Content uploaded by Yulia Ivashchenko
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yulia Ivashchenko on Feb 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
76(4) 37
Robert C. Rocha, Jr., is with the New Bedford
Whaling Museum, 18 Johnny Cake Hill, New
Bedford, MA, 02740 (rrocha@whalingmuseum.
org). Phillip J. Clapham is with the National
Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries
Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Ser-
vice, NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, Seattle,
WA 98115, and Yulia Ivashchenko is with the
National Marine Mammal Laboratory and also
with Southern Cross University, Military Road,
East Lismore NSW 2480, Australia.
doi: dx.doi.org/10.7755/MFR.76.4.3
Emptying the Oceans: A Summary of Industrial
Whaling Catches in the 20th Century
ROBERT C. ROCHA, Jr., PHILLIP J. CLAPHAM, and YULIA V. IVASHCHENKO
ABSTRACT—Late 19th century tech-
nological advances for capturing whales,
when combined with the expansion of pro-
cessing capabilities in the early 20th cen-
tury, created an industry that could catch
and quickly render virtually any whale in
any ocean. Here, using the current Interna-
tional Whaling Commission (IWC) database
and other sources, we provide the fi rst ac-
counting of the total global catch by indus-
trial whaling operations in the 20th century.
In sum, we estimate that nearly 2.9 million
large whales were killed and processed
during the period 1900–99. Of this total,
276,442 were killed in the North Atlantic,
563,696 in the North Pacifi c, and 2,053,956
in the Southern Hemisphere.
The years 1925–39 in the Southern Hemi-
sphere and 1946–75 in both hemispheres
saw the highest totals of whales killed. For
the entire 20th century, the largest catch-
es were of fi n, Balaenoptera physalus, and
sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus,
with 874,068 and 761,523 taken, respec-
tively; these comprised more than half the
total of all large whales taken.
As noted in other publications, when one
species began to decline, another was sought
and hunted to take its place. In addition to
reported catches, it is now known that the
USSR conducted illegal whaling for more
than 30 years. The true Soviet catch totals
for the Southern Hemisphere were corrected
some years ago, and a more recent assess-
ment of the actual number of whales killed
by Soviet factory fl eet ships in the North Pa-
cifi c between 1948 and 1979 has provided us
with more accurate numbers with which to
calculate the overall global catch. The esti-
mate for the total global catch by the USSR
is 534,204 whales, of which 178,811 were
not reported to the IWC.
Introduction
In the 1860’s, the Norwegian whaler
and sealer Svend Føyn introduced the
steam-powered whale catcher and the
exploding harpoon gun to the whal-
ing industry (Tønnessen and John-
sen, 1982). In the 1870’s, he improved
upon shore-based factory processing
to a level that came to be considered
a standard for the industry (Tønnessen
and Johnsen, 1982). By the time the
20th century began, the era of mod-
ern whaling—at least in the Northern
Hemisphere—was well under way.
Sixteen shore whaling stations had
been established in Norway by 1883
(Risting, 1922; Dickinson and Sanger,
2005), and others were in operation in
Newfoundland, Greenland, Russia, and
Japan. In 1903, another Norwegian,
Christen Christensen, introduced the
fi rst factory ship, the wooden steam-
ship Telegraf, into the waters off
Spitsbergen (Tønnessen and Johnsen,
1982). Their primary targets were blue,
Balaenoptera musculus; fi n, B. physa-
lus; and humpback whales, Megaptera
novaeangliae.
However, industrial whaling south
of the equator did not begin to re-
semble operations in the north until 5
years into the 20th century. Between
1900 and 1903, the only whales pro-
cessed industrially were humpbacks
caught via net and brought to a shore
factory in Whangamumu Bay in New
Zealand, a factory that had been estab-
lished in 1890. The average catch was
8 whales per year during the 20-year
operation of this factory (Lillie, 1915;
Allison, 2012).
The fi rst shore factory in the
Southern Ocean was established in
Grytviken (Cauldron Bay) on South
Georgia Island by the Norwegian
Carl Anton Larsen, from the Compa-
ñía Argentina de Pesca, in late 1904
(Tønnessen and Johnsen, 1982).
In 1903, one humpback whale was
killed by modern methods by Adolf
Andresen in the Straits of Magellan,
but his processing station was not es-
tablished until 1905 (Tønnessen and
Johnsen, 1982).
Thus, between 1900 and 1908,
more whales were captured by indus-
trial whaling methods in the Northern
Hemisphere. By 1909, however, whal-
ing south of the equator had surpassed
that in the north. This trend continued
until 1993, when the catch of whal-
ing operations became comparable
in the two hemispheres and were fo-
cused largely on minke whales, Balae-
“Some of the larger factory vessels with their capacity of over 2,500 barrels of oil per
day capture more in two days than the original fl oating factories of 1904 were able
to carry away with them in an entire season. One modern factory ship can take more
whales in one season than the entire American whaling fl eet of 1846 which number
over 700 vessels.” Lt (j.g.) Quentin R. Walsh, U.S.C.G., 1938
38 Marine Fisheries Review
noptera acutorostrata, and Antarctic
minkes, B. bonaerensis.
Until World War I, industrial whal-
ing in the Southern Hemisphere fo-
cused primarily on humpbacks. After
this, several participating countries
(England, Denmark, Norway, Japan,
Canada, and the United States in the
Northern Hemisphere and South Af-
rica, England, Chile, Norway, and Ar-
gentina in the Southern Hemisphere)
took full advantage of the previously
unexploited stocks of large rorquals
(Allison, 2012). These species had not
(with the exception of humpbacks)
been available to the traditional Yan-
kee whalers, whose small wooden
boats could not be rowed fast enough
to catch these whales.
The ability of a modern catcher
boat to fi re exploding harpoons and
inject air into these fast-swimming
whales (that would have otherwise
sunk when they were killed) removed
any advantage a whale might have had
over a whaling ship. Modern whalers
also found new populations of sperm
whales, Physeter macrocephalus,
to hunt and also took southern right
whales, Eubalaena australis, when
they were encountered.
Between the 1920’s and the 1980’s,
industrial whaling went through peri-
ods of expansion and crisis. As with
many industries, these fl uctuations led
to international efforts to regulate the
use of the primary resource, with vary-
ing but usually unsuccessful effect.
In the late 1920’s, members of
the League of Nations declared that
whales needed “urgent international
measures” to protect them from ex-
tinction and thus set up a committee
of experts to fi nd a solution (Redekop,
2010). At the same time, in 1929, Nor-
way adopted its own Norwegian Whal-
ing Act to regulate the annual killing
of whales in the open sea and thus (at
least in theory) sustain the industry
(Tønnessen and Johnson, 1982).
Soon afterward, the League of Na-
tions efforts led to the signing, by 26
countries, of the Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling at the Geneva
Convention in September 1931. This
act entered into force in 1935 (Tøn-
nessen and Johnson, 1982) and served
as the fi rst measure of protection for
bowhead whales, Balaena mystice-
tus; right whales, Eubalaena spp.; and
gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus; all
of which had been heavily exploited
historically.
Subsequently, the International
Agreement for the Regulation of
Whaling was signed in London in
1937. However, many parts of this
measure were ignored. After World
War II, in late 1945, the United States
hosted 19 countries at the Internation-
al Whaling Conference (Tønnessen
and Johnson, 1982). Ultimately, this
led in 1946 to the creation of the Inter-
national Convention for the Regulation
of Whaling (ICRW) and the governing
body for this Convention, the Inter-
national Whaling Commission (IWC)
(IWC, 2002).
Conservation measures were clearly
an important part of this document, al-
though protection of whales was un-
dertaken for the strictly commercial
purpose of attempting to ensure that
the industry remained sustainable. As
the Convention worded it, the aim was
“to provide for the proper conservation
of whale stocks and thus make pos-
sible the orderly development of the
whaling industry.”
Industrial whaling resumed in ro-
bust fashion in the 1950’s, with Nor-
way, Great Britain, Japan, and the
USSR hunting in both hemispheres.
In the Northern Hemisphere, Canada,
Denmark, Iceland, Spain, Portugal,
Korea, and China were hunting whales
commercially. In the Southern Hemi-
sphere, whaling operations were regis-
tered to Brazil, France, South Africa,
Australia, Chile, New Zealand, Peru,
and Panama, and the Netherlands and
Argentina became involved in the re-
gion for the fi rst time. A fi nal expan-
sion of Antarctic whaling took place
between 1955 and 1961 (Tønnessen
and Johnson, 1982).
For much of the 1950’s, ’60’s, and
‘70’s, the number of whales caught
by most whaling nations, and the size
of those whales, continued to decline.
Smaller whale species, discussed lat-
er in this paper, were targeted. Japan
and the USSR, however, continued to
meet their quotas. While some of this
was due to having more numerous and
more powerful whale catchers, it was
also because much of the whaling was
being conducted illegally.
The Japanese were catching many
undersized whales in their coastal fi sh-
ery and falsifying their reports in or-
der to conform to IWC regulations
(Kasuya, 1999; Kasuya and Brownell,
1999, 2001; Kondo and Kasuya,
2002). Similarly, the USSR is now
known to have conducted large-scale
illegal catches for more than three de-
cades (Yablokov, 1994; Clapham and
Ivashchenko, 2009; Ivashchenko et
al., 2013; Ivashchenko and Clapham,
2014). On a much smaller scale, be-
tween 1951 and 1956 a factory ship
registered in Panama, the Olympic
Challenger, owned by Aristotle Onas-
sis’ Olympic Whaling Company, was
consistently “shooting anything that
swam and at any time” (Elliot, 1997).
By 1972, more protective attitudes
in the United States toward whaling
had suffi ciently infl uenced nation-
al politics such that both the Marine
Mammal Protection Act and the En-
dangered Species Act were passed
within a span of 14 months. In 1972,
the United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment, held in Stock-
holm, Sweden, passed a resolution,
by 52 votes to 0, calling for a 10-year
moratorium on commercial whaling.
Similar resolutions were introduced
in the IWC in 1972, 1973, and 1974,
but the proposal did not receive the
required three-fourths majority (IWC,
1975). Nonetheless, by 1982, pro-
conservation nations held a substantial
majority at the IWC, and duly voted
to enact a moratorium (technically a
zero-catch limit) on all commercial
whaling.
When this vote was taken in 1982,
there were 10 countries still in the
business of whaling. Iceland, Norway,
Spain, Portugal, and Korea were whal-
ing in the north, while Brazil, Peru,
Chile, and the USSR were operating in
the south. Only Japan still had opera-
tions in both hemispheres. The follow-
ing year whaling operations attributed
76(4) 39
to the Philippines were initiated. Re-
search into this endeavor has indicated
that Japanese nationals owned and op-
erated all facets of this business, which
was terminated in 1986 (Davies, 1986;
Barut, 1994; Acebes, 2009). Peruvian
whaling had its fi nal season in 1983,
and Portuguese whaling ended in 1987
(Allison, 2012).
Once the moratorium took effect
with the 1985–86 Antarctic whaling
season, all nations, other than Norway,
Japan, and the USSR ceased industrial
commercial whaling. Japan, Norway,
and the USSR all lodged objections to
the ban (under the Convention, an ob-
jection lodged within 90 days means
that the objecting nation is not bound
by any decision of the IWC, and this
includes the moratorium). However,
the Soviets continued whaling for only
one more year (Allison, 2012).
Japan initially objected to the mor-
atorium but withdrew this objection
under U.S. threat of fi sheries sanc-
tions and thereafter exploited Article
VIII of the Convention, which per-
mits member states to issue permits
to kill whales for scientifi c research
(so-called “scientifi c whaling,” see
Clapham, 2014). Iceland, the Repub-
lic of Korea, and Norway also received
permits for scientifi c whaling between
1986 and 1994 (IWC, 2004). Iceland
withdrew from the IWC in 1992 but
subsequently rejoined in 2002, lodged
an objection to the Moratorium, and
resumed commercial whaling in 2006.
Norway halted their scientifi c whaling
and in 1993 also resumed commercial
hunting under the objection provision
(IWC, 1995).
Remarkably, there has been no com-
plete accounting of the total number of
whales taken by industrial whaling in
the world’s oceans in the 20th century.
Clapham and Baker (2008) attempted
to assess totals for the Southern Hemi-
sphere, including revised catch totals
for the USSR, which, as noted above,
conducted extensive illegal whal-
ing after World War II (Clapham and
Ivashchenko, 2009; Ivashchenko et al.,
2011).
No attempt has previously been
made to determine the total catch for
the Northern Hemisphere, in part be-
cause revised Soviet totals for the
North Pacifi c were not available un-
til very recently (Ivashchenko et al.,
2013). Here, using the current IWC
database (Allison, 2012), corrected
Soviet catch totals, and other sourc-
es, we provide an accounting of total
catches by all industrial whaling oper-
ations worldwide from 1900 to 1999.
In addition, we examine trends in the
species that were targeted, compare
hunt totals and activity between hemi-
spheres, and highlight the periods of
most intense hunting.
Materials and Methods
For the purpose of this report, any
whale that was processed at a shore
whaling station or on a fl oating fac-
tory ship was considered to have been
killed by industrial methods. Some
whales taken without the use of har-
poon cannons, such as those caught by
net at Whangamumu Bay in New Zea-
land, are included in these totals, since
they were processed on shore in a fac-
tory. The same is true for those caught
by traditional methods off the Azores,
since they were subsequently towed
back to shore-based factories.
All known catches for species
caught by subsistence whaling hunts
were omitted from the tallies. These
include the native operations for
humpback whales at St. Vincent and
West Greenland, as well as catches of
bowhead whales by Alaska natives,
and takes of gray whales by the native
people of Chukotka (Russia) (Reeves,
2002).
Other species were caught off the
coast of West Greenland using the
catcher boats Sonja and Sonja Ka-
ligtoq between 1924 and 1954, and
were hand fl ensed along the coast
(Kapel, 1979). Between 1954 and
1958, a shore station in Tovqussaq
was used to process whales caught
by the Sonja Kaligtoq crews (Kapel,
1979). Since then, motorized boats
with bow-mounted cannons have been
used annually to hunt fi n and minke
whales (and, more recently, humpback
whales). These have been considered
aboriginal hunts since 1978, as has
a small hunt off East Greenland that
began in 1982. These aboriginal kills
have also been omitted from the catch
totals summarized here. Although the
motorized boats sometimes provided
access to species that were not part
of the traditional aboriginal hunt, the
noncommercial use of the whales war-
rant their omission from our tallies.
Annual totals from the International
Whaling Commission database (Alli-
son, 2012) for each of the large whale
species listed were tallied for each
hemisphere; for the Northern Hemi-
sphere, separate totals were calculated
for the North Atlantic and North Pacif-
ic. The revised totals for Soviet whale
catches in the North Pacifi c for the pe-
riod 1948–79, recently compiled by
Ivashchenko et al. (2013), were used
to replace the Soviet totals in the IWC
database.
Catches for North Pacifi c right
whales were compiled from the IWC
database (Allison, 2012) and Brownell
et al. (2001)1, with corrections made
by one of us (YVI) to refl ect the
most recent accounting of Soviet il-
legal catches of this species. Correct-
ed Soviet numbers were published in
Ivashchenko and Clapham (2012) and
Ivashchenko et al. (2013); however,
additional catches have come to light
since then, and the total for Soviet
takes of this species now stands at 765
(of which only 11 were reported to the
IWC; Ivashchenko, unpubl. data).
Revised Soviet data for Bryde’s, B.
edeni; minke, gray, and unspecifi ed/
other whales for the years 1948–79
were available only as a sum total and
not as annual data. Those totals were
included in the fi nal tallying.
The numbers given here are the best
estimate of the total catch at this time.
New information is continually being
added to the IWC database (Allison,
2012), and that database includes ex-
1There is a discrepancy between the total num-
bers of non-Soviet catches of North Pacifi c right
whales reported in the IWC database and those
given in Table 3.2 of Brownell et al. (2001),
with the latter showing 12 more than the IWC
data. Because the Brownell et al. table includes
a block of 28 animals taken from 1911 to 1938,
with uncertainty noted in this total, we have
used the lower IWC fi gures.
40 Marine Fisheries Review
peditions for which no information
on catch has been found to date, no-
tably during the early 1900’s. Further-
more, it should be noted that Bryde’s
whales were not distinguished from sei
whales until the early 1900’s (and of-
ten not until much later), and for many
years they continued to be listed as sei
whales.
Finally, it is important to note that
some catch totals for the North Pa-
cifi c are likely to be incorrect to an
unknown degree. The IWC database
still contains data from the Japanese
coastal fi shery that are known to be
falsifi ed, notably for sperm whales
(Kasuya, 1999); furthermore, analy-
ses of sperm whale length data have
raised suspicions about the reliabil-
ity of the pelagic Japanese catch sta-
tistics for this species (Cooke et al.,
1983). We currently have no way of
estimating the degree of unreliability
in these data, and North Pacifi c totals
for sperm whales are reported with
that caveat.
Results and Discussion
The technological advances of the
late 19th century, when combined with
the expansion of processing capabili-
ties in the early 20th century, created
an industry that could essentially catch
and quickly process any whale in any
ocean. In total, the years from 1900
through 1999 saw nearly 2.9 million
large whales killed and processed glob-
ally by industrialized whaling. Total
catches by species and hemisphere are
summarized in Table 1. Tables 2 and
3 break down catches for each hemi-
sphere by 10-year periods, and trends
in catches for each species are graphi-
cally represented in Figures 1a and 1b.
More detail is provided in Tables 4
and 5, which give catch totals by spe-
cies and by year for the Northern and
Southern Hemispheres, respectively.
Fin whales were killed in larger
numbers (874,068) than any other spe-
cies, with sperm whales (761,523) be-
ing the second-most hunted. Together,
these two whales comprise more than
half (56.5%) of the large cetacean spe-
cies killed globally in the 20th centu-
ry. This proportion is almost the same
(55.1%) when looking at the numbers
for only the Southern Hemisphere. In
the Northern Hemisphere, the sperm
whale was the most heavily hunted
(354,988 catches)2, followed by the
minke whale and the fi n whale.
2This number for sperm whales is likely an un-
derestimate because of the known unreliability
of Japanese coastal whaling statistics, as noted
above, together with the possibility that Japa-
nese pelagic catch statistics are also unreliable
to an unknown degree.
Table 1.—Total catches of large whales by industrial whaling operations, species, and hemisphere, 1900–99.
Catches (no. of animals)
Species North Atlantic North Pacifi c Southern Hemisphere Total
Blue 6,699 8,838 363,648 379,185
Fin 72,069 75,538 726,461 874,068
Sperm 40,046 314,942 406,535 761,523
Humpback 4,454 29,131 215,848 249,433
Sei 13,048 73,903 204,589 291,540
Bryde’s 254 13,795 7,913 21,962
Minke 131,866 34,826 117,213 283,905
Right 141 967 4,452 5,560
Gray 0 3,350 0 3,350
Unspecifi ed/Other 7,865 8,406 7,297 23,568
Sub-total 276,442 563,696
Hemisphere Totals 840,138 2,053,956 2,894,094
Table 2.—Northern Hemisphere industrial whaling totals, including illegal Soviet whaling, by decade, 1900–99 (Soviet data for which only sum
totals are available are not included).
Species 1900–1909 1910–1919 1920–1929 1930–1939 1940–1949 1950–1959 1960–1969 1970–1979 1980–1989 1990–1999
Blue 4,830 3,040 2,738 1,126 554 1,483 1,731 35 0 0
Fin 12,570 18,548 23,977 12,599 11,931 25,137 30,824 9,769 2,252 0
Sperm 294 3,449 7,512 11,793 21,666 64,092 153,193 82,429 4,960 0
Humpback 4,409 7,437 8,005 2,513 923 2,538 7,700 60 0 0
Sei 2,903 6,460 7,677 5,446 5,255 10,941 33,439 14,253 577 0
Bryde’s 0 0 20 4 418 934 480 4,940 3,786 1
Minke 0 38 156 7,578 23,752 38,976 36,929 37,550 17,606 3,418
Gray 0 1,057 550 747 480 28 339 0 0 0
Right 92 72 88 46 35 84 676 15 0 0
Unspec. 11,212 2,153 147 2,250 43 299 4 5 13 0
Total 36,310 42,254 50,870 44,102 65,057 144,512 265,315 149,056 29,194 3,419
Table 3.—Southern Hemisphere industrial whaling totals, by decade, 1900–1999.
Species 1900–1909 1910–1919 1920–1929 1930–1939 1940–1949 1950–1959 1960–1969 1970–1979 1980–1989 1990–1999
Blue 758 30,263 84,319 163,687 40,389 29,149 13,696 1,387 0 0
Fin 1,070 36,753 66,084 137,490 100,705 262,404 111,776 10,178 1 0
Sperm 11 4,122 6,609 21,540 34,888 96,997 141,754 99,735 879 0
Humpback 11,603 57,205 14,090 31,758 11,105 58,849 31,195 43 0 0
Sei 661 2,549 6,373 2,333 4,305 21,302 131,538 35,528 0 0
Bryde’s 3 607 322 57 450 252 1,619 3,577 1,026 0
Minke 0 6 1 0 1 132 3,196 64,152 45,974 3,751
Right 331 487 119 122 2 250 3,137 4 0 0
Unspec. 1,363 3,311 313 2,198 87 15 9 1 0 0
Totals 15,800 135,303 178,230 359,185 191,932 469,350 437,920 214,605 47,880 3,751
76(4) 41
The year 1925 marked the arrival in
the Antarctic of the fi rst modern pelag-
ic stern-slip factory ship, the British
vessel Lansing (Clapham and Baker,
2008). The ability to quickly process
large numbers of whales in habitats far
offshore greatly increased the effi cien-
cy of the industry. Beginning in 1927,
industrial whalers were consistently
killing more than 20,000 whales annu-
ally in the Southern Hemisphere (they
had surpassed this total in 1912, 1913,
and 1925). Only a 1-year cessation of
whaling by Norway, in 1931, brought
the total below 20,000. Between 1934
and 1939 more than 34,000 whales
were killed each year. The onset of
World War II and the repurposing of
resources led to a 6-year period of re-
duced whaling. However, once the war
ended, the business of hunting whales
resumed.
Twentieth century whaling was far
more intense in the Southern Hemi-
sphere (though no less devastating to
some populations north of the equa-
tor): the number of whales killed in the
Southern Hemisphere was 2.5 times
greater than in the Northern. Over the
three decades following World War II,
the most intensive 5-year period for
whaling in the Southern Hemisphere
was 1957–61, when 280,133 whales
were killed and processed. By con-
trast, the most intensive 5-year span
for whales in the north was 1966–70,
when 153,722 whales were killed.
The year 1960 had the highest region-
al 1-year total for the century, with
62,129 animals killed in the Southern
Hemisphere. In the north, the high-
est 1-year total was 33,473 whales in
1966.
Taken together, the global total for
the years 1957–61 was 368,878 large
whales. The 3 highest years were
1959–61, with each of those 3 years
having global totals approaching or
exceeding 75,000 whales. A further
69,466 were killed in 1964.
The trends in the numbers highlight-
ed here, whether by hemisphere (Fig.
1a, b) or globally, echo prior analyses
of catch numbers and related econom-
ics. As stated by Schneider and Pearce
(2004), “Analysis of the data reveals a
Figure 1b.—Southern Hemisphere industrial whaling totals, by decade, 1900–99
(data from Table 3).
Figure 1a.—Northern Hemisphere industrial whaling totals, including Soviet whal-
ing, by decade, 1900–99 (data from Table 2).
42 Marine Fisheries Review
Table 4.—Northern Hemisphere industrialized whaling catches, including corrected Soviet data (1948–79). Data from C. Allison, IWC summary catch database Version 5.3, Date: 25 October 2012, Areas: North Atlantic
and Arctic, North Pacifi c, Japan and Korea, and Ivashchenko et al. Soviet North Pacifi c catches 2012. Annual totals exclude all Soviet data for North Pacifi c right whales.
1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1900-1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1910-1919 Total
Blue 381 299 142 492 862 1,002 477 391 412 372 4,830 336 577 605 248 400 174 164 235 140 161 3040 7,870
Fin 502 570 673 988 1945 1,882 1,179 1,365 1,576 1890 12,570 1,731 2,705 2,112 1,905 2,661 1,735 1,444 1,045 1,724 1,486 18,548 31,118
Sperm 0 8 2 152 13 11 10 16 13 69 294 78 238 178 204 380 312 438 278 729 614 3,449 3,743
Humpback 131 308 423 722 697 323 323 293 510 679 4,409 888 1,296 1,135 773 1,043 594 455 350 306 597 7,437 11,846
Sei 40 29 58 106 176 136 473 476 646 763 2,903 503 581 390 567 554 731 461 728 1,027 918 6,460 9,363
Bryde’s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minke 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 6 7 14 38 38
Gray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 193 132 174 139 78 69 104 46 1,057 1,057
Right 0 0 2 2 2 0 6 25 28 27 92 19 3 13 3 7 8 9 2 3 5 72 164
Unspecifi ed/Other 597 1,029 1,643 966 651 747 1,033 2,140 1,478 928 11,212 1,304 185 319 27 83 0 61 0 104 70 2,153 13,365
1,651 2,243 2,943 3,428 4,346 4,101 3,501 4,706 4,663 4,728 36,310 4,859 5,707 4,945 3,859 5,303 3,703 3,110 2,713 4,144 3,911 42,254 78,564
1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1920-1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1930-1939 Total
Blue 242 60 163 174 261 321 351 257 500 409 2,738 237 75 157 86 94 172 85 123 56 41 1,126 3,864
Fin 1,653 1,019 1,864 2,606 3,183 3,733 3,638 2,464 2,070 1,747 23,977 1,729 879 1,033 1,373 1,167 981 1,118 2,005 1,077 1,237 12,599 36,576
Sperm 424 387 840 712 640 780 937 783 1,012 997 7,512 1,001 368 470 903 961 1,132 1,566 1,865 1,618 1,909 11,793 19,305
Humpback 790 331 993 933 624 1,085 1,135 1,218 556 340 8,005 331 109 229 302 292 374 271 263 121 221 2,513 10,518
Sei 1,081 565 552 801 961 944 858 790 538 587 7,677 571 478 455 421 488 511 506 622 658 736 5,446 13,123
Bryde’s 0 0 0 0 0 2 18 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 24
Minke 6 20 20 20 20 20 13 13 9 15 156 60 194 369 546 731 908 1,078 1,283 1,422 987 7,578 7,734
Gray 68 116 49 27 18 142 53 42 21 14 550 30 11 17 106 154 144 188 14 54 29 747 1,297
Right 5 8 5 11 11 10 10 10 11 7 88 2 8 20 4 0 2 0 6 0 0 42 130
Unspecifi ed/Other 41 11 13 20 0 44 18 0 0 0 147 300 3 0 5 506 615 613 0 208 0 2,250 2,397
4,310 2,517 4,499 5,304 5,718 7,081 7,031 5,577 4,717 4,116 50,870 4,261 2,125 2,750 3,746 4,393 4,839 5,425 6,181 5,214 5,164 44,098 94,968
1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1940-1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1950-1959 Total
Blue 53 79 20 16 7 27 46 66 142 98 554 73 125 147 157 223 155 161 154 132 156 1,483 2,037
Fin 867 1,134 767 734 898 847 1,419 1,459 2,037 1,769 11,931 1,992 2,053 1,886 1,836 2,697 2,718 2,719 3,084 3,224 2,928 25,137 37,068
Sperm 2,378 2,388 1,325 1,821 1,748 1,050 2,187 2,420 3,046 3,303 21,666 4,073 4,943 4,557 4,681 5,331 6,539 7,800 8,593 9,008 8,567 64,092 85,758
Humpback 201 81 72 116 75 21 36 38 170 113 923 147 103 131 122 286 195 256 330 495 473 2,538 3,461
Sei 432 692 308 399 789 108 556 405 643 923 5,255 420 759 960 975 1,180 962 1,154 969 1,651 1,911 10,941 16,196
Bryde’s 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 158 115 116 418 243 280 411 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 934 1,352
Minke 727 2,365 2,459 1,911 1,610 1,878 2,013 2,716 3,893 4,180 23,752 2,275 3,195 3,898 2,931 3,952 4,840 4,338 4,444 5,265 3,838 38,976 62,728
Gray 105 57 101 99 6 58 22 31 0 1 480 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 8 9 28 508
Right 1 5 6 13 3 1 0 0 1 0 30 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 4 34
Unspecifi ed/Other 8 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 49 29 82 98 28 13 0 0 299 342
4,772 6,801 5,058 5,109 5,136 4,025 6,308 7,293 10,047 10,503 65,052 9,223 11,460 12,039 10,741 13,751 15,507 16,458 17,587 19,783 17,883 144,432 209,484
Table continued
76(4) 43
Table 4.—continued
1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1960-1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1970-1979 Total
Blue 86 92 150 605 254 279 61 97 56 51 1,731 20 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 3 0 35 1,766
Fin 2,946 2,421 2,651 3,725 4,816 3,480 3,195 3,040 2,497 2,053 30,824 1,839 1,424 1,464 822 875 558 561 430 945 851 9,769 40,593
Sperm 8,711 8,230 8,581 13,171 13,093 18,405 23,017 20,890 18,967 20,128 153,193 16,131 11,974 6,977 7,036 8,805 8,508 7,798 6,696 4,861 3,643 82,429 235,622
Humpback 298 526 1,920 2,722 1,450 538 82 106 46 12 7,700 28 21 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 60 7,760
Sei 1,294 1,025 2,216 2,680 3,789 3,291 3,824 5,208 5,073 5,039 33,439 3,966 3,221 2,638 2,004 1,336 699 13 139 139 98 14,253 47,692
Bryde’s 0 0 196 0 0 0 2 22 171 89 480 73 281 130 73 705 804 972 721 380 801 4940 5,420
Minke 3,991 3,856 3,987 4,083 3,796 3,391 3,232 3,266 3,795 3,532 36,929 3,812 3,764 4,497 3,930 3,525 3,543 4,055 3,612 3,288 3,524 37,550 74,479
Gray 9 4 4 2 20 4 57 99 66 74 339 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 339
Right 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 11 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 15
Unspecifi ed/Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 5 9
17,335 16,157 19,708 26,991 27,218 29,388 33,473 32,729 30,673 30,978 264,650 25,869 20,693 15,707 13,868 15,257 14,112 13,401 11,601 9,620 8,917 149,045 413,695
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1980-1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1990-1999 Total
Blue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fin 459 404 347 269 271 210 76 80 68 68 2,252 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,252
Sperm 1,517 1,163 621 414 454 400 200 191 0 0 4,960 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,960
Humpback 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sei 103 100 71 100 95 38 40 20 10 0 577 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 577
Bryde’s 755 485 482 545 528 357 317 317 0 0 3,786 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3,787
Minke 3,557 3,212 3,391 2,848 1,753 1,365 759 673 29 19 17,606 0 1 95 226 280 318 465 617 725 691 3,418 21,024
Gray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unspecifi ed/Other 3 4 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
6,394 5,368 4,915 4,179 3,101 2,370 1,392 1,281 107 87 29,194 0 1 95 226 280 318 465 617 726 691 3,419 32,613
Soviet numbers for right whales not entered into decades Soviet numbers for right whales entered into decades
1900- 1920- 1940- 1960- 1980- Addl Total 1900- 1920- 1940- 1960- 1980- Addl Total
1919 1939 1959 1979 1999 Totals Soviet All 1919 1939 1959 1979 1999 Totals Soviet All
Blue 7,870 3,864 2,037 1,766 0 15,537 15,537 Blue 7,870 3,864 2,037 1,766 0 15,537 15,537
Fin 31,118 36,576 37,068 40,593 2,252 147,607 147,607 Fin 31,118 36,576 37,068 40,593 2,252 147,607 147,607
Sperm 3,743 19,305 85,758 235,622 4,960 349,388 5,600 354,988 Sperm 3,743 19,305 85,758 235,622 4,960 349,388 5,600 354,988
Humpback 11,846 10,518 3,461 7,760 0 33,585 33,585 Humpback 11,846 10,518 3,461 7,760 0 33,585 33,585
Sei 9,363 13,123 16,196 47,692 577 86,951 86,951 Sei 9,363 13,123 16,196 47,692 577 86,951 86,951
Bryde’s 0 24 1,352 5,420 3,787 10,583 3,466 14,049 Bryde’s 0 24 1,352 5,420 3,787 10,583 3,466 14,049
Minke 38 7,734 62,728 74,479 21,024 166,003 689 166,692 Minke 38 7,734 62,728 74,479 21,024 166,003 689 166,692
Gray 1,057 1,297 508 339 0 3,201 149 3,350 Gray 1,057 1,297 508 339 0 3,201 149 3,350
Right 164 130 34 15 0 343 765 1,108 Right 164 134 120 690 0 1,108 1,108
Unspecifi ed/Other 13,365 2,397 342 9 13 16,126 145 16,271 Unspecifi ed/Other 13,365 2,397 342 9 13 16,126 145 16,271
78,564 94,968 209,484 413,695 32,613 829,324 10,814 840,138 78,564 94,972 209,570 414,370 32,613 830,089 10,049 840,138
44 Marine Fisheries Review
Table 5.—Southern Hemisphere industrialized whaling catches data from: C. Allison. IWC Summary catch database Version 5.3, Date: 25 Oct. 2012 Areas; South Pacifi c, South Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Southern
Hemisphere.
1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1900-1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1910-1919 Total
Blue 0 0 0 0 11 51 68 106 310 212 758 365 1,292 2,590 3,112 5,376 5,702 4,441 3,159 2,219 2,007 30,263 31,021
Fin 0 0 0 0 4 104 93 122 310 437 1,070 721 2,034 5,132 5,707 4,897 6,150 2,956 2,265 3,203 3,688 36,753 37,823
Sperm 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 6 11 0 20 480 525 681 766 684 191 224 551 4,122 4,133
Humpback 8 8 8 9 188 319 449 1,399 3,422 5,793 11,603 10,201 11,830 11,185 10,553 7,605 3,888 744 316 340 543 57,205 68,808
Sei 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0 218 346 661 225 38 175 1,055 398 98 99 109 105 247 2,549 3,210
Bryde’s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 73 187 126 51 96 26 0 32 16 607 610
Minke 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 6 6
Right 0 0 0 0 0 16 81 93 68 73 331 99 107 23 78 25 36 20 60 18 21 487 818
Unspecifi ed 0 0 0 0 0 130 428 520 46 239 1363 734 1,287 419 261 0 140 470 0 0 0 3,311 4,674
Total 0 8 8 9 203 720 1,120 2,240 4,375 7,109 15,800 12,345 16,681 20,191 21,417 19,033 16,877 9,440 6,105 6,141 7,073 135,303 151,103
1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1920-1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1930-1939 Total
Blue 3,023 4,637 6,787 4,926 6,714 6,196 8,663 10,278 14,333 18,762 84,319 30,490 6,657 19,023 17,456 16,625 17,892 14,670 15,174 14,175 11,525 163,687 248,006
Fin 5,924 2,787 4,339 3,914 5,364 10,173 7,019 5,953 7,708 12,903 66,084 11,171 3,336 5,517 7,824 13,228 10,294 15,865 29,446 21,479 19,330 137,490 203,574
Sperm 409 422 250 299 437 807 743 808 1,096 1,338 6,609 676 197 454 1,084 1,246 1,191 4,149 5,621 3,964 2,958 21,540 28,149
Humpback 567 370 1,710 1,572 1,420 2,686 1,878 1,345 1,408 1,134 14,090 1,441 418 506 1,089 3,283 4,906 8,806 7,206 3,810 293 31,758 45,848
Sei 107 150 143 390 672 404 1,255 1,343 1,447 462 6,373 358 44 35 26 324 187 803 285 133 138 2,333 8,706
Bryde’s 17 0 3 11 84 29 60 31 60 27 322 14 0 0 0 0 0 7 36 0 0 57 379
Minke 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Right 16 8 4 15 11 17 26 6 4 12 119 4 0 23 14 17 30 4 8 15 7 122 241
Unspecifi ed 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 260 0 10 313 0 0 0 0 200 44 0 1 4 1,949 2,198 2,511
Total 10,106 8,375 13,236 11,127 14,702 20,312 19,644 20,024 26,056 34,648 178,230 44,154 10,652 25,558 27,493 34,923 34,544 44,304 57,777 43,580 36,200 359,185 537,415
1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1940-1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1950-1959 Total
Blue 4,975 65 127 349 1,050 3,647 9,237 6,968 7,731 6,240 40,389 7,107 5,202 4,005 2,888 2,535 1,739 1,715 1,769 1,251 938 29,149 69,538
Fin 8,168 1,382 980 1,459 1,953 9,429 14,970 21,766 19,962 20,636 100,705 20,160 23,920 23,945 28,568 28,833 27,734 28,374 27,817 27,469 25,584 262,404 363,109
Sperm 1,366 2,563 3,543 3,755 860 1,062 2,431 6,788 8,179 4,341 34,888 6,318 15,852 4,015 5,377 12,605 10,126 8,255 12,318 11,541 10,590 96,997 131,885
Humpback 2,967 181 227 174 263 461 249 253 461 5,869 11,105 5,621 4,788 3,492 2,952 4,067 6,168 3,149 4,774 8,065 15,773 58,849 69,954
Sei 139 57 86 231 102 119 469 810 788 1,504 4,305 1,157 1,642 1,852 1,576 827 906 1,955 3,615 3,076 4,696 21,302 25,607
Bryde’s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 238 157 450 100 23 0 7 0 0 14 36 29 43 252 702
Minke 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 6 12 0 36 45 13 11 5 132 133
Right 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 22 9 17 34 18 49 19 3 79 250 252
Unspecifi ed 26 0 0 0 0 0 31 12 17 1 87 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 15 102
Totals 17,641 4,248 4,963 5,969 4,228 14,718 27,388 36,652 37,376 38,749 191,932 40,469 51,453 37,324 41,397 48,901 46,728 43,556 50,369 51,445 57,708 469,350 661,282
Table continued
76(4) 45
Table 5.—Continued.
1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1960-1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1970-1979 Total
Blue 1,743 1,145 1,748 1,508 3,349 1,477 665 461 674 926 13,696 835 544 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,387 15,083
Fin 27,299 27,085 17,910 14,218 7,957 3,931 3,882 2,603 3,760 3,131 111,776 3,422 2,324 1,822 1,341 1,026 233 8 2 0 0 10,178 121,954
Sperm 11,757 14,458 15,884 21,814 20,610 12,631 13,073 9,911 9,323 12,293 141,754 12,632 17,073 13,311 12,708 14,038 10,797 6,666 6,026 5,681 803 99,735 241,489
Humpback 14,902 7,210 3,744 844 270 2,195 1,096 928 5 1 31,195 0 3 5 4 4 8 4 4 11 0 43 31,238
Sei 6,409 7,195 6,962 10,903 21,964 21,298 17,611 16,412 11,679 11,105 131,538 9,431 7,466 4,373 4,926 4,406 2,272 1,898 590 101 65 35,528 167,066
Bryde’s 10 23 73 139 681 428 151 73 8 33 1,619 19 486 8 317 467 434 623 506 417 300 3,577 5,196
Minke 3 3 19 120 63 81 389 1,118 630 770 3,196 915 4,162 6,583 8,541 8,037 7,185 8,676 6,000 6,156 7,897 64,152 67,348
Right 6 1,355 727 374 82 350 161 4 0 78 3,137 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3,141
Unspecifi ed 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10
Totals 62,129 58,482 47,067 49,920 54,976 42,392 37,028 31,510 26,079 28,337 437,920 27,257 32,060 26,109 27,838 27,978 20,929 17,875 13,128 12,366 9,065 214,605 652,525
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1980-1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1990-1999 Total
Blue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fin 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Sperm 574 289 0 0 0 0 9 7 0 0 879 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 879
Humpback 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sei 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bryde’s 211 162 320 333 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,026 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,026
Minke 7,142 7,903 7,301 6,680 5,568 5,567 4,969 273 241 330 45,974 327 288 330 330 330 440 440 438 389 439 3,751 49,725
Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unspecifi ed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 7,927 8,354 7,621 7,014 5,568 5,567 4,978 280 241 330 47,880 327 288 330 330 330 440 440 438 389 439 3,751 51,631
1900-1919 1920-1939 1940-1959 1960-1979 1980-1999 Totals
Blue 31,021 248,006 69,538 15,083 0 363,648
Fin 37,823 203,574 363,109 121,954 1 726,461
Sperm 4,133 28,149 131,885 241,489 879 406,535
Humpback 68,808 45,848 69,954 31,238 0 215,848
Sei 3,210 8,706 25,607 167,066 0 204,589
Bryde’s 610 379 702 5,196 1,026 7,913
Minke 6 1 133 67,348 49,725 117,213
Right 818 241 252 3,141 0 4,452
Unspecifi ed 4,674 2,511 102 10 0 7,297
151,103 537,415 661,282 652,525 51,631 2,053,956
46 Marine Fisheries Review
whaling cycle very much as would be
expected for an open-access marine
resource that is initially abundant but
which then gets successively overex-
ploited, species by species.”
As one species began to dwindle in
abundance, another would be target-
ed to take its place, and typically the
species that was the next size smaller.
Between 1921 and 1935, blue whales
(with the exception of 1925) were the
primary species taken in the Southern
Hemisphere, with fi n whales consis-
tently second (Fig. 1b). After 1935,
as blue whale numbers decreased,
not only did fi n whales become the
primary species, but the annual to-
tals for this species were consistently
2.0–2.5 times higher than those of the
previous 15 years. Given that two fi n
whales were considered, in terms of
oil yield, the equivalent of one blue
whale (as measured by the “Blue
Whale Unit” introduced by the IWC
in 1932; Schneider and Pearce, 2004),
this doubling of fi n whale captures
helped to maintain a consistent level
of production.
In 1963, the sperm whale became
the most-hunted species. At this same
time, however, the number of sei
whales captured exceeded 10,000. This
was also the last year that fi n whales
were taken above the 10,000 level. For
the next 5 years the sei whale was the
primary target until their catch num-
bers dropped below 10,000 a year.
Sperm whales again were the pre-
ferred species from 1969 to 1975, with
kills consistently exceeding 10,000 per
annum. No species of baleen whale
exceeded the 10,000 level after 1969.
Since 1978, most of the whales caught
south of the equator have been Antarc-
tic minkes, a great many of them as a
result of Japanese scientifi c whaling
(Clapham, 2014).
Although industrial whaling in the
Northern Hemisphere was conducted
on a smaller scale, similar patterns can
be seen for several species (Table 1, 2;
Fig. 1a). The cycle is most noticeable
when considering the timing of the de-
cline in fi n and sei whale catches in
the mid-1960’s, and the effort made af-
ter 1970 to replace them with Bryde’s
whales, a species that had been largely
ignored until that time (although as
noted above they were often mistaken
for sei whales in earlier catches).
The other noticeable replacement in
targeted species was seen for hump-
back and sei whales, which, between
1908 and 1932, consistently alternat-
ed between second and third place in
catch totals. After 1933, minke whales
became the second-most hunted ba-
leen whale north of the equator, and
humpback captures continued to de-
cline. After 1940, minkes replaced fi n
whales as the primary mysticete target
of whalers.
One noticeable hemispheric dif-
ference in the order in which spe-
cies were hunted is how much earlier
minkes were targeted in the Northern
Hemisphere. By 1932, minkes were
being hunted as consistently as sperm,
humpback, and sei whales. This also
coincided with the drop in blue whale
catches that began in 1932. While not
nearly as lucrative as blue whales,
minkes were much more abundant,
and they were routinely caught in
numbers greater than 3,000 annually
from after World War II until 1983. By
contrast, minkes were not a signifi cant
focus of whaling efforts in the South-
ern Hemisphere until 1967.
Before the global moratorium was
passed by the IWC in 1982, whaling
nations had agreed to institute bans on
whaling of certain species, beginning
with the cessation of commercial bow-
head whaling in 1931. Other bans went
into effect for right and gray whales in
1935, humpback whales in the North
Atlantic in 1955, blue whales in 1966,
and fi n whales in the Southern Hemi-
sphere and North Pacifi c in 1976
(IWC, 1977).
However, despite those bans, hunt-
ing of these species continued. The
recent emergence of reliable data re-
garding the extent of illegal whal-
ing conducted by the USSR between
1948 and 1979 has made clear how
much poaching took place (Yablo-
kov, 1994; Clapham and Ivashchenko,
2009; Ivashchenko et al., 2011, 2013).
The estimate for the total global catch
by the USSR is 534,204 whales, of
which 178,811 were not reported to
the IWC.3 This new information has
also shed light on the previously unex-
plained population decline and failure
to recover of the North Pacifi c right
whale, Eubalaena japonica (Ivash-
chenko and Clapham, 2012).
A review of annual entries in the
IWC database provides evidence that
other countries participated in the kill-
ing of whales after various bans were
issued. Ships registered in Argentina,
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Germany, Ja-
pan, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal,
South Africa, and the United Kingdom
killed a total of 103 right whales after
1935 (Allison, 2012). After 1966, an-
other 87 blue whales were killed by
ships registered in Denmark, South
Africa, Australia, Chile, Japan, and
Spain (Allison, 2012). Two of the
ships registered in Spain, the Sierra
and the Tonna, were actually pirate
whaling ships that were not registered
with an IWC nation but whose opera-
tions were linked to Japan (Clapham
and Baker, 2008). Korean vessels took
84 fi n whales in the North Pacifi c be-
tween 1977 and 1985.
Ninety-eight percent of the blue
whales killed globally after the ban in
1966 were killed by Soviet whalers,
as were 92% of the 1,201 humpbacks
killed commercially between 1967 and
1978. The majority of these, 1,034, were
killed in 1967. Of the 512 gray whales
killed after 1947, 309 (60%) were killed
by the United States through permits is-
sued for scientifi c whaling.
Conclusion
Remarkably, despite the impor-
tance of industrial whaling to sev-
eral economies and more recently
as a symbol of human misuse of the
world’s resources, there has until now
been no attempt to estimate the total
catch for the 20th century, although
Clapham and Baker (2008) provid-
ed estimates for the Southern Hemi-
sphere. Here, taking advantage of
newly revised catch fi gures for Soviet
3These fi gures include an additional 85 North
Pacifi c right whales that were not included in
the totals given by Ivashchenko and Clapham
(2014).
76(4) 47
whaling in both the Southern Ocean
and the North Pacifi c, we have pro-
vided a tally of the total number of
whales killed since full-scale modern
industrial whaling began shortly af-
ter 1900. That total is close to three
million animals, making it (at least in
terms of sheer biomass) perhaps the
largest hunt in human history.
Between 1712 and 1899 it is esti-
mated that 300,000 sperm whales were
killed globally by crews on sailing ves-
sels that used small boats to chase, har-
poon, tire out, and lance them (Smith
et al., 2008). The same process applied
to the slower mysticetes; the primary
product from sperm whales was oil,
and for baleen whales, oil, and baleen.
The industrial process was much
more effi cient. Separate crews focused
on either catching or processing, and
both had the advantage of mechaniza-
tion to greatly increase the speed of
these operations. Between 1900 and
the middle of 1962, the same number
of sperm whales had been killed by
industrial methods as had been taken
during the 18th and 19th centuries. As-
tonishingly, this feat was then repeated
between 1962 and 1972.
The International Whaling Com-
mission was a body initially created in
1946 to manage hunting for the sake
of the industry, not that of the whales.
By the time the IWC voted in 1982 to
implement a moratorium on whaling
beginning in 1985, at least 2,870,291
whales (99.1% of the overall 20th
century total of 2,894,094) had been
killed by industrial whaling methods.
As a result, many populations had
been reduced to small fractions of
their pristine abundance.
Southern Ocean blue whales, for
example, are estimated to be at less
than 1% of their prewhaling numbers
(Branch et al., 2007). In addition, some
populations of whales appear to have
been completely extirpated (Clapham
et al., 2008) or, in the case of eastern
North Pacifi c right whales, nearly so
(Ivashchenko et al., 2013). To para-
phrase a famous quotation by John
Gulland regarding fi sheries: whaling
management in the 20th century was
an interminable debate about the status
of stocks until all doubt was removed.
And so were most of the whales.
Acknowledgments
We thank several people: New Bed-
ford Whaling Museum President and
CEO, James Russell, for planting the
seed for this project, and for allowing it
to carry on as needed once we realized
that it was going to grow far beyond
his original request; Soviet biologists,
such as Alexei Yablokov, Dmitry Tor-
mosov, the late Nikolai Doroshenko,
the late Vyacheslav Zemsky, Yuri
Mikhalev and the late Alfred Berzin,
who brought the accurate Soviet whal-
ing data to light; to all those who have
endeavored to create an accurate IWC
database; Randall R. Reeves and two
anonymous reviewers for their helpful
comments and input; and PACM Peter
J. Capelotti, USCGR, who took a de-
tailed, disturbing, yet nearly forgotten
report written by Lt. (j.g.) Quentin R.
Walsh (1938) while he was on board
the Ulysses in 1937–38, edited it and
placed it into public view.
Literature Cited
Acebes, J. M. V. 2009. Historical whaling in
the Philippines: origins of ‘indigenous sub-
sistence whaling’, mapping whaling grounds
and comparison with current known distribu-
tion: HMAP Asia Working Proj. 161, 36 p.
Allison, C. 25 October 2012. IWC Summary
Catch Database Version 5.3.
Barut, N. C. 1994. Policy and management of
dolphins and whales in the Philippines. In,
Philippine Marine Mammals, Proceedings
of a Symposium-Workshop on Marine Mam-
mal Conservation, p. 35–37. [Corazon Cati-
bog-Sinha, Chair of Inter-agency Task Force
on Marine Mammals]. Mar. Sci. Inst., Univ.
Philipp., Diliman, Quezon City, Bookmark
Inc., Manila.
Branch, T. A., and 37 coauthors. 2007. Past and
present distribution, densities and movements
of blue whales Balaenoptera musculus in the
Southern Hemisphere and northern Indian
Ocean. Mamm. Rev. 37:116–175.
Brownell Jr., R.L, P. J. Clapham, T. Miyashita,
and T. Kasuya. 2001. Conservation status
of North Pacifi c right whales. J. Cetac. Res.
Manag. (Special Issue) 2:269–286.
Clapham, P. 2014. Japan’s whaling following the
International Court of Justice ruling: brave
new world – or business as usual? Mar. Pol.
51:238–241.
__________ and Y. V. Ivashchenko. 2009.
A whale of a deception. Mar. Fish. Rev.
71:44–52.
Clapham, P. J., A. Aguilar, and L. T. Hatch. 2008.
Determining spatial and temporal scales for
the management of cetaceans: lessons from
whaling. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 24:183–202.
__________ and C. S. Baker. 2008. Whaling,
modern. In W. F. Perrin, B. Würsig and J. G.
M. Thewissen (Editors), Encyclopedia of ma-
rine mammals, p. 1239–1243. Acad. Press,
San Diego.
Cooke, J. G., W. K. de la Mare, and J. R. Bed-
dington. 1983. Some aspects of the reliability
of the length data for the western North Pa-
cifi c stock of sperm whales. Rep. Int. Whal.
Comm. 33:265–267.
Davies, G. H. 1986. Japanese whaling in the
Philippines. Greenpeace Environ. Trust, Cal-
vert’s Press, Lond., 24 p.
Dickinson, A. B., and C. W. Sanger. 2005. 20th
Century shore-station whaling in Newfound-
land and Labrador. 2005. McGill-Queens
University Press, 254 p.
Elliot, Sir G. 1997. Whaling 1937–1967: the in-
ternational control of whale stocks. Kendall
Whaling Mus., Sharon, MA, Monogr. Ser. 10,
18 p.
Ivashchenko, Y. V., P. J. Clapham, and R. L.
Brownell, Jr. 2011. Soviet illegal whaling: the
devil and the details. Mar. Fish. Rev. 73:1–19.
__________ and __________. 2012. Soviet
catches of right whales (Eubalaena japonica)
and bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) in
the North Pacifi c Ocean and the Okhotsk Sea.
Endang. Species Res. 18:201–217.
______ and ______. 2014. Too much is never
enough: the cautionary tale of Soviet illegal
whaling. Mar. Fish. Rev. 76:1–21.
______, ______, and R. L Brownell, Jr. 2013.
Soviet catches of whales in the North Pa-
cifi c: revised totals. J. Cetac. Res. Manage.
13:59–71.
IWC. 1975. Twenty-fi fth report of the Commis-
sion. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 25: 6.
_____ .1977. Twenty-seventh report of the Com-
mission. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 27:7–8
_____ .1995. Report of the scientifi c committee.
Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 45:53–221.
_____ .1995. Forty-fi fth report of the Interna-
tional Whaling Commission. Rep. Int. Whal.
Comm. 45:1.
_____. 2002. International Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling, 1946. Annu. Rep. Int.
Whal. Comm. 2002:127.
_____ .2004. Chair’s report of the fi fty-sixth an-
nual meeting. Annu. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm.
2004:38.
Kapel, F. O. 1979. Exploitation of large whales
in West Greenland in the twentieth century.
Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 29:197–214.
Kasuya, T. 1999. Examination of the reliabil-
ity of catch statistics in the Japanese coastal
sperm whale fi shery. J. Cetac. Res. Manag.
1:109–22.
________ and R. L. Brownell, Jr. 1999. Addi-
tional information on the reliability of Japa-
nese coastal whaling statistics. Int. Whal.
Comm. Pap. SC/51/O7 (avail. from IWC,
Camb., U.K.).
________ and _________. 2001. Illegal Japa-
nese coastal whaling and other manipula-
tion of catch records. Int. Whal. Comm. Pap.
SC/53/RMP24 (avail. from IWC, Camb.,
U.K.).
Kondo, I. and T. Kasuya. 2002. True catch sta-
tistics for a Japanese coastal whaling com-
pany in 1965–1978. Int. Whal. Comm. Pap.
SC/54/O13 (avail. from IWC, Camb., U.K.).
Lillie, D. G. 1915. British Antarctic (“Terra
Nova”) expedition, 1910. Cetacean. Brit-
ish Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Nat. Hist. Rep., Zool.,
I:85–124.
48 Marine Fisheries Review
Redekop, B. W. 2010. Leadership for environ-
mental sustainability. Routledge Study for
Business Ethics, N.Y. 11:175.
Reeves, R. R. 2002. The origins and character
of ‘aboriginal subsistence’ whaling: a global
review. Mamm. Rev. 32(2):71–106.
Risting, S. 1922. Av Hvalfangstens Historie J.
W. Cappelens Publ., 625 p.
Schneider, V., and D. Pearce. 2004. What saved
the whales: an economic analysis of 20th
century whaling. Biodiversity Conserv.
13:543–562.
Smith, T. D., R. R. Reeves, E. A. Josephson, J.
N. Lund, and H. Whitehead. 2008. Sperm
whale catches and encounter rates in the 19th
and 20th centuries: an apparent paradox. In
D. J. Starkey, P. Holm, and M. Barnard (Edi-
tors), Oceans past: management insights from
the history of marine animal populations,
p.149–173. Earthscan, Lond.
Tønnessen, J. N., and A. O. Johnsen. 1982.
The history of modern whaling. Univ. Calif.
Press, 796 p.
Walsh, QR. Lt. (j.g). 2010 [1938]. The whaling
expedition of the Ulysses 1937–1938 [P. J.
Capelotti, USCGR (Editor)]. Univ. Press Fl.,
400 p.
Yablokov, A. V. 1994. Validity of whaling data.
Nature 367:108.
