Outline of the History of Small-Cetacean Fisheries

Humans have influenced the lives of wild animals, either intentionally or unintentionally We have often noticed damage to wildlife after causing it and will continue to do so in the future The tasks of conservation biology include understanding how wildlife has attained the current status, predicting its future, and proposing countermeasures to minimize further damage or to allow recovery from the past damage Therefore, understanding the history of interactions between wildlife and humans is necessary for people who study wildlife, for scientists who interpret results of their research on wildlife, and for those who utilize existing scientific information for conservation

It is relatively easy for us to understand interactions between terrestrial or freshwater animals and our activities on land such as logging, reclamation, and irrigation More difficult is to measure the effects of our activities on the aquatic environment We have discharged numerous chemicals into the marine environment Of particular concern are heavy metals such as mercury and persistent poisonous organic compounds such as PCBs and dioxin, which accumulate in the bodies of some cetacean species to levels that threaten their health This is not only a problem of cetacean conservation but a health problem for humans who rely on marine products for nutrition Something must have been wrong in our past way of handling nature

The marine acoustic environment of cetaceans is deteriorating due to various human activities, including military sonar and mineral resources development Collision of cetaceans with vessels is also a conservation problem for particular cetacean populations that are on the way to recovery from past overexploitation or inhabit waters of heavy vessel traffic Whale watching may also cause trouble for targeted cetaceans if conducted inappropriately The Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is collecting information on such environmental problems of cetaceans (IWC 2008)

Hunting is the most direct interaction between cetaceans and humans and the most easily identifiable We measure it in terms of numbers of animals and not by weight as usually is the case in exploiting fish populations This is a useful point in evaluating the effect of a hunt on a cetacean population The statistics are available relatively easily from legally controlled fishing activities, but problems exist for other fishing activities Japanese dolphin and porpoise fisheries have been one of the latter cases Cetaceans may be killed by accident through various fishing activities not targeting cetaceans, for example, seine net, gill net, trap net, longline, trawl net, and

even by nets discarded in the ocean The incidental takes can cause serious damage to cetacean populations (Anon 1994), but it depends on social circumstances whether such incidental mortality is ignored by fishermen or recorded in statistics

It is also important to remember that most fisheries have their hidden side, and there are great difficulties in getting information on fishing activities pursued beyond regulations Poaching prevailed in Japanese coastal whaling after World War II, but the Fisheries Agency is not willing to accept the fact, and most of the retired whalers do not disclose their past activities, possibly in fear of reaction from their community Thus, reconstruction of true whale catch statistics has not yet been achieved (see Section 14) Under such circumstance, conservation biologists cannot carry out important analyses to estimate the status of whale populations before whaling, or to understand the response of whale populations to the exploitation

In Japan today, it is not easy to find publications on the history of fisheries for dolphins and porpoises, in contrast with the availability of numerous publications on whaling (list of recommended reading on Japanese whaling is appended to the Japanese version) The reasons are that people did not pay much attention to the small-cetacean fisheries because they were economically minor compared to whaling and that regulation of the fisheries started as recently as the late 1980s Compared with large cetaceans, small cetaceans tend to inhabit smaller geographical areas and are likely to form numerous local populations, even within one ocean basin This, together with the fact that their reproductive capacity is often similar to that known for large cetaceans, that is, low (see Section 12), means that small-cetacean populations may have a greater risk of depletion due to direct hunting or bycatch This is the reason why I believe that knowledge of the history of small-cetacean fisheries is important for their conservation

The Japanese often classify cetacean species into either iruka (mainly dolphins and porpoises) or kujira (mainly whales), but the boundary between them is ambiguous and disagrees with usage in other languages For example, iruka is almost identical with the English term “dolphins and porpoises,” but it usually includes Delphinapterus leucas and Monodon monoceros, in English called beluga whale and narwhal The usage for large delphinids such as killer and pilot whales varies among communities within Japan Oceanaria like to use kujira for even smaller species such as Risso’s dolphins

has nothing to do with the zoological classification, where we divide all the cetaceans into Odontoceti or toothed whales and Mysticeti or baleen whales All the baleen whale species, about 14 species in total, are large in body size and called kujira in Japan The toothed whales include about 70 species of various body sizes and are grouped into several families, but there is no family that matches the grouping of iruka, that is, “dolphins and porpoises” in the English language

Classification in zoology is expected to change from time to time and taxonomic opinion can vary among taxonomists Toothed whales are currently grouped into 9 families: Delphinidae, Phocoenidae, Monodontidae, Ziphiidae, Kogiidae, Physeteridae, Platanistidae, Pontoporiidae, and Iniidae Delphinidae is the largest group and includes numerous species of various body sizes, for example, striped dolphin, short-finned pilot whale, and killer whale Dall’s porpoise and the finless porpoise are members of Phocoenidae The finless porpoise in the Inland Sea is called ze-gondo Gondo is apparently used for all species with round foreheads, such as pilot whales In English, “porpoise” refers to species of Phocoenidae, distinguished from so-called dolphins of Delphinidae and several other families Seagoing people, for example, fishermen in the United States and historically whalers, often use “porpoise” to refer to any dolphin-or porpoisesized small cetacean

Taxonomists combine the three families Delphinidae, Phocoenidae, and Monodontidae into the superfamily Delphinoidea Three families of fresh water dolphins, that is, Platanistidae, Pontoporiidae, and Iniidae, were once combined into another super family, Platanistoidea, which included the two Amazon river dolphins (= botos), South Asian river dolphin (Ganges and Indus river dolphins), Yangtze river dolphin (= baiji, which became extinct around the turn of the century), and La Plata dolphin (= franciscana) They inhabit coastal waters of the western South Atlantic and large rivers of Asia and South America that were not covered by ice during the last ice age In this book, I will use “dolphins and porpoises [ie, Iruka in Japanese]” for all the species of Delphinoidea, distinguished from “river dolphins” representing the five species mentioned

As explained earlier, in Japan the concept of “whales” and “dolphins and porpoises” has little to do with their biology or taxonomy The distinction must be sought in the memory of our community Our ancestors might have identified one group of cetaceans as large graceful animals and the other as small agile animals, and this became a common understanding in numerous Japanese communities that lived with the ocean Such understandings change with time, and there has been no criterion of body size to determine the boundary between the two groups Nowadays, some who pay more attention to their movements consider the killer whale a whale, but others who put importance on the skeletal structure will deal with it as a dolphin The two species of Kogiidae cause more difficulty Their body structure is closer to that of the sperm whale, which grows to 18 m, than to that of many species of Delphinidae The pygmy sperm whale, the larger species

whale measures about 1 m less Although they are small in body size, they dive long and behave like a whale Because they are not members of Delphinoidea, they are not dealt with as “dolphins” in this book

There is a general rule among mammals that larger species grow slower, live longer, and have lower reproductive rates (Schmidt-Nielsen 1995, in Japanese translation) Until the 1960s when a technique was introduced to estimate the age of dolphins using growth layers in the teeth, there was an expectation that dolphins and porpoises might mature at a younger age and reproduce at a higher rate than cetaceans of large body size such as whales However, age determination of delphinids revealed that they matured later and lived longer than anticipated, and scientists were puzzled by the suggestion that their reproductive rate might not be as high as expected Nowadays, there is a common understanding among whale biologists that there is no single relationship in cetaceans between body size and life history parameters such as longevity or mortality rate Any such relationship that might exist in a single group such as Balaenopteridae does not necessarily apply to a larger taxonomic group, such as all baleen whales Several factors are at work in determining cetacean body size

Now let us compare some life history parameters of dolphins and porpoises with those of whales, using data for toothed whales from Kasuya (1991, in Japanese) and for baleen whales from Kato (1990, in Japanese), limiting the discussion to females Both Japanese finless porpoises and common porpoises, members of Phocoenidae, grow to around 2 m or less, are sexually mature at a young age of 3-6 years, reproduce every 1-2 years, and live to around 20 years Two delphinid species, the striped dolphin (23 m) and short-finned pilot whale (4-5 m), attain sexual maturity at a similar age of 8-9 years, but their average calving intervals differ considerably, that is, 2-3 years and 7-8 years, respectively Females (11-12 m) of the sperm whale grow to over twice the size of short-finned pilot whales (up to 4 or 5 m depending on the population), but both species live to about 60 years and calve at an average interval of about 7 years These calving intervals are an average for all the sexually mature females in the population, including post-reproductive females About 25% of adult females are post-reproductive in two populations of short-finned pilot whales off Japan, and the presence of such post-reproductive females is suggested also for sperm whales by a fecundity trend declining with increasing age (Best et al 1984) Humpback whales, baleen whales of about 17 m, live to a similar age as sperm whales, attain body size greater than sperm whales, and calve every 1-4 years (2-3 years on average), which is similar to striped and bottlenose dolphins Blue and fin whales, balaenopterid species of greater body size, seem to have life histories similar to that of the humpback whale These examples are sufficient to deny the plausibility of estimating life history from body size alone or assuming high reproductive rates for dolphins and porpoises because they are small

The typical annual life cycle of a baleen whale comprises seasonal feeding, followed by several months of starvation,

ble due to a great nutritional storage capacity, which is helped by large body size Thus, selection may have favored larger female size, which may have also resulted in the augmentation of male size because some genes controlling body size may be autosomal Another factor contributing to evolution of large size was feeding at a low trophic level, such as on zooplankton or small fish, which are available in great quantity and consistently over years (albeit with some seasonal variation) Large body size alone could have also benefited whales in a stable environment of abundant nutritional supply in their survival and reproduction

Another factor that contributed to evolution of great size in some toothed whales was sexual selection Male sperm whales visit female schools in the mating season and compete for opportunities to mate, and larger males are likely to father more offspring This could have worked to increase male body and subsequently affected female size too Such a male reproductive strategy works better if females live in groups Therefore, it is likely that females started to live in groups or with evolution toward the present-day matrilineal social structure, and males adapted their behavior to utilize the situation An environmental factor that supported great body size in sperm whales was probably squid as forage Squid are available over a broad geographical area and in large quantities With the possible exception of killer whales and false killer whales, toothed whales of large body size rely mainly on squid for their nutrition, for example, sperm whales, beaked whales, pilot whales, and Risso’s dolphins

Large body size is not always a good thing for toothed whales In some environments where production was limited or unstable, individuals of smaller body size may have done better (island forms) We find such examples in dolphin populations in rivers, where they have smaller body than their oceanic counterparts

It seems that life history and reproduction of cetaceans are not single functions of body size but relate more with numerous factors such as migration, food habit, social structure, and reproductive strategy (Kasuya 1991, in Japanese, 1995) Baleen whales live a less social life than some toothed whales, wean their calves at a young age (05-1 year), and reproduce at shorter intervals A short calving cycle is also seen in some small toothed whales in the Phocoenidae (Dall’s porpoise and common porpoise) and Delphinidae (Commerson’s dolphins in an aquarium) Toothed whales differ from baleen whales in their social structure, showing the development of various stages of group living, underlain by the use of sound for communication and development of cognition for social life Female calves of such group-living toothed whales have a stronger tendency than male calves to continue to live with their mother Examples are communities of pilot whales, killer whales, and sperm whales, which have a matrilineal social structure where females of several generations live together and have adapted a reproductive strategy toward extended maternal care and production of a small number of offspring This is an extreme case of extended maternal care Such social structure can evolve without affecting body

and longevity of females This explains why there is little correlation between body size and life history parameters in the toothed whales The behavior of adult males in matrilineal communities varies among species

The next topic is the rate of increase of population or how much we can take from the population without further reducing it, a question frequently asked when managing small cetaceans as fishery resources In a simplistic understanding, increase rate is the difference between birth and natural mortality rates, and multiplying it times population size will yield the number of individuals that can be harvested without further reduction of the population (we tentatively leave problems of social structure for later discussion) As the expected rate of increase is only several percent for cetaceans, mortality and birth rates must be estimated with accuracy to one or more decimal places if we attempt to calculate the increase rate as the difference between the two parameters Such a procedure is almost impossible with our current level of knowledge Estimation of population size also incorporates broad uncertainty, with 95% confidence intervals often exceeding 50% on both sides of the mean estimate Small-cetacean species may contain numerous local populations, but the identification of their seasonal geographical ranges is often difficult

The simplest logic of fishery resource management assumes equal birth and natural mortality rates for an unexploited population, that is, perhaps an unrealistically stable population If population size is reduced by hunting, then population density decreases and per capita food availability increases Responding to this, the population increases birth rate and decreases natural mortality rate, attaining a positive population increase rate The value of the increase rate (R) increases with decreasing population level and reaches a maximum value when the population level is close to zero The maximum increase rate is called the innate capacity of increase or maximum reproductive rate (Rmax) Population level (P) is the ratio of current population size relative to initial (or preexploitation) population size The product of population level and increase rate, PR, is the sustainable yield (SY) If this theory is correct, SY will reach a maximum value (maximum sustainable yield, MSY) at a certain population level (called MSY level, or MSYL) The increase rate at which MSY is produced is called the MSY rate If R can be expressed by a linear function of P, then the recovery curve of a depleted population is sigmoid and MSYL is 05 However, the R-P curve for higher animals such as mammals is thought to be convex, and the MSYL is believed to be somewhere between 05 and 10 The Scientific Committee of IWC assumes MSYL = 06 for baleen whales

The hypothesis assumes that the population level remains stable during a particular length of time that is required for the cetacean population to improve its increase rate The increase rate is a function of various life history parameters such as mortality rate, pregnancy rate, and age at sexual maturity Although we do not know exactly how long the population takes to adjust these parameters for the new population density, it will take several years to fully adjust the age at sexual maturity It is also

rigorously that it does not allow time for the cetacean population to respond with a density-dependent change, which results in a rapid decline of the exploited population

In order to apply this theory, or hypothesis, for any real cetacean population, we must know the values in the R-P equation, the value of Rmax, initial population size, and current population level Such information is not available for most cetacean populations Furthermore, a whale population could have been influenced by human activities other than whaling, for example, exploitation of fish that is also consumed by cetaceans or destruction of cetacean habitat It is also a possibility that more than one species of cetaceans compete for resources The single species model is totally unable to handle multi-species or multi-fishery situations

Therefore, the Scientific Committee of the IWC developed the so-called Revised Management Procedure (RMP), which is a system to determine a safe catch level based on past catches, population estimates to be obtained at severalyear intervals, and their trend Because this method puts more weight on safe management of whale populations than on exploitation (a “precautionary approach”), the resultant catch limits are expected to be so small that they will not satisfy the industries willing to operate commercial whaling The RMP has been completed for baleen whales, but the results have not been applied for management because many countries are now unwilling to reopen commercial whaling

Some readers may wonder if the RMP can be used for toothed whales This task has not begun because of the understanding that social structure and mating systems of toothed whales are more complicated than those of baleen whales, and we do not have enough knowledge about them Although the Scientific Committee had sperm whales in mind when considering this problem, similar problems must also arise for other toothed whales Japanese readers who are interested in the management of large whales are recommended to refer to Kitahara (1996, in Japanese) and Sakuramoto et al (1991, in Japanese) The former describes the revised management procedure and principles of management of whale stocks, whereas the latter describes the biology of whales and management of whale stocks

There is no doubt that the maximum rate of increase, Rmax, varies by species or population of small cetaceans, about which we do not have reliable knowledge However, if we have some rough idea of the value, it will be possible to suggest safe levels of catch or to judge if a current level of human caused mortality is acceptable For example, if we are sure that a current take rate is less than half of the Rmax, we can conclude that there will be no risk of further reduction of the stock size When using such a method it is necessary to understand the accuracy or bias of fishery-related data and to incorporate them into the process This idea is used in the management method called Potential Biological Removal (PBR) of Wade (1998) It must be cautioned that the method assumes 4% for Rmax for all small-cetacean species and an arbitrary safety factor parameter Results of simulations suggest that it allows safe management of small-cetacean stocks,

amount of removal allowed by this method is usually about 1% of the current abundance, although the figure may change with input data If this method has any problems, one of them would be the flexibility allowed for the value of the safety factor It would be possible to adopt a particular figure in order to create a desired catch limit A critical review of the PBR process is required before accepting a particular management proposal An example of PBR is given in Section 1263

Most toothed whales live in groups, but the formation of groups and degree of stability of the groups vary among species Matrilineal communities of killer whales, sperm whales, and perhaps short-finned pilot whales, which are known to have old post-reproductive females in the school, will be placed at the extreme end of such evolutionary tendencies The function of such old females may not be limited to uniting group members as core individuals or allo-parenting offspring of her kin, but also to function as a carrier of culture, that is, to accumulate information on the school’s environment and experience and to transmit the information to younger generations by example or training The existence of culture is accepted for communities of apes and monkeys, and some toothed whales will be additional examples The marine environment is less predictable than the terrestrial environment of primates For example, primates will have less difficulty in daily search for food resources if they remember the location and season of particular fruit trees, but locating fish schools in the ocean will require more complicated information on the environment and the ability to analyze it Attacking a fish school once located will require more cooperation of group members than picking fruit from a tree Thus, experience and knowledge accumulated by elderly members of a toothedwhale school may have an important function for daily life in the less predictable marine environment

If a toothed whale species contains communities of broad cultural diversity, this increases the adaptive ability of the species Current conservation biology recognizes the need to conserve genetic variability, but the importance of conserving cultural variability should be considered in future management The effect of hunting on dolphins and porpoises populations must differ with the method of hunting (ie, drive fishery vs handharpoon fishery) and the social structure of the hunted species

Some fragmentary records of early fisheries for small cetaceans were collected by the Japanese government in the late 1800s after completion of the Meiji revolution in 1864-1871 A systematic effort to collect such statistics started in 1957 (Ohsumi 1972) and continues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, which records the annual number of animals killed in each prefecture but does not record species Another series of statistics was started in 1972 by the Whaling Section of the Fisheries Agency and continues to the present (see Section 14) In addition to these government statistics, some scientists have published statistics based on information

in the following chapters

Around 1887, the Japanese government requested that the prefecture governments report the status of fisheries within their territories, including fisheries for whales, dolphins, and porpoises The intention was probably to obtain baseline information for the establishment of the Fisheries Acts, which were to control and promote fishing industries in Japan One of the results was the publication of Suisan Chosa Yosatu Hokoku [Report of the Preliminary Survey of Fisheries] of the Noshomu-sho [Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce] (1890-1893, in Japanese) This reviewed Japanese fishery operations of 1888-1891 in a standardized way Hokkaido was not included for some reason, so the whaling operation then existing at Haboro (44°22′N, 141°42′E) on the Sea of Japan coast of Hokkaido was not described Cetacean-related portions of the publication were reproduced by Mr K Takeuchi in Vol 30 of his magazine Hogeisen (Takeuchi 1999, in Japanese) Table 11 shows the location of Japanese whaling and dolphin and porpoise fisheries extracted from that summary

According to an old manuscript Geiki [Records of Whales], Japanese commercial whaling started in Mikawa Bay (34°45′N, 137°00′E) on the Pacific coast of central Honshu, around 1570-1572 (Hashiura 1969, in Japanese), which is

(34°42′N, 136°58′E) on the coast of Mikawa Bay (Minami Chita Choshi Hensan Iinkai [Editorial Committee of History of Minami Chita Town] 1991 a,b, in Japanese) This was handharpoon whaling, where many harpooners harpooned a whale, attached lines, and killed it This method was transmitted east to Katsuyama (35°07′N, 139°50′E) in Chiba Prefecture (34°55′N-36°06′N, 139°45′E-140°53′E) and used in the Baird’s beaked whale fishery until the middle of the nineteenth century (Chapter 13) The method was also transmitted west to Ise area (34°15′N-34°30′N, 136°30′E-136°50′E), Kii coast (33°25′N-33°45′N, 135°45′E-136°00′E), Kochi Prefecture, coasts of northern Kyushu and nearby islands in the Tsushima Strait, and Yamaguchi (33°45′N-34°45′N, 130°45′E-132°15′E), where it was soon replaced by net whaling

The so-called net whaling was a modification of handharpoon whaling in which nets were placed in front of whales to entangle them before the process of harpooning and slaughter This method made it possible to take balaenopterids There are several views on the origin of net whaling Although the basis of the statement is unclear, Hashiura (1969) stated that net whaling was first attempted in Taiji (33°36′N, 135°57′E) in Wakayama Prefecture (33°25′N-33°45′N, 135°00′E-136°00′E) in 1675 using nets made of rice straw rope and succeeded in

TABLE 1.1 Location of Whaling and Small-Cetacean Fisheries Operated in 1888-1891 as Published in Noshomu-sho [Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce] (1890-1893, in Japanese)

(1885, in Japanese) stated that an owner of the Taiji whaling team, Kakuemon Yoriharu Taiji, introduced the method in 1675 from Tango, Sea of Japan coast of Kyoto Prefecture, and then improved the nets to ramie nets in 1677 Another manuscript of the nineteenth-century Taiji-ura Hogei Enkaku-shi [History of Whaling in Taiji] reprinted in Hashiura (1969, in Japanese) stated that net whaling started in Taiji in 1667 as a technological improvement in hunting humpback whales, after the decline of North Pacific right whales and gray whales migrating to the coastal whaling ground

The method of net whaling quickly spread to other whaling locations: soon to Koza (a village next to Taiji), westward to Iki Island in 1677 and Goto Island in 1678 (both in the Tsushima Strait) (Kijima 1944; Hashiura 1969; Nakazono 2009, all in Japanese), to Setozaki in 1677 and Kayoi-ura in the 1670s (both locations in Yamaguchi Prefecture) (Yoshitome 2009, in Japanese), and to Kochi in 1683 Although these records identify Taiji as the pioneer of net whaling, there are some conflicting records; that is, legends in Omura (northern Kyushu), Kayoi-ura, and Mijima (both in Yamaguchi Prefecture) state that net whaling was a local invention (Hashiura 1969; Yoshitome 2009, both in Japanese) As net whaling is an adaption of existing and rather simple fishing methods using nets, it could not have been very difficult to devise adaption to whaling

Japanese net whaling thus was established around 1677 It met extreme difficulty surviving in the middle of the nineteenth century due to decline of whales (Maeda and Teraoka 1958, in Japanese), and attempts were made beginning around 1887 to restructure the industry by increasing effort for hunting still abundant balaenopterids and introducing some new methods The attempts of Dai-ami (see Table 11), also called Kujira-shiki-ami, was a modification of net whaling that used a fixed trap having four sides covered with net of rice straw The bottom was 100 fathoms long and closed with net, and one side was open as an entrance 62 fathoms wide The net was placed in an area of expected passage of whales Watch boats at the nets waited for whales entering the net, or attempted to drive whales coming close After getting whales in the net, it was partially taken in and the whales were harpooned for slaughter This method was attempted in northern Kyushu and off the Noto Peninsula (36°50′N-37°30′N, 136°40′E-137°20′E) on the Sea of Japan coast of central Honshu (Tachihira 1992; Kitamura 1995 (manuscript dated 1838); Torisu 1999, all in Japanese) Other attempts included use of imported bomb-lance-guns or use of the technique of American-type sail-ship whaling (Torisu 1999, in Japanese) These old-fashioned imported techniques failed to achieve the objectives, and the restoration of the Japanese whaling industry had to await the introduction of Norwegian-type whaling, or modern whaling

Early drive fisheries for dolphins and porpoises, called tatekiri-ami, were operated often as a cooperative activity of a local community when suitable cetacean schools were found close to the coast They drove the school into harbor or into net enclosures placed near the coast, closed the entrance, and

operation at Yuri-gun, Akita Prefecture (39°07′N-40°20′N, 139°40′E-140°05′E) on the Sea of Japan coast of northern Honshu placed spotters in lookouts established at vantage points during March and April, but another nearby group at Nezuga-seki, Yamagata Prefecture (38°33′N-39°07′N, 139°35′E-139°53′E) south of Akita Prefecture, was more opportunistic and operated only when dolphin schools were found near the shore These two operations did not appear in the record of Dainihon Suisankai [Fishery Association of Great Japan] (1980, in Japanese) cited below and were not seen in statistics of catch composition or oil production (Tables 17 and 18) They were probably small-scale opportunistic operations

Along the coast of Wakayama Prefecture on the Pacific coast of central Honshu, small cetaceans were hunted by both drive and hand-harpoon fisheries (Table 11) The latter was stated to have been a side business of net whalers (Noshomusho [Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce] 1890-1893, in Japanese) and seemed to be different from the drive fisheries operated there by local communities

Table 11 shows that a great change occurred in Japanese whaling in the late 1890s to early 1900s, when net whaling and hand-harpoon whaling ceased operation and a new attempt at modern whaling started Both Miwasaki and Kozaura in Wakayama Prefecture are recorded as operating net whaling by the Noshomu-sho [Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce] (1890-1893, in Japanese), but several years later they were classified as locations of past operations by Noshomu-sho Suisan-kyoku [Bureau of Fisheries of Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce] (1911, in Japanese) Table 11 also lists a new whaling enterprise off Kinkazan on the Pacific coast of northern Honshu, which was an unsuccessful attempt at American-type whaling using sailing ships and whale boats

Enyo-hogei [Offshore Whaling] was the first Japanese company that took whales using the Norwegian-type method, but it failed to survive in the enterprise (it took three fin whales near Thushima Island in April 1898) It was Nihon Enyo Gyogyo [Japan Offshore Fisheries] established in 1899 in Senzaki in Yamaguchi Prefecture that first succeeded in the enterprise of modern whaling (Akashi 1910, in Japanese) Table 12 cites the catch composition of net whaling during 1893-1897 from a book prepared for an exposition in Paris (Noshomu-sho Suisan-kyoku [Bureau of Fisheries of Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce] 1900, in French)

The common names of baleen whales listed in Table 12 are not always the same as those currently used in Japan Hattori (1887-1888, in Japanese) stated that both noso in Wakayama Prefecture and shiro-nagasu in northern Kyushu represented his nagasu-kujira (fin whale in English) and that nagasu of Wakayama Prefecture and nitari of northern Kyushu represented his shiro-nagasu-kujira (blue whale in English) I observed during North Pacific pelagic whaling in the 1960s that gunners from Wakayama Prefecture used noso for the fin whale, which supports the statement of Hattori Kasuya and Yamada (1995, in Japanese) stated that local names for

fin and blue whales could have been different among locations even within northern Kyushu and nearby Yamaguchi Prefecture and that other common names were in use in Kochi and Wakayama Prefectures on the Pacific coast They stated that the fin whale (nagasu or nagasu-kujira of present day) was called noso at Setozaki and Kayoi-ura, Yamaguchi Prefecture, Shikoku, and Wakayama; nagaso at Kiwado and Kawajiri, Yamaguchi Prefecture; shiro-nagasu at Ikituki, northern Kyushu The same authors stated that the blue whale (shiro-nagasu or shiro-nagasu-kujira of present day) was called nagasu or nagaso at Setozaki, Yamaguchi Prefecture,

Kawajiri, Yamaguchi Prefecture; nitari-nagasu at Ikitsuki, northern Kyushu; hai-iro-nagasu at Kiwado, Yamaguchi Prefecture English translations of these Japanese words are “long pleats” for nagasu and nagaso, “white” for shiro, “gray” for hai-iro, and “enigmatic” or “similar to” for nitari

The latest known use of old names for blue and fin whales was by Yamada (1902, in Japanese), and the earliest use of the current system was by Akashi (1910, in Japanese) Japanese common names for blue and fin whales seem to have been standardized following usage at Kiwado and Kawajiri, Yamaguchi Prefecture, at the beginning of the last century This relates with the establishment of the Nihon Enyo Gyogyo in 1899 in Senzaki, which became the leading company of Japanese whaling (Kasuya and Yamada 1995, in Japanese) Catch statistics of Japanese modern whaling have been established since 1911 (Kasahara 1950, in Japanese), with the use of current common names

Accepting this interpretation of old common names of some balaenopterids, Table 13 presents geographical and historical changes in the catch composition of baleen whales Net whaling on the Sea of Japan coast is represented by Kawajiri, Yamaguchi Prefecture, for the years 1698-1840 and 18451901 and that on the Pacific coast by Tsuro, Kochi Prefecture, for the years 1849-1865, 1874-1890, and 1891-1896 The catches by modern whaling in the Sea of Japan (1911-1920) and off the Pacific coast (1911-1919) are also listed for comparison Table 13 shows that catches of North Pacific right whales and humpback whales declined with time on both sides of Japan, which was accompanied by the increase of fin whale catches in the Sea of Japan and of catches of blue whales in the Pacific This trend of catch composition shift continued into modern whaling In the early twentieth century, catches of fin

Whales Taken by Traditional Whaling in 1893-1897

TABLE 1.3 Japanese Vernacular Names of Whales and Historical Change in the Target Species of Japanese Whaling

of Japan, and the composition was reversed along the Pacific coast If we consider Table 12 with the same interpretation of the old common names, we can say that nagasu recorded for Nagasaki (32°10′N-34°40′N, 128°40′E-130°20′E) and Saga (33°15′N-33°40′N, 129°45′E-130°05′E) (both in northern Kyushu), and Yamaguchi Prefectures represents fin whales and the same name recorded for Kochi (Pacific coast) represents blue whales

The interpretation of old common names of blue and fin whales was based on drawings of external morphology and descriptive text and did not consider the descriptions of baleen plates exhibited at the second fishery exposition in Japan recorded by Oku and Kajikawa (1899, in Japanese), which are extracted in the following as additional evidence of this interpretation

1 Baleen plates labeled nagasu-kujira and the description match the blue whale These baleen plates were from Tsuro Hogei Co and Ukitsu Hogei Co (both of Kochi Prefecture) and from a person in Saga Prefecture in northern Kyushu The description stated “large, thick and pure black” North Pacific right whales were well known as semi-kujira and cannot be confused with this species

2 Baleen plates labeled nagasu-kujira and the description match the fin whale These baleen plates were from a person in Saga Prefecture and were described as “white with blue stripes” The second specimen from another person in the same prefecture was described as “similar to the above but smaller” also are identifiable as from a fin whale The third specimen was from Kawajiri whaling group, Yamaguchi Prefecture, described as “medium size, thin thickness, pure black, and accompanied by smaller white plates” may have been from a fin whale

3 Baleen plates labeled noso-kujira and the description match the fin whale These baleen plates were from Tsuro Hogei Co and Ukitsu Hogei Co (both in Kochi Prefecture, Pacific coast) and were described as “medium size with beautiful black and white stripes”

These three interpretations agree with those made by Kasuya and Yamada (1995, in Japanese) for the old Japanese common names Oku and Kajikawa (1899, in Japanese) list four additional ambiguous examples One baleen specimen presented by Ogawajima Whaling Co in Saga Prefecture, northern Kyushu, was labeled as nagasu-kujira and described by the authors as “medium size, slightly thin and black” Another baleen specimen presented by a person in the same prefecture was also labeled in the same way and described as “similar to the already mentioned Ogawajima specimen” The third specimen from Goto Hogei Co off northern Kyushu was not labeled with species name and was described as “thin and pure black” The fourth specimen labeled nagasu-kujira presented by a person in Ishikawa Prefecture (36°18′N-37°33′N, 136°15′E-137°22′E, on the Sea of Japan coast of central Honshu where trap-net

white as if from a gray whale” These four specimens have the possibility of being from balaenopterids, including the minke whale It should be noted that none of the Japanese references before the twentieth century mentioned the minke whale The species could have been confused with some other baleen whales (Kasuya and Yamada 1995, in Japanese)

Although the common name iwashi-kujira is for the sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis Lesson, 1828) in present Japan, the baleen whale species represented by that common name has also changed with time The word first appeared in a list of whales taken by net whaling in western Japan before the nineteenth century The early whale books Nitto-gyofu [Pictorial Catalogue of Japanese Fish] by Kanda (1731, in Japanese), Geishi-ko [On Natural History of Whales] by Otsuki (1808, in Japanese), and Isanatori Ekotoba [Pictorial Description of Whaling] by Oyamada (1832, in Japanese) state that iwashi-kujira and Katsuo-kujira are the same species, but Geishi [Natural History of Whales] by Yamase (1760, in Japanese) states that they are different species It should be noted that the sei whale (B. borealis) does not occur off the coast of western Japan, where net whaling operated (Kasuya and Yamada 1995, in Japanese) Thus, in those days iwashikujira must have represented some of the Bryde’s whale group complex, in which I include the recently described Omura’s whale (Balaenoptera omurai Wada, Oishi, and Yamada, 2003) and an unsettled group of species (cf Balanenoptera edeni and B. brydei). The latter are thought to have three parallel longitudinal ridges on the dorsal surface of the rostrum This use of iwashi-kujira also applies to Table 12 Later around 1905 modern whaling expanded operations to Sanriku (Pacific coast of northern Honshu in 37°54′N-41°35′N) and the Pacific coast of Hokkaido (41°30′N-43°20′N) and started to take the sei whale (B. borealis) Because the sei whale and Bryde’s whale were not distinguished in those days, the common name iwashi-kujira was used also for the sei whale (B. borealis) off northern Japan After about 50 years, in the 1950s, scientists recognized the separate existence of sei and “Bryde’s whales” where B. brydei was considered as a junior synonym of B. edeni (see Table 15) and gave iwasahi-kujira to the sei whale and a half-forgotten old common name nitarikujira to the Bryde’s whale Although it was possible to create a new common name for the sei whale, that did not happen Thus, iwashi-kujira was used for either Bryde’s whale of the coastal form or Omura’s whale until the nineteenth century, for both sei and Bryde’s whale (mostly of offshore form) in the early twentieth century, and for the sei whale (B. borealis) since the middle of the twentieth century

In 1946, soon after World War II, Japan started pelagic whaling in Bonin Islands waters and took “sei whales,” which were soon noticed to be different from the sei whales (B.  borealis) that occur in the Antarctic and off the Pacific coast of northern Japan Therefore, they were recorded in Japanese statistics as “southern form sei whale” (1955-1960) and then as nitari-kujira as mentioned earlier (from 1961 to the present) The international whaling statistics distinguished between the two species beginning in 1968 and used B. edeni for Bryde’s

assumption that B. brydei Olsen (1913) hunted off the coast of South Africa was synonymous with B. edeni Andersen (1879) described from an individual stranded near Rangoon (1879 is the correct publication date of this scientific name)

The taxonomy of B. edeni and B. brydei is still unresolved It is known from both Japan and South Africa that the complex contains two forms; a small coastal form and a larger offshore form Yamada and Ishikawa (2009) concluded that the latter (ie, the larger offshore form known from the Bonin Islands area and currently called nitari-kujira) corresponds to B. brydei and the former (smaller coastal form) to B. edeni and gave the old half-forgotten Japanese common name katsuo-kujira to B. edeni without presenting evidence of validity of the Japanese name They also proposed the English name of Bryde’s whale for the former species and Eden’s whale for the latter However, we are still waiting for the scientific evidence to be published to determine whether the two forms really represent two species and if this use of scientific and common names is valid The technical problem in solving this question is the absence of a type specimen for B. brydei (the type specimen of B. edeni is in Calcutta)

Table 14 shows the geographical distribution of fisheries for dolphins and porpoises in Japan For reference purposes, the production of whaling of the old type in 1891 (no modern whaling had started) and the production of coastal modern whaling in 1924 (no traditional whaling operated) are also included The figures for 1957 are the number of “dolphins and porpoises” and that of “whales” taken by fisheries other than whaling Japanese coastal land-based whaling, Antarctic pelagic whaling, and North Pacific pelagic whaling are not included in Table 14 but in Table 15 The distinction between “whales” and “dolphins and porpoises” is unclear in Table 14 However, the facts that there were only 85 “whales” taken by fisheries other than whaling and that most of them were from Ibaraki (40 whales) and Chiba (18 whales) Prefectures on the Pacific coast of central Honshu suggest that they were mostly large delphinids and some baleen whales incidentally taken in coastal trap nets or seine-net fisheries in 1957 The products of whaling can have a large effect on the economy of dolphin and porpoise fisheries Therefore, I have listed in Table 15 the catches of whales by Japanese modern whaling (1910-2008) and in Table 16 the incidental catch of large whales by various fisheries other than whaling (1991-2008)

The distribution of dolphin and porpoise fisheries in the middle 1880s differed slightly from that in the later years, with drive fisheries recording large catches in Shizuoka (34°36′N-35°05′N, 137°30′E-139°10′E), Ishikawa on the Noto Peninsula and Nagasaki Prefectures The fisheries in Iwate (38°59′N-40°27′N) and Miyagi (37°54′N-38°59′N) Prefectures on the Pacific coast of northern Honshu were drive fisheries and not hand-harpoon fisheries as now (Table 11) The catches of dolphins and porpoises were small in this region in 1924 (Table 14), suggesting that the hand-harpoon fisheries were not started or were still at a small scale in 1924 The hand-harpoon fishery for dolphins and porpoises had to await an introduction of motor-driven fishing vessels

TABLE 1.4 Geographical and Historical Comparison of Dolphin and Porpoise Fisheries in Years 1891, 1924, and 1957 Compared with Production from Whaling (Only Available for 1891 and 1924)

The dolphin fishery in Wakayama Prefecture, where porpoises are extremely rare, declined at least temporarily sometime around 1891 and 1924 accompanying a decline in net whaling This agrees with the statement of the Noshomu-sho [Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce] (1888-1893, in Japanese) that the dolphin fishery there is a side operation of net whaling There was a collapse of net whaling in Taiji in Wakayama Prefecture around 1879 following a catastrophic shipwreck of whaling crews in December 1878 In those days, the dolphin drive fishery was operated opportunistically by the local community and depended on the chance of dolphin schools closely approaching the coast, which was irregular (Chapter 3)

A distinction between “whales” and “dolphins and porpoises” for the year 1891 in Table 14 is not stated, and it is unclear if the distinction followed the same standard among prefectures, but the figures show that the dolphin and porpoise fisheries produced only about 10% of the total products (in weight) by old-fashioned whaling of the time and about 6% of the amount of sales The same table shows that the traditional types of whaling were operated in Nagasaki Prefecture (42%) in northern Kyushu, Yamaguchi Prefecture (19%) at the western tip of Honshu, Saga Prefecture (18%) in northern Kyushu, Kochi (32°40′N-33°30′N, 132°40′E-134°20′E) Prefecture (9%) on the Pacific coast of Shikoku, and Osaka Prefecture (2%) These five prefectures produced about 91% of the total

TABLE 1.4 (Continued) Geographical and Historical Comparison of Dolphin and Porpoise Fisheries in Years 1891, 1924, and 1957 Compared with Production from Whaling (Only Available for 1891 and 1924)

Geographical and Historical Comparison of Dolphin and Porpoise Fisheries in Years 1891, 1924, and 1957 Compared with Production from Whaling (Only Available for 1891 and 1924)

four prefectures, did not operate whaling, and it is unclear why Osaka recorded the production of whale products The average price of whaling products was 62 yen/ton for all of Japan including Osaka, but it was only 34 yen/ton for Osaka It is likely that some particular part of the whaling products were sent to Osaka for further processing Cotton industries in Osaka Prefecture imported vertebral tendons of dolphins for bow strings (Dainihon Suiankai [Fishery Association of Great Japan] 1890, in Japanese) Cotton fiber removed from seeds was beaten before further processing A mallet and a bow with string of whale tendon were used for the purpose Thus, it is likely that some factories in Osaka imported vertebral tendons of whales or tendons surrounding the spermaceti organ of sperm whales and processed them for the cotton industry

Catch of whales in the same year (1891) by Japanese traditional whaling in northern Kyushu was 52 whales in Nagasaki Prefecture and 3 in Fukuoka Prefecture (33°25′N-33°55′N, 130°00′E-131°00′E), with species composition of 35 fin whales, 9 humpback whales, 4 gray whales, and 2 sei whale (presumable Bryde’s-whale complex) (Torisu 1999, in Japanese) Torisu (1999, in Japanese) reported additional catch statistics by species in Nagasaki Prefecture for 13 years from 1884 to 1896 The total annual catch ranged between 38 and 79 with a mean of 56 whales The species composition of the 731 whales taken in the 13 seasons was 422 fin whales (58%), 162 humpback whales (22%), 44 sei whales (6%, presumable Bryde’s-whale complex), 29 gray whales (4%), 5 blue whales (1%), 6 right whales (1%), and 63 other whales (9%)

The year 1891 was just prior to the establishment of modern whaling, and there were efforts to continue old-fashioned net whaling with some attempts using technology introduced from American whaling (see preceding text in this section) Under these circumstances, there might have been a temporary increase in the catch of small cetaceans to compensate for declining production from whaling in the 1890s The total landing of dolphins and porpoises in 1924 declined to only 16 tons, which was only 4% of the figure in 1891 (Table 14), suggesting suppression by increased whaling products from coastal whaling Japanese Antarctic whaling started only in the 1934/1935 season and North Pacific pelagic whaling in 1940 Importation of whale meat from the Antarctic was first permitted in the 1937/1938 season (Kasuya 2000, in Japanese) During the period from 1911 to 1924, Japanese modern whaling annually caught about 1,000 baleen whales and 300 sperm whales (Table 15) and recorded 6,052 tons or about 1,020,000 yen worth of products other than whale oil (Norin-daijin Kanbo Tokei-ka [Statistics Division of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry] 1926, in Japanese) These baleen whales were mainly fin and sei whales (including Bryde’s whales), with some blue, North Pacific right, and gray whales

Around 1957, we saw an increased take of dolphins and porpoises If body weight of 50-100 kg is assumed, the total weight could have been 75-150 tons, which was several times greater than the annual catch in the nineteenth century Explosion of the dolphin and porpoise fisheries during World

assisted by the improved transportation system in Japan

Another temporary increase in small-cetacean catches was recorded in the late 1980s, when coastal whaling companies promoted dolphin and porpoise hunting and purchased the catch to be used for “processed whale meat” (Chapter 2) It seems that dolphin and porpoise fisheries in Japan survived under continuous influence of the whaling industries Most Japanese consumers preferred whale meat over dolphin and porpoise meat, and the whaling industry also could easily overwhelm the dolphin and porpoise fisheries in quantity of products Therefore, with the possible exception of local areas where people had a preference for small cetaceans, hunting of dolphins and porpoises was unable to compete with whaling Tables 15 and 16 list catch statistics for whales taken by whaling and other fisheries in Japan to assist understanding of the environment surrounding fisheries for dolphins and porpoises

Table 14 lists prefectures where dolphin and porpoise fisheries were operated in 1891 The major operations in monetary yield were in Shizuoka (28%), Nagasaki (23%), Ishikawa (19%), and Wakayama (8%) (statistics are incomplete for weight) These four prefectures are known to have had drive fisheries (Chapter 3), and their production comprised about 80% of the total in value sold in Japan Although it was not probably technically impossible, it would not have been economic to capture dolphins and porpoises from rowed boats or sailing ships

According to Yanaginara (1887, in Japanese), villagers on the coast of Noto Peninsula on the Sea of Japan coast of central Honshu drove dolphins found near shore into their harbor and used them for agricultural fertilizer (this statement will in reality apply only to the waste portion; see observation of Takenaka (1890) cited in following part of this paragraph) He stated that an exception to this was for false killer whales, of which meat, blubber, tail flukes, and fins were salted and sold for human consumption He also wrote that tendons along the vertebrae were sold for use as strings in bows used as in cotton beaters in Japan and for human consumption in China The situation was different for the operation on the Pacific coast Fishermen in Kanagawa Prefecture (35°08′N-35°32′N, 139°10′E-139°45′E) sold fresh meat to Tokyo and dried meat either locally or to Nagano (centered in 36°15′N, 138°00′E) and Yamanashi (centered in 35°35′N, 138°30′E) Prefectures, located inland Villagers at Tago on the west coast of the Izu Peninsula (34°36′N-35°05′N, 138°45′E-139°10′E) on the Pacific coast of central Honshu sold fresh meat locally and also extracted oil from the catch (Yanaginara 1887, in Japanese) According to the same author, the common dolphin was sold at 3 yen/animal and false killer whale at 12 yen/animal Takenaka (1890, in Japanese) recorded similar average prices of dolphins at Noto in 1887: 19 yen for common dolphin and 8 yen for false killer whale The usage of dolphins recorded by him was mostly for human consumption (fresh or salted), with additional use for extraction of oil, fertilizer (viscera and bones), and tendons for bows used in cotton beaters He did not mention the use of meat for fertilizer and commented only on the future

TA B

LE 1

.5 W

ha le

s Ta

ke n

by J

ap an

es e

W ha

lin g

TA B

LE 1

.5 (C

on ti

nu ed

) W

ha le

s Ta

ke n

by J

ap an

es e

W ha

lin g

possibility of exporting tendons to China, which is different from what Yanaginara said (1887, in Japanese) It is known that the thick tendon along the whale vertebrae was exported to China and consumed as dried abalone (Ishida 1917, in Japanese) However, whether dolphin tendons were sold for the same purpose will need further confirmation

Several years after this investigation, Dai-nihon Suisankai [Fishery Association of Great Japan] (1890, in Japanese), which was an association for the promotion of Japanese fisheries, published results of inquiries sent to major dolphin drive fisheries including opportunistic operations as well as more active operations using dolphin lookouts This survey seems to be the same as that mentioned by the No-shomusho [Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce] (1890-1893, in Japanese, see Table 14) The resultant catch statistics included the period from 1870 to 1889, but most were from the periods 1886-1887 or 1887-1889, and it was unclear whether there was no catch in the remaining years or the statistics were missing It was possible that opportunistic dolphin drivers did not leave records for years when they

did not operate The recorded operation of dolphin drives are as follows:

Ishikawa Prefecture, Noto Peninsula on Sea of Japan coast Ushitsu (37°18′N, 137°09′E): 1887-1889 Ogi (37°18′N, 137°14′E): 1889 Mawaki (37°18′N, 137°12′E): 1887-1889

Izu coast in Shizuoka Prefecture, Pacific coast of central Honshu Arari (34°50′N, 138°46′E): 1882-1889 Tago (34°48′N, 138°46′E): 1886-1889 Ito (34°58′N, 139°06′E): 1886-1887 Inatori (34°46′N, 139°02′E): 1885-1888 Kawana (34°57′N, 139°07′E): 1888-1889 Nishiura (25°53′ E): 1887-1888 Uchiura (35°14′N, 138°54′E): 1887-1888 Heda (34°58′N, 138°47′E): 1888

Sanriku region, Pacific coast of northern Honshu Akasaki (39°05′N, 141°43′E): 1870-1885 Kamaishi (39°16′N, 141°53′E): 1888-1889 Funakoshi (39°26′N, 141°57′E): 1887-1888

Incidental Mortality of Large Cetaceans in Japanese Coastal Fisheries Other than Whaling

These reports list catch statistics by year and by species I have extracted those covering the common period to obtain the prefectural total (Table 17), using species name as they appeared in the reports The problem of species name will be handled in a later part of this chapter and in Chapter 3

The report also list markets for the products Hunters in Ishikawa Prefecture sold salted meat to Niigata (37°55′N) and Sakata (38°50′E) Cities on the Sea of Japan coast and dried tendons to Tamatsukuri in Osaka City Oil was tried out from the head and blubber but the market was not mentioned The viscera, dry or wet, were sold nearby

ton industry in Osaka Nothing is stated about selling tendons to China

The same report recorded the use of dolphins from the Izu coast Fresh meat was sold within the prefecture, that is, Shizuoka, or in the nearby prefectures of Kanagawa and, occasionally, Tokyo Dried meat was prepared only when rough weather did not permit transport to the markets Tendons were not produced in Izu, and oil was not extracted (possibly blubber was consumed with the meat, the present method of cooking in the region)

Markets of the Sanriku fishery were several The Akasaki fishermen sold fresh meat to Mogami (inland part of Yamagata Prefecture centered in 38°25′N, 140°20′E), Aizu (inland area centered in 37°35′N, 139°50′E), and Akita (Sea of Japan coast in around 39°40′N, 140°05′E) regions Kamaishi fishermen sold fresh meat to the nearby coastal city of Shiogama (39°19′N, 141°01′E) and salted meat to the Akita and Yamagata regions Kamaishi fishermen extracted oil from nezumi-irukas [species undetermined; see Chapter 3], and sold bones and viscera to local farmers as fertilizer or discarded them at sea Whether they sold meat as fresh or after salting probably depended on the season of the catch and distance from the markets If they caught dolphins in the summer season, they would have been obliged to salt or dry the meat for distant markets I did not find reliable records of dolphin and porpoise fisheries operated solely for the production of fertilizer

I earlier stated that some dolphin fisheries extracted oil from their catch Statistics on dolphin oil are available in Noshomusho Nomu-kyoku [Bureau of Agriculture of Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce] (1892, in Japanese) (Table 18)

Dolphin Drive Fisheries around 1887-1889 as Documented in the Literature

TABLE 1.8 Production of Oil from Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises by Prefecture, Combined with Market and Type of Consumption in 1884

Ishikawa and Wakayama, also produced dolphin oil Nagasaki, Yamaguchi, Wakayama, and Saga operated net whaling and possibly other traditional whaling Ine (35°40′N, 135°18′E, with the three villages of Hizu, Kameshima, and Hirata) in Yosa County, Kyoto, had a system of opportunistic hunting of whales and small cetaceans found in their bay (Hattori 1887-1888; Yoshihara 1976, both in Japanese) Fishermen in Chiba Prefecture hunted Baird’s beaked whales with hand harpoons (Yoshihara 1982, in Japanese) In Ishikawa Prefecture, there was a kind of trap-net whaling, dai-ami, off the Noto Peninsula (Saito 1981, in Japanese) and an attempt at hand-harpoon whaling in the Kaga region in 1878 (Hattori 1887-1888, in Japanese) Only half of the whale oil was exported; the remaining half was for domestic use, for lighting, and for insecticide in rice paddies The production of dolphin oil was only about one-third of that of whale oil and was for both export and domestic use as in the case of whale oil Whale oil became an important export item for Japan only after large production by modern whaling

No-shomu-sho [Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce] (1890-1893, in Japanese) conducted the first nationwide survey on fisheries for dolphins and porpoises The second survey, on a smaller scale, was done by the Fisheries Agency in the mid-twentieth century (Suisan-cho Chosa-kenkyu-bu [Investigation and Research Department of the Fisheries Agency] 1968, 1969, in Japanese) In order to decide its response to the request of Iki fishermen of northern Kyushu for solution of a conflict between dolphins and a line-andhook yellow-tail fishery, the Fisheries Agency attempted to get information from the Kyushu area on the magnitude of smallcetacean fisheries and of conflict between fisheries and small cetaceans The Fisheries Agency sent questionnaires to 263 fishery cooperative unions in northern, western, and southern Kyushu except for the two prefectures of Oita and Miyazaki on the eastern shore of Kyushu The 1968 report was based on 251 replies received from September 1967 to March 1968 The 1969 report included an additional 10 replies received later, but there was no significant difference between the two

According to the Research Division of Fisheries Agency (1969, in Japanese), 57 fishery cooperative unions reported past incidents of taking dolphins and porpoises (only finless porpoises are known to occur in this area), of which 22 reported the incidents as having occurred within the previous 12  months The total number of animals taken in the 12 months was 239 The species composition was unknown because of uncertainties about the common name of small cetaceans used by the fishermen

Of the 239 individual accounts, 236 were accompanied by description of the hunting method The methods were hand harpoon (141 animals), fixed trap net (52), longline for sharks (17), drift gill net for marlin (15), bottom gill net (7), drive fishery (2), and line-and-hook fishery (2) This is likely based on sales records kept by the cooperative unions and does not include catches personally consumed by fishermen The composition reflects fisheries off the Kyushu region, and surveys in other regions would result in different methods and composition

ing gear of little selectivity, and there is no distinction between direct and incidental take Any animals found in the net will be sold if they have some commercial value, and others will be discarded or consumed by the fishermen

A surface gill net or drift net has buoys and small leads and remains at the surface In the Kyushu area, it may be operated during the day for flying fish or horse mackerel or at night for squid Salmon drift nets were once operated in great numbers in the Sea of Japan, Okhotsk and Bering Seas, and squid drift nets in the North Pacific The price of Dall’s porpoise meat once exceeded that of squid in the 1980s, so the fishermen landed the meat of Dall’s porpoises incidentally caught in their squid gill nets Gill nets for tunas and swordfish were called large-mesh gill nets because of the mesh size and were known to have incidentally caught dolphins, porpoises, sea birds, and sea turtles (Yatsu et al 1994) Such incidental mortality caused international concern, and a resolution was passed at the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1989 to ban operation of large-scale high-seas drift-net fisheries Japan accepted the ban and stopped operations in international waters in December 1992

A bottom-set gill net is called tate-ami, in Kyushu and the western Inland Sea, which is different from a trap net that may be referred to by the same word in some area of Japan (Uda et  al 1962, in Japanese) The bottom-set gill net has small floats and leads and is placed on the sea floor It usually operates at night to capture bottom fish and is known to kill finless porpoises in Japan (Chapter 8) In the North Sea, bottom-set gill nets of similar principle kill harbor porpoises, but sound emitters called pingers attached to the net are known to decrease the mortality However, a possible adverse effect of eliminating porpoises from their feeding ground has also been hypothesized (Teilmann et al 2006)

Longlines and hook-and-line fisheries may kill dolphins and porpoises Japanese longline fishermen have complained about dolphins stealing tunas from their hooks The dolphin species was the false killer whale, not the killer whale as stated by the fishermen The whales stole the tuna’s body and left the head on the hook and occasionally became entangled in the line and drowned I had thought that toothed whales could detect fish hooks and avoid swallowing them However, direct mortality of cetaceans by swallowing fish hooks need to be considered A Tasmanian beaked whale (Tasmacetus shepherdi) stranded in Argentine was found with fish hooks from bottom longlines in the stomach and intestines, and these hooks are believed to be the direct cause of death (IWC 2009) In the United States, false killer whales are known to become entangled in longlines or swallow hooks (Marine Mammal Commission 2010)

Japanese purse seine fisheries can kill dolphins and porpoises (Ohsumi 1972) In the eastern tropical Pacific, an international seine fishery uses dolphin schools as an indicator of yellow-fin tuna swimming below the dolphins and sets the net on them, resulting in high incidental mortality of dolphins However, such mortality was not recorded for the purse seine

information collected by Suisan-cho Chosa-kenkyu-bu (1969, in Japanese) It is not certain whether the fishery cooperative unions did not operate the purse seine fishery, the net fishermen did not land the dolphins killed in their nets, or dolphins were not killed in the nets

Both trawl-net and drag-net fisheries have reported take of finless porpoises The investigation cited earlier by the Fisheries Agency recorded a case of a drive fishery for dolphins with only two dolphins Dolphin driving in the Kyushu area was operated in those days cooperatively by neighboring villages, and the catch was shared among the participants The operation could have caught more animals and shared by villagers, leaving only a few individuals to be sold and recorded by the fishery cooperative union

Japan started collecting statistics on small-cetacean fisheries in 1972 The Whaling Team of the Offshore Division of the Fisheries Agency requested prefectural governments to supply the statistics of such fisheries and compiled the reports into national statistics To respond to the request of the central government, the prefectural governments forwarded the request to fishery cooperative unions in the prefectures Therefore, the statistics were, in principle, based on the sales records of each fishery cooperative union

Annually from 1972 to 1987, the Whaling Team created mimeographed tables with a title that was translated as “Report of Status of Direct and Incidental Catches of Small Cetaceans” It also listed the number of operating bodies as well as amounts of sales for each year (monthly figures not included) This task was taken up by the Coastal Division of the Fisheries Agency in 1986 Thus, there were two sets of similar statistics for the years 1986 and 1987, which differed in details Those of the Coastal Division appear to be closer to the truth Any statistics must have some errors, and this case gives us information about the magnitude of such errors In recent years, the whaling-related task has returned to the Whaling Team of the Fisheries Agency In the early stage of collecting the statistics, there were problems in the identification of local names of small cetaceans A Whale Research Team of the Far Seas Fisheries Research Laboratory, Fisheries Agency, worked to unify common names and edited the statistics since 1979 to form a part of the National Annual Report to the IWC

The full text of the National Progress Report was published in the Report of the International Whaling Commission for statistics up through 1997 For the statistics since 1998, only abbreviated summaries have been printed in the Supplement volume of the Journal of Cetacean Research and Management (first issued in 1999) Japan has stopped presenting information on small-cetacean fisheries to the IWC, but full recent statistics are available through the homepage of the Japanese Fisheries Agency I refer in this book to the various types of statistics as “Fisheries Agency statistics”

cited from the original Fisheries Agency statistics It includes takes of drive fisheries, hand-harpoon fisheries, small-type whaling, culling, and mortality incidental to other fisheries within the 200-nautical-mile zone Statistics on stranding have been collected since 1988 but are not included in this table except for finless porpoises Species names in Table 19 are as they appeared in the Fisheries Agency records, so catch figures for certain species (particularly before 1979) disagree with those given for each fishery types in subsequent chapters, where species names are corrected based on my interpretation Table 19 shows that among 13 species of small cetaceans taken in Japan, the most significant are fewer than 10 species, including Dall’s porpoise, ma-iruka [which basically means Delphinus spp, but may also include other species], striped dolphin, pantropical spotted dolphin, common bottlenose dolphin, and short-finned pilot whale

Dall’s porpoises were taken in the greatest numbers, including the two-color morphs dalli-type and truei-type They are distinguished by the size of a white patch on the flank The dalli-type has a smaller white patch extending from the anal region to the level of the dorsal fin, while the truei-type has a larger white patch extending to the base of the flipper Within the dalli-type, those wintering in the Sea of Japan have slightly smaller white patches compared with dalli-types that winter in the Pacific (Amano and Hayano 2007) The two types, once dealt with as separate species, are currently considered to comprise a single species (Chapter 9)

Although the difference between the two types of Dall’s porpoise is distinct, I have found it rather difficult to record the two types correctly at busy landing ports Some early statistics of the Fisheries Agency occasionally recorded proportions of the two color types, but they were often quite different from the proportions I recorded at the landing ports Therefore, I did not list the records of types reported for the early years Fisheries Agency statistics have fully distinguished between the forms since 1989, as shown in Table 19 It should also be noted that deliberate misreporting of color types can occur for the fishing operations, because the current fishing quota are set by color type The two species of Delphinus off Japan have had a short history of being called by the single common name ma-iruka by scientists who dealt with the long-beaked type (hase-iruka) and short-beaked type (ma-iruka) as the same species Delphinus capensis is found in the Sea of Japan and East China Sea and was often recorded by the local name of hase-iruka, and D. delphis from the Pacific coast was recorded as ma-iruka (Kasuya and Yamada 1995, in Japanese), which makes the identification of the species slightly difficult A greater problem occurred because local fishermen often used ma-iruka for a species that was most common in their region, because it meant “the correct dolphin species to be taken” or “the right species of dolphin” Prior to 1978, there were large take of ma-iruka, mostly from two fisheries One was a handharpoon fishery in Iwate Prefecture on the Pacific coast of northern Honshu, and the other was a drive fishery in Shizuoka Prefecture, on the Izu Peninsula on the Pacific coast of central Honshu Our whale-sighting records did not indicate such a

TA B

LE 1

.9 C

at ch

o fS

m al

lC et

ac ea

ns b

y Ja

pa ne

se C

oa st

al F

is he

ri es

,I nc

lu di

ng S

m al

l-T yp

e W

ha lin

g, D

ri ve

F is

he ri

es ,H

an d-

H ar

po on

F is

he ri

es ,C

ul lin

g, a

nd I

nc id

en ta

M

or ta

lit y

w it

hi n

th e

20 0-

M ile

Z on

e (E

xc lu

di ng

R el

ea se

d In

di vi

du al

s)

TA B

LE 1

.9 (C

on ti

nu ed

) C

at ch

o fS

m al

lC et

ac ea

ns b

y Ja

pa ne

se C

oa st

al F

is he

ri es

,I nc

lu di

ng S

m al

l-T yp

e W

ha lin

g, D

ri ve

F is

he ri

es ,H

an d-

H ar

po on

F is

he ri

es ,C

ul lin

g, a

nd I

nc id

en ta

M

or ta

lit y

w it

hi n

th e

20 0-

M ile

Z on

e (E

xc lu

di ng

R el

ea se

d In

di vi

du al

s)

It was difficult to encounter Delphinus off Iwate in the winter when ma-iruka was reported to be hunted, and my field experience on fisheries in Iwate Prefecture confirmed that they mostly hunted Dall’s porpoises Therefore, ma-iruka reported by the Iwate fishermen must be Dall’s porpoises It was common knowledge by field scientists that dolphin fishermen on the Izu coast (Shizuoka Prefecture) and at Taiji (Wakayama Prefecture) used ma-iruka for the striped dolphin (S. coeruleoalba) We observed that hand-harpoon fishermen off Taiji made large takes of striped dolphins in the early 1970s, but this was supported by the reported statistics only when ma-iruka in the statistics was recognized to represent striped dolphins The Whale Research Team of the Far Seas Fisheries Research Laboratory almost completed the task of unifying the common names among the small-cetacean fishermen and reported correct statistics to the IWC since 1979

The statistics for cetacean strandings are incomplete compared with those for direct fisheries Records of strandings increase as public interest increases Most noteworthy would be the recent increase in the strandings of finless porpoises Carcasses of species such as this in inland waters have a high probability washing ashore and being subsequently recorded by voluntary observers Therefore, the high incidence of finless porpoise strandings may relate to both higher mortality and greater public interest in report strandings I have placed strandings of finless porpoises in parentheses in Table 19 (this table does not list stranding of other species)

I believe that fishery statistics need to be viewed with caution They contain both careless errors and incompleteness due to technical difficulties, and they are likely to be manipulated by persons with vested interests If fishermen feel pressure from criticisms of the slaughter or rapid increase in the catch, they will be tempted to under-report the catch Once a quota system is introduced, the fishermen may wish to fill it completely, leading to possible over-reporting, or to exceed it, leading to possible under-reporting Government employees may be tempted to ignore such misreporting behavior in the interest of reducing their workload or of offering benefit to the industry I have witnessed all of these cases for Japanese cetacean fisheries (Chapters 12 and 16)

In Table 110, I have included the geographical distribution of particular fisheries for small cetaceans in Japan in some years as such information is missing in Table 19 Both of these tables are from the same sources Japanese coastal whaling after World War II was classified into two categories of “large-type” and “small-type” whaling The former hunted sperm whales and baleen whales other than mike whales and processed them at land stations The latter used catcher boats smaller than 50 gross tons, took minke whales and other small cetaceans, and processed them at land stations In addition to these two types of whaling, Japan operated pelagic whaling in the Antarctic and North Pacific Catches of these whaling operations are listed in Table 15

Statistics of the pelagic whaling seem to be more or less reliable, at least in number and species, because they were

inspectors However, coastal whaling was different, and it could have taken two or three times greater number of whales than reported (Watase 1995; Kasuya 1999; Kondo 2001, these three in Japanese; Kasuya 1999, Kasuya and Brownell 1999) Japanese commercial whaling diminished in scale rapidly in the 1970s and ceased operation almost completely in the late 1980s The last pelagic whaling was carried out in the 1979 summer season in the North Pacific and the Antarctic in the 1986/1987 season Coastal whaling ceased by March 31, 1988 The current Japanese whaling operation of Norwegian type is limited to Baird’s beaked whales and some delphinid species taken by small-type whaling (Chapter 4) and to several species of baleen whales and sperm whales taken for scientific purposes (Chapter 7)

The decline of Japanese whaling in the 1970s and 1980s caused a shortage of whale products, increased the price of small-cetacean products, and caused an increase in catch of dolphins and porpoises not regulated by quotas Japanese small-type whaling, after prohibition of take of minke whales in 1988, subsisted on Baird’s beaked whales and large delphinids off the Pacific coasts of central and northern Honshu

Hand-harpoon fisheries operate in Sanriku (Pacific coast of Northern Honshu), Wakayama (Pacific coast of central Honshu), and Nago (26°35′N, 127°59′E) in Okinawa in southern Japan The greatest increase in takes occurred in the first two of these Most of the community-based dolphin drives dissolved much earlier than the prohibition of commercial whaling, and the currently operating teams are of recent establishment or, in a few cases, relicts of the past operations (Chapter 3) The drive fishery in Shizuoka has a long history but was not able to respond to the increase in demand change with larger catches, because the population of striped dolphins, the main target species of the fishery, had already been badly depleted Iki in Nagasaki Prefecture, northern Kyushu, at one time recorded a large cull of dolphins, but almost ceased the practice by 1988 In Taiji in Wakayama Prefecture, a modern dolphin-drive team made the first attempt in 1969 and recorded large takes for only for a short period Drive fisheries may be too destructive to operate at sustainable levels

It is difficult to obtain correct statistics of mortality of cetaceans in trap nets, gill nets, and purse seines Carcasses discarded at sea are usually unreported, and legal regulation may also cause biases The reported mortality of minke whales incidental to trap-net fisheries was less than 20 individuals per year when the government prohibited selling of such by caught minke whales, and the accuracy of the statistics was questioned (Tobayama et  al 1992) However, there was a sudden increase in reported catches in 2001 to over 100 individuals coincident with a regulation change allowing the sale of such takes (Table 16) Earlier, most of the minke whales previously found in trap nets must have been utilized without being reported

Hand-harpoon fisheries, drive fisheries, and small-type whaling take small cetaceans today in Japan, which will be dealt with further in the following chapters

Historical Change in Locations and Fisheries That Killed Minke Whales and Small Cetaceans (Toothed Whales Other than Sperm Whale), as Represented by the Number of Whales Taken in Some Selected Years

Historical Change in Locations and Fisheries That Killed Minke Whales and Small Cetaceans (Toothed Whales Other than Sperm Whale), as Represented by the Number of Whales Taken in Some Selected Years

Historical Change in Locations and Fisheries That Killed Minke Whales and Small Cetaceans (Toothed Whales Other than Sperm Whale), as Represented by the Number of Whales Taken in Some Selected Years