Commercial whaling, especially for gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, and humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, at California and Baja California shore stations in the 19th century (1854-1899).
Reeves, Randall R. ; Smith, Tim D.
Introduction
Whaling ranks along with some pelagic fisheries for marine fish as
one of the world's most widespread and ancient forms of living
resource exploitation. It was pursued at one time or another along
nearly every human-inhabited coastline, including the west coast of
North America. Eastern North Pacific whale populations were subject to
hunting over various time periods, at various seasons, and at various
points in their annual migratory cycles.
In a broad analysis of global whaling, Reeves and Smith (2006)
identified no fewer than 25 different whaling "operations"
that targeted baleen whales in the North Pacific, ranging from hunts by
aboriginal groups involving relatively primitive methods that began many
hundreds or even thousands of years ago to the more recent factory ship
activities using modern searching, killing, and processing methods. One
of these operations (No. 47 in the Appendix of Reeves and Smith, 2006)
was described as "American-style shore" whaling on the west
coast of the United States that began in 1854 and targeted primarily
gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, and humpback whales, Megaptera
novae-angliae.
The widely held view that the population of gray whales in the
eastern North Pacific (often called the California population or stock)
has essentially recovered from depletion by whaling was challenged by
the suggestion from genetic analysis that there were close to 100,000 in
the North Pacific during prewhaling times (Alter et al., 2007). If that
estimate were reasonably accurate and applied to the period just before
large-scale commercial exploitation of gray whales began in the
1840's, it would mean that the catch record used to model the
eastern population (IWC, 1993; Butterworth et al., 2002, their Table 2)
is far from complete. In fact, even without the DNA-based estimate by
Alter et al. (2007), concerns have been voiced concerning the accuracy
and completeness of the catch record. Wade (2002:85-86), for example,
stated:
"An unresolved issue regarding the eastern North Pacific gray
whale is that it has not been possible to reconcile the catch history
from the 1800's with the recent time series of abundance data in a
simple way. Several attempts have been made to project population models
forwards from the 1800's assuming the population was at carrying
capacity prior to the start of commercial whaling in 1846, but such
projections cannot produce a trend that agrees with the recent abundance
estimates, which indicate the population roughly doubled between 1967
and 1988.... The catch history and current trend can only be reconciled
through fairly dramatic assumptions, such as an increase in the carrying
capacity from 1846-1988 of at least 2.5 times, an underestimation of the
historic commercial catch from 1846-1900 of at least 60%, or annual
aboriginal catch levels prior to 1846 of at least three times the level
previously thought (Butter worth et al., 2002)."
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Humpback whales in the eastern North Pacific have recovered
strongly from depletion by commercial whaling in the 19th and 20th
centuries (Calambokidis et al., 2008). In contrast to eastern gray
whales, however, the catch history of humpback whales in the North
Pacific has been given relatively little attention in the literature.
Rice (1978:29) believed that the total population was only "on the
order of 15,000 prior to 1905" although he gave no rationale for
this conclusion. His tally of modern catches in the North Pacific,
totaling 28,000 from 1905 to 1965, may be reasonably accurate, but
Rice's estimate of premodern humpback catch levels and abundance
must be negatively biased to a considerable degree as basin-wide
abundance in the mid 2000's was close to 20,000 and the population
was still growing at about 5% per year (Calambokidis et al., 2008).
The main purpose of this paper is to review the history of
commercial shore whaling along the coasts of California and Mexico and
to estimate catches of gray and humpback whales by 19th century shore
whaling. It represents a first attempt to create a complete time series
of catches of both species by pre-modern commercial shore whalers in
this part of their range.
The report of the 1990 Special Meeting of the IWC Scientific
Committee on the Assessment of Gray Whales recommended that further
searches be carried out for "missing shore-based commercial
catches" and that the values used to account for whales killed but
unprocessed ("struck-and-lost") be reconsidered (IWC,
1993:252). It acknowledged that the commercial component (at least) of
the catch series used at the meeting to model the eastern North Pacific
population (Butterworth et al., 1990, 2002, based mainly on Lankester
and Beddington, 1986) was likely incomplete and needed careful
reevaluation. In this paper, we attempt to update and improve the catch
record for gray whales.
With regard to humpback whales, Rice (1978) acknowledged that the
effects of "old-style" ship-based whaling had not been
assessed, noting only the slightly more than 200 ship-based humpback
kills plotted in the North Pacific by Townsend (1935). In his estimate
of pre-whaling abundance for this species, Rice essentially dismissed
the 19th century ship-based catches, as well as the catches by 19th
century shore whalers. He stated that although 17 stations along the
California coast were active at various times between 1854 and 1900,
they "depended on gray whales, and few if any humpbacks were
killed."
Here, we infer that substantial numbers of humpback whales were
taken by the 19th century shore whalers in California and Baja
California. A separate study of ship-based whaling for humpback whales
in the eastern North Pacific during the 19th century is needed before
further inferences can be made concerning the historical abundance of
this species.
Materials and Methods
Data Sources and General Features of the Fishery
This study was guided and informed by two major reviews of 19th
century shore-based whaling in California and Mexico--a master's
thesis (Nichols, 1983; supervised by D.A. Henderson) and a book chapter
(Sayers, 1984). Despite the nearness of their publication dates, these
two reviews seem to have been prepared independently. They are largely
complementary, but not always consistent in regard to the data they
contain. Both relied heavily on a handful of standard published sources,
specifically Scammon (1874) and Henderson (1972, 1984), as well as
Townsend (1886), Jordan (1887a, 1887b), Collins (1892), and Starks
(1922). Although we consulted much of that work ourselves, we also
assumed that the station-by-station reviews and analyses by Nichols and
Sayers had incorporated most of it, particularly with respect to gray
whales.
According to Sayers (1984), the more northern stations along the
California coast were established mainly with humpback whales as
targets, whereas the southern stations were established mainly to take
advantage of the predictable seasonal availability of gray whales. Many
of the stations took a mix (often seasonally determined) of both species
as well as right whales, Eubalaena japonica, whenever an opportunity
became available. Blue whales, Balaenoptera musculus, and fin whales, B.
physalus, were taken rarely, and sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus,
even less often (Starks, 1922; Bertao, 2006:100, 106).
The taking of both humpback whales and gray whales is a typical
feature of shore whaling in the eastern North Pacific going back all the
way to the prehistoric Makah (Huelsbeck, 1988). This mixture often
causes uncertainty in allocating catches (including oil production
values) between the two species. Adding to the uncertainty is the fact
that gray whales may have been intentionally or mistakenly reported as
humpbacks in some modern whaling statistics (Scheffer and Slipp,
1948:310).
Methods of Catch Estimation
Information on shore-based whaling in Mexico (Baja California) and
California was compiled from the sources identified above. In addition
to the descriptions of activities at each station (or group of
geographically proximate stations), data were assembled systematically
on years of operation, numbers of men and boats employed, numbers of
whales secured or quantities of whale oil landed, and whenever possible,
the species breakdown of the catch (see Appendix). It proved possible to
construct nearly complete datasets for a few of the stations, but for
most, numerous gaps exist. In fact, in some instances little is known
beyond the years of operation, and even then it is sometimes impossible
to be certain of years when the station was and was not fully manned and
functioning.
Several methods of interpolation were developed to account for
uncertain and missing landings. When landings were reported as numbers
of whales, we assumed that those values were known without error. In
some instances, different sources reported different numbers taken in a
given season for that particular station. For example, there were 48
instances when both Nichols (1983) and Sayers (1984) had data on the
number of whales taken, and in 25 of these instances, the values were
identical. Nichols's values averaged approximately one whale (0.98,
SE = 0.90) fewer than Sayers's and ranged from 15 fewer to 18 more,
but there appeared to be no systematic differences between the two
sources.
We assumed in all cases that any difference was due to omission,
i.e. the lower value was a result of incomplete information available to
either Nichols or Sayers, and therefore used the larger value. When the
only value reported was the quantity of whale oil landed, we estimated
the number of whales by dividing reported barrels by average barrels of
oil per whale from the data for that station in years when both numbers
and oil were reported. Uncertainty associated with those estimated
numbers of whales was approximated using the observed variance in the
number of barrels per whale, following a Taylor's series expansion
(Seber, 1973). Whenever a species other than gray whales or humpback
whales (e.g. right whales) were specified in the source, those
individual whales or the corresponding quantities of oil were subtracted
before estimation. Also, as explained later, it was assumed that, on
average, the oil yield from gray whales and humpback whales was
essentially the same and therefore we made no attempt to convert oil
quantities to whales landed for the two species separately.
We assumed that whaling continued in years when there were no
reported landings unless we had information indicating that operations
had been suspended or interrupted. The landings in such years were
assumed to have been similar to those reported in surrounding years. Two
cases were considered. The first was when there were short gaps in the
data or longer gaps but where the landings before and after a gap were
similar. Here we interpolated the missing value as the average of
landings for a period of time surrounding the gap.
To estimate the uncertainty associated with these interpolated
values, we treated the reported landings in the selected time period as
a sample from a uniform distribution. Because some of the landings are
known only with uncertainty (i.e. estimated from reports on oil
production), we estimated the half width of the uniform distribution (w,
Equation 1) for a selected time period using the second-order moment
estimator (Bensic and Sabo, 2007)
w = [(3([s.sup.2] - [[sigma].sup.2])).sup.1/2]
where s is the standard deviation of the reported landings in the
selected time period and [[sigma].sup.2] is the assumed constant
variance about each year's landings that were reported in barrels
of oil. We estimated a2 as the mean of the variances of the reported
landings in the period. The variance of the interpolated landings value
then becomes [w.sup.2]/3.
The second case was when the average reported landings before and
after a gap differed substantially. We constructed a hypothetical
example to describe how we applied the above uniform distribution
approach to this case. Figure 1 shows the hypothetical data, with
reported catches in years 1 and 2 (points labeled A), nine years with no
catch reports, and reported catches in years 10, 11, and 12 (points
labeled B). In this example, we assumed that catches for years 2 and 11
were reported in numbers of whales and those for years 1, 10, and 12
were reported in barrels of oil and converted to whales as described
above. For these last three values, the estimation errors are depicted
by the vertical bars of length one standard deviation above and below
the individual points.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
We interpolated the missing values (dots in Fig. 1) linearly from
the average levels in the earlier and the later time periods (averages
of the A and B points, denoted as X in Fig. 1). The vertical bars above
and below the X's denote the width of the respective uniform
distributions estimated (2w, Equation 1) from the landings in the two
time periods. We estimated the uncertainty about the interpolated values
as the variance of a uniform distribution from the lower limit of the
distribution of the A points to the upper limit of the distribution of
the B points (represented by the horizontal dashed lines). The vertical
bars above and below the interpolated points are then the standard
deviations of the uniform distribution so formed. In the event that
landings are available for only one year before or after the gap in
reports, the uniform distribution has width equal to the difference
between the two average values because no information on variability is
available.
For stations with too few reported catches to allow this procedure,
we projected the catch as the average catch per season at the seven
well-reported stations. The variance of those projected catches was
taken as the variance of a uniform distribution over the range of the
catches per season using Equation 1. We estimated the numbers of gray
whales and humpback whales separately based on the ratio of these two
species in instances where the species identity of the whales taken was
reported.
Results
The data on landings from 1854 to 1899, assembled from a variety of
sources, include at a minimum whether an individual station operated in
a given year, and at maximum the information on whales landed (rarely by
species), barrels of oil, men employed, and boats involved (see
Appendix). In addition to such information, the Appendix contains notes
to clarify or augment aspects of the basic data. A pronounced feature of
this material is the highly variable level of completeness across
stations, with seven of the stations having substantially more data than
the other ten.
Species Ratios
Scammon (1874:248-250) stated, "The whales generally taken by
the shore parties are Humpbacks, and California Grays; but occasionally
a Right Whale, a Finback, or a Sulphur-bottom (blue whale) is
captured." Too little data was available to us for reliable
estimation of species proportions at most of the shore stations. That
said, the data reviewed here support Scammon's statement that
catches of right, blue, and fin whales were very rare.
Right whales present a special problem because they were highly
prized, and their capture always promised a windfall of oil and
whalebone (baleen). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that any seen,
at any station, would have been chased and killed if possible. We
further suspect that right whales were more likely to be reported
because of the tendency for news of a right whale catch to reach print
as a notable event, whereas it is much more likely that catches of the
other species would have been reported simply as "whales" or
their oil would have been added to the total produced, without comment.
Based in part on the statement by Sayers (1984) that southern
stations were more oriented toward catching gray whales and northern
stations toward humpback whales, and in part on other notations in the
literature that give the same impression, and because of the limited
number of species identifications in the catch statistics and other
data, we stratified the whaling stations latitudinally into four
geographic regions as indicated in the Appendix. We tallied the numbers
of gray and humpback whales reported for the stations in each region
(Table 1). This tally generally supports the suggestion by Sayers that
the proportion of gray whales was lower in the two more northern strata,
although the information available for the North stratum was extremely
limited. The proportions shown in Table 1 were used to estimate the
numbers of gray whales and humpback whales landed, by year.
Estimated Landings by Station and Region
In this section, the information on whaling effort and catch
results is summarized for the four regions, starting from the
southernmost stations and working northward (Fig. 2). In those instances
where direct estimates of landings were possible from the available
data, those estimates are reported here. Projected landings for other
stations are then discussed in a separate (later) section.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
South
Baja California, Mexico
Sayers (1984) identified only three sites in Baja California where
shore whaling was conducted. The most significant were at Punta Banda
and Santo Tomas where San Diego-based whalemen operated (though not
continuously) from 1868 to 1885. According to Nichols (1983:164),
another whaling concern had operated at Santo Tomas in 1864 and 1865.
Sayers (1984) appendix (p. 156) indicates a catch of 5 whales at
Punta Banda/Santo Tomas in 1860 but without any details. This presumably
is different from the on-shore tryworks set up in 1860-61 on the eastern
shore of San Ignacio (Ballenas) Lagoon (La Freidera, or The Trypot or
Tryworks; Henderson, 1972:100, 157). Although it is known that there was
a shore station at Belcher Point, ca. 6-7 km (4 mi) north of the
entrance of Magdalena Bay, there is little documentation concerning its
operations (Webb, 2001).
Examination of a whaling voyage logbook from the late 1850's
(Saratoga, 1856-60) revealed that at least one "shore party"
was active in Magdalena Bay at that time (also see Henderson, 1972:100,
126-127; 1975; 1984:170). Our interpretation is that the activities of
such groups, likely consisting of men who had deserted whaleships, are
not subsumed as part of catches summarized by Sayers (1984) and Nichols
(1983). On 18 January 1858 a trypot and three empty casks from the
Saratoga were towed to shore where a group of "Spaniards" had
agreed to "take the oil from the carcasses, on halves." We
interpret this to mean that the team on shore received whale carcasses
after the blubber had been stripped for cooking aboard the vessel, and
that for their efforts they were allowed to keep half of the oil
produced from the flensed carcasses. This was called
"carcassing" (Henderson, 1972:127). On 23 January 1858 the
Saratoga logbook notes:
"The shore party of Spaniards came off and assisted us [in
cutting in a gray whale taken the day before]. They try out the carcases
for us and two other ships on halves.... They keep a sharp look out on
shore with a telescope and when they see either of the three ships
cutting, immediately put off in their boat, and when we have finished
cutting, tow the carcase on shore to their works."
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
On 31 January, the logbook records that the Saratoga received 6 bbl
of oil and "settled up" with the shore party, as did the other
two ships. The shore camp was dismantled on 19 February, and there is no
further mention in the Saratoga logbook of oil received from the camp.
Considerable uncertainty surrounds the species composition of
catches at the Baja California shore stations. Jordan (1887a:60)
described Santo Tomas as a good site for taking sperm whales, and
another source claimed that Punta Banda was seasonally variable, with
gray whales taken between 10 December and 10 April and afterward
humpbacks "further down the coast" (Sayers, 1984:150). A right
whale was struck and lost at Punta Banda in February 1871 (Sayers,
1984:149). Gray and humpback whales were not reported separately in any
of the Baja California data. Further, none of these stations appears to
have lasted for long or to have accounted for large numbers of whales,
< 20 whales and at most 700 bbl of oil, all told, in any single year
(Sayers, 1984:156). The estimated landings of gray whales and humpback
whales, combined, total 248 whales (SE = 21) over the 26 years that we
know or presume shore stations operated in Baja California (Fig. 3).
These were primarily gray whales (236, SE = 21), with only a few
humpbacks (12, SE = 7).
San Diego, Calif.
Whaling in the San Diego area took place without any major
interruption from 1858-59 through 1885-86, although there is an 8-year
gap in the documentation (no local newspapers published) from 1860 to
1867 (Sayers, 1984; May, 2001). Various sites were used at different
times to launch the boats and try out the oil--La Playa, Zuniga Point,
Ballast Point, "Whaler's Bight" on North Island, and
Point Loma. As many as four companies were operating at times during the
1860's (Sayers, 1984:146).
In the San Diego area, 19th century whaling may have involved
humpbacks to some extent, but given the inshore localities of the
stations, the period photographs and illustrations of the fishery (May,
2001), and the known present-day distribution and occurrence of the two
species, the vast majority would have been gray whales, which is
consistent with the regional proportions indicated in Table 1. A
newspaper description from early January 1873 describes how the
whaleboats were deployed from just inside the mouth of San Diego harbor
to "lie in wait" in the kelp to intercept passing whales (May,
2001:11). At least one right whale was taken, accounting for fully half
of the oil (150 out of 300 bbl) produced at the station in the 1885-86
season (Sayers, 1984:155). A 90 bbl whale reported as taken in the
winter of 1868-69 (Nichols, 1983:99) also may have been a right whale.
Some fragmentary, and not always consistent, data are available on
oil returns and numbers of whales landed. In 1871, at a time "when
San Diego's whale hunting industry was most successful," the
combined production by two companies working at three stations (Santo
Tomas and Punta Banda in Mexico and Ballast Point in San Diego) amounted
to 550 bbl of oil, "a record" (May, 2001). Yet a newspaper
article in May 1873 reported that those same two companies working at
the same three stations landed 24 whales producing 980 bbl of oil,
described as "a very light catch for these two companies"
(Sayers, 1984:146). It is difficult to reconcile such conflicting
statements.
As indicated earlier, in some years the landings attributed to San
Diego shore stations included oil or whales from outposts in Baja
California. Also, in at least one year (1883-84) the whales processed at
a shore station were actually taken by a whaling vessel, the Sierra, and
towed to shore (Sayers, 1984:155). Nichols (1983:94) cites a report that
the ship Ocean of New Haven spent the season of 1860-61 anchored inside
San Diego Bay functioning as a floating land station, with whaleboats
going outside the harbor to catch whales and then towing the whale
carcasses to the ship for processing. According to Starbuck
(1878:566-567) the Ocean sailed in August 1858 and sent home 64 bbl of
sperm oil, 1,103 bbl of whale oil, and 1,652 lb of baleen before being
sold in San Francisco for merchant service. The 500 bbl of whale oil
obtained from 12 whales (presumably gray whales) in San Diego in
April-May 1860 (Nichols, 1983:106) apparently was not included in
Starbuck's table of returns.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
The estimated landings of gray and humpback whales, combined, total
453 whales (SE = 28) over the 29 years that the stations in San Diego
are known to have operated (Fig. 4). Most were gray whales (431, SE =
29), with only 23 humpbacks (SE = 12).
Los Angeles, Calif.
Shore whaling in and near Los Angeles harbor began in 1860-61 and
continued sporadically until the mid 1880's, using two different
sites (Deadman's Island in San Pedro Bay, and Portuguese Bend)
(Sayers, 1984:142-144; Bertao, 2006:151-157). All evidence indicates
that the catch consisted mostly of gray whales (a right whale was taken
in March 1861; Sayers, 1984:142). The estimated landings of gray and
humpback whales, combined, total 398 whales (SE = 20) over the 26 years
that the stations are known to have operated (Fig. 5). Most were gray
whales (378, SE = 21), with only 20 humpbacks (SE = 10).
Goleta (Santa Barbara), Calif.
At least three different companies operated a small shore station
at Goleta between 1867-1880 but information on catches is extremely
sparse (Sayers, 1984:141-142). Up to 450 bbl of oil was obtained in one
winter season (Nichols, 1983:150). Apparently, nearly all of the whales
taken at this site were gray whales. As recounted by Bertao (2006:189)
regarding one of the companies: "The company hunted gray whales
from December to April. The station's location prevented a hunt for
humpback whales, which kept outside the Channel Islands." No direct
estimates of landings were possible for this station.
Point Conception-Cojo Viejo, Calif.
This site was used for shore whaling initially for about 7 years,
from 1879-80 to 1885-86. Both gray and humpback whales may have been
taken regularly, but with a strong preponderance of gray whales
according to the limited data available. A right whale was taken in
1884-85 (Townsend, 1886). Relatively good catch data are available. In
the one season with detailed information (1879-80), 4 humpbacks were
taken in October, followed by 5 grays in December, 10 grays in January,
and 1 gray in February for a total of 16 grays (Jordan, 1887a). The
humpbacks produced 148 bbl of oil, and the total for the station between
April 1879 and February 1880 was 544 bbl, implying that the grays
accounted for 396 bbl and thus about 25 bbl/whale. Townsend's
(1886) reported totals for other years were 25 grays in 1883-84, 18 in
1884-85 (plus the right whale), and 11 in 1885-86. Although whaling at
Point Conception apparently was suspended between 1885-86 and 1892, some
kind of operation existed in at least November 1892 when a large whale
was taken (Bertao, 2006:196-197). The estimated landings of gray and
humpback whales, combined, total 132 whales (SE = 8) over the 14 years
that the station is known to have operated (Fig. 6). Most were gray
whales (126, SE = 7) and only a few were humpbacks (7, SE = 3).
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
South-Central
San Luis Obispo (Port Harford), Calif.
This station operated, apparently without interruption, from
1868-69 (possibly as early as 1867; Bertao, 2006:171) to 1887 (Nichols,
1983; Sayers, 1984). Both gray and humpback whales were taken although
most of the catch consisted of the former, especially after the mid
1870's when summer whaling was abandoned (Bertao, 2006, p. 172).
The reported total catch for three seasons was 9 in 1878-79, 11 in
1879-80, and 4 (all grays) in 1880-81 (Jordan, 1887a:60; Nichols,
1983:148). Catches were modes t in the final years--6 grays in 1883-84,
4 grays in 1884-85, 3 grays in 1885-86, and 5 (species unspecified) in
1886-87 (Nichols, 1983:149). The estimated landings of gray and humpback
whales, combined, total 96 whales (SE = 12) over the 20 years that the
station is known to have operated (Fig. 7). However, according to Bertao
(2006:173), 30 or more whales were taken in a single year at this site,
apparently during the 1860's and early 1870's. If this report
is accurate, our estimate is probably negatively biased. In any event,
most of the whales taken at this station were gray whales (92, SE = 12)
and only a few were humpbacks (3, SE = 3).
San Simeon, Calif.
The operation at San Simeon is unique among the many whaling
enterprises along the California coast in that it lasted without
interruption for 27 years (1865-92) and records of the number of whales
taken are almost complete, with only a few years missing in the
1880's (Nichols, 1983; Sayers, 1984:140, 154). Except for three
right whales taken in 1884-85, the entire catch consisted of gray and
humpback whales, and the ratio appears to have been at least three grays
to one humpback (Nichols, 1983:136 reported that the station
"depended almost entirely upon gray whales"). The total
reported catch for 23 of the 27 years was 350 whales (not counting the 3
right whales; Nichols, 1983:135-141; Sayers, 1984:154).
In 1888 (actually 1888-89), 14 whales were taken (at least 7 of
them between 1 January and 9 March and therefore were almost certainly
gray whales; Nichols, 1983:137). Most of the catch at San Simeon
consisted of gray whales migrating southward from December to February
according to Townsend (1886), who further noted that the (smaller) catch
during the northward migration (the "up season") was skewed
towards males since mothers with young calves migrated farther from
shore and thus were less readily available. At least during the late
1860's and 1870's, some of the men and boats associated with
the San Simeon station were based at Piedras Blancas Point (Bertao,
2006:169-170).
The estimated landings of gray and humpback whales, combined, total
441 whales (SE = 8) over the 30 years that the station is known to have
operated (Fig. 8). Most were gray whales (428, SE = 14) and only a few
were humpbacks (13, SE = 12). Although a small whaling operation existed
at San Simeon from around 1894 to 1914, when the last whale was taken
there using 19th century open-boat methods (Bertao, 2006:169), we have
not included that period in our estimate.
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
North-Central
Monterey Bay Area, Calif.
We describe the operations at several sites under this heading,
including Point Sur, Carmel (Point Lobos), Monterey, and Santa Cruz
(Soquel Point, Point Ano Nuevo, and Davenport Landing).
Point Sur The operation here, some 30 km south of Monterey, lasted
for only two seasons and may have been, in effect, an outpost of the
Carmel operation (below). The total reported catch consisted of 1 gray
whale and 1 blue whale in 1877-78; 3 grays, 1 humpback, and 1 right in
1878-79 (Nichols, 1983:153; Sayers, 1984:154; Bertao, 2006:104). These
reports of landings appear to be complete.
Carmel This station was established at Point Lobos in 1862 and
operated until 1884 (Nichols, 1983:121-122). Despite such a long (and
presumably continuous) period of operation, however, catch data are very
sparse. The catch in 1879-80, the only year for which statistics are
available, consisted of 3 humpbacks, 3 grays, and 1 fin whale, together
producing a total of 200 bbl of oil (Nichols, 1983:123). Given the
seasonal nature of the whaling--October to March--it can be inferred
that migrating gray whales were the main targets of the 2-4 whaleboats
and 17-man contingent at Carmel (Scammon, 1874:250; Nichols, 1983:121,
125). No direct estimates of total landings were possible from the
available data.
Monterey This was the site of the first commercial shore whaling
operation on the west coast of North America. The operation was probably
initiated in 1854 and persisted (at least in relict form) into the early
20th century (Sayers, 1984:134). Initially the focus was on humpback
whaling rather than gray whaling although both species were taken
(Bertao, 2006). Watkins (1925) indicated that the Portuguese Whaling
Company produced about 800 bbl of "humpback oil" annually in
three years, 1856-58, but another (newspaper) source stated that 24
"whales of all kinds" were taken by that company in Monterey
Bay between April 1854 and November 1855 (Nichols, 1983:65). The
specified catch in 1854, from newspaper sources (Sayers, 1984:153),
consisted of 9 humpbacks, 5 grays, and 4 killer whales, Orcinus orca. In
the late 1850's, with the introduction of bombs and harpoon guns,
the emphasis apparently shifted more toward gray whales (Nichols,
1983:66). (1) Newspapers referred specifically to a gray whale struck
but lost in December 1870 (Bertao, 2006: 22), 1 taken in March 1872
(Bertao, 2006:92-93), and 2 taken in January 1880 (Bertao, 2006:62).
There were years (e.g. 1869) when large shoals of sardines in Monterey
Bay attracted numerous humpback whales, leading to exceptionally large
catches of them (Bertao, 2006:78-79). Catches of right whales were
reported in 1856, 1859, 1873, and 1879-80 (Sayers, 1984:153; Nichols,
1983:75).
In the late 1850's and early 1860's at least three and
possibly four different companies operated out of Monterey, each with a
complement of at least two whaleboats and 12 crew members (Nichols,
1983:69-70; Sayers, 1984:133). Although whaling in Monterey had become
unprofitable by the late 1880's and in fact may have been suspended
for at least a few years (Nichols, 1983:70-71; Bertao, 2006:84-85), a
new company was established in about 1895, which lasted for 2-3 years
(Nichols, 1983:71). Another operation (2 boats, 17 Azorean whalemen)
that began in early 1896 and continued into the spring of 1898 (3
seasons) took "several dozen" whales per year (Lydon, 2001;
also see Berwick, 1900; Bertao, 2006:86-90). Although most of the catch
is said to have consisted of humpbacks, the seasonality and avowed
dependence on the nearshore migration (e.g. Lydon, 2001:26) implies that
grays also figured to some extent in the catch even in these late years.
The equipment was transferred to Point Lobos in Carmel in the summer of
1898, and a joint Azorean-Japanese operation continued whaling there for
two more seasons--winter 1898-99 and 1899-1900 (Lydon, 2001).
Catch data are fragmentary, with information only on number of
whales secured for 4 years, only on oil returns for 8 years (not
counting 1873 when 175 bbl was obtained, apparently all or mostly from a
large right whale), and on both whales and oil for 5 years (Nichols,
1983:75; Sayers, 1984:153). The estimated landings of gray and humpback
whales, combined, total 884 whales (SE = 46) over the 46 years that the
stations in and around Monterey are known to have operated (Fig. 9).
Although slightly more than half of these were gray whales (477, SE =
55), substantial numbers of humpbacks were also taken (407, SE = 53). It
is important to note a typographical error in the literature suggesting
a much higher catch in Monterey from 1855 to 1857. (2)
[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]
Santa Cruz There were three known or likely sites of shore whaling
in the general vicinity of Santa Cruz along the northwestern portion of
Monterey Bay--Soquel Point, Ano Nuevo Point, and Davenport Landing.
Fishermen in the area killed a right whale in November 1860, and between
then and 1873 at least four whale carcasses were salvaged at sea and
taken to shore for processing (Bertao, 2006:180). A whaling operation
started at Soquel Point in October 1865 and was abandoned in March 1866
(Bertao, 2006:182-183). The same company then tried setting up an
operation on Ano Nuevo Point, probably later in the 1860's (Bertao,
2006:184). Finally, a station was established at Davenport Landing that
continued to operate, but only in desultory fashion, into the mid
1870's (Bertao, 2006:185-186). No direct estimates of the total
landings at these sites near Santa Cruz were possible.
It is relevant to note that a modern shore station operated at Moss
Landing, approximately halfway between Monterey and Santa Cruz, for 5
years (1919-1922, 1924) (Clapham et al., 1997). Although whaling was
attempted year-round, most catches were between April and November and
consisted almost entirely (94%) of humpbacks. Only 6 gray whales (all
but 1 in January), 1 right whale (April), 2 blue whales (July), and 38
fin whales (most in summer months) were taken.
San Francisco Bay Area, Calif.
We have combined the operations at Pigeon Point and Half Moon Bay
under this heading. Because the information available was very limited,
no direct estimates of total landings at these stations were possible.
Pigeon Point A station was established here, north of Santa Cruz,
in 1862, and it operated intermittently for more than 30 years (Nichols,
1983:126-128; Bertao, 2006:138-146). Whaling apparently ceased for
several years beginning in 1879 but then resumed and continued until
1895. There is little information on the size or composition of catches
although both humpbacks and gray whales were taken. Oil production
amounted to 1,000 bbl in 1877-78 and 561 in 1878-79 (Sayers, 1984:153).
Some time prior to 1872, a visitor to the station reported that 12
humpbacks and no grays had been taken that season until the time of his
visit, and that the previous year only 2 humpbacks had been taken and
"the rest" had been grays (Nichols 1983:128). Curiously,
Jordan (1887a) claimed that 12 "sulphurbottoms" (blue whales)
were taken at Pigeon Point in the late 1870's. This would have made
it an exceptional site since there is no suggestion of more than an
occasional blue whale being taken at any other California shore station
during the 19th century. As noted by Nichols (1983:129), the fact that
Jordan mentions the sulphurbottoms as passing the point headed north in
April and south in the autumn suggests that he confused them with gray
whales.
Half Moon Bay Whaling operations here, about 35 km south of San
Francisco, began in 1860 or 1861 and continued at least intermittently
until 1882 (Nichols, 1983:117; Sayers, 1984:131; Bertao, 2006:147-149).
There is little information on catches or scale of effort (e.g. number
of boats, crew members). The author of a book on place names of San
Mateo county placed the site of the shore station at Whaleman's
Harbor just outside the northern end of Half Moon Bay and quoted the
1862 Coast Pilot as indicating that about 1,000 bbl of "humpback
oil" had been secured at this station in autumn 1861 (Brown, 1975;
cited in Bertao, 2006:138).
North
North Coast Counties, Calif.
Shore whaling was prosecuted from three or four sites in northern
California--Bolinas Bay, Humboldt Bay, Trinidad Bay, and Crescent
City--but very little information is available on any of them. No direct
estimates of total landings at these stations were possible.
Bolinas Bay This site, just northwest of San Francisco, may have
hosted a whaling operation that consisted of a fleet of small vessels
taking whales, flensing the blubber alongside, and delivering it to
shore cookers every few days (Nichols, 1983:110-111; Sayers, 1984:131).
This station is thought to have been active in 1857, although Bertao
(2006:120-122) was skeptical that it ever got beyond planning stages. In
any event, he believed that its principal intended targets were sperm
whales rather than gray or humpback whales.
Humboldt Bay A steam tug whaled in Humboldt Bay in 1855, and the
whales, apparently all or mostly humpbacks, were towed to Humboldt Point
for processing (Sayers, 1984:131; Bertao, 2006:110-113).
Trinidad Bay A summer humpback whaling operation existed here in
1861. This may have represented relocation by the company that had
whaled at Crescent City several years earlier (Bertao, 2006; see the
following paragraph).
Crescent City This fourth site was some 30 km south of the Oregon
border (Nichols, 1983:85-86; Sayers, 1984:127, 131; Bertao,
2006:113-119). Two stations were active there in the mid 1850's
(1854-57 at least). Judging by the few newspaper and other reports
referring to whaling in this area, it was primarily a summer activity
(May-September) and therefore likely took more humpbacks than gray
whales.
Again, it is relevant to note that a modern shore station operated
at Trinidad in 1920 and 1922-1926 (Clapham et al., 1997). The whaling
season generally began in April and ended in November, with most catches
made during May-September. Catch composition was similar to that at Moss
Landing (see above)--84% humpbacks, 12% fin whales, and only 1 blue
whale and 1 gray whale (no right whales reported). The lone gray whale
was a male taken in July while feeding "almost on the rocks"
near Crescent City along with four other gray whales (Howell and Huey,
1930).
Projected Landings by Station
We were able to estimate numbers of whales landed for seven shore
stations. Some of the substantial uncertainty surrounding the estimates
for those stations has been addressed by interpolation. Addressing the
even greater uncertainty surrounding the landings from the remaining
stations, however, is more difficult. One approach is to make
projections on the assumption that those stations had productivity
levels similar to the levels of the seven with direct estimates, ranging
from 4.7 to 19.2 gray and humpback whales, combined, per year (Table 2).
Assuming the landings for the other stations were in this range,
projected landings for them would be the number of years operating
multiplied by the average of estimated annual landings for the seven
relatively well-reported stations, 12.6 (SE = 2.2). The uncertainty of
such projections is estimated from the variance of a uniform
distribution of half width estimated by Equation 1. The estimated range
of that uniform distribution from Equation 1 is slightly wider than the
range of whales per year, 4.2 to 21.1 whales per year, and the standard
error of a uniform distribution of that width is 4.9 whales per year.
Total Landings
The estimated and projected total landings were combined, by
region, then prorated to species using the ratios in Table 1, and then
summed across regions (Table 3). The temporal distributions of the
annual estimated and projected gray and humpback landings were similar
(Fig. 10 and Fig. 11), although the total from 1854-99 for gray whales
(3,150, SE = 112) was nearly double that for humpback whales (1,637, SE
= 62).
Discussion and Conclusions
Oil Marketing and Yield
Most of the oil secured by the shore stations was shipped to San
Francisco, although some also was used locally for lighthouses and lamps
(May, 2001; Fox, 2001). In the early years of shore whaling, when there
was a premium for machine lubricant and lighting fuel, humpback oil
commanded a higher price than gray whale oil, whereas in later years,
when the use of whale oil shifted to rope making and leather working,
the lighter oil obtained from gray whales sold more readily in local
markets (Bertao, 2006:51).
According to Fox (2001), the range of yields reported for gray
whales at California shore stations was 25-45 bbl (1 barrel = 31.5 U.S.
gal or 26.28 Imp gal). Sayers (1984:123), citing Scammon (1874), gave
the range in yield for gray whales as 25-35 bbl, with "exceptional
animals" giving 60 bbl or more. Data from shore stations and the
Ocean (anchored in San Diego Bay) in 1860 indicate that 1,150 bbl of oil
was obtained from 32 whales (Nichols, 1983:105-106), most or all of
which probably were gray whales, for an average yield of 36 bbl. A large
humpback whale in the North Pacific would yield about 40 bbl (Scammon,
1874). Although humpbacks, like gray whales, could produce as much as 60
or even 70 bbl, the average yield was probably not greatly different
between the two species (Mitchell and Reeves, 1983).
[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 11 OMITTED]
In our study, the meager shore-station data on yield were not
sufficiently detailed to allow us to distinguish gray whales from
humpbacks. We had sufficient data (minimum of 5 observations) for only
three sites to calculate meaningful averages of bbl/whale: Baja
California, 31.86 (SE = 3.06, n = 5), San Diego, 37.88 (SE = 5.53, n =
10), and Monterey, 36.39, SE = 5.01, n = 11). These combined data,
together with five more observations spread across various other sites,
gave an average of 38.01 (SE = 2.67, n = 31).
Both Scammon (1874:250-251, but see below; also see Henderson,
1972:138) and Henderson (1984:180) used 35 bbl/whale to convert oil
quantities to estimates of gray whales landed in both shore- and
ship-based whaling. For his part, Scammon (1874:250-251) concluded that
the aggregate quantity of oil produced by "the several shore
parties, since their first establishment," was "not less than
95,600 barrels." He guessed that 75,600 bbl came from gray whales
and 20,000 from humpback whales, fin whales, and blue whales. Without
stating his method, Scammon converted these numbers to "not less
than 2,160 California Grays, and eight hundred Humpbacks and other
whalebone whales." This equates to 35 bbl/whale for grays and 25
bbl/whale for the other species. It is possible that 35 bbl/whale is too
high for humpbacks; indeed, several studies of humpback whaling (mainly
on humpback calving/breeding grounds) produced average yields of about
25 bbl/whale (Mitchell and Reeves, 1983; Best, 1987; Reeves and Smith,
2002).
Given the artisanal character of the various shore whaling
operations, their efficiency in making oil from killed whales was highly
variable. Sayers (1984) pointed out (following both Scammon (1874) and
Rice and Wolman (1971)) that gray whales taken during the "going
down" season (December-February) were "fat, well nourished,
and rendered a fine quality of oil," whereas those taken during the
"going up" season (February-April) could have lost up to a
third of their body mass while fasting and, in the case of adult
females, nursing their calves. Jordan (1887a:60) stated that a
southbound whale could be expected to yield 35 bbl, a northbound whale
25 bbl. He also claimed that during the southbound migration "the
larger cows come nearest to shore and first" while on the
northbound migration "the cows and calves are farthest out, the
bulls and dry cows near shore." The yields of humpbacks undoubtedly
varied seasonally as well although the seasonal signal is perhaps less
clear for them, at least off California, than it is for gray whales.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
In addition to the variability from seasonal changes in body
condition, the towing distance and circumstances could affect processing
efficiency. For example, "Sharks, which like to gorge themselves on
the whale's carcass, were one of the shore whaler's main
concerns ..." (Bertao, 2006:48). Also, whales that sank and were
only processed after several days on the bottom could be "in such a
state of advanced decay that the oil was not worth much" (Bertao,
2006:49). All of the factors that reduced processing efficiency would
have reduced the oil returns, possibly leading to underestimation of the
numbers of whales landed.
Finally, in a study of shore whaling in New York (on Long Island),
Reeves and Mitchell (1986:208) concluded that there had been a tendency
for newspapers and other sources "to report the yields of unusually
large whales more regularly than those of small or medium-sized
whales." Also, they found that "in many instances the yield
reported is only the whalers' optimistic estimate, made prior to
trying out." This is consistent with the observation by Henderson
(1972: 139) that the oil amounts estimated by ship-based whalers and
reported from the whaling grounds in Baja California often turned out to
be higher than the amounts reported upon their arrival at home port. One
or both of these factors likely influenced at least some of the data on
California shore whaling, with the net effect of an upward bias in
estimates of average yield and thus a negative bias in the derived
estimates of whales landed.
Hunting Loss
Hunting loss was a significant feature of California shore whaling.
At least four factors would have contributed to the variability in loss
rates at the different shore stations and at different times in their
histories of operation: heaviness of the sea, storminess of the weather,
depth of the water, and experience of the crews (Bertao, 2006:50).
Sinking was a "major problem" for the shore whalers and they
"developed special procedures to cope" with it (Bertao,
2006:48). Sinking was exacerbated by the widespread use of explosive
projectiles even though some of the weapons (e.g. Greener's harpoon
gun and Pierce's harpoon-bomb-lance gun) were supposed to make the
whale "fast" to the boat after being struck (Nichols,
1983:9-16; Bockstoce, 1986:73). Other bomb-lances, in contrast, were
used simply to make a quick kill and did not involve tethering the
quarry.
At least three different types of explosive weapons were used at
the San Simeon land station in 1880--English-made swivel guns,
Greener's exploding-head harpoon guns, and Norwegian-made bomb
guns--with varying levels of success (Nichols, 1983:139). A right whale
attacked off San Simeon in April 1880 was struck with 25 bomb-lances
plus harpoons, but it was still not secured (Nichols, 1983:141). In the
late 1850's the whalers in San Diego using Greener gun/bomb-lance
techniques reportedly landed only 5 of 12 (presumably gray) whales
killed (Nichols, 1983:105; Sayers, 1984:144), which implies a loss rate
factor (multiplier applied to secured catch) of 2.4. The implements used
there were "of marginal quality" and "two thirds of the
whales wounded were lost due to the harpoon's failure to
explode" (Nichols, 1983:109, citing the diary of a judge who
visited the station at Ballard Point in 1860).
At Monterey in the early 1850's, the bomb-lances available
"were defective and proved useless" and therefore only hand
harpoons and lances were used (Sayers, 1984:132). Nonetheless, 6 whales
killed at Monterey between April and September 1854 were lost (the
secured catch over that period consisted of 9 humpbacks, 5 grays, and 4
killers) (Nichols, 1983:72). The next year, 18 whales were secured and 6
were killed but lost (5 humpbacks and 1 gray) (Sayers, 1984:153). The
Greener harpoon gun did not come into regular use at Monterey until 1865
(Bertao, 2006:76).
In San Diego in the 1860's, it was claimed that 2 out of 3
whales struck with bomb-lances were lost due to the failure of the bombs
to explode (Hayes, 1929). At Pigeon Point in one season, apparently
1869, 10 of the 22 whales killed were lost (Bertao, 2006:49); those
secured were all humpbacks but it is uncertain whether any (or even all)
of those that were lost were grays (Nichols, 1983:128). In any event,
according to Starks (1922:10), the loss rate that year at Pigeon Point
was "much greater ... than usual." This latter comment
reinforces our concern that the anecdotal information on loss rates
should not be assumed to be representative of the fishery overall or
even of particular stations or time periods.
Two factors would have mitigated hunting loss. First, at Point
Conception (Cojo Viejo), for example, all but one of 16 gray whales
secured in the 1879-80 seasons bore wounds attributed to previous
strikes by bomb-lances (Jordan, 1887a). This demonstrates that struck
whales did not necessarily die, even when struck by these potentially
lethal weapons. Therefore, struck-but-lost whales were not certain to
die of their wounds. Second, eventual salvage of whales that were killed
but lost may have been the norm at some stations. For example, in
Monterey in 1900, it was generally expected that sunken whales would
float to the surface on the third day after being killed, and then be
towed ashore for processing (Berwick, 1900).
Another factor can be viewed as a "hidden" addition to
hunting loss. Scammon (1874:251) included in his calculation of
shore-based gray whale catches not only an allowance for struck-but-lost
whales, but also "one eighth [of the killed number, including both
secured and struck-but-lost] for unborn young." This presumably
would apply mainly to hunts during the southbound migration when many
cows were carrying near-term fetuses. However, calves several months old
and accompanying their mothers on the northbound migration also would
have been vulnerable, if orphaned, because of their continued social if
not also physiological dependence on their mothers.
Our conclusion from examining all available data is that no more
reliable quantitative calculation of hunting loss is possible beyond
that based on the informed opinion of Scammon (1874) and Henderson
(1984) that one whale was killed and lost for every five processed.
Therefore, we propose that landings should be multiplied by a loss rate
factor of 1.2 to estimate total removals, but emphasize that that
procedure is probably negatively biased because it fails to account for
fetal mortality and at least some orphaning of calves leading to their
death.
Landings of Gray Whales and Humpback Whales
Our estimates of landings of gray and humpback whales are highest
in the 1860's and 1870's and decline abruptly beginning in the
1880's, with a less rapid but continuing decline to the end of the
century (Fig. 12). The cause of the decline is not certain although it
has generally been assumed that, at least in the case of gray whales, it
was related to the cumulatively depleting effect of removals by the
shore fishery in California and the ship-based fishery in the gray whale
breeding lagoons of Baja California. Scammon (1874:251), for example,
concluded, "This peculiar branch of whaling [California shore
whaling] is rapidly dying out, owing to the scarcity of the animals
which now visit the coast; and even these have become exceedingly
difficult to approach."
It is also possible that economic or other factors played a role in
the decline in catches, as suggested by Davis et al. (1997) for other
species in a more general analysis of 19th century whaling. The price of
whale oil spiked in the mid 1860's and then began a fairly steady
but slow decline before leveling off in the mid 1880's at values
very close to what had prevailed in the early 1850's at the start
of the California shore fishery (Fig. 12). There is no clear signal,
however, in the trend in oil prices that would help explain the declines
in gray and humpback catches from the 1880's to the end of the
century.
Our estimates of landings of gray whales and humpback whales, both
by species and combined, can be compared to previous estimates for the
entire period (1854-1899) and for the earlier period of 1854-1874, and
in one case by year. The earliest estimates were by Scammon
(1874:250-251; see above), who estimated landings of 2,160 gray whales
and 800 humpback (and other baleen) whales from 1854 to 1874 (see Grant,
1969:XXIX). For that same early period, our estimates were somewhat
lower for gray whales (1,889) and higher for humpback whales (996).
The latter is not directly comparable to Scammon's estimate as
we tried to exclude the other species that were taken occasionally
(blue, fin, and right whales) whereas he lumped them with humpbacks. For
gray and humpback whales combined, Scammon's and our estimated
totals differ by only 2.5%, a remarkable and probably coincidental
similarity given that the two approaches were independent and used
mostly different information. It should be noted that Scammon (1874:251)
considered his estimates to be negatively biased to a considerable
extent, whereas Henderson is said to have thought they were "a
little high" (personal commun. to Nichols, 1983:46).
Considering the entire period, our estimate of total landings of
4,787 gray whales and humpback whales, combined, can be compared
directly to the estimate by Nichols (1983). His estimation methods were
not explained in detail, but his "best estimate" was
"based on probable unrecorded captures according to recorded
station success and number of years of operation for which no records
are available" (p. 40; his Table 2, p. 39-40, and his Table 3, p.
42--43). Starting from reported landings totaling "at least"
1,308 whales of all species, combined [our total from Nichols (1983) was
1,281], he estimated total landings as 3,637 whales, substantially lower
than our total of 4,787 gray and humpback whales, combined. Considering
only the earlier period (1854-1874), however, the estimate of landings
by Nichols was more similar to ours (2,550 vs. 2,885 whales,
respectively), and as he indicated (p. 45), "a bit lower" than
the 2,960 of Scammon (1874).
[FIGURE 12 OMITTED]
At about the same time as Nichols
(1983) was completing his study, additional work was reported by
Henderson (1984) and Sayers (1984). Henderson (1972:163) had judged
Scammon's estimate of the gray whale catch by shore whalers to be
"essentially correct," and in his 1984 book chapter, which has
generally been regarded as a comprehensive reconstruction of the catch
history of the eastern Pacific gray whale population, he used
Scammon's value of 2,160 for the shore whaling component from
1854-1874. Similarly, Sayers (1984) presented a summary of landings (her
Appendix, p. 153-156, which we used, along with Nichols (1983), as a key
data source) but, unlike Nichols, Sayers made no attempt to estimate
total landings through interpolation.
It is interesting to note that although the book chapter by Sayers
(1984) was in the same volume as Henderson's 1984 chapter (and was
cross-referenced in it), Sayers's compilation seems not to have
been used in Henderson's catch estimation (his Table 1, p. 169).
Moreover, Henderson did not cite Nichols (1983) as a source even though
Nichols's work (completed in January 1983) had been carried out
under Henderson's supervision in the Geography Department,
California State University at Northridge. The relationships among these
sources remain obscure, and thus we were not able to reconcile
differences or pursue further comparisons of them.
Our estimates can also be compared on a year-by-year basis to
Reilly (1981), who provided annual estimates of the numbers of gray
whales killed (that is, landed plus an adjustment for animals struck but
lost). He based his estimates on the kill estimates in Henderson (1972)
for three time periods, allocating them to years within those periods
based on Henderson's notes. Reilly assumed, for example, that 200
whales were killed annually from 1859 to 1867 (his Table 44). His study
was completed before those of Nichols (1983) and Sayers (1984), when
there was very little published documentation available on gray whale
catches between 1874 and 1912. For those years, he therefore had to rely
on the scattered literature available at the time to make admittedly
crude estimates (his Table 45).
We derived estimates of landings from Reilly's estimates of
kills of gray whales for the entire period 1854-1899 by dividing them by
his assumed loss rate factor (1.2). These estimated landings totaled
2,831, only roughly 10% lower than our total of 3,150 gray whales
landed. Although the totals are similar, this may be largely
coincidental as Reilly's temporal distribution of landings was very
different from ours, with substantially higher levels in the earlier
time period and lower levels after 1870 (Fig. 13).
Reilly's (1981) estimates of removals were designed for use in
modeling the temporal history of the eastern gray whale population
(Reilly, 1981; Cooke, 1986) and have been used in the development of
other time series for the same purpose, mainly within the context of the
Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission (Lankester
and Beddington, 1986; Butterworth et al., 1990, 2002; IWC, 1993). The
published information on those other time series generally does not
distinguish catches by the shore fishery from those by other fisheries
(e.g. ship-based, aboriginal/ subsistence), so direct comparisons with
our estimates are not possible.
[FIGURE 13 OMITTED]
In addition to the uncertainty reflected in the standard errors of
our total estimated landings of gray and humpback whales (CV = 3.5% and
3.8%, respectively), several large sources of uncertainty probably exist
but remain unmeasured. Our estimation procedures do not take into
account the uncertainty of whether the reports of landings, when and
where available, are themselves complete. There are suggestions in the
literature (see above) that for some stations at some times, landings
records are incomplete.
Although the incompleteness of the available data for many years
for the seven best-reported stations has been addressed in the
interpolation model, that model itself assumes temporal continuity in
the activities and landings at these stations. The projection model for
other stations assumes consistency within the geographic regions, in
terms of both the scale of effort and production and the species
composition of catches. It further assumes that the lack of reports for
a given station is not related to that station's scale of whaling
operations. Finally, the estimates of the proportions of gray and
humpback whales in the catches are founded on grossly incomplete
reporting, and there is reason to suspect that the reports themselves
were biased by local interest in recording mainly the larger, more
valuable whales taken.
Our effort to address and quantify the many uncertainties that
apply to the catch data for 19th century California and Baja California
shore whaling has been only partially successful. The estimation
methods, especially the projected catches for poorly documented
stations, in the present paper may be near the limits of plausibility,
considering the meager records of shore whaling operations. Further
progress in reducing and measuring uncertainty will depend on work by
local historians. The material reviewed here should provide guidance on
geographic sites, time periods, and topics that deserve particular
attention. In some instances, it would be useful to have more
information simply to confirm that active whaling was or was not taking
place in certain years. In other instances, more needs to be known about
the species hunted. In this regard, consideration should be given to the
use of bone material that may be available for excavation and salvage at
whale processing localities. Such material might be useful not only as a
way of identifying species composition of catches, but also for
assessing the relative age structure of catches.
In spite of their limitations, we consider our estimates and
projections of gray whale landings by 19th century California and Baja
California shore whaling to be more reliable than previous estimates.
Our estimates are based on all presently available station-by-station
data, and we have used well-defined methods that allow the inclusion of
estimates of uncertainty. Previous estimates of landings are generally
less directly and clearly derived from reported landings, and none
include estimates of uncertainty. Further, explicit information has not
been provided on how various types of bias were treated in previous
estimations.
Thus, the estimates of gray whale landings in the present paper
(appropriately adjusted to account for hunting loss) offer an
alternative to Reilly's and other previous catch series (see
earlier) for use in population modeling. Further modeling of the eastern
North Pacific gray whale population, and initial modeling of the eastern
North Pacific humpback whale population, must await reconstruction or
re-evaluation of catches by ship-based whalers. In a study parallel to
the present one, we are pursuing this for gray whales (Reeves et al.,
2010). To our knowledge, no similar work has begun on humpback whales.
Appendix
Year, region (see text), station, source(s) of information,
number of whales landed (all species, L) according to source
(N, S, or O), barrels (Bbls) of oil reported, gray whales
(GW), right whales (RW), and humpback whales (HB) landed,
number of boats active at the station that year, number of
crew members employed at the station that year, and comments.
Coded fields:
Sources: S= Sayers (1984), N = Nichols (1983), B = Bertao
(2006), O = another source.
Year Region Station Source(s) LN LS LO Bbls
1854 North Crescent City S 1
1855 North Crescent City S, N
1856 North Crescent City S, N 3 3
1857 North Crescent City S, N
1858 North Crescent City N
1859 North Crescent City N
1860 North Crescent City N
1861 North Crescent City N
1862 North Crescent City N
1863 North Crescent City N
1864 North Crescent City N
1865 North Crescent City N
1866 North Crescent City N
1867 North Crescent City N
1868 North Crescent City N
1869 North Crescent City N
1870 North Crescent City N
1871 North Crescent City N
1872 North Crescent City N
1873 North Crescent City N
1874 North Crescent City N
1875 North Crescent City N
1876 North Crescent City N
1877 North Crescent City N
1878 North Crescent City N
1879 North Crescent City N
1880 North Crescent City N
1881 North Crescent City N
1882 North Crescent City N
1883 North Crescent City N
1884 North Crescent City N
1885 North Crescent City N
1886 North Crescent City N
1887 North Crescent City N
1888 North Crescent City N
1889 North Crescent City N
1855 North Humboldt Bay S
1861 North Trinidad B
1861 North C. Half Moon S, N
1862 North C. Half Moon S, N
1863 North C. Half Moon S, N
1864 North C. Half Moon S, N
1865 North C. Half Moon S, N
1866 North C. Half Moon S, N
1867 North C. Half Moon S, N
1868 North C. Half Moon S, N
1869 North C. Half Moon S, N
1870 North C. Half Moon S, N
1871 North C. Half Moon S, N, B
1872 North C. Half Moon S, N
1873 North C. Half Moon S, N
1874 North C. Half Moon S, N
1875 North C. Half Moon S, N
1876 North C. Half Moon S, N
1877 North C. Half Moon S, N
1878 North C. Half Moon S, N
1879 North C. Half Moon S, N
1880 North C. Half Moon S, N, B
1881 North C. Half Moon B
1882 North C. Half Moon B
1857 North C. Bolinas Bay S, N, B
1862 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1863 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1864 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1865 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1866 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1867 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1868 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1869 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1870 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1871 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1872 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1873 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1874 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1875 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1876 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1877 North C. Pigeon Point S, N 29 1,00
1878 North C. Pigeon Point S, N 16 564
1879 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1880 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1881 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1882 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1883 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1884 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1885 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1886 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1887 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1888 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1889 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1890 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1891 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1892 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1893 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1894 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1895 North C. Pigeon Point S, N
1856 North C. Santa Cruz S, N
1857 North C. Santa Cruz S, N
1858 North C. Santa Cruz S, N
1859 North C. Santa Cruz S, N
1860 North C. Santa Cruz S, N
1861 North C. Santa Cruz S, N
1862 North C. Santa Cruz S, N
1863 North C. Santa Cruz S, N
1864 North C. Santa Cruz S, N
1865 North C. Santa Cruz S, N
1866 North C. Santa Cruz S, N
1867 North C. Santa Cruz S, N
1868 North C. Santa Cruz S, N
1869 North C. Santa Cruz S, N
1870 North C. Santa Cruz S, N
1871 North C. Santa Cruz N
1872 North C. Santa Cruz N
1873 North C. Santa Cruz N
1874 North C. Santa Cruz N
1875 North C. Santa Cruz N
1876 North C. Santa Cruz N
1877 North C. Santa Cruz N
1878 North C. Santa Cruz N
1879 North C. Santa Cruz N
1880 North C. Santa Cruz N
1881 North C. Santa Cruz N
1882 North C. Santa Cruz N
1883 North C. Santa Cruz N
1884 North C. Santa Cruz N
1854 North C. Monterey S, N 24 18
1855 North C. Monterey S, N 23 24 300
1856 North C. Monterey S, N 23 800
1857 North C. Monterey S, N 23 23 800
1858 North C. Monterey S, N 46 800
1859 North C. Monterey S, N 51 1,80
1860 North C. Monterey S, N 46 1,60
1861 North C. Monterey S, N 46 1,60
1862 North C. Monterey S, N 49 3,40
1863 North C. Monterey S, N 49 64 1,93
1864 North C. Monterey S, N
1865 North C. Monterey S, N 20 679
1866 North C. Monterey S, N
1867 North C. Monterey S, N 800
1868 North C. Monterey S, N
1869 North C. Monterey S, N 1,26
1870 North C. Monterey S, N
1871 North C. Monterey S, N
1872 North C. Monterey S, N
1873 North C. Monterey S, N 175
1874 North C. Monterey S, N
1875 North C. Monterey S, N
1876 North C. Monterey S, N
1877 North C. Monterey S, N 4 8 8 500
1878 North C. Monterey S, N 6
1879 North C. Monterey S, N 9 14
1880 North C. Monterey S, N 7
1881 North C. Monterey S, N
1882 North C. Monterey S, N
1883 North C. Monterey S, N 5 11
1884 North C. Monterey S, N 14 12
1885 North C. Monterey S, N 15 5
1886 North C. Monterey S, N 6
1887 North C. Monterey S, N
1888 North C. Monterey S, N
1889 North C. Monterey S, N
1890 North C. Monterey S, N
1891 North C. Monterey S, N
1892 North C. Monterey S, N
1893 North C. Monterey S, N
1894 North C. Monterey S, N
1895 North C. Monterey S, N
1896 North C. Monterey S, N
1897 North C. Monterey S, N
1898 North C. Monterey S, N
1899 North C. Monterey S, N 4
1861 North C. Carmel S, N
1862 North C. Carmel S, N
1863 North C. Carmel S, N
1964 North C. Carmel S, N
1865 North C. Carmel S, N
1866 North C. Carmel S, N
1867 North C. Carmel S, N
1868 North C. Carmel S, N
1869 North C. Carmel S, N
1870 North C. Carmel S, N
1871 North C. Carmel S, N
1872 North C. Carmel S, N
1873 North C. Carmel S, N
1874 North C. Carmel S, N
1875 North C. Carmel S, N
1876 North C. Carmel S, N
1877 North C. Carmel S, N
1878 North C. Carmel S, N
1879 North C. Carmel S, N 7 7 200
1880 North C. Carmel S, N
1881 North C. Carmel S, N
1882 North C. Carmel S, N
1883 North C. Carmel S, N
1884 North C. Carmel S, N
1877 North C. Point Sur S, N 1 2
1878 North C. Point Sur S, N 3 5
1879 North C. Point Sur S, N 3
1864 South C. San Simeon N
1865 South C. San Simeon S, N 25 25
1866 South C. San Simeon S, N 23 23
1867 South C. San Simeon S, N 24 24
1868 South C. San Simeon S, N 25 25
1869 South C. San Simeon S, N 20 20
1870 South C. San Simeon S, N 23 23
1871 South C. San Simeon S, N 22 22
1872 South C. San Simeon S, N 21 21
1873 South C. San Simeon S, N 22 22
1874 South C. San Simeon S, N 16 16
1875 South C. San Simeon S, N 12 12
1876 South C. San Simeon S, N 7 7
1877 South C. San Simeon S, N 13 13
1878 South C. San Simeon S, N 3 3
1879 South C. San Simeon S, N 14 14 500
1880 South C. San Simeon S, N 13 13 450
1881 South C. San Simeon S, N
1882 South C. San Simeon S, N
1883 South C. San Simeon S, N 5 11
1884 South C. San Simeon S, N 15 15
1885 South C. San Simeon S, N 16 14
1886 South C. San Simeon S, N 7
1887 South C. San Simeon S, N
1888 South C. San Simeon S, N
1889 South C. San Simeon S, N 14 5
1890 South C. San Simeon S, N 7 7
1891 South C. San Simeon S, N 7 7
1892 South C. San Simeon S, N 5 5
1893 South C. San Simeon S
1868 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N
1869 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N
1870 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N
1871 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N
1872 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N
1873 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N
1874 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N
1875 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N
1876 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N
1877 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N
1878 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N 11 11
1879 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N 9 9
1880 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N 4 5
1881 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N
1882 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N
1883 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N 3
1884 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N 5
1885 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N 3
1886 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N 2
1887 South C. San Luis Obispo S, N 5
1879 South Point Conception S, N 9 554
1880 South Point Conception S, N 11
1881 South Point Conception S, N
1882 South Point Conception S, N
1883 South Point Conception S, N 12
1884 South Point Conception S, N 22
1885 South Point Conception S, N 15
1886 South Point Conception S, N 6
1887 South Point Conception N
1892 South Point Conception B 1
1867 South Goleta S
1868 South Goleta S
1869 South Goleta S
1870 South Goleta S, N
1871 South Goleta S, N
1872 South Goleta S, N
1873 South Goleta S, N
1874 South Goleta S, N
1875 South Goleta S, N
1876 South Goleta S, N
1877 South Goleta S, N
1878 South Goleta S, N
1879 South Goleta S
1880 South Goleta S
1860 South Los Angeles N
1861 South Los Angeles S, N 12
1862 South Los Angeles S, N 13 25
1863 South Los Angeles S, N
1864 South Los Angeles S, N
1865 South Los Angeles S, N
1866 South Los Angeles S, N
1867 South Los Angeles S, N
1868 South Los Angeles S, N
1869 South Los Angeles S, N
1870 South Los Angeles S, N
1871 South Los Angeles S, N
1872 South Los Angeles S, N
1873 South Los Angeles S, N
1874 South Los Angeles S, N 16 722
1875 South Los Angeles S, N 16 722
1876 South Los Angeles S, N 15 722
1877 South Los Angeles S, N 15
1878 South Los Angeles S, N
1879 South Los Angeles S, N
1880 South Los Angeles S, N
1881 South Los Angeles S, N
1882 South Los Angeles S, N
1883 South Los Angeles S, N
1884 South Los Angeles S, N 6 13
1885 South Los Angeles S 7
1858 South San Diego S, N 5 20 775
1859 South San Diego S, N 13 900
1860 South San Diego S, N 34
1861 South San Diego S, N 650
1862 South San Diego S, N
1863 South San Diego S, N
1864 South San Diego S, N
1865 South San Diego S, N
1866 South San Diego S, N
1867 South San Diego S, N
1868 South San Diego S, N 22
1869 South San Diego S, N
1870 South San Diego S, N 10 23 695
1871 South San Diego S, N 35 21 1,75
1872 South San Diego S, N 25 7 280
1873 South San Diego S, N 10 17 645
1874 South San Diego S, N 15 400
1875 South San Diego S, N 6
1876 South San Diego S, N 1 60
1877 South San Diego S, N
1878 South San Diego S, N
1879 South San Diego S, N
1880 South San Diego S, N
1881 South San Diego S, N
1882 South San Diego S, N
1883 South San Diego S, N 2 13
1884 South San Diego S, N 6 11 273
1885 South San Diego S, N 8 10 300
1886 South San Diego S, N 4
1860 South Baja N 5
1861 South Baja N
1864 South Baja N
1865 South Baja N
1868 South Baja S
1869 South Baja S
1870 South Baja S 684
1871 South Baja S 8 240
1872 South Baja S 17 700
1873 South Baja S 17 400
1874 South Baja S
1875 South Baja S 12 432
1876 South Baja S 292
1877 South Baja S 10 286
1878 South Baja S
1879 South Baja S
1880 South Baja S
1881 South Baja S
1882 South Baja S
1883 South Baja S
1884 South Baja S
1885 South Baja S 80
Year GW RW HB Boats Men Comments
1854 1 2 Harpooned and lost'; 1
company; mainly humps
1855
1856 Probably humps; 2 companies
1857
1858 Nichols (1983) gave no basis
for assuming activity here
1858-1889; only in his table,
without explanation
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1855 Steam tug, mostly humps
1861 Humpbacking
1861 Active 1861-78; 1,000 bbl
HB oil produced autumn 1861
(Bertao, 2006:138)
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872 1 fin whale
1873
1874 See Scammon (1874)
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1857 Species and time period
unclear; several boats
this year
1862 Both grays and humps
1863
1864
1865
1866 Intermittent operations;
years uncertain
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872 In one previous season, 12
humps (no grays) taken until
time of a visit; yr before
only 2 humps, 'the rest' grays
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860 1
1861 Reportedly active 1858-1884
(Nichols, 1983:42-43)
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1854 4 9 2 12 Apr 54-Nov 55: 24 whales;
6 more (5 hump, 1 gray)
killed but lost (Sayers,
1984)
1855 17
1856 1 HB oil; Sayers (1984)
says 509bbl
1857 6 36 HB oil; Sayers (1984) says
1,016 bbl
1858 8 48 HB oil; Sayers (1984) says
1,500 bbl; 2 companies; from
1858 'focus' changed from
humps to grays (Nichols,
1983:66)
1859 1 8 48 600 bbl gray oil; third
company active
1860 8 48 1,200-2,000 bbl
1861 8 48
1862 8 48 3,400 is from 2 companies;
Sayers (1984) says 2,500
bbl, mostly HB
1863 One company stopped this
yr or next
1864 Oil and bone worth $31,000
1865 Oil from 2 Monterey stations
(now consolidated) and 1
Carmel
1866
1867 52 Declining; oil from Monterey
and Carmel combined
1868
1869 Oil from Monterey and Carmel
combined
1870
1871 1
1872
1873 1 Also 1 500 lb bone
1874 23
1875
1876
1877 3 23 Nichols (1983): 4 year; Sayers
(1984) 8 season; the
company also had 'four guns
of each kind'
1878 3 1 1 3 23 3 gray + 1 hump = 185 bbl
1879 7 1 6 3 23
1880 4 fin whales
1881
1882
1883 11
1884 17 17 in 2 yr
1885 12 bleak for getting grays
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895 2 new company; several dozen
whales, mainly humps
1896 2 new company; several dozen
whales, mainly humps
1897 several dozen whales,
mainly humps
1898 shifted to Carmel
1899 16 possibly 2 different
companies active
1861
1862 17
1863
1964
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874 4
1875
1876 3
1877 2
1878
1879 3 0 3 17
1880 2
1881
1882
1883
1884
1877 1
1878 3 1 1
1879
1864
1865 15 10 to 20 men, approx at 15
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878 5
1879
1880 12 1 4 13 taken by 21 Feb; total
17 through Apr (Nichols,
1983:141)
1881
1882
1883
1884 3
1885
1886
1887
1888 9 21
1889 7
1890
1891
1892
1893
1868 3 21 Up to 30 whales in single
yr (Bertao, 2006:173) in late
60's/early 70's
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878 All grays and humps,
mostly grays
1879 All grays and humps,
mostly grays
1880 4 3 21
1881
1882
1883 6
1884 4
1885 3 1 blue whale
1886
1887 20
1879 16 4 4 20 148 bbl from 4 humps;
of 4 boats only 2 used per
season
1880
1881
1882
1883 25
1884 18 1
1885 11
1886
1887
1892 Bertao, 2006:196
1867 6 Small station; mainly grays;
max. 1-season return: 450
bbl (Nichols, 1983:150)
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1860
1861 1 LA includes Portuguese
Bend and San Pedro Bay; right
whale Mar 1861 (Sayers,
1984:142)
1862 Nichols (1983) says >600 bbl
from 25 whales in 1862
clearly referring to 12 + 13
for 1861-62; also, 6 in 6 days
in Mar 1862, produced >200 bbl
1863 Almost entire catch was grays
1864 2 stations active for 3 yr
1864-66
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874 Total oil over 3 yr 1874-76:
2,166 bbl (Nichols,
1983:145)
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1858
1859
1860 By this yr 2, possibly 3
companies active
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868 32 One yielded 90 bbl so
possibly a right; by this
yr at least
2, probably 3 or 4 stations
active, 32 or more men.
1869 One station stopped
1870 Company that stopped in 1869
resumed operations
1871 Includes returns from 2
Baja stations
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883 13 whales taken by Sierra,
towed to shore for
processing
1884
1885 1 Calif. half the oil was from
the right
1886
1860
1861
1864
1865
1868
1869
1870
1871 2 19 Punta Banda, a right struck/
lost (Sayers, 1984:149); San
Diego returns included those
from 2 Baja stations so
this may be duplicative
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the Lenfest Oceans Program of the Pew
Charitable Trust through Stanford University. We thank Steve Palumbi for
his pivotal role in securing the grant. We also thank Willis Hobart and
Jacki Strader for helping us illustrate the article.
Literature Cited
Alter, S. E., E. Rynes, and S. R. Palumbi. 2007. The once and
future gray whales: DNA evidence for historic population size and
ecosystem impacts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104(38):15,162-15,167.
Bancroft, H. H. 1884-1890. History of California. The History Co.,
San Francisco, 7 vols. [Not seen; cited from Henderson, 1974]
Bensic, M., and K. Sabo. 2007. Estimating the width of a uniform
distribution when data are measured with additive normal errors with
known variance. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 51:4,731-4,741.
Bertao, D. E. 2006. The Portuguese shore whalers of California
1854-1904. Portuguese Heritage Publ. Calif., San Jose, 306 p.
Berwick, E. 1900. Offshore whaling in the bay of Monterey.
Cosmopolitan 29(6):631-637.
Best, P. B. 1987. Estimates of the landed catch of right (and other
whalebone) whales in the American fishery, 1805-1909. Fish. Bull.
85:403-418.
Bockstoce, J. R. 1986. Whales, ice, and men: The history of whaling
in the Western Arctic. Univ. Wash. Press, Seattle, 400 p.
Brown, A. K. 1975. Place names of San Mateo County. San Mateo Co.
Hist. Assoc., San Mateo, CA. [Not seen; cited from Bertao, 2006]
Butterworth, D., J. Korrubel, and A. Punt. 1990. What is needed to
make a simple density-dependent response population model consistent
with data for eastern North Pacific gray whales? Pap. SC/A90/G10
presented to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling
Commission, Special Meeting on Gray Whales, April 1990. Avail.: IWC
Secretariat, Camb., U.K.
Butterworth, D. S., J. L. Korrubel, and A. E. Punt. 2002. What is
needed to make a simple density-dependent response population model
consistent with data for eastern North Pacific gray whales? J. Cetacean
Res. Manage. 4:63-76.
Calambokidis, J., E. A. Falcone, T. J. Quinn, A. M. Burdin, P. J.
Clapham, J. K. B. Ford, C. M. Gabriele, R. LeDuc, D. Mattila, L.
Rojas-Bracho, J. M. Straley, B. L. Taylor, J. Urban-R., D. Weller, B. H.
Witteveen, M. Yamaguchi, A. Bendlin, D. Camacho, K. Flynn, A. Havron, J.
Huggins, and N. Maloney. 2008. SPLASH: Structure of Populations, Levels
of Abundance and Status of Humpback Whales in the North Pacific. Rep. to
U.S. Dep. Commer., Seattle, Wash. 57 p. Avail:
http://www.cascadiaresearch.org.
Clapham, P. J., S. Leatherwood, I. Szczepaniak, and R. L. Brownell,
Jr. 1997. Catches of humpback and other whales from shore stations at
Moss Landing and Trinidad, California, 1919-1926. Mar. Mamm. Sci.
13(3):368-394.
Collins, J. W. 1892. Report on the fisheries of the Pacific coast
of the United States in 1888. In Report of the Commissioner, U.S.
Commission of Fish and Fisheries, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Wash., D.C. [also publ. as Miscellaneous Documents of the House of
Representatives for the First Session of the Fifty-first Congress
1889-90 Part XVI.]
Cooke, J. G. 1986. On the net recruitment rate of gray whales with
reference to inter-specific comparisons. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm.
36:363-366.
Cooper, J. G. 1871. Monterey in the dry seasons. Am. Nat.
4(12):756-758.
Davis, L. E., R. E. Gallman, and K. Gleiter. 1997. In pursuit of
leviathan: Technology, institutions, productivity, and profits in
American whaling, 1816-1906. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago.
Fox, G. 2001. Nineteenth-century whaling on California shores.
Mains'l Haul 37(1):12-19.
Grant, C. 1969. Charles Melville Scammon: sea captain-naturalist.
In A facsimile edition of the marine mammals of the north-western coast
of North America and the American whale-fishery by Charles M. Scammon,
p. XI-XXXVI.
Manessier Publ. Co., Riverside, Calif. Hayes, B. 1929.
Pioneer notes from the diaries of Judge Benjamin Hayes, 1849-1875.
Marjorie T. Wolcott (Editor). M. T. Walcott, Los Angeles, Calif. [Not
seen; cited from Nichols, 1983]
Henderson, D. A. 1972. Men & whales in Scammon's Lagoon.
Dawson's Book Shop, Los Angeles, Calif., 313 p.
--. 1975. Whalers on the coasts of Baja California: opening the
peninsula to the outside world. Geosci. Man 12:49-56.
--. 1984. Nineteenth century gray whaling: grounds, catches and
kills, practices and depletion of the whale population. In M. L. Jones,
S. L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood (Editors), The gray whale Eschrichtius
robustus, p. 159-86. Acad. Press, San Diego, Calif.
Howell, A. B., and L. M. Huey. 1930. Food of the gray and other
whales. J. Mammal. 11:321-322.
Huelsbeck, D. R. 1988. Whaling in the precontact economy of the
central northwest coast. Arct. Anthropol. 25(5):1-15.
IWC. 1993. Report of the special meeting of the Scientific
Committee on the assessment of gray whales. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm.
43:241-259.
Jordan, D. S. 1887a. Coast of California. In G. B. Goode (Editor),
The fisheries and fishery industries of the United States, p. 52-61.
Sect. V, Vol. II, Pt. 15, U.S. Comm. Fish Fish., Gov. Print. Off.,
Wash., D.C.
--. 1887b. The fisheries of the Pacific coast. In G. B. Goode
(Editor), The fisheries and fishery industries of the United States, p.
589-623. Sect. II, Vol. II, Pt. 16, U.S. Comm. Fish Fish., Gov. Print.
Off., Wash., D.C.
Lankester, K., and J. R. Beddington. 1986. An age structured
population model applied to the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Rep.
Int. Whal. Comm. 36:353-358.
Lydon, S. 2001. Japanese whaling at Point Lobos, California.
Mains'l Haul 37(1):20-29.
May, R. V. 2001. The history and archaeology of the Ballast Point
whaling station. Mains'l Haul 37(1):4-11.
Mitchell, E., and R. R. Reeves. 1983. Catch history, abundance, and
present status of northwest Atlantic humpback whales. Rep. Int. Whal.
Comm. (Spec. Iss. 5):153-212.
Nichols, T. L. 1983. California shore whaling 1854 to 1900.
Master's thesis in Geography, Calif. State Univ. Northridge, 211 p.
Reeves, R. R., and E. Mitchell. 1986. The Long Island, New York,
right whale fishery: 1650-1924. Reports of the International Whaling
Commission, Special Issue 10:201-220.
--and T. D. Smith. 2002. Historical catches of humpback whales in
the North Atlantic Ocean: An overview of sources. J. Cetacean Res.
Manage. 4:219-34.
--and--. 2006. A taxonomy of world whaling: Operations and eras. In
J. A. Estes, D. P. DeMaster, D. F. Doak, T. M. Williams, and R. L.
Brownell, Jr. (Editors), Whales, whaling, and ocean ecosystems, p.
82-101. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley.
--, --, Judith N. Lund, Susan A. Lebo, and Elizabeth A. Josephson.
2010. Nineteenth-century ship-based catches of gray whales, Eschrichtius
robustus, in the eastern North Pacific. Mar. Fish. Rev. 72(1):26-65.
Reilly, S. B. 1981. Population assessment and population dynamics
of the California gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Ph.D. dissert.,
Univ. Wash., Seattle, 265 p.
Rice, D. W. 1978. The humpback whale in the North Pacific:
Distribution, exploitation, and numbers. In K. S. Norris and R. R.
Reeves (Editors), Report on a workshop on problems related to humpback
whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaii, p. 29-44. U.S. Dep. Commer.,
Natl. Tech. Info. Serv. PB-280 794, 90 p.
--and A. A. Wolman. 1971. Life history and ecology of the gray
whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Am. Soc. Mammal., Spec. Publ. 3,
Lawrence, Kansas, 142 p.
Saratoga. 1856-60. Logbook of the ship Saratoga of New Bedford,
Frederick Slocum, Master. 23 April 1857-12 December 1858 (partial or
incomplete voyage). Kendall Collect., New Bedford Whal. Mus., New
Bedford, Mass., Log # KWM 180.
Sayers, H. 1984. Shore whaling for gray whales along the coast of
the Californias. In M. L. Jones, S. L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood
(Editors), The gray whale Eschrichtius robustus, p. 121-57. Acad. Press,
San Diego, Calif.
Scammon, C. M. 1874. The marine mammals of the north-western coast
of North America, described and illustrated with an account of the
American whale-fishery. John H. Carmany and Co., N.Y., 319 p.
Scheffer, V. B., and J. W. Slipp. 1948. The whales and dolphins of
Washington State with a key to the cetaceans of the west coast of North
America. Am. Midl. Nat. 39:257-337.
Seber, G. A. F. 1973. The estimation of animal abundance and
related parameters. Griffin, Lond., 506 p.
Starbuck, A. 1878. History of the American whale fishery from its
earliest inception to the year 1876. In Rep. U.S. Fish Comm., vol. IV,
1875-1876, App. A, p. 1-779. Gov. Print. Off., Wash.
Starks, E. C. 1922. A history of California shore whaling. Calif.
Fish Game Comm., Sacramento, Fish Bull. 6, 38 p.
Townsend, C. H. 1886. Present condition of the California gray
whale fishery. Fish. Bull. 6:346-350.
--. 1935. The distribution of certain whales as shown by logbook
records of American whaleships. Zoologica 19:1-50.
Wade, P. R. 2002. A Bayesian stock assessment of the eastern
Pacific gray whale using abundance and harvest data from 1967-1996. J.
Cetacean Res. Manage. 4:85-98.
Watkins, R. C. 1925. History of Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties,
California. S. J. Clarke Publ., Chicago. [Not seen; cited from Sayers,
1984]
Webb, R. L. 2001. Industrial shore whaling on the west coast
1905-1912. Mains'l Haul 37(1):30-47.
(1) Although Cooper (1871) claimed that mainly gray whales were
being taken at Monterey when he visited there in August-September 1861,
and Henderson (1972:27) judged him to be a reliable source, we are
skeptical, given the season and the fact that humpback whales were
otherwise known to be the main species hunted there in the summer
months.
(2) Bancroft (1884-1890, Vol. 7:83, note 7) claimed that 24,000 bbl
of oil was obtained at Monterey in the three years beginning in 1855. As
indicated by Henderson (1972:211, note 376, citing Starks, 1922:18),
this is "patently a misprint and inflation of the correct amount of
twenty-four hundred barrels."
R. R. Reeves is with Okapi Wildlife Associates, 27 Chandler Lane,
Hudson, QC J0P 1H0, Canada (rrreeves@okapis.ca) and T. D. Smith is with
the World Whaling History Project, 1562 Purple Way, Redding, CA 96003
(cachalotproject@gmail.com).
Table 1.--Numbers of gray whales and humpback
whales reported for shore stations in four latitudinally
defined regions, with the proportion gray (Pg), proportion
humpback (Ph = 1-Pg), and standard error of the
proportions (SEp).
Region Gray Humpback Pg Ph SEp
South 70 4 0.95 0.05 0.026
S Central 36 1 0.97 0.03 0.027
N Central 45 37 0.55 0.45 0.055
North 0 1 0.0 1.0 0.0
Table 2.--Estimated numbers of gray and humpback whales
landed (Whales) at seven stations between 1854 and
1899, with standard error (SE (W)), showing the total
number of seasons of whaling (Years), the average number of
whales per season for each station (WPY), standard errors
(SE (WPY)).
Pt. San
Los Con- San Luis San
Baja Angeles Monterey ception Diego Obispo Simeon
Years 26 26 46 14 29 20 30
Whales 247.5 398 884.1 132.5 453.3 94.5 441.1
SE(W) 21.23 19.61 45.85 8.38 27.56 11.76 8.4
WPY 9.5 15.3 19.2 9.5 15.6 4.7 14.7
SE 0.82 0.75 1 0.6 0.95 0.59 0.28
(WPY)
Table 3.--Estimated and projected gray and humpback whale
landings at California shore stations from 1854 to 1899.
Shown are numbers of station-years where estimates
of landings were possible (Est. Years), estimated gray
whales (Est GW) and humpback whales (Est HB) with their
standard errors (Est GW SE, Est HB SE), numbers of station-years
where landings were projected (Proj Years), and numbers of
estimated and projected gray and humpback whales (GW, HB) and
their standard errors (GW SE, HB SE).
Est Est
Est. Est GW Est HB Proj. HB
Year Year GW SE HB SE Years GW GW SE HB SE
1854 1 13 1.3 11 1.3 1 13 1.3 23 5.0
1855 1 13 1.3 11 1.3 2 13 1.3 36 9.8
1856 1 13 1.3 10 1.3 2 20 5.0 29 5.5
1857 1 13 1.3 10 1.3 3 26 9.8 34 6.8
1858 2 44 2.6 22 2.6 3 58 10.1 46 7.2
1859 2 40 2.8 24 2.8 3 54 10.1 48 7.3
1860 4 79 9.8 24 3.0 3 93 13.8 48 7.3
1861 4 57 6.6 23 2.7 6 84 20.6 71 13.7
1862 4 77 11.4 25 3.1 5 105 22.6 60 10.9
1863 4 80 12.4 31 3.8 5 107 23.1 67 11.1
1864 5 92 17.3 23 10.5 5 120 26.1 59 14.8
1865 5 82 11.9 12 1.9 5 109 22.9 48 10.6
1866 5 84 12.6 15 3.9 5 111 23.2 50 11.1
1867 5 84 12.1 13 2.4 6 123 22.9 49 10.7
1868 6 88 8.3 15 3.9 6 128 21.2 51 11.1
1869 6 79 8.5 18 3.2 6 119 21.3 55 10.9
1870 6 89 7.7 9 4.3 6 128 21.0 45 11.3
1871 6 87 7.4 9 4.3 6 127 20.9 45 11.3
1872 6 85 7.4 9 4.3 6 125 20.9 45 11.3
1873 6 76 5.7 6 1.6 6 115 20.3 42 10.6
1874 6 68 7.0 8 4.1 6 108 20.7 44 11.2
1875 6 56 6.0 7 4.0 6 95 20.4 44 11.2
1876 6 43 6.0 7 4.0 6 83 20.4 43 11.2
1877 6 52 6.0 6 1.1 7 99 25.1 48 12.6
1878 6 45 7.0 5 1.0 7 92 25.4 47 12.6
1879 7 73 7.1 9 1.6 7 119 25.4 51 12.6
1880 7 59 7.0 6 1.3 6 98 20.7 42 10.5
1881 7 66 11.3 8 4.1 5 94 22.5 43 11.2
1882 7 67 11.3 8 4.2 5 95 22.5 44 11.2
1883 7 70 5.4 8 1.6 4 91 15.6 38 8.6
1884 7 73 4.2 9 1.6 4 94 15.2 39 8.6
1885 7 59 1.3 9 1.3 2 66 5.1 27 5.6
1886 5 22 0.5 3 0.5 2 28 4.9 22 5.4
1887 4 23 6.2 6 3.9 2 30 7.9 24 6.7
1888 2 18 6.2 5 3.9 2 25 7.9 24 6.7
1889 2 20 4.8 5 3.9 2 27 6.8 24 6.7
1890 2 13 4.7 5 3.9 1 20 6.8 11 4.5
1891 2 13 4.7 5 3.9 1 20 6.8 11 4.5
1892 3 12 4.7 5 3.9 1 19 6.8 11 4.5
1893 2 12 4.9 5 3.9 1 19 6.9 11 4.5
1894 1 6 4.7 5 3.9 1 13 6.8 11 4.5
1895 1 6 4.7 5 3.9 1 13 6.8 11 4.5
1896 1 6 4.7 5 3.9 0 6 4.7 5 3.9
1897 1 6 4.7 5 3.9 0 6 4.7 5 3.9
1898 1 6 4.7 5 3.9 0 6 4.7 5 3.9
1899 1 2 0.2 2 0.2 0 2 0.2 2 0.2
