Whale conservation: success and obstacles

Introduction
The history of whales and humans go back to prehistoric times. Since then, different
indigenous groups around the world had different techniques for whaling. With the
improvement of techniques and tools, whale hunting grow more and faster in modern
times (Ellis, 1992). Since the XVII century, the commercial whaling became more
common, and species such as right (Eubalaena australis), sperm (Physeter
macrocephalus), humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) and minke (Balaenoptera
bonaerensis) whales where some of the favourites (Ellis, 1992).

This increment in the exploitation of whales eventually become overexploitation.

Several species were hunted to near extinction (i.e.: right-whales, bowhead-whales
Balaena mysticetus, sperm-whales; Finley, 2001; Baker & Clapham, 2004). This led
to take international measures to protect them, and in 1946 the International Whaling
Commission was created. Actually it is formed by 88 nations and it is in charge of the
conservation of whales and the management of whaling (IWC, 2016).

In order to stop the fast decline of whale populations, the IWC prohibited the
commercial whaling for all species (Gerber et al., 2005). Because this factor was the
main reason of the reduction in population, it was believed that after that they will
recover (Reeves et al., 2003). However, this have proved to be much more
complicated. Nowadays there are many other factors that are affecting whales’
populations and stopping them to raise numbers. In the text below there will be a more
detailed explanation of some of these obstacles for whale conservation. And even
though it is difficult to classify some actions as a success, there are some evidence of
slights improves in some populations.

Estimation of populations’ trends

In order to know if the banning of commercial whaling have had an impact in recovering
the whales’ population, it is necessary to have a population estimate pre - exploitation
(Baker & Clapham, 2004). However, setting that baseline is highly complicated. One
reason is that some of the estimates relies on records from logbooks and the numbers
of whales killed, but those can be incomplete or intentionally unreported (Roman &
Palumbi, 2003; Gales et al., 2005; Clapham et al., 2007).
Another problem is that different methods give different results. The use of genetics in
estimating pre-exploitation populations level results in an estimate 10 to 20 fold larger
than the estimates using a demographic method (Roman & Palumbi, 2003; Baker &
Clapham, 2004; Carroll et al., 2011). If those numbers are correct, it would mean that
in the past years the pre-exploitation abundance have been underestimated, leading
to overestimate the current level of populations’ recovery (Reeves et al., 2003).
Although it is not possible to assess the complete recover of population to pre-
exploitation numbers, there have been local studies which suggest a slight
improvement in local populations. In Argentina, there has been reported a rate of
annually increase of 6.9% in the right-whale population (Cooke et al., 2001); a similar
rate have been reported for the south-Africa population (Branda˜o et al., 2010). And in
one stock of bowhead-whale has been allowed the aboriginal hunting after shown
sufficient signs of recovery (Finley, 2001). Finally, in Brazil the humpbacks are re-
occupying previous breeding areas (Martins et al., 2013).
Whaling
Even though the commercial whaling of all whale species has been prohibited since
1986 by the International Whaling Commission (IWC; Reeves et al., 2003; Gales et al,
2005), this practice is still done in some nations. Countries such as Norway and
Iceland do not form part of the IWC, therefore they do not have to follow those
regulations (Clapham et al., 2007). Minke and fin-whales (Balaenoptera physalus) are
the two species which are affected by this form of hunting.
Another type of whaling that still occurring is the aboriginal subsistence whaling. This
is regulated by management principles and guidelines set by the IWC in the 1980’s
(Finley, 2001). Inuits from Greenland, Alaska and Canada are allowed to hunt a quota
of whales every year (Finley, 2001; Gales et al, 2005). The quota is set by the Scientific
Committee of the IWC, and it is based on the premises of guarantee that the hunted
whale populations are maintained at healthy levels and that the native people hunt at
levels pertinent to their cultural and nutritious levels (Gambell, 1993).
However, the type of whaling that is not regulated by the IWC, and that is a big threat
to whale populations (i.e. minke-whales, humpbacks and fin-whales) is the scientific
whaling (Gales et al, 2005; Clapham et al., 2007). The scientific whaling is allowed by
the IWC, and according to it each nation can set their own quota for research purposes.
In principle, this should be used to research about the biology, ecology, habitat use
and trends of whales’ populations, but instead it has been majorly used for masking
commercial whaling for some countries (Gales et al., 2005; Clapham et al., 2007). For
instance, since the moratorium for killing whales in 1986 Japan has increase in 1000%
the number of whales killed for scientific programs (Gales et al., 2005; Clapham et al.,
2007), going from 840 between 1954 – 1986, to 8321 in the last 20 years (Clapham,
et al., 2007). This major “sampling” effort for studying the populations have not been
reflected in scientific publications. Even worse, the results of this “scientific” research
have been used by the Government of Japan to classify the whales as competitors for
their fisheries, and therefore they claim the needing to cull them in order to secure
their fisheries (Morishita, 2006; Clapham et al., 2007).
Even though this problem is widely discuss in the IWC meetings, there is not a way of
enforce Japan to stop doing. It has been proposed that the scientific whaling should
be regulated and set quotas for it, but it has not been done because of the fear that
Japan (and other nations who are doing the same) decided to withdraw the committee
(Clapham et al., 2003; Gales et al., 2005).
Whale watching
After the international protection measures taken in the 1980’s, there have been an
increase of whales off some coasts. This has led to a raise in the whale-watching
industry (Corckeron, 2004). This activity has been suggested as a more sustainable
alternative to whaling (Hoyt & Hvenegaard, 2002). According to Hoyt (2001), whale-
watching has an annual increase of 12% around the world. Besides that, the activity
has been estimated to be more profitable than commercial whaling (Hoyt &
Hvenegaard, 2002; Wiley et al., 2008). It is also believed that whale-watching and
whaling are incompatible activities, meaning that if a country is involve in the first one
it will be less likely to do the second one (Corckeron, 2004; Parsons et al., 2010;
however it is not always true: Japan and Norway practice both activities). So, the
promotion of whale watching have been used as a conservation tool for this animals
(Hoyd, 2001).
Nevertheless, there are some issues of this industry that can have a negative impact
on whales. Regarded as a nature-base tourism, people may think that it does not affect
whales (Corckeron, 2004). But several studies have demonstrated how the whale-
watching vessels can alter whales’ behavior (avoidance or attraction to boats,
shortened surfacing, longer dives, interruption and termination of feeding and traveling
behavior; Corckeron, 1995, 2004; Hoyt, 2001; Erbe, 2002; Ritcher et al., 2006;
Lyssenko & Martínez, 2010). The presence of the vessels are also source of acoustic
contamination and increase the risk of ship strikes, topics that will be mentioned below.
Finally, some authors states that the annual increasing of whale-watching are
overestimated because the estimates also include dolphin-watching (Corckeron, 2004;
Erbe, 2002; Lyssenko & Martínez, 2010).
All the effects above cause a short-term impact in the whales, but how those impact
the populations in a long-term scale is not known yet (Corckeron, 2004). It will be ideal
to have more information about the long-term effects before continuing to promote the
whale-watching activity, because as Corckeron (2004) mentioned “These arguments
[the benefits mentioned above] could be applied equally to coral reefs (replace
"whaling" with "fishing"), but most NGOs interested in the conservation of coral reefs
do not actively encourage mass tourism”.
Ship strikes
Ships collisions are a threat for all the large species of whales in the world (fin,
humpback, right, and gray Eschrichtius robustus) and it is considered to be
responsible for most of the reported deaths of the right whale population from the North
Atlantic (Greene & Pershing, 2004; Vanderlaand et al., 2008; Vanderlaand & Taggart,
2009). That species is one of the most endangered cetacean species in the world, with
only 300 individuals left (Greene & Pershing, 2004). The fin-whale and the sperm-
whale (classified by the IUCN as endangered and vulnerable respectively) are also
highly affected by this fatalities in the Mediterranean Sea (Reeves et al., 2003).
The reason behind the high numbers of lethal vessel strikes is the increase of marine
traffic due to several activities (whale-watching, fisheries, seismic testing and
hydrocarbon exploitation; Vanderlaand et al., 2008). In order to prevent some of this
strikes, several things have been proposed. One is set a restricted minimal distance
from a whale to whale watching vessels. In some parts of the world (i.e. British
Colombia) the commercial companies of whale watching have their own code to stay
100m away from the whales (Hoyt & Hvenegaard, 2002).This will reduce the
disturbance and the risk of collision for the killer whales (Orcinus orca) present in the
area.
Another examples of conservation policies that have been implemented in the East
Coast of North America are the designation of right whale conservation areas, the
mandatory vessel-routing amendments to International Marine Organization (IMO),
the mandatory ship-position reporting, traffic separation schemes, mandatory vessel
speed restrictions and voluntary areas to be avoided (IMO, 2008). About this last one,
Vanderlaand & Taggart (2009) test its efficacy in the Roseway Basin with right-whales.
After five months, their estimates showed a reduction of 82% reduce in the lethal
vessel strikes for the right-whales in the zone. If all the other policies are accomplished,
then we could expect a high reduction in whale mortality due to collisions.
Acoustic pollution
In the last 50 years, the sources of underwater noise in the seas has increased. Again,
activities such whale-watching, seismic exploration, hydrocarbon extraction, fisheries,
industries and military operations are behind this increase (Erbe, 2002; Reeves et al.,
2003; Corckeron, 2004; Lyssenko & Martínez, 2010 ; Rolland et al, 2012; Martins et
al., 2013). All that noise affects the communication between the whales, and in some
instances it can drive them to avoid completely that area or to make them have a
temporally hearing loss (Erbe, 2002; Lyssenko & Martinez, 2010).
Although it is difficult to assess the impact of acoustic contamination in whales’
populations, there are some cases when it has been done. In British Columbia and
Washington State, a study suggest that the acoustic pollution was one of the possible
responsible for the lack of recovery in the killer-whale population (Erbe, 2002).
Similarly, Martins et al. (2013) concluded that the noise underwater could affect
humpback-whales in the ability of detecting calls from other individuals, explaining the
slow recover of the population. Finally, Rolland et al. (2012) measured the levels of
corticoids (stress-hormone) in right-whales’ excrement before and after a decrease in
noise due to a reduction of vessel traffic in the area. They found that in the period with
less noise, the levels of corticoids were lower. This was a direct way to demonstrate
the impact that acoustic pollution may have in whales (Rolland et al., 2012).
Conclusion
There still be a lack of information on the biology and the use of habitat of this animals,
and that makes even more complicated to determine the impact and/or recovery of
their populations. The ban of commercial-whaling did not solve all the problems, and
there is many other measures to take in action to assure the survival of those
magnificent animals. This, along with true scientific research, could be the only hope
for the animals. It is our duty to save them, not because they are charismatic, but
because their major role they have in the environment.
References
 Baker, S. & Clapham, P. (2004). Modelling the past and future of whales and
whaling. Trends in Ecology 7(1): 365-371.
 Branda˜o, A., Bes,t P. & Butterworth, D. (2010) Estimates of demographic
parameters for southern right whales off South Africa from survey data 1979 to
2006. Unpublished report (SC/62/BRG30) presented to the Scientific Committee
of the International Whaling Commission, Cambridge, UK.
 Carroll, E.L., Patenaude, N.J., Childerhouse, S.J., Kraus, S.D., Fewster, R.M.
& Baker, C.S. (2011). Abundance of the New Zealand subantarctic southern right
whale population estimated from photo-identification and genotype mark-
recapture. Marine Biology 158 (11).
 Clapham, P., Childerhouse, S., Galesd, N., Rojas-Brachoe, L., Tillmanf, M. and
Brownell R. (2007). The whaling issue: Conservation, confusion, and casuistry.
Marine Policy 31: 314-319.
 Clapham, P.J., Berggren, P., Childerhouse, S., Friday, N. & Kasuya, T. (2003)
Whaling as science. Bioscience 53: 210–212
 Corckeron, P.J. (1995). Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hervey
Bay: behavior and interactions with whale watching vessels. Canadian Journal of
Zoology 73: 1290-1299.
 Corckeron, P. (2004). Whale Watching, Iconography, and Marine Conservation.
Conservation Biology 18 (3): 847-849.
 Cooke, J., Rowntree, V.J. & Payne, R. (2001) Estimates of demographic
parameters for southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) observed off
Península Valdés, Argentina. Journal of Cetacean research and Management
(Special Issue) 2: 125- 132.
 Ellis, R. (1992). Men and whales. University of Virginia. USA. 542pp.
 Erbe, C. (2002). Underwater Noise Of Whale-Watching Boats And Potential
Effects On Killer Whales (Orcinus Orca), Based On An Acoustic Impact Model.
Marine Mammal Science 18(2): 394-418.
 Finley K.J. (2001). Natural History and Conservation of the Greenland Whale, or
Bowhead, in the Northwest Atlantic. Artic 54(1): 55-76.
 Gales, N., Kasuya, T., Clapham, P. & Brownell R. (2005) Japan’s whaling plan
under scrutiny: Useful science or unregulated commercial whaling? Nature
435:883-884.
 Gambell, R. (1993). International Management of Whales and Whaling: An
Historical Review of the Regulation of Commercial and Aboriginal Subsistence
Whaling. Arctic 46(2): 97-107.
 Gerber, L., Hyrenbach, D. & Zacahrias, M. (2005). Do the Largest Protected Areas
Conserve Whales or Whalers? Science 307: 525-526.
 Greene, C. & Pershing A. (2004). Climate and the conservation biology of North
Atlantic right whales: the right whale at the wrong time? Frontier Ecology
Environment 2 (1): 29-34.
 Hoyt, E. (2001). Whale watching 2001: worldwide tourism numbers, expenditures
and expanding socioeconomic benefits. International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Yarmounth Port, Massachusetts.
 Hoyt, E. & Hvenegaard, G.T. (2002). A review of Whale-Watching and Whaling
with Applications for the Caribbean. Coastal Management 30: 381-399.
 International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2008). Routing measures other than
traffic separation schemes. Nav 54/3/1. IMO, London.
 Lyssenko, N. & Martinez-Espineira, R. (2010). Respondent uncertainty in
contingent valuation: the case of whale conservation in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Munich Personal RePEc archive paper No. 21969.
 Martins, C., Andriolo, A., Engel, M., Kinas P., & Saito, C. (2013). Identifying priority
areas for humpback whale conservation at Eastern Brazilian Coast. Ocean and
Coastal Management 75: 63-71.
 Morishita J. (2006). Multiple analysis of the whaling issue: understanding the
dispute by a matrix. Marine Policy 30: 802– 808.
 Parsons, E., Rice, P., & Sadeghi, L. (2010). Awareness of Whale Conservation
Status and Whaling Policy in the US— A Preliminary Study on American Youth.
Anthrozoos 23(2): 119-127.
 Reeves, R., Smith, B., Crespo E. & di Sciara G (compilers). (2003). Dolphins,
Whales and Porpoises: 2002–2010 Conservation Action Plan for the World’s
Cetaceans. IUCN/SSC Cetacean Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
and Cambridge, UK. 139pp.
 Ritcher, C., Dawson, S. & Slooten, E. (2006). Impacts Of Commercial Whale
Watchingon Male Sperm Whales At Kaikoura,New Zealand. Marine Mammal
Science 22(1):46–63.
 Rolland, R., Parks, S, Hunt, K., Castellote, M., Corkeron, P., Nowacek, D.,
Wasser, S., & Kraus, S. (2012). Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right
whales. Proceedings of the Real Society Biology 279: 2363-2368.
 Roman, J. & Palumbi, S. (2003). Whales Before Whaling in the North Atlantic.
Science 301:508-510.
 Vanderlaan, A., Taggart, C., Serdynska, A., Kenney, R., & Brown, M. (2008).
Reducing the risk of lethal encounters: vessels and right whales in the Bay of
Fundy and on the Scotian Shelf. Endangered Species Research 4: 283-297.
 VanDerlaan, A. & Taggart, C. (2009). Efficacy of a Voluntary Area to Be Avoided
to Reduce Risk of Lethal Vessel Strikes to Endangered Whales. Conservation
Biology 23(6): 1467-1474.
 Wiley, D., Moller, J., Pace, R. & Carlson, C. (2008). Effectiveness of Voluntary
Conservation Agreements: Case Study of Endangered Whales and Commercial
Whale Watching. Conservation Biology 22(2): 450-457.
 William, R., Lusseauc, D. & Hammonda, P. (2009). The role of social aggregations
and protected areas in killer whale conservation: The mixed blessing of critical
habitat. Biological Conservation 142: 709 – 719.