of considerable effort by other researchers. Two existing
tapes of "whale sounds", recorded at a time and place when bowheads could
have been present, do not sound like those on our tapes. Our recordings
are similar to sounds made by Atlantic right whales. The recordings have
just arrived from the field and require analysis before any conclusions
can be made. The preliminary results of the passive (acoustic) recordings
were encourgaging. However, many logistic problems must be solved, possibly
by upgrading equipment and procedures, before this technique can be used in
the census effort and biological studies program.

Sonar. Active device. A Wesmar 60 kHz sonar system was cooperatively shared
by Alaska Fish and Game, the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory, and the
National Marine Fisheries Service. Many logistic problems developed,
including difficulties in timing and support between all parties. Not
enough time was spent with the system to prove its capability, although
one unverified whale was claimed to have been "observed" with the sonar.

TABLE 4.

Bowhead Whaling Activities by Alaskan Eskimos, Spring 1978

Whales landed
NMFSIAEWC
Whaling season Quota Sex and Length Dale Struc
Number - Whales and
Village of crews began ended landed struck Female (cm) Male (cm) landed last
Gambell 21 14 Apr. 21 Apr. 1 2 - 1383 21 Apr. 1 4
Savoonga 8 16 Apr. 16 Apr. 1 2 - 1090 16 Apr. 1 0
Wales' 3 1 2 0 0 - 0 0
Kivalina2 3 26 Apr. 16 May 1 2 0 0 - 0 0
Point Hope 15 17 Apr. 3 2 2 930 - 2 May 2 0
970 4 May
Wainwright 5 27 Apr. 19 May 2 2 16304 - 6 May 2 0
-- 1516 19 May
Barrow 276 17 Apr. 3 May 3 4 851 - 1 May 4 1
- 840 2 May
- 8385 2 May
- 9755 3 May
Totals 82 11 16 3 7 10 5
'unused quota reverts to Nu qsul 3wha ing s111 active as of 30 May des gnated as an ngutuiik by Ihe Eskimos
'wha ing quota transferred to Point Hope an embryo 37 cm in ength found in whale 'reg Mstred with AEWC number ol crews wa c,
participated in the nunt unverified

TABLE 5. Bomb failures recorded for five whales landed during
the spring 1978 bowhead whale hunt; data are not available for
the remaining five whales landed.

Whale Number of Number
Identification Bombs Used Which Failed

78B1 2 1

78B3 4 2

78WW1 6 0

78WW2 5 31/

78G1 9 4

26 10

1/Two were known to explode, but fate of other three not clearly stated;
they were presumed to have failed.

TABLE 6. Circumstances under which three bowhead whales were
struck and lost at Gambell during the spring 1978 hunt..

DATE TIME COMMENTS

April 19 1245 One bomb used and exploded;
harpoon pulled out and whale
swam under ice.

April 21 1420 All bombs failed but number
used unknown; whale swam under
ice.

April 21 2200 Shell and bomb in darting gun
both failed; all gear lost as
whale swam under ice.

TABLE 7. Sightings of struck and lost bowhead whales by NMFS
research personnel during the spring 1978 hunt.

Date Location Observer Comment

May 3 Of f Pt. Barrow AEWC ice camp Whale towing
observer float; hurt and
swimming slowly

May 5 46 km So. of Aerial survey Whale trailing
Wainwright observer (1 long line
sighting)

May 12 42 km NE of Aerial survey Whale trailing
Barrow crew (2 sight- yellow line
ings) without float

TABLE 8. Biological features of bowhead whales taken during spring 1978 and specimen samples collected.

Date Apr 16 Apr 21 May 1 May 2 May 2 May 2 May 3 May 4 May 6 May 19

Length, an 1090 1383 851 840 8382/ 930 975/ 970 1630 1516

Sex M M F M M F M M F M

Specimen No. 78S11/ 78G1 78B1 78B2 78B3 78H1 78B4 78H2 78WW1 78WW2
and samples

Baleen 4 6 4 3 1 6 1 4 5
Eyes 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2
Ear: plugs 2 1 1
glove finger 2 1 1 1
ossicles 2 2 1 1 1
bullae 2
Ovaries 2 2
Ectoparasites 1 1 1
Hair 1 1
Stomach contents 1
Blood 1 1 1 1
Urine 1
Cartilage 1
Mandible 1 1 1 1
Rib " 1-3
Vertebrae 1 1 1
Histological 3/ 3
Tiss. - Skin 11 3/ 1 1 1 1 1
Blubber 1 1-
Liver 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Lung 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Kidney 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Heart 1 1 1 1 1 1
Testes 1 1 1 1
Stomach 1
Spleen 1 1
Vagina 1
Penis 1

TABLE 8. Biological features of bowhead whales taken during spring 1978 and specimen samples collected.--
con' t.

Date Apr 16 Apr 21 May 1 May 2 May 2 2 May May 3 May 4 May 6 May 19

Length, cm 1090 1383 851 840 838-/ 930 975-/ 970 1630 1516

Sex M M F M M F M M F M

Specimen No. 78S1-/ 78G1 78B1 78B2 78B3 78H1 78B4 78H2 78WW1 78WW2
and samples

Histological
Tiss.-
Intestine, sm. 1 1 1
Intestine, lg. 1 1
Mammary 1
Umbilicus 1
Diaphragm 1 1 1
Bladder 1
Muscle 13/ 13/ 1
Tongue 4/1
E.M. Tiss.-
Liver 1 1 1
Heart 1
Lung 1
Muscle/ 1
PCB Tiss.-/
Liver 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Blubber 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Kidney 1 1
Mesenterie fot. 1
Karotype Tiss.
Skin 1
Lung 1

l/Specimen numbering code. 78 (year); Letter (village), Number (order taken that year).
2/Whales designated as Inguatuk by the Eskimos.
3/Collected and donated to IMFS by Mayor E. Hopson.
4/Electron microscopy. 5/Polychlorinate biphenyl analyses.

TABLE 9. Biological samples from 11 bowhead whales taken in 1977 and
1978 and sent to six cooperating scientists.

Samples sent-1/
Bowhead Whale Liver, Intes- Urine &
INumber Blood Eyes lung, skin, tines urogen. Follicular
misc. system Fluid

77B7 x

77B9 x

77B19 x

78B1 x x

78B2 x x

78B3-/ x x

78B4-/ x x x

78H1

78H2

78WW1 x

78 W2 x x

-/One tissue sample of each specimen collected in 1978 sent to
University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine.

2/Reported to be an Ingutuk by AEWC

Limitations of range and frequency of the output "signal" may prevent this
system frcn being useful. More testing and greater support by all parties
must be accomplished before an adequate assessment can be made.

Sonic tag. A whale tracking feasibility study was introduced this year
to help reduce the struck and lost rate by attaching a sonic tag to a
darting gun harpoon float line and then following the struck animal with
an acoustic receiver.

At the beginning of the season, two Eskimo whaling crews at Barrow were
equipped with two transmitter tags each and portable receivers and
directional hydrophones to carry in their umiaks. Both crews were instructed
in use of the equipment. The test was intended to determine whether such
equipment would make it possible for a whaling crew to track a struck
animal and capture a whale that might otherwise escape. Since the Barrow
quota was three whales and approximately 30 crews were on the ice, there was
not much hope that any of the tags would actually be attached to whales.
In fact, two were, but in the urgency and excitement of going after the
whales, neither crew remembered to switch on the transmitters. Fortunately
both whales were captured. Although the results were not conclusive, both
participating crews were enthusiastic over the potential usefulness of the
equipment and expressed hope that the test would be repeated next year.

Summary and Conclusions

1. No bowhead whales migrated past our census camps before the camps
became operational. The beginning of the migration past Cape
Lisburne was April 18. The subsequent first arrival of bowheads at
Barrow was on April 21, three days later. The distance and time
needed to travel confirms our estimate of an individual whale's
swimming speed of 3.0 knots.

2. Our best estimate of the n=qber of bowhead whales in that segment of
the population passing Barrow, Alaska, between April 15 and May 30
using data from the Barrow ice camp census study is 2,264. This
estimate is corrected for total observation time (87.6 percent of the
total time during the season), duplicate sightings, and validation
of whales believed to have been missed. The absolute lower end of the
estimate is 1,783 animals, and the upper end 2,865.

3. No bowhead whales were seen in the offshore leads in the Chukchi Sea
between Pt. Barrow and Pt. Hope, even though an essentially equal
effort of aerial surveys was conducted nearshore (54.6 percent) and
offshore (45.4 percent). The migration of the western Arctic population
of bowhead whales occurs in the nearshore leads along the northwest
coast of Alaska to Pt. Barrow. It appears that the entire population
migrating during the spring was available for counting by the ice camp
census teams.

4. Correlated observations between the aerial survey and ice camp
census teams indicated that both methods were sampling animals
frcm the same population (i.e. sample universe). Preliminary results
suggest that the two counting methods verified individual whale
sightings. Therefore, if a bowhead were present, it was highly probable
that it was counted by the ice camp census teams.

5. The 1978 population index is based on the combined effort of the NMFS
whale counting camps, the AEWC carp_, and Eskimo whalers. The percent
effort to the index attributable to each group was South Camp, 91.4
percent; North Camp, 0.1 percent (adjustments reflected in the South
percent effort); AEWC Camp, 2.4 percent; and Eskimo whalers, 6.1
percent.

6. The census index for 1978 was higher than for 1976 and 1977 because
of the following, and perhaps other, reasons.

a. The observation effort based on the number of days spent
was more than twice as great in 1978 than in 1976 or 1977.

b. The person/hours of watch in 1978, as opposed to 1976 and
1977, was four times as great, or five times as great if
the AEWC Camp is considered.

c. The lead was open the entire season.

d. Weather (wind and fog) was much less of a problem than in
past years.

e. The lead was characteristically open 3-6 km (2-4 miles)
most of the season, allowing for continued observation
across the lead.

f. The 1978 census camps were located farther north than
the 1976-77 camps, and at a place where the lead is
narrower, which increased the chances of viewing the
entire lead.

g. Shorter watch hours, greater rotation of observers,
and an additional year's experience probably accounted
for less bias associated with observer effectiveness.

h. Less whaling activity in 1978 near Barrow, along the
edge of the nearshore lead, may have resulted in fewer
whales moving further away frcm the fast ice (unconfirmed)

i. The observation point north of Pt. Barrow, on grounded
sea ice, was a much more stable platform than ever
before and reduced the need to be frequently moving
away from the lead during real or imagined unsafe ice
conditions.

i. The observation point north of Pt. Barrow, on grounded
sea ice, was a much more stable platform than ever
before and reduced the need to be frequently moving away
fram the lead during real or imagined unsafe ice
conditions.

j. The viewing platform (perches on top of second year
grounded ice) this year was higher than in 1976 or 1977,
allowing us to look farther across the lead.

7. Our hypothesis proposed in 1976, that beyond Pt. Barrow bowhead whales
migrate offshore through the Beaufort Sea to northwest of Banks
Island, Canada, in the spring, was corroborated. That segment of the
population which migrates in the nearshore lead along the northwest
coast of Alaska does not appear to head west into the Chukchi Sea,
but rather north and east into the Beaufort Sea.

8. The wintering "grounds" and early spring area of the bowhead
population are still unknown. Presumably these occur in the south-
west Bering Sea near the ice front in Soviet waters. It is thought
that this area and time would be ideal for censusing. Research
support should be directed into this area fran February to May.

9. Bowhead whale "vocalizations" (i.e. sounds) were successfully recorded.
This preliminary study has shown that some whales can be detected while
moving by the ice camps, and that acoustics may be a possible tool in
future counting plans. Sonar did not prove useful this year because
of the limited capability and availability of the system used.

10. A total of 10 bowhead whales were landed as of May 30, 1978.
Additionally, five whales were reported to have been struck, but
lost. Without corroborating evidence, it was assumed that all five
whales perished. The number of struck and lost was significantly
lower this year than in past years, probably due to the short whaling
period, increased hunter efficiency, and less mechanical failure
of the weaponry.

11. The chromosome number of one bowhead whale taken this year (#78B4, an
Ingutuk) was 2n = 42. This fits the known chromosome count for
bowhead whales, but is different than the 2n = 44 for other
baleeD whales (i.e. other than the right whale which has not been
studied).

12. Eighteen young-of-the-year calves were uniformly seen by the South
Camp observers between April 25 and May 24. This count is 1.3 percent
of the total count at South Camp; 1,389 from April 15 to May 30.
Through simple extrapolation for the mean coabined South Camp index
so vfar at least 29 new bowheads mav have been added to the population.
Several factors suggest this is an underestimate.

Literature Cited

Braham, H. and B. Krogman. 1977. Population Biology of the Bowhead
(Balaena mysticetus) and Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) whale
in the Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Processed report,
U.S. Departnment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Marine Mammal
Division, Seattle, 29 pp.

Marquette, W. M. 1977. The 1976 Catch of Bowhead Whales (Balaena
mysticetus) by Alaska Eskimos, with a review of the fishery,
1973-1976, and a biological summary of the species, Proc. RPt.,
U.S. Department of Ccmnerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest
and Alaska Fisheries Center, Marine Mammal Division, 80 pp.

Appendix I
Spring and suimer 1978 bowhead research project effort and personnel summarizations--continued.

Research Project Inclusive Location of Project Project
Dates Research leader personnel

Land camp census April 1-June 17 Cape Lisburne D. Rugh J. Cubbage
K. Hazzard
A. Taber
Sonar-bio- April 20-May 28 Barrow J. Johnson M. Dahlheim
acoustics
Vessel Survey June 12-July 20 No. Bering-So. S. Leatherwood K. Balcq/
Chukchi Seas H. Braham-/
T. Bray
M. Dahlheim
Eskirmo/ 4/
C. Goebel
P. McGuire

1/limited participation
2/biological studies coordinator
3/field camp co-coordinator
-/Gambell, AK AEWC eskimo representative (by invitation)

Appendix I
Spring and sumrer 1978 bowhead reserach project effort and personnel summnarization

Research Project Inclusive Location of Project Project
Dates Research leader personnel

Aerial Survey April 19-June 11 No. Bering Sea- S. Leatherwood R. Everitt--
Arctic Ocean C. Goebel
B. Lawton
R. Storro-Y tterson
R. Sonnta/gq
D. Withrow-'
Harvest & Bio- March28-June5 Barrow, Wainwright, W. Marquette K. Balcomb
logical studies Pt. Hope, Gamnbell, K. Haflinger
& Savoonga G. Jarrell
E. Knutson
R. McLain
M. Nerini-
J. Patee
R. Tramaine

Ice camp census April 15-June 5 Barrow B. Krogman J. Bruggem i
G. Carroll-
C. D'Vincent
P. Field
T. Fleischner
R. Fritsen
P. Hessing
S. Hcme
E. Iten
C. Peterson
J. Smithhisler
R. Schuette

- I

fLV-<

-I
p

- -

NA - 4-43 -7 - JJ

III- 1978 WEAPONS IMPROVEMENT - AN INTERIM REPORT

Actions Taken to Improve the Efficiency of Methods
Utilized in the Harvest of Bowhead Whales

During the latter portion of the Nineteenth Century, commercial
whalers operating in the Bering and Chukchi Seas introduced
explosive killing devices to Eskimo whalers who hunted bowhead
whales for subsistence purposes. The manufacture and use of
these devices have essentially remained unchanged during the
Twentieth Century. These devices consist of a hand-thrown
darting gun which implants a harpoon with a float attached in
the whale. The impact of a harpoon being placed triggers a
charge that propels an explosive bomb into the whale, while
� shoulder gun propels an explosive bomb, but does not implant
� harpoon. Use of a darting gun requires the hunters to
approach the whale at close range; however, a shoulder gun may
be fired from any distance within the range of the gun. The
explosion of the bomb inside the whale is intended to be the
killing method; however, the whale often sounds and must be
tracked in order to be recovered. The float which is attached
by a darting gun greatly enhances the chances of recovering a
whale.

Both the darting gun and shoulder gun are manufactured by the
same company in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. The manufacturer
is a small family enterprise that has passed from father to
son during this century. Prior to 1978, there had been no
direct contact between the whalers who utilize the devices and
the manufacturer. After the manufacturer ships the devices to
the North Slope of Alaska, the whalers hand-load the weapons
according to instructions included with the devices and their
own experience or preference. Occasionally, they make
selective modifications to both weapons and bombs to suit
their preferences and methods of whaling.

Information collected in 1977, through interviews with Eskimo
whalers, indicated that as many as 82 strikes may have occurred
which did not result in the landing of a whale. In response to
the concern of the International Whaling Commission, the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) arranged for meetings
between the manufacturer and representatives of the Alaska
Eskimo Whaling Commission.

In a meeting held October 14, 1977, in Washington, D.C.,
Eskimo whalers and the manufacturer compared notes and informa-
tion which resulted in several suggested changes in the use
and manufacture of the devices. As a result of that meeting,
the U.S. Government contracted with the manufacturer to
modify a darting gun and shoulder gun and incorporate the
changes that had been discussed. When the modifications were
completed, the manufacturer traveled to the North Slope of
Alaska and visited several whaling villages to demonstrate the
modifications and consult with the whalers regarding the hand
loading of both the propellant charges and explosive charges
which, in the past, had reportedly caused several "misfires"
and resulted in whales being struck and lost. As a result of
this cooperative effort, further modifications are being made
by the manufacturer. Some modified weapons are expected to be
available to the whalers in 1978.

The United States implemented a management program in cooperation
with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Comnmission to control the 1978
hunt in accordance with measures adopted and recommended by
IWC. Based on extensive discussions between the U.S. Govern-
ment and the Commission, each party assumed responsibility for
implementing portions of the 1978 program.

Regulations were promulgated by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Commission which required that whales must be struck with a
harpoon or darting gun with line and float attached, or
simultaneously with a harpoon and shoulder or darting gun. The
purpose of the Eskimo whaling regulations is to avoid "'long range"
attempts with the shoulder gun which were reportedly the cause of
many whales being struck and lost in the past.

Several changes to the guns and bombs already have been made
and include:

(1) The barr'el of the guns have been manufactured of
bronze instead of steel, reducing the problem of rust
which interfered with proper discharge and travel of
the bombs.
(2) The weight of both guns has been reduced for easier
handling.
(3) Hot rolled steel has been used in the harpoon shaft
to improve flexibility and reduce the likelihood of the
harpoon dislodging itself from the whale.
(4) The bottom surface of the tocggle head of the harpoon
has been widened to provide for better retention once it
has been implanted in the whale.
(5) The point on the bombs has been made shorter and
blunter to provide for more certain penetration, reducing
the possibility of misplacement or "glancing" effect.

(6) The barrels have been shortened to allow a visual
check to see if the bomb is properly seated before
firing; a reason ci-Led for under-firing and misfires.
(7) Loading procedures have been thoroughly reviewed with
the whalers to assure proper and safe firing of the
explosive charges.
(8) Investigations have begun to determine if a more
suitable explosive powder can be utilized. The standard
black powder is highly susceptible to moisture,
causingmisfires. Also, black powder is less explosive
than some new powders. The safety of the whalers is an,
important consideration in this investigation.

S4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

-t -~~A

~~~~' f/v~~~~~~~~~AN

0`1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

IV. ALASKAN ESKIMO SUBSISTENCE DEPENDENCE
ON BOWHEAD WHALES

Eskimos in nine whaling villages in northwest Alaska have depended
on the bowhead whale for subsistence needs and as the cornerstone
of their culture for centuries. Even though Eskimo culture has
been impacted by U.S. domestic legislation and regulation
governing a variety of issues from native claims to wildlife
management and by oil development on the North Slope, the
cultural and nutritional importance of the bowhead whale has
remained unchanged.

In establishing proper regulations relating to the bowhead
whale, it is essential to balance the need to preserve the
whale stock and the subsistence and cultural needs of the Eskimo
community. This paper discusses the nature of the Eskimo diet
and the role of the bowhead in that diet; describes subsistence
and cultural dependence on the bowhead; and evaluates the
viability of alternative foodstuffs. It concludes that the
bowhead whale is integral both to the health of Eskimos and
their culture, and that an annual take of at least 24 to 32
whales is necessary to meet Eskimo needs. These conclusions,
and the facts on which they are based, are primarily derived
from and found in more detail in the results of the US/
International Biological Program study of Eskimos of Northwestern
Alaska--A biological Perspective (1978), a Smithsonian Institu-
tion study: The North Alaskan Eskimo--A Study in Ecology and
Society (1959) and recent studies and surveys undertaken by
the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and
the U.S. Department of the Interior.

(1) The Eskimo Diet

Maintenance of a traditional way of life for the Alaskan Eskimo
is heavily dependent upon the hunting and use of subsistence
resources. Many of the households obtain a major portion of
their resources from subsistence hunting, according to a 1978
survey by the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Whales, seals and caribou have been the major components of
the northern coastal Eskimo aboriginal diet. Fish, birds and
walrus have been minor components. I/ The native diet is high
in protein and fat and low in carbohydrates. 2/ According to
a 1971-1972 nutritional survey in the villages of Wainwright
and Point Hope, Alaska, 34% of the calories of the inhabitants
of Wainwright and 18% in Point Hope were obtained from such
native species; the adult members of the populations at

Wainwright and Point Hope obtained approximately 75% and 57%,
respectively, of their protein from these native species. 3/

The consumption of these native species, particularly whales,
confers certain specific advantages to the native population:

1. Nutritional analysis has shown that fresh whale
blubber (muktuk) is a good alternative source of Vitamin C.
Early explorers noted the absence of scurvy, a vitamin C
deficiency disease, among native populations despite the absence
of fruits or vegetables in the diet. oils of marine mammals
are also high in vitamins A and D. 4/

2. Although an all-meat diet is low in calcium, consump-
tion of cartilage and soft bones of native animal species
supplements calcium intake. 5/ This may be important where
the incidence of lactose intolerance precludes the addition
of calcium-rich dairy products to the diet. 6/

3. The meat of marine mammals is a good source of dietary
iron. Iron-deficiency anemia noted in village children has
been related to their lower consumption of native species as
opposed to consumption by adults of the village. 7/

4. The high saturated fat content generally ascribed to
animal fats does not apply to a diet of seal and whale blubber.
Polyunsaturated fats in these native foods may have contributed
to the low serum cholesterol levels of premodern Eskimos. 8/

5. Because of its content, a three ounce portion of
muktuk provides about 20% of an average male Eskimo's daily
caloric needs.

In sum, the traditional native diet, despite its lack of
variety, can supply all nutrients essential to good health,
provided that native food species are available in adequate
amounts and their meat is prepared according to traditional
methods. 9/

(2) Nutritional Dependence on the Bowhead

The bowhead whale is a principal ingredient of this traditional
Eskimo diet. The following calculations attempt to quantify
basic protein needs of the Eskimo population and the amount of
whale meat required to satisfy that need. These calculations
are founded on information supplied by the U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare. Based on those figures, a
significant portion of the protein requirement of the population
of the nine whaling villages (and a substantial portion of some
of the other vitamin needs) is met by the harvest of 24 average

size whales. These figures are approximate, since the required
protein intake varies from person to person and since some
information on the dietary habits and the use of other foods
as a protein source is estimated. In addition, Eskimos in
inland villages are dependent, to a certain extent, on bowhead
whale meat. While we do not know the portion of their diet.
accounted for by whale meat nor the precise numiber of people
involved, three to five whales are required to satisfy the
subsistence needs of inland villages. This would indicate a
nutritional need for a total harvest of bowhead whales of 27
to 29. */

A. Whale Production

1. Average weight of all whales caught during the period
1973-1977 is 15.9 metric tons.

2. Useable portions of the whale:

red meat = 31% of overall body weight
viscera (all eaten) = 14%
blubber (eaten portion) =6%

3. Whale size/yield figures:

15.9 metric tons total weight = 7.2 metric tons of
red meat and viscera.
B. Eskimo Needs

1. Population of nine whaling villages (current) total
=-4200 (4% are under 2 years of age and eat little
or now whale meat)

Adult males (25+) Adult Females (25+) Children

20% 9% 67%
(840) (380) (2810)

*While it has been suggested by some that historical take
levels can be used to establish subsistence dependence, an
historic approach to determining subsistence or cultural need
is inadequate for several reasons: 1) historic records are
incomplete (harvest records are available for only two of nine
whaling villages); 2) the historic approach fails to take
into account the decline of the Eskimo population following
contact with the outside world and subsequent recovery to about
40% of precontact level and; 3) an historic approach under-
states subsistence dependence because it includes years when
climatic conditions prevented the harvest, although there was
a need for such a harvest.

2. Daily Nutritional Requirements:

Adult Males Adult Females Children

Protein 56 grams 46 grams 30-35 grams
Whale Meat 170 grams 128-142 grams 85-114 grams
& Viscera

3. Annual requirements of whale meat and viscera
assuming daily intake to satisfy substantially all
protein needs:

(Population) times (annual needs per person)

Category Population Need Requirement

Adult Males 840 137 52
Adult Females 380 108 19
Children 2810 80 102

TOTAL 4030 325 173 metric tons

4. Estimated number of whales to satisfy annual requirements:

173 metric tons of meat and viscera divided by
7.2 metric tons of useable meat and viscera per
average whale = 24 whales.

(3) Cultural Dependence on the Bowhead Harvest

Beyond the nutritional need is a further and less tangible
Alaskan Eskimo dependence on the bowhead. Bowhead whaling
serves as the central force of the community binding it together
and reaffirming the culture. IO/ Restrictions imposed upon
bowhead whale hunting from oth-er than natural causes have the
potential of disrupting community and cultural integrity. When
the culture is experiencing pressure from outside elements, as
it has to a great extent in this decade, maintenance of bowhead
whaling becomes even more critical.

observations during the spring 1978 hunt indicate that a
minimum requirement of whaling opportunity, which the bowhead
whale hunt has traditionally produced, is necessary to maintain
the positive role of sharing and cooperation. This social and
cultural need is apart from nutritional requirements. while
some whaling is clearly better than none, abnormally small
quotas have an adverse impact upon the cultural integrity of

the community. Since other subsistence activities are individ-
ual rather than communal, the bowhead whale hunt has no sub-
stitute to reinforce the spirit of the community and facilitate
preservations of the Eskimo culture.

The United States Government has attempted to determine what
measurement of "whale availability" might be used to establish
subsistence dependence from a cultural standpoint, and has
found it exceedingly difficult to quantify this important but
intangible factor.

The Eskimos have suggested that one can quantify this cultural
dependence by measuring the number of whales'landed per whaling
crew involved in the hunt. In order to do so, the data on
the number of crews hunting in the various whaling villages
was examined. The number of crews was divided by the number
of whales landed. on the basis of this year's survey, it was
assumed that the number of crews were minimally required for
each whaling village (30 for Barrow, 15 for Point Hope and 8
for Wainwright) . The crew members are lower than actual crew
numbers over the years for which calculations were made. The
whales per crew ratio was then multiplied by the number of crews
which resulted in an estimate of 32 whales, required for the
maintenance of cultural integrity.

(4) Lack of Availability of Alternative Species

Because of the endangered status of the bowhead population,
alternative food sources should be considered in meeting
Eskimo needs. The United States Government has concluded that,
unfortunately, none of these sources is a viable alternative
of substantial size.

one method of substitution considered would be the importation
of foodstuffs from the lower 48 United States. Such foods,
however, have not traditionally been part of the Eskimo diet.
The northwest Alaskan Eskimo population, adapted over
centuries to the native diet, may not be able to adjust to
alternative food sources without adverse consequences to
nutritional health. II/ Change in the northwest Alaskan
Eskimo diet that has already taken place in some areas has
resulted in adverse health effects on Eskimo health. There
has been a rapid increase in the prevalence of certain diseases
characteristic of industrialized societies: obesity, cardio-
vascular disease, hypertension, 12/ as well as an alarming
increase in iron-deficiency anemia. 13/, 14/

Eskimos seem to possess unique metabolic capabilities which
have enabled them to adapt to their aboriginal all-meat diet.
15/, 16/ These adaptations appear to limit their ability to

assimilate possible alternative and processed foodstuffs. For
example, northwest Alaskan Eskimo populations exhibit lactose
and sucrose intolerance. 17/ The presence of enzymes to break
down these two sugars would be non-selective in a population
lacking traditional sources of these substances. A modern diet,
including milk and sweet foods, disrupts the metabolism of these
sugar intolerant individuals. The consumption of native foods
by the residents of Wainwright is comparable to estimates made
15 years ago, but Point Hope shows a decrease in consumption of
native species in the last 15 years. 18/ Wainwright adults,
whose diet most closely resembles that of the aboriginal
Eskimos, appear to have a health advantage over the adult
population of Point Hope. 19/, 20/

Other alternative food sources can be found to some extent, but
these sources will not account for a substantial replacement to
whale meat because of problems with availability, hunting effort
and Eskimo acceptance.

Historically, the caribou was the primary alternative to the
bowhead. In lean years of bowhead harvest,.caribou were
available to make up for deficits and vice versa. Unfortunately,
at a time when the bowhead whale harvest is being limited, the
caribou harvest is also being severely restricted. Caribou
herds have been subject to large cyclical fluctuations in size
over a 30-40 year period, and are presently near a low point in
the cycle. From 1970 to 1977, the Western Arctic caribou herd
declined from a reliable estimate of 242,000 animals to between
50,000 and 75,000 animals. Historically, Alaskan Eskimos and
other natives annually took 25,000 to 30,000 caribou for use in
30 native communities which utilized this subsistence resource.
At the present time, a 5,000 animal limit (up from 3,000 in
1977) exists. 21/ The inland villages with limited access to
marine resources are much greater users of caribou than the
whaling villages. Of the quota in 1977, the whaling villages
took perhaps a thousand caribou and may take 1,500 of the
5,000 in 1978. 22/ Thus, caribou cannot make up the deficit
from a reduced bowhead harvest. Indeed, one of the reasons for
an increase in whales taken in the recent past has been the
relative scarcity of caribou.

Other alternatives such as seals, walrus, waterfowl and fish
are not practical. Climatic conditions and the amount of
effort required to make up for the bowhead food loss by hunting
these species are such that these species cannot effectively
replace bowheads, which provide high quantities of meat to
subsistence people in the form of a few animals. For example,
it would be impossible in the space of a single year for the
community to hunt and kill enough birds to replace even one
bowhead whale. Because beluga whales are not in large supply

and-are used for subsistence purposes in western Canada, the
U.S. is reluctant to encourage substantial further use of these
whales. The gray whale (classified as endangered) is occasion-
ally taken by Alaskan natives for food. Although the meat of
the gray whale is eaten, the muktuk is unacceptable as food
because the skin is encrusted with barnacles and the blubber
is difficult to chew. Also, the gray whale is considered to be
more difficult and more dangerous to hunt than the bowhead, and
tends to sink when killed.

References

1. Bell, R. Raines and C.A. Heller, "Nutrition Studies:
An Appraisal of the Modern North Alaskan Eskimo Diet,
In Jamison et. al, 1978, p. 145

2. Draper, H.H., "Nutrition Studies: The Aboriginal
Eskimo Diet - A Modern Perspective, In Eskimos of
Northwestern Alaska - A Biological Perspective,
Paul L. Jamison et. al, Eds., US/IBP Synthesis Series
Vol. 8, Academic Press, New York: 1978, p. 141

3. Op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 149-50

4. Ibid., p. 140

5. Ibid., p. 141

6. Bell, R. Raines et. al, "Metabolic Parameters: Lactose
and Sucrose Tolerance", In Jamison et. al, 1978, p. 184

7. Op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 152

8. Op. cit., Ref. 2, p. 142

9. Ibid., p. 139

10. Spencer, R.F., The North Alaskan Eskimo, A Study in
Ecology and Society. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau
of American Ethnology, Bulletin 171: 1959, pp. 332-352

11. Op. cit., Ref. 2, p. 143

12. Ibid., p. 144

13. Bergan, J.G. and R. Raines Bell, "Nutrition Studies:
Biochemical Assessment of Nutritional Status",
In Jamison et. al, 1978, p. 157

14. Ibid., p. 161

15. Op. cit., Ref. 2, p. 139

16. Ibid., p. 143

17. Op. cit., Ref. 6

18. Op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 149-150

19. Ibid., p. 151

20. Colbert, M.J., et. al., "Nutrition Studies: Clinical
Observations on Nutritional Health", In Jamison, et. al,
1978, p. 168, 171

21. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife
Information Leaflet No. 3, 1976

22. Rausch, R.A., Director, Division of Game, State of
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (personal
communication, 2/6/78)

APPENDICES

A. STATUS REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ALASKA ESKIMO
WHALING COMMISSION, May 1978; MONETARY GRANT FROM
THE ALASKA LEGISLATURE IN SUPPORT OF ACTIVITIES
OF THE ALASKA ESKIMO WHALING COMMISSION

B. UNITED STATES REGULATIONS FOR BOWHEAD MANAGEMENT
P ROG RAM

C. FIGURES 1 -5

A-1

APPENDIX A

STATUS REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ALASKA ESKIMO
WHALING COMMISSION, May 1978; MONETARY GRANT FROM THE
ALASKA LEGISLATURE IN SUPPORT OF ACTIVITIES OF THE
ALASKA ESKIMO WHALING COMMISSION

A-3

STATUS REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE ALASKA ESKIMO WHALING COMMISSION
May 1978
What is the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission?

The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) is an organization composed
of all whaling captains from the nine Alaska Eskimo whaling villages.
The Commission has a governing body composed of nine commissioners (one
elected from each of the whaling villages by the whaling captains from
those villages). The Commission has elected a Chairman and Vice Chairman
from its membership and has also appointed a Secretary-Treasurer. A list
of the Commissioners and officers of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Ccmission
is attached (see Attachment A).

When Was the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission Created?

The Commission was created on September 1, 1977, in Barrow, Alaska.
For the first time in recorded Eskimo history, Alaska Eskimo whaling
captains from nine remote whaling villages gathered in one place to
discuss the ways in which the Eskimo community might respond to the
International Whaling Commission's ban on subsistence hunting of the
bowhead whale.

Why Was the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission Created?

For centuries Alaska Eskimos have hunted the bowhead whale in a controlled
and intelligent fashion. Hunters who have shown disrespect to the bowhead
whale by harvesting it in an inefficient way have been ostracized from
the community. Nevertheless, the Eskimos realize that even the most
ingrained traditions sometimes need emphasis and reinforcement,
particularly when outside forces are promoting social change.

The whaling captains at their meeting in Barrow also realized that some
people were disseminating misinformation concerning the manner in which
most Eskimos were hunting and using the bowhead whale. The whalers
believed it was essential to communicate to the outside world the facts
concerning Eskimo hunting of the bowhead in their remote part of the
world.

Finally, the whalers recognized that their intuitive knowledge of the
bowhead could not be easily crommunicated to the outside world. They also
realized that the present body of information concerning the bowhead
whale was woefully inadequate and even misleading. They, therefore,
recognized the need for extensive scientific investigation of the
bowhead whale to insure continuing existence of both the bowhead whale
and Eskimo society.

Given these needs, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission was created with
a threefold purpose:

A-5

1) To insure that bowhead whale hunting was conducted in a
traditional, non-wasteful manner;

2) To communicate to the outside world the facts concerning
bowhead whale hunting, the way it was done, the centrality of the hunt to
the cultural and nutritional needs of the Eskimo, the Eskimo's knowledge
of the whale, and the reasons why any moratorium on such hunting would have
disastrous impact upon the Eskimo community; and

3) To promote extensive scientific research on the bowhead whale so
as to insure its continued existence without unnecessary disruption of
Eskimo society.

What Has the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission Done?

The AEWC serves as an organized forum through which Eskimos can inform
people in remote villages and in the outside world. Operating with funds
first from the North Slope Borough and then from the State of Alaska, the
AEWC has performed three primary functions: education, regulations, and
research.

1. Education

The AEWC has engaged in numerous educational efforts. It has encouraged
the production of a film portraying Alaska Eskimo whaling of the bowhead.
It has answered inquiries and has responded to allegations from outsiders
unfamiliar with Alaska Eskimo whaling.

Representatives of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Coanmmission have testified in
Washington and in Alaska concerning the cultural and nutritional
importance of bowhead whale hunting for Alaskan Eskimos. In addition,
representatives of the AEWC have visited state and federal officials to
tell their story and urge that the IWC action establishing arbitrary quotas
on the number of bowheads which can be harvested be overturned and that an
appropriate management plan which does not pose a risk to either the
Eskimos or the bowhead whale be established.

During the Spring 1978 hunt, AEWC members talked to conservationists and
reporters who had came to Alaska to view subsistence whaling at first
hand. Many who came with negative attitudes went away convinced of the
legitimacy of the Eskimo hunt of the bowhead whale.

2. Regulation

The AEWC fought to have the United States object to the initial IWC
moratorium and present an alternative domestic regulatory program at the
December meeting of the INC. While the United States rejected this
approach, the AEWC was successful in obtaining from the U.S. Government
a ccmnitmant to fight for a restoration of the subsistence-exenmption at
the December meetig.

A-6

AEWC representatives met with Vice President Mondale, Secretary of Interior
Andrus and Undersecretary of Interior James Joseph to discuss Eskimo
participation at the IWC December meeting. At that meeting with
government officials the AEWC committed itself to the development of an
Alaska Eskimo regulatory program. Having received further assurances that
the United States was comnitted to the continuation of the bowhead whale
hunt for Alaskan Eskimos, the AEWC agreed to participate in the December
meeting of the IWC.

Subsequent to the meeting with the Vice President, the AEWC presented to
the Secretary of Interior Cecil Andrus a regulatory program adopted by
the AEWC on November 5, 1977. That regulatory program was in place before
there was any U.S. domestic regulation of Alaskan Eskimo subsistence
whaling. The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Comnission management plan insures
that traditional Eskimo hunting methods will be allowed and that the number
of whales attempted to be harvested but not harvested will be substantially
reduced. Specifically, the plan provides:

a) Whaling captains must register with the AEWC and agree that
they and their crews will abide by AEWC regulations.

b) Records of whales sighted, struck, and harvested must be
kept.

c) The shoulder gun may be used only

(i) when accompanied by harpoon with or without a
darting gun.

(ii) after a line has been secured to the bowhead
whale, or

(iii) when pursuing a wounded bowhead whale with a
float attached to it.

d) The level of harvest shall not exceed subsistence needs.

e) Violation of regulations will result in the violator being
prohibited frco whaling for a period of from one to five whaling
seasons.

During the Spring hunt, the AEWC management plan has been honored by all
Eskimo whalers. When a misunderstanding arose in Barrow concerning the
kind of whales that could be taken under the IWC Schedule, the AEWC
called an emergency special meeting which was attended by the U.S. IW
Commissioner. The AEWC was instrumental in resolving the misunderstanding
and urged the whalers not to take Ingutuks even though the TWC Schedule
language might not prohibit whaling for Ingutuks. For this year, the AEWC
is committed to ccpliance with the letter and the spirit of IWC
directives in order to enhance the likelihood of speedy resolution of the
aboriginal whaling question by the IwC.

A-7

The AEWC has worked with the U.S. Government to devise a method by which
the IWC will have definite guidelines to treat aboriginal whaling
differently than commercial whaling.

3. Research

Eskimo whalers are working with the U.S. government on scientific research
on the Bowhead whale and on research on weapons improvement. Eskimos are
far more familiar with ice conditions and the behavioral patterns of the
Bowhead whale than are most scientists. The government scientists have
been receptive to many of the suggestions of the whalers and have
utilized the whaler's assistance in conducting the research. The AEWC
continues to promote more sophisticated research, however, and to that end
is helping to fund an exploratory sonar program to determine whether sonar
can be used to estimate more accurately the size of the Bowhead population.
The AEWC is urging that joint research programs be undertaken with the
Soviet Union and Canada in the hopes of establishing better information
about the size of the Bowhead population and environmental risks to the
species.

In response to criticisms concerning the number of whales attempted to be
harvested but not harvested, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission has met
with the person who manufactures the subsistence whaling weapons and has
suggested improvements in design so as to maximize the opportunity for
successfully harvesting the whale. These weapons improvements combined
with the requirement under the AEWC management plan for securing the
whale with a harpoon (or darting gun) with line attached before any
shoulder gun can be used has substantially irproved the efficiency of the
Bowhead whale harvest.

A final area of research, a study of historic levels of Eskimo whaling,
has been begun by the AEWC. The AEWC believes the figures currently
available on historic levels of aboriginal whaling are inaccurate.
Accurate information-on the level of catch may provide a better index of
the status of the whale population over the years.

What Will the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission do in the Future?

The Commission is cammitted to trying to convince the IWC to restore the
native exemption for Bowhead whale harvesting. The Ccimmission will work
with the IWC and U.S. to promote scientific research and to devise
adequate and fair methods of controlling aboriginal whaling in full
cooperation with aboriginal peoples. In the meantime, the AEW will
continue to implement its own management plan for Bowhead whale hunting
to insure timely and adequate self-regulation of Bowhead whale hunting for
subsistence purposes.

A-S

AEWC Management Plan

Synopsis

Management of the Bowhead Whale hunt is achieved under the AEWC plan
through two mechanisms:

1. Regulation of hunting methods.

2. Establishment of a special scientific committee (with
Eskimo representation but controlled by scientists) which
will set overall limits on the hunt at levels no greater
than the net recruitment rate of the species.

The special scientific comnittee would be camposed of nine members
appointed by a highly respected scientific organization. It would have the
specific tasks of estimating the level at which animals could be taken
without decreasing the population; estimating the Imrtality rate for
animals struck but not harvested; and making recomrendations on weapons
which may improve the efficiency of the hunt. The whalers would not be
permitted to take whales beyond the limits imposed by the special
scientific committee.

Violation of any hunting regulations will result in the violator being
forbidden to participate in the hunt, and in addition, fines may be
assessed.

A-9

AEWC Commissioners

Kaktovik Herman Aishanna
Nuiqsut Thomas Napageak
Barrow Jacob Adams
Wainwright Rossman Peetook
Point Hope John Oktollik
Kivalina Oscar Swan
Wales *Roy Angnaboogok
Gambell Roger Silook
Savoonga Thomas Gologergon
Officers
Jacob Adams - Chairman
Roger Silook - Vice Chairman
Dale Stotts - Secretary-Treasurer

*President of local Whaling Captains' Association

A-10

AEWC Management Plan

Subpart A - Introduction

�100.1 Purpose of regulations

It is the purpose of the regulations contained herein to: (a) insure an
efficient subsistence harvest of bowhead whales; and (b) provide a means
within the Alaskan Eskimo customs and institutions of limiting the bowhead
whale harvest in order to prevent the extinction of such species.

�100.2 Scope of regulations

The regulations contained herein apply to the subsistence hunting of
bowhead whales by Eskimos located in the State of Alaska.

Subpart B - Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

�100.11 Powers

(a) The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (hereinafter AEWC) is empowered
to administer the regulations contained herein to insure that the purposes
stated in �100.1 of these regulations are attained.

(b) The AEWC is empowered to enforce these regulations by:

(1) denying any person who violates these regulations the right
to participate in hunting the bowhead whale.

(2) acting as an enforcement agent for any governmental entity
authorized to enforce these regulations.

(c) The AEWC is empowered to promulgate interim regulations that are in
addition to, but not in lieu of, regulations contained herein.

�100.12 Duties

(a) The AEWC shall administer and enforce the regulations contained herein
(including any interim regulations.)

(b) The AEWC shall conduct village educational programs to facilitate
compliance with these regulations, including training programs for whaling
captains and crews.

Subpart C - Regulations

�100.21 Definitions

(a) "bowhead whale" means a whale whose scientific name is Balaena
mysticetus and which migrates past whaling villages in Alaska.

A-11ll

(b) "captain" means the person in charge of a whaling crew.

(d) "non-traditional weapons" means any instrument that could be used
to harvest a bowhead whale that is not a traditional weapon.

(e) "Scientific Committee" means the committee established pursuant to
�100.26 of these regulations.

(f) "traditional weapon" means a harpoon with line attached, darting gun,
shoulder gun, lance or any other weapon approved by the AEWC with the
concurrence of the Scientific Committee, as such a weapon in order to
improve the efficiency of the bowhead whale harvest.

(i) "harpoon with line attached" means a harpoon with a
rotating head which is attached to a line and float and
which has no explosive charge. (See Figures 7 and 8 of
Appendix E of the FEIS on the International Whaling
Ccamission's Deletion of Native Exemption for the
Subsistence Harvest of Bowhead Whales (October, 1977)
(hereafter FEIS).

(ii) "darting gun harpoon" means a harpoon with an explosive
charge and with a line and float attached. (See Appendix E
of the FEIS in Figure 4.)

(iii) "shoulder gun" means a whaling gun, adapted from the era of
comnmercial whaling in the 19th Century, which has an
explosive charge and which has no attached line and float.
(See Appendix E of the FEIS in Figure 5.)

(iv) "lance" means a non-explosive sharply pointed weapon
without a harpoon head.

(g) "whaling crew" means those persons who participate directly in the
harvest or attempted harvest of the bcwhead whale and are under the
supervision of a captain.

(h) "whaling village" means the Alaska Eskimo village inwhich resides a
whaling captain and crew which participates in the harvest ot attempted
harvest of bowhead whales.

(i) "whaling season" means customary period of time during which the
bowhead whale is harvested, either in the Spring or Fall.

�100.22 Registration

(a) Each captain shall register with the AEWC on forms provided by the
AEWC for that purpose which disclose his name, address, age, qualifications
as captain, names of crew members, and his willingness to abide by the
regulations of the AEWC and to require his crew to abide by those
regulations.
A-12

(b) The AEWC shall take into account any reading or language difficulties
in developing procedures and forms for registration.

�100.23 Reports

(a) Each whaling captain shall be responsible for keeping a written record
of the number of whales --

(1) attempted to be harvested by using traditional weapons
but not harvested,

(2) harvested by the captain or his crew, and

(3) sighted by the captain or his crew.

(b) Each whaling captain shall report the date, place, and time of any
striking not resulting in harvesting and shall describe --

(1) the size of the bowhead whale,

(2) any known later attempted harvest or actual harvest
of said whale, and

(3) the reason for the captain or crew not harvesting the
whale -- e.g. environmental factors, the failure of
traditional weapons, or other reason.

(c) Each whaling captain shall make such other reports as the AEWC
requires in order to accomplish the purposes of the regulations herein or
in order to advance the scientific knowledge of the bowhead whale.

100.24 Permissible harvesting methods

(a) No whaling captain or crew shall harvest or attempt to harvest the
bowhead whale in any manner other than the traditional harvesting manner.

(b) "Traditional harvesting mmnner" means:

(1) only traditional weapons shall be used, as defined in
�100.21(f).

(2) the bowhead whale may be struck with a harpoon or darting
gun with line and float attached or simultaneously with
harpoon and shoulder gun or darting gun.

(3) the shoulder gun may be used

(i) when accompanied by harpoon with or without
a darting gun.

(ii) after a line has been secured to the bowhead
whale, or

A-13

(iii) when pursuing a wounded bowhead whale with a float
attached to it.

(4) the lance may be used after a line has been secured to the
bowhead whale.

�100.25 Traditional proprietary claim

The bowhead whale shall belong to the captain and crew which first strikes
the bowhead whale in the manner described in �100.24.

�100.25 Level of harvest

(a) The AEWC shall establish the levels of harvest and attempted harvest
for each whaling village during each season. Such levels may be set by
methods including, but not limited to, the following:

(i) Specification of number of whaling crews permitted
to harvest or attempt to harvest bowhead whales during
specified periods;

(ii) Specification of the size or age of whales which may
be taken during specified periods, after consultation
with the Scientific Ccnmittee.

(iii) Specification of the number of whales that may be taken
by each crew.

(iv) Specification of the number of bowhead whales which may
be harvested or attempted to be harvested by each village.

(b) The level of harvest supported by scientific data shall be no greater
than that necessary to meet the cultural and nutritional needs of the
Eskimo inhabitants of the State of Alaska.

(c) In establishing the levels of harvest and attempted harvest, the AEWC
shall not establish levels of harvest or attempted harvest greater than
the carrying capacity of the bowhead whale stock, supported by scientific
data.

(d) The carrying capacity of the bowhead whale stock shall be determined
by a Scientific Ccomittee appointed by the Polar Research Board of the
National Academy of Sciences. The Scientific Ccmmittee shall consist of
nine members who are qualified by reason of their education and experience
to make objective determination concerning the carrying capacity of the
bowhead whale stock. Three of the nine members shall be members of the
Eskimo community. The AEWC shall make recommendations to the Polar
Research Board for the choice of Eskimo members.

(e) In determining the carrying capacity of the bowhead whale stock the
Scientific Committee shall not consider any prospective threats to the
species resulting from oil and gas development within the habitat of such

A-14

species. Provided, however, that this section may be further implemented
by the Scientific Committee and the AEWC at a later date in the event of
actual risks.

(f) The mortality rate for attempted harvest shall be determined by the
Scientific Committee.

Subpart D - Penalties

�100.31 Denial of participation in harvest:

(a) Any person who the AEWC determines has violated the regulations
contained herein shall, after opportunity for a hearing before the AEWC,
be prohibited from harvesting or attempting to harvest the bowhead whale
for a period of not less than one whaling season nor more than five whaling
seasons.

(b) Any person who willfully violates the regulations contained herein
shall be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 assessed by the AEWC.
No person shall harvest or attempt to harvest the bowhead whale until such
fine has been paid.

1978 Interim Regulations

1. No whaling captain shall continue to hunt the Bowhead Whale
after the quota set forth in S230.74 C.F.R. for his village
of domicile is reached. A violation shall result in the
imposition of penalties established under S100.31 of the
AEWC Management Plan.

2. No whaling captain shall engage in whaling for any calf
or any Bowhead Whale accompanied by a calf. A violation
shall result in the imposition of penalties established
under S100.31 of the AEWC Management Plan.

In addition to these interim regulations for 1978, an amendment to the
AEWC Management Plan was adopted as a clarification: that the words
"carrying capacity" in S100.26(c) be changed to "net reproductive rate".

References to a Special Scientific Comrmittee occur in several places in the
AEWC Management Plan. Such a Special Commitee will not be established this
year because the functions planned for the Committee are superceded by the
IWC quota. For the present, the references to the Special Scientific
Committee will remain in the AEWC Management Plan, but will not be used for
1978. We may wish to discuss this further and make amendments at a future
AEWC meeting.

A-15

University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Mt ~'-Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Arctic Environmental Information
1911 and Data Center
707 A Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501

June 2, 1978

Mr. Peter Jensen
U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service
Page Building
2001 Wisconsin Avenue
Washington, DC 20235

Dear Pete:

I have enclosed a brief narrative statement regarding the grant by
the Alaska legislature to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission that we
talked about on the phone yesterday. If you need more, let me know.

-Sincerely,

Dave Hickok
Director

DH/lm mrn a
Encl.

cc: Jake Adams
Howard Braham
John Burns
Herb Melchior
Ellen Partridge

A-16

A Division of the University of Alaska Statewide System of Higher Education

Monetary Grant from The Alaska Legislature in
Support of Activities of The Alaska Eskimo
Whaling Commission

Bowhead whales have been an important nutritional and cultural
resource for Alaskan Eskimos for thousands of years. This dependency was
recognized by Congress when they provided an exemption to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act that permitted aboriginals to continue to take
bowheads. Increasing bowhead harvest and loss rates had caused concern
to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and its Committee of
Scientific Advisors for several years, although the Eskimos who depended
on the whales were not made aware of it.

The June 1977 decision by the IWC to rescind the exemption made the
Eskimos fully aware that they had a problem. After their first reaction
of shock and anger had subsided, about 70 whaling captains met at Barrow
in August of 1977 to consider their position. As a result of this
meeting the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) was created. Although
the Eskimos have never been convinced of the validity of the data used
by the IWC in reaching its decision and their first major action was to
deny that the IWC had jurisdiction over subsistence whaling, the AEWC
also developed its own management plan, covering methods of harvest,
self-regulation, and the responsibilities of captains. The whaling
captains also recognized that their best course of action was to participate
fully in any further decisions that affected the bowhead and the hunt.
Representatives of the AEWC participated in the special meeting of the
IWC in December of 1977 at which a quota was established that restricted
taking to 12 whales taken or 18 struck.

These activities of the AEWC, as well as their need to defend their
position in courts, gave rise to considerable administrative and legal
costs in addition to the costs that would be incurred by implementation
of their own management plan. Early expenses of the AEWC were underwritten
by the North Slope Borough, the local government entity headquartered at
Barrow, which represents the most northerly whaling communities, but
this could only be an interim funding source.

In recognition of the responsible position of the AEWC and the need
for further funding, concurrent bills were introduced into the Alaska
Sfate Senate and House in January and February of 1978. These bills
would appropriate $250,000 for the AEWC to assist them in voluntary
efforts to ensure whale stock viability, specifically in (1) gathering
data on the population, migration, and habits of the bowhead whale; (2)
monitoring of the subsistence harvest of whales; (3) reducing the number
of whales struck and lost; (4) presenting the data gathered and otherwise
representing the interest of Alaskan subsistence whaling to the federal
government and the IWC.

After the legislature had unsuccessfully approached first the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, then the University of Alaska's
Institute of Marine Science to administer these funds, the university's

A- 17

Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC) agreed to
provide this service. This was with the understanding that AEIDC would
merely administer the funds and would not undertake to manage field programs.

The appropriation passed the legislature in final form March 22,
1978, and included a letter of intent as follows:

The legislature intends that these funds will be distributed
immediately by Alaska Environmental Information and Data Center to
Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and other entities to insure that
the program will be implemented in the spring of 1978. This
distribution will be based on Alaska Environmental Information and
Data Center certification of an expenditure plan developed by the
participating entities. A program report by the grantees shall be
submitted to the Legislature by the Alaska Environmental Information
and Data Center on the accomplishments of the program no later than
May 1, 1979.

In administering these funds, the Legislature expects the
Alaska Environmental Information and Data Center to receive, to the
maximum extent possible, mutual agreement between the Alaska
Eskimo Whaling Commission and federal and state wildlife agencies
on the project for which grants are to be made.

The bill was signed by the Lieutenant Governor on March 29, 1978.

During development of the legislation the AEWC began making its
plans in coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and AEIDC. The first planning
meeting was held at Barrow March 10 that resulted in a preliminary plan
for AEWO administration, research and surveillance, other activities,
and a preliminary budget.

This budget, submitted to the Alaska Legislature, was the basis for
field assistance to the NMFS, participation in bio-acoustics feasibility
studies, possible review of the entire program by the National Acadamy
of Science, a study of historic whale harvest by Eskimos, and reimbursement
of administrative costs to AEIDC.

Following further planning with NM4FS, AEWC chairman Jacob Adams
submitted a budget request to AEIDC on April 24, 1978 and received funds
to the amount of $210,000 to cover its operations. Of this amount,
$143,000 was to be spent in the field to participate in NMFS bowhead
whale counting activities. The objective was to have counting crews on
the ice by the third week in April.

This plan called for 10 Eskimos at Barrow, 12 at Wainwright, and 12
at Point Hope for a period of six weeks. A boat and crew was also to be
provided at St. Lawrence Island.

As the whale migration began and crews went into the field, the
plans were modified considerably. Fewer Eskimos actually participated
than had been flanned. Plans for Barrow crews were carried out much as
planned. Only one crew operated at Wainwright, however, and there were
difficulties keeping a full crew at Point Hope. Plans at Gambell were
apparently changed and a larger number of boats was used for a much
shorter period.

A- 18

Although details of the operation are not yet available, Jacob Adams
estimated on May 12, that about half of the funds that AEWC had planned
to use for assistance to NMFS would remain at the end of the season.
Accordingly, at a meeting with personnel from AEWC, NMFS, and ADF&G, a
revised budget request by AEWC was made up to include the remainder of the
spring bowhead migration period and boat charter and crews for joint
aerial-surface surveys of bowhead whale habitat in late summer and fall.
A copy of this amended budget request by letter to David H{ickok, dated
May 12, 1978 is attached. The sum of $12,000 for aircraft charter was
reallocated by AEWC to NMFS aerial surveys because NMFS field crews were
forced to use their fall flying allocation to continue surveys and were
planning to forego spring activities that were deemed important.

The joint aerial surface surveys will require dedication of funds
and personnel by NMFS and/or ADF&G.

It is too early to comment on the success of the operation or on
problems and possibilities for improvement. It seems clear, however,
that the establishment of communication between AEWC and federal and
state regulatory agencies was strengthened by this program. If this
participation contributed to acceptance of 1WC quotas and NMFS regulation
by the whalers, and to the enhanced stature of the AEWC that resulted
from the conduct of its members during the spring 1978 whaling season,
it will have accomplished a great deal.

A- 19

ALASKA ESKIMO WHALING COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 570
BARROW, ALASKA 99723

May 12, 1978

Funds to be reallocated from AEWC by amendment of May 12, 1978
to budget submitted April 24, 1978

1. Assistance to National Marine Fisheries Service
spring aerial survey. (flight time) $12,000.00

2. Advisory service to spring bio-acoustics program
(2 captains for about 3 weeks @ $560.00/week) 3,500.00

3. Additional assistance to National Marine Fisheries
Service spring counting crews (4 men for about 3
weeks @ $560.00/week) 7,000.00

4. Fall visual and bio-acoustical survey
AEWC share 1 month charter of mv Ivik @ $750.00/day
with crew (total cost=$22,500.00) Remainder to be
contributed by National Marine Fisheries Service
and Alaska Department of Fish and Game 10,000.00

Observers (10 for 1 month @ $560.00/week) 22,400.00

Camp support 2,600.00
$35,000.00

5. Statistical analysis of existing population data
through 1977. (contract with Dr. Claudette Bradley,
Harvard University) 3,000.00

6. Preparation of mv Ivik for fall visual and bio-
acoustical survey. (4 man weeks @ $560.00/man week 2,240.00
TOTAL $62,740.00

A-20

Budget for AEWC Research and Surveillance Program- March 10, 1978.

1. AEWC Administration
Administrator - 3 mo. @ $2,500.00 $ 7,500.00
Coordinator for science and enforcement 7,500.00
Secretary 2,500.00
Travel 40,000.00
Legal Costs 20,000.00
Contingency 10,000.00
$87,500.00

2. Enforcement of AEWC regulations (cooperation
with NMFS enforcement) - reporting officers
(12 men for 6 weeks - 72 man weeks @ $560.00
per man week) - this is low priority for AEWC
and not included in total - $40,320.00.

3. AEWC assistance to NMFS research
Additional crews after season and surveillance
during whaling at Pt. Hope, Wainwright, and
Barrow. These men may be ccobined with NMFS
crews or operate independently. 55,000.00

4. Study of historic whale harvest at AEWC
whaling villages. 15,000.00

5. Sonar feasibility studies. Four men to
assist NARL for remainder of FY 78. 30,000.00

6. National Academy of Science review of
overall bowhead research program. 40,000.00

7. AEIDC administration of this program. 7,000.00

8. Contingency 15,500.00

$250,000.00

Budget to be suhbmitted to Alaska Legislature for supplemental appropriation
to support the bowhead whale program.

A-21

APPENDIX B

UNITED STATES REGULATIONS FOR
BOWHEAD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

B-1

RULES AND REGULATIONS 1

[3510-22]
Title 50-Wildlife and Fisheries

CHAPTER II-NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC AD-
MINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
PART 230-WHALING

Taking of Bowhead Whales by Indi-
ans, Aleuts, or Eskimos for Subsis-
tence Purposes
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The aboriginal exemp-
tion to the Schedule of the Interna-
tional Whaling Convention (Conven-
tion) which allows the taking of either
12 bowhead whales landed or 18 struck
is allocated among the nine Alaskan
Eskimo whaling villages which have
traditionally participated in the sub-
sistence hunt. In implementing the ob-
ligation of the United States under
the Convention, these final regula-
tions require appropriate licensing of
whaling captains, call for reporting of
various data, proscribe certain acts, set
out penalties, and provide for, to the
extent possible, the maximum utiliza-
tion of all whales taken.
DATES: These regulations are effec-
tive April 3, 1978.
ADDRESSES: Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, National Marine Fisher-
ies Service, National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration, 3300 Whi-
tehaven Street NW., Washington, D.C.
20235.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
William P. Jensen, Marine Mammal
and Endangered Species Division,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
3300 Whitehaven Street NW., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20235, phone: 202-634-
7461.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND
Whaling activities conducted by per-
sons subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States are governed by the
Whaling Convention Act (WCA, 16
U.S.C. 916a-1) which implements the
Convention domestically. The body of

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 64-MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1978

B-3

13884 RULES AND REGULATIONS

the Convention sets out the rights and meeting of November 21-25, 1977. In Room 410, Washington, D.C. In re-
duties of Contracting Governments, addition, the conservation regime was sponse to those comments, the follow-
and the Schedule to the Convention published as proposed regulations in ing outlines the rationale underlying
(Schedule), which is deemed to be a the FEDERAL REGISTER (42 FR 60185) these final regulations:
part thereof, contains regulations on November 25, 1977, under the au-
adopted by the International Whaling thority of the Marine Mammal Protec- QUOTAS
Commission (Commission). tion Act (MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407). Several of the comments indicated
Until recently. the Schedule express- At a special meeting on December 6- that the village-by-village quota
ly exempted aborigines, which in- 8, 1977, the Commission adopted an scheme did not assure a closure of the
cludes Alaskan Eskimos, from the pro- amendment to the Schedule which al- whaling season after the twelfth
hibitions imposed on "the taking of lowed a limited taking of bowhead whale was landed or the eighteenth
gray or right whales," provided that whales from the Bering Sea stock: 12 struck, and, as a result, the United
the meat and products of such whales whales landed or 18 whales struck, States would not be meeting its obliga-
were used exclusively for local con- whichever comes first. The amend- tion under the Convention.
sumption by the aborigines. The hunt- ment further prohibited the taking of The limited quota, which was adopt-
ing of bowhead whales, a species of any calf or any bowhead whale accom- ed by the Commission, was in response
right whale, has been an important panied by a calf. The United States re- to the subsistence and cultural needs
part of the culture and subsistence li- ceived official notice of the action on of the Alaskan Eskimos and the need
festyle of Alaskan Eskimos for centur- December 29, 1977. By the terms of to protect the bowhead whale stocks
ies. Hunting occurs in U.S. waters off the Convention, this amendment to from further depletion. Article IX of
the coast of Alaska during the spring the Schedule entered into effect at 12 the Convention states that:
and fall as the bowhead whales mi- (noOn), March 20, 1978. In light of the
grate north and east through near Commission's action, the conservation "Each Contracting Government shall take
shore leads (openings in the ice) in the regime published as ppropriate measures to ensure the applica-
tion of the provisions of this Convention
spring and then west and south as ice tions under the MMPA was withdrawn and the punishment of infractions against
forms in the fall. Residents of nine vii- on January 30, 1978 (43 FR 3921). the said provisions in operations carried out
lages participate in the hunt aS the bo- Pursuant to section 916k of the by persons or by vessels under its jurisdic-
whead whales pass their respective vil- WCA, amendments to the Schedule tion."
lage. Weapons used in the hunt, the must be published in the FEDERAL REG- Cognizant of the reasons for which
darting and shoulder guns, have not ISTER. As the present Schedule now the quota was adopted NMFS has de
changed substantially since the peak embraces whaling operations carried terined that a vllage-by-village
of the commercial whaling era in the on by persons subject to the jurisdic- quota, which assures to each whaling
middle part of the last century. Skin tion of the United States; the entire village the opportunity to engage in
covered whaling vessels known as revised Schedule, as amended, was whaling, is the appropriate measure to
umiaks remain the most commonly published on March 8, 1978 (43 FR carry out the intent of the Commis-
used vessel. 9481). sion.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 6, 1978 (43 FR 9174), the Historically, nine whaling villages
National Marine Fisheries Service have participated in the subsistence
In June 1977, the Commission (NMFS) published proposed regula- hunt as independent units, each one
amended the Schedule to impose a tions to implement the amendment to seeking to meet its own critical nutri-
prohibition on the taking of bowhead the Schedule under the authority of tional needs. In addition, participation
whales by deleting the words "or the WCA. in this hunt is an essential element of
right" from the quoted provision of the Eskimo culture, which has re-
the Schedule. Since such a prohibition PUBLIC COMMENTS mained substantially unchanged for
would have had a severe impact on Comments on the proposed regula- centuries. The cultural aspects of the
Alaskan Eskimos, the United States tions were solicited from all interested hunt pervade the entire Eskimo com-
considered objecting to the amend- parties. In view of the time which re- munity, and are of paramount signifi-
ment, as permitted by the Convention. mained before the anticipated begin- cance to the social structure of each
In aid of reaching a decision on what ning of the spring hunt, these com- village. A system, which provides an
was considered to be a "major Federal ments were to be received on or before opportunity of meeting these needs, is
action significantly affecting the qual- March 20, 1978. The following parties consistent with the intent of the Com-
ity of the human environment," an en- submitted comments: mission to recognize the cultural and
vironmental impact statement was subsistence needs of Alaskan Eskimos.
prepared, entitled "International Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission No system is likely to be successful
Whaling Commission's Deletion of Marine Mammal Commission without the cooperation of that seg-
Native Exemption for the Subsistence Friends of the Earth seg-
Connecticut Cetacean Society ment of society which is being regulat-
Harvest of Bowhead Whales", pursu- Alaska Legal Services Corporation ed. The village-by-village quota has
ant to the National Environmental Whale Center been viewed as equitable by the Eski-
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). Alaska Conservation Society mos. A system which could deprive a
In October 1977, the United States The Whale Protection Fund village of a fair opportunity to secure
decided not to object in light of its Environmental Defense Fund needed food for its inhabitants would
commitment to international conser- Defenders of Wildlife undoubtedly be met with resistance.
vation. Recognizing both the need to Floyd Durham
preserve the central elements of the Winton Weyapuk, Jr. Should closure of the whaling season
occur under such a system, there is a
Eskimo culture and to conserve the bo- In addition, on March 23, 1978, a significant risk that any village ad-
whead whale stocks, the United States meeting was held with the legal repre- versely affected by rigid application of
believed that a limited subsistence sentatives of the Alaska Eskimo Whal- an undistributed quota would violate
hunting of bowhead whales should be ing Commission (AEWC) to clarify the the quota if that village considered it
permitted. Therefore, the United intent of the AEWC comments. Copies necessary to meet critical nutritional
States set out to develop a comprehen- of the comments received and the needs of its inhabitants. Though viola-
sive research program and conserva- record of the aforementioned meeting tions would be punished, the difficulty
tion regime to control subsistence are available for review at the offices involved in preventing these violations
hunting for presentation to the Com- of the National Marine Fisheries Ser- could result in an adverse impact on
mission's Scientific Committee at its vice, 3300 Whitehaven Street NW., the bowhead whale stocks. Since the

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 64-MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1978

B-4

RULES AND REGULATIONS 13885

Commission's prime concern is the taken and utilized. It was suggested ed earlier, the strike shall be deemed
protection of the bowhead whale that the final regulations be more spe- to have occurred at the time of recov-
stocks, a system, which is equitable, cific with respect to these matters. ery of the device.
accepted by the Eskimos. and, there- The Convention does not require us to
fore, subject to fewer infractions, has regulate wasteful' taking. Moreover,
been adopted. the AEWC has specific regulations on It was suggested that "harassing"
Irrespective of the overall quota, any this subject. The general proscription should be deleted from the definition
excess of the village quota is a viola- of wasteful manner in these final regu- of whaling. While whaling captains
tion of the regulations. This arrange- lations contemplates the prohibition may not harass whales, it is important
ment complies with the obligation of of whaling activities generally recog- that the activities of others not party
the United States to punish infrac- nized as wasteful. The use of a rifle to to a village whaling operation be sub-
tions against the provisions of the strike a bowhead whale clearly is not ject to control. This is to ensure that
Convention by assuring that all land- likely to result in its landing and, only the permitted taking of bowhead
ings or strikes in excess of the 12/18 therefore, falls within this proscrip- whales occurs, and that no activity in-
quota, as allocated, will be subject to tion. Similarly, the use of a shoulder terfers with the successful landing of
sanction. gun without implanting in the whale a any bowhead whale struck. Activities
LICENSES dart with line and float attached, such as shooting at whales from shore
which could result in the loss of the with rifles, which, as one commentator
The licensing provision, � 230.73, has whale, would be a violation of the reg- asserts takes place, or buzzing whales
been revised to respond in part to the ulations. with airplanes are prohibited by re-
comments received on the manner in Due to the manner in which a pro- taining the word "harassing" in the
which Alaskan Eskimo whalers pres- prietary interest in a whale is estab- definition of "whaling."
ently regulate their activities. The lished (i.e., by using a darting gun to
unique situation presented by Eskimo implant in the whale a dart with line GENERAL
subsistence whaling, both geographi- and float attached), the great social
To the extent possible, other com-
cally and culturally, dictates that value attached to this interest, and the ments have been reflected in the final
normal licensing procedures be modi- limited number of whales that may be regulations. The word "nat ive" as it
ffl~~~~ed. ~taken, NMFS has determined that de- a ppears be for e whaling captain has
The nine villages involved in subsis- tailed Federal regulations to supple- appears before whaling captain agree-
tence whaling are spread over a thou- ment those regulations by which the been deleted. In accord wth an agree-
sand miles of desolate terrain. Corn- Eskimos govern their whaling activi- t ional strike has been allocated to
munication between representatives of ties are not necessary to ensure that tonal strike has been allocated to
the Federal government and inhabi- proper hunting methods are em- strikeswe have been advised by the
tants of the individual villages is m- ployed. AEWC that the village of Nuigsut,
peded by a lack of modern communica- Comments regarding the inclusion which whales in the fall, has agreed to
tion facilities and, in some cases, lan- of provisions governing the utilization relinguish its quota to the village of
guage difficulties. The AEWC is an es- of whales have been considered. In Wales on the understanding that it
sential link between individual whalers light of the number of whales which will be given preference in any reas-
and the outside community, particu- may be taken, the maximum utiliza- sigment of quotas under � 230.74(c).
larly the Federal government. The tion of each whale is likely as a practi-
whaling regulations of the AEWC, cal matter and need not be a subject of in . re cords required by
which are widely accepted by Eskimo Federal reingly. Written records required by
whalers, provide a comprehensive set � 230.76 are to be kept by each whaling
of controls on Eskimo whaling activi- SALVAGE OF STINKERS captain and not his representative. In
ties. Through its registration system, determining whether these reports
the AEWC is gathering information In response to the comments re- comply with the requirements of the
on individual whaling captains equiv- ceived, this provision has been revised regulations, NMFS will take into ac-
alent to that required of applicants for to reflect practical circumstances and count language difficulties. To notify
licenses in the proposed regulations. to clarify the status of any stinker sal- more expeditiously all affected whal-
Consequently, a provision has been vaged. The definition of stinker has ing captains of the attainment of a vil-
added to � 230.73, which allows the As- been changed by deleting the words lage quota, the Assistant Administra-
sistant Administrator to issue a license "on the ice," as stinkers are not found tor shall notify the individual cap-
to captains registered with a whaling upon the ice. Section 230.75 does not tains, and not their representative,
association if he determines that: (1) require that all fragments of har- usin all reasonable means of commu-
The association has established a poons, lances, or explosive darts be nication.
system for regulating whaling activi- searched for and retrieved from the The provision relating to inspection,
ties of its members; (2) the system re- salvaged whale. In order to confirm formerly � 230.73(a)(1)(iii)(E), has
quires captains to provide information the identity of the captain that struck been deleted. Its inclusion has been
equivalent to that required of other the whale, for the purposes of estab- determined to be misleading as it
applicants for licenses; and (3) the in- lishing the ownership of the whale could possibly be viewed as a waiver by
formation has been made available to and to confirm a reported strike, all the Assistant Administrator of all
the Assistant Administrator or his rep- such devices which are found during other reasonable searches and inspec-
resentative. This provision operates in the salvage must be turned over to the tions. All searches and inspections
lieu of the formal application process Assistant Administrator or his repre- shall be carried out to the extent per-
in order to meet the exigencies posed sentative. As parts of such devices may mitted by law.
by the imminence of the spring whal- be reused, the Assistant Administrator Due to the imminence of the spring
ing season, to take advantage of the or his representative will promptly whaling season and the need to ensure
valuable resources resident in the return them unless they are consid- an equitable distribution of the limit-
AEWC, and to minimize Federal inter- ered evidence of an unreported strike. ed number of bowhead whales that are
ference with traditional cultural com- Whales salvaged as stinkers are pre- permitted to be taken, it is found for
munity activities. sumed to be struck whales of the good cause shown that the thirty day
whaling village of domicile of the cap- delay in the effective date of these
tain whose distinctive mark appears regulations may be waived. Conse-
Comments were received on both the on the harpoon, lance, or explosive quently, giese regulations are effec-
tanner in which a whale may be dart found in the whale. If not report- tive April D, 1978.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 64-MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1978

B-5

13886 RULES AND REGULATIONS

50 CFR Part 230 is amended by re- of bowheads, but does not include the captain) and of each captain repre-
vising � 230.10(b) to read as follows: salvage or processing of any stinker; e sented by the applicant;
(10) "Whaling crew" means those (iii) A statement by the applicant (if
�230.10 Licenses and scientific permits persons under the control of a captain, he is a whaling captain) and each
[Amended]. who collectively participate as a unit whaling captain represented by the
* * * * * in whaling; applicant:
(b) No permit or license shall be (11) "Whaling village" means any of (A) That he understands and will
issued except as provided in � 230.13 the villages of Gambell, Savoonga, comply with the regulations of this
and �� 230.70 through 230.77. Licenses Wales, Kivalina, Point Hope, Wain- part;
Issued under � 230.73 shall be governed wright, Barrow, Nuigsut, and Kaktovik (B) That the whaling crew contains
solely by the requirements of �� 230.70 in the State of Alaska; and at least five members;
through 230.77. (12) "Wasteful manner" means a (C) That any vessel to be used con-
method of whaling which is not likely tains adequate equipment for whaling
to result in the landing of a struck bo- and that there are adequate provisions
a new undesignated center heading, whead or which does not include all for the whaling crew; and
etwhich reads as follows: S, reasonable effort to retrieve the bo- (D) That no member of the whaling
whead. crew will receive money for participa-
NATIVE SUBSISTENCE tion in the native subsistence whaling;
Sec. � 230.72 Prohibited acts. (iv) A description of the distinctive
23'.70 General. (a) No person shall engage in whal- marking to be placed on each harpoon,
230.71 Definitions. ing except: lance, and explosive dart of each cap-
230.72 Prohibited Acts. (1) A whaling captain licensed in ac- tain covered by the application.
230.73 Licenses and Certificates of Inclu- cordance with the provisions of (2) The application for a license
sion. � 230.73; shall be submitted to the Assistant Ad-
230.74 Quotas. .(2) A whaling captain included under ministrator for Fisheries, National
230.75 Salvage of Stinkers. the terms of a license issued in accor- Marine Fisheries Service, Washington,
230.77 PenaltiebWhiCais. dance with the provisions of �230.73; D.C. 20235,
or (3) A license fee of $100 is required.
AUTHORITY: Whaling Convention Act (3) A member of a whaling crew A check in this amount made payable
(WCA 16 U.S.C. 916a-1). under the control of a captain referred to the National Marine Fisheries Ser-
NATIVE SUBSISTENCE [NEW] to in subparagraphs (1) and (2) of this vice must accompany the application.
paragraph. (4) The Assistant Administrator
� 230.70 General. (b) No whaling captain shall engage shall determine the adequacy and
The provisions of �� 230.70 through in whaling for any calf or any bo- completeness of an application, and if
230.77, which govern native subsis- whead whale accompanied by a calf. found to be inadequate or incomplete
tence whaling for bowhead whales, (c) No whaling captain shall engage will promptly notify the applicant.
shall expire on December 31, 1978. in whaling in a wasteful manner. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions
(d) No whaling captain shall contin- of paragraph (a) of this section, the
�230.71 Definitions. ue to whale after, (1) the quota set Assistant Administrator may issue a li-
(a) As used in �� 230.70 through forth in � 230.74 for his village of do- cense, on his own initiative, to whaling
230.77 of this Part 230: micile is reached, or (2) the license captains registered with or belonging
(1) "Administrator" means the Ad- under which he is whaling is suspend- to a whaling association representing a
ministrator of the National Oceanic ed as provided in � 230.73(e). significant number of whaling cap-
and Atmospheric Administration; (e) No whaling captain shall claim tains if the Assistant Administrator, in
(2) "Assistant Administrator" means domicile in more than one whaling vil- his discretion, determines that: (1)
the Assistant Administrator for Fish- lage. The association has established a
eries of the National Oceanic and At- (f) No person may salvage a stinker system for regulating whaling activi-
mospheric Administration; without complying with the provisions ties of its members; (2) the system re-
(3) "Bowhead" means a whale of the of � 230.75. quires the captains to provide informa-
Bering Sea stock of bowhead whales, (g) No whaling captain shall engage tion equivalent to that required to be
Balaena mysticetus; in whaling with a harpoon, lance, or submitted by an applicant under para-
(4) "Calf" means any bowhead explosive dart which does not bear a graph (a) of this section; and (3) such
which is less than 21 feet in length as permanent distinctive mark described information has been made available
measured from the point of the upper by the captain in a document submit- to the Assistant Administrator or his
jaw and the notch between the tail ted to the Assistant Administrator' representative.
flukes; identifying the captain as the owner (c) A license issued under this sec-
(5) "Landing" means, bringing a bo- thereof. tion shall contain a linitation on the
whead or any parts thereof onto the number of whales that may be landed
ice or land ini the course of whaling op- � 230.73 Licenses and certificates of inclu- or struck, as provided in � 230.74.
erations; sion. (d) Upon issuance of a license, the
(6) "Whaling captain" or "captain" (a) A license may be issued to a Assistant Administrator shall issue a
means any Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo whaling captain or a representative of certificate of inclusion to each native
domiciled in a whaling village who is one or more captains who applies on whaling captain represented by the li-
in charge of a vessel and a whaling their behalf. cense holder. Each certificate shall
crew; (1) Applications for a license shall state the whaling village of domicile
(7) "Stinker" means a dead un- contain: claimed by the captain and describe
calmed bowhead found upon a beach, (i) Name, address, and telephone the distinctive mark to be permanent-
stranded in shallow water, or floating number, if any, of the applicant. If the ly affixed to the equipment of the cap-
at sea; applicant is an organization or corpo- tain. Such certificates are not trans-
(8) "Strike" means hitting a bo- rate entity, a copy of the corporate or ferable.
whead with a harpoon, lance, or explo- organizational charter shall be includ- (e) A license issued under this sec-
sive dart; ed; tion shall be valid for whaling in 1978
(9) "Whaling" means the, hunting, (ii) The name and village of domicile only. The Administrator may suspend
striking, harassing, killing, or landing of the applicant (if he is a whaling any license issued pursuant to this sec-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 64-MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1978

B-6

RULES AND REOULATONIS 13887

tlon if he, in his discretion, determines a whaling village which has reached bowhead. The Assistant Administra-
that a change in circumstances result- its quota shall not be valid after the tor is authorized to provide Techno-
ing from unauthorized whaling activi- quota for that whaling village has logical assistance to facilitate prompt
ties in 1978 creates an emergency pre- been reached. reporting. The report shall include at
senting an imminent hazard to the via- (c) If for any reason the landing or least the following information:
bility of the bowhead population. Im- struck quota for a whaling village is (1) The number, dates, and locations
mediately upon such determination, not reached, the part of the quota of each strike, attempted strike, or
the Administrator shall advise all which remains may be reassigned, landing,
holders of licenses and certificates of upon request of such village, to a (2) The length (as measured from
inclusion of the suspension and the second whaling village by the Adminis- the point of the upper jaw and the
reasons therefor. Any affected license trator, Provided, That no other whal- notch between the tall flukes), the ex-
holder shall, upon request, be entitled ing village has exceeded its quota at treme width of the flukes, and the sex
forthwith to a informal hearing to de- the time of the reassignment. In of the bowhead(s) landed;
termine whether the suspension making such reassignment the Admin- (3) The length and sex of a fetus, if
should be modified or lifted. istrator shall consult with representa- present in a landed bowhead;
tives of as many whaling villages as (4) An explanation of circumstances
� 230.74 Quotas time reasonably permits and shall ini- associated with the striking or at-
(a) During the calendar year 1978, tially give preference to the village of tempted striking of any bowhead not
the quota for bowheads is allocated Nuigsut. landed and
among whaling villages as follows: (5) The number of bowheads sighted
by the whaling captain or any member
(1) Kaktovik-1 whale landed or 2 struck (a) Any person salvaging a stinker of the whaling crew.
(2) Nuigsut- whale landed or 0 struck shall submit to the Assistant Adminis- (b) Each captain shall keep a written
whichever occurs first trator or his representative an oral or record of the information required in
(3) Barrow-3 whales landed or 4 struck, written report describing the circum- paragraph (a) of this section, and shall
whichever occurs first stances of the salvage within 12 hours forward the record to the Assistant
(4) Wainwright-2 whales landed or 2 of such salvage. He shall provide Administrator within a reasonable
struck, whichever occurs first promptly to the Assistant Administra- time after whaling for bowheads has
(5) Point Hope-2 whales landed or 2 struck, tor or his representative each har- ceased for the season. In any event the
h) Kivalina-- whale landed or fir struc poon, lance, or explosive dart found in report shall be submitted by July 15
whichever occurs first or attached to the stinker who shall for the preceding spring whaling
(7) Gambell-1 whale landed or 2 struck, return the device to the owner thereof season and by December 15 for the.
whichever occurs first promptly unless it is retained as evi- preceding fall whaling season.
(8) Savoonga-1 whale landed or 2 struck, dence of a possible violation.
whichever occurs first (b) There shall be a rebuttable pre- � 230.77 Penalties.
(9) Wales-1 whale landed or 2 struck, sumption that a stinker has been
whichever occurs first struck by the captain whose mark ap- Any person who whales in contra-
(b) When the number of bowheads pears on the harpoon, lance or explo- vention of these regulations, or vio-
struck or landed by whaling captains sive dart found in or attached thereto, lates any other provision of the Whal-
domiciled in a whaling village equals and, iif no strike has been reported by ing Convention Act or of these regula-
the quota for such whaling village as such captain, such strike shall be tions shall be subject to the penalties
set forth In paragraph (a) of this sec- deemed to have occurred at the time set forth in 16 U.S.C. 916 e and 916 f,
tion, whaling by all captains domiciled of recovery of the device. and any other penalties provided by
in that whaling village shall cease. All law.
license holders and certifcate holders �230.76 Reportingby whaling captains. Dated March 30 1978
shall be notified promptly by the As- (a) All whaling captains shall pro-
sistant Administrator using all reason- vide to the Assistant Administrator or JACK W. GEHRINGER,
able means of communication. Li- his representative an oral or written Deputy Director, National
censes and certificates of inclusion report within 12 hours of the striking, Marine Fisheries Service.
held by whaling captains domiciled in attempted striking, or landing of a [FR Doc. 78-8736 Filed 3-31-78; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 64-MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1978

B-7

[1505-01]
CHAPTER 11-NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC AD-
MINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE

PART 230-WHALING

Taking of Bowhead Wholes by Indi-
ans, Aleuts, or Eskimos for Subsis-
tence Purposes

Correction
In FR Doe. 78-8736 appearing at
page 13883 In the issue for Monday,
April 3, 1978, in the third column of
page 13885, the last sentence of the
last paragraph now reading "Conse-
quently, these regulations are effec-
tive April 13, 1978" should have read
"Consequently,, these regulations are
effective April 3, 1978."

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 67-THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 197i

B-8

[3510-12] lowed a limited taking of bowhead good cause exists for making this
whales from the Bering Sea stock: 12 amendment effective immediately.
Title 50-Wildlife and Fisheries whales landed or 18 struck, whichever
occurs first. This amendment was pub- �230.74 [Amended]
CHAPTER 11.-NATIONAL MARINE lished in the FDERAL REGISTER on
S S CE NATO arch 8, 1978, (43 F 9481), as pro Accordingly, 50 CFR Part 230 is
FISHERIES SERVICE, INATIONAL vided by section 916k of the "Whaling amended by revising � 230.74(c) to read
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC AD- Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 916a-), and as follows:
MINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF became binding on persons subject to
COMMERCE the jurisdiction of the United States. * * * *
On April 3, 1978, (43 FR 13883) NOAA (c) If for any reason the landing or
PART 230-WHALING further implemented the Schedule struck quota for a whaling village is
provisions by promulgating regula- not reached, the part of the quota
Taking of Bowhead Whales by Indi- tiors which subdivided the overall which remains may be reassigned by
ans, Aleuts, or Eskimos for Subsist- quota among the native whaling vil- the Administrator, upon request of
ence Purposes lages of Alaska. The regulations au- such village, to a second whaling vil-
thorize village quotas to be reassigned lage: Provided, That if any other
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries from one village to another, provided whaling village has exceeded its quota
Service. that no other whaling village has ex- at the time the reassignment is re-
ACTION: Final rule. ceeded its quota at the time of the quested, the Administrator shall not
reassignment. The purpose of the pro- reassign the quota if he determines
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authori- vio was to restrain the total take to that it is likely to result in the total
ty granted by the Whaling Convention the overall quota level. number of whales landed or struck ex-
Act, the National Oceanic and Atmos- The Spring hunt is rapidly ap- ceeding 12 or 18, respectively. In
pheric Administration (NOAA) pro-
mulgated regulations on April 3, 1978, proaching a conclusion. The season is making such reassignment, the Ad-
mulgated regulations on April 3, 1978,
with respect to native subsistence likely to end within the next two ministrator shall consult with repre-
whaling for bowhead whales for 1978 weeks, 'and opportunities for whaling sentatives of as many whaling villages
(43 FR 13883). The regulations provide are rapidly disappearing from some as time reasonably permits.
a village by village allocation of the villages. Whaling has already ceased in
bowhead whales that may be taken by several villages. To date, all affected Dated May 19, 1973.
native subsistence whalers during the whalers, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling JAMEs P. WALSH,
year. Paragraph 230.74(c) of those reg- Commission and the entire Eskimo ActingAdministrator.
ulations provides for the reassignment community have cooperated in seeking
of quotas among native villages by the to abide by the regulations. Although [FR Doc 78-14323 Filed 5-23-78; 8:45 am]
Administrator but does not allow for one village has exceeded its quota by
such assignment if, at the time, any one whale as the result of a bona fide
other whaling village has exceeded its misunderstanding of the regulations,
quota. This emergency amendment several villages are under their quota,
would permit an assignment in such The threefold purpose of the regula-
case by the Administrator unless he tions-to prevent taking in excess of
determines that the assignment is the limits imposed by the Schedule to
likely to result in exceeding the over- the Convention, to distribute the over-
all quota for native whaling villages of all quota equitably, and to provide for
twelve whales landed or eighteen the critical nutritional need of the vi.-
struck. lages-would not be served by abso-
DATES: This amendment is effective lutely prohibiting reassignments at
May 24, 1978. this point in the season due to the
ADDRESSES: Assistant Administrator overage in one village.
for Fisheries, National Marine Fisher- In view of the foregoing, I find that
ies Service, National Oceanic and At- irrediate amendment of the regula-
mospheric Administration, 3300 Whi. tions is necessary, notice and public
tehaven Street NW., Washington, D.C. comment thereon are impractical and
20235. contrary to the public interest, and
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
William P. Jensen, Marine Mammal
and Endangered Species Division,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
3300 Whitehaven Street NW., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20235, phone 202-634-
7461.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
At a special meeting on December 6-8,
1977, the International Whaling Com-
mission adopted an amendment to the
Schedule to the International Whal-
ing Convention (Convention) which al-

FEDERAL REGISTERoVOL 43, NO. 101-WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 1978

B-9

APPENDIX C

FIGURES 1 - 5

C-1

BEAUFORT SEA
~~~~~Barrow
Wrage I

Point Hope ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(D

Gambell Sav CANADA

St. Lawrence I.

BERING SEA

_ I.~~~~O.
LOCATION OF MAJOR WHALING VILLAGES. _n

Figure 2

1978 Funding of U.S. Bowhead
Whale Program

TOTAL $904,000

Research
$780,000
86.3%

Enforcement

C-4

o /ts ,*060
4(~(
AOCI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ U='Banks I.

go ()q PrPACIFIC OCEAN

BOWHEAD WHALATIONS. KA

140 160 180 160 140 120 4

Figure 4 Bowhead Whales Known Struck in Recent
Years by Alaskan Eskimos in the
Western Arctic Ocean

I
o)
51I

Thi I I E
quot established
I for the
1978 season.
Year 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978

Figure 5 Bowhead Whales Taken by Alaskan
Eskimos and Shore-based Stations in the
Western Arctic Ocean

50 Number of Bowheads Landed

23 2st

19
20

9 120
~~A A:

7�
6 ~ 6~~~~~

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1978
'This is the landed quota established by the IWC for the 1978 season.

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~X il4

vn"'e~~~~~~~~~~~A~'A'"
A 7 24'r 444"'

.n,,w<& . ' ~ ~ ~ ?AA A
I~ t' oj'A . A,* .
'~~ $J'M?;4A7'4f~~~~~~~t~;ttr~~~zi~~~< *k441 ~~zj,

.3,~~~~~~~~~~s