Posted on May 28, 2002
The
Exploitative History and Present Status of Marine Mammals in Barbados, W.I.
Joel
Creswell
Environmental Studies Program
Macalester College
1600 Grand Ave., St. Paul, MN 55105-1899
jecreswell2000@yahoo.com
Abstract
Marine mammal
exploitation in Barbados was different in nature and intensity than that of the
surrounding islands, yet its impact on local whale stocks was similar: severe
reduction. Yankee whalers were present in the area as early as 1765, and
a shore whaling industry developed in 1867, relying heavily on Yankee
influences. The success of the
shore whaling industry peaked around the turn of the 20th century
with catches as high as 36 whales per year, but the population crashed shortly
after that, and the industry shut down in 1920.
The end of the Barbadian whale fishery is similar to that of Grenada’s,
Trinidad’s, and Bequia’s. Although
the whaling industry at each place developed under different influences, used
different equipment and methods, and operated in a different time period, each
one was shut down due to a lack of whales caused by over-exploitation.
There
is no historical or current record of dolphin exploitation, although several
different species are present in the area.
There is no reliable evidence than manatees were ever present in the
area, due mainly to the island’s outlying position from the arc of southeast
Caribbean islands.
Present
exploitation is limited to very rare incidental catches of dolphins in fishing
nets. Barbados is under pressure, however, to join the
International Whaling Commission in order to promote commercial whaling.
The resumption of commercial whaling, the financial feasibility of which
is questionable, would seriously threaten the conservation status of Barbados’
marine mammals.
Introduction
A common problem among ecologists is the assumption that the ecosystems they
study were in pristine condition at the time they were first described in
scientific literature. When trying
to quantify or describe the human impact on these systems, they use these first
scientific descriptions as a baseline. They
should know better than any, however, that ecosystems are dynamic systems,
constantly in a state of change. Thus
the concept of a pristine or baseline ecosystem is somewhat normative.
In addition to the changes ecosystems undergo in the absence of human
influence, many have been subject to a particularly high degree of alteration
since the beginning of human history, which is far older than the science of
ecology. What many ecologists suffer from, then, is a narrowness of
focus: they only consult ecological sources when conducting research, thus
neglecting a wealth of historical information that could account for gaps in
scientific understanding. This is
changing, however. As several
recent papers demonstrate (Jackson, 1997; Romero et al., 1999; Jackson,
2001), looking at environmental issues from an historical perspective is
becoming an increasingly popular way to gain insight into the pre-scientific use
and exploitation of resources.
Historical studies are increasingly pointing to the idea that marine
mammals in the Caribbean may be victims of neoextinctions (Mitchell, 1975;
Mitchell and Reeves, 1983; Romero and Hayford, 2000; Reeves et al., 2001;
Romero et al., 2002a; Romero et al., 2002b).
Because of the availability of historical, social, political, economic,
and ecological information from post-Columbian times, neoextinctions in the
Caribbean are relatively easy to study. A
key example of such an extinction is the local extirpation of the West Indian
manatee (Trichecus manatus manatus) in most Caribbean islands since the
arrival of Columbus (Marsh and Lefebvre, 1994).
Aside from the manatee, the exploitative histories of only few marine
mammal species in the Caribbean have been studied.
In light of the exploitation known to have taken place, including
aboriginal utilization, Yankee whaling, shore whaling industries, and dolphin
fisheries, it is important to study the history of these animals, not only to
ascertain the impacts of human activity, but also to better understand their
present status. The better their
status is understood, the better-informed governments will be when making
conservation decisions and managing populations.
This factor is particularly important, as there is pressure on several
southeast Caribbean nations to join the International Whaling Commission (IWC)
in order to support a return to commercial whaling (Anonymous, 2001b).
This paper aims to document the past and present utilization and
exploitation of marine mammals in Barbados, and to ascertain the present status
of local populations. It
complements a growing body of similar research in other parts of the
southeastern Caribbean including Venezuela (Romero et al., 2001),
Trinidad and Tobago (Reeves et al., 2001; Romero et al., 2002a),
and Grenada (Romero and Hayford, 1999; Romero et al., 2002b).
All information presented will be analyzed in this historical context and
compared to other countries, in an attempt to paint as complete a picture as
possible of the exploitative history of marine mammals in this region.
Figure
1: Map of the island of Barbados, West Indies.
Figure
2: A map of the Caribbean island chain.
Methods
This paper is largely based on field and archival studies conducted in
Barbados from 24 to 7 April 2002. We
visited all known possible locations of whaling sites, all of them along the
northern half of the west coast (Figure 1).
We interviewed local fishers about present locations and frequencies of
marine mammal sightings in the following towns: Half Moon Fort, Six Men’s Bay,
Weston, Holetown, Payne’s Bay, Bridgetown, Oistins, and Silver Sands (just
west of Oistins). Fishers were all
asked where they fish, whether they see whales or dolphins while fishing, what
types of each they see (they were asked to describe them rather than name
species), how often they see each species, what time of year each species is
seen, and how close to shore each species goes.
Caribbean terminology for marine species was used.
Thus when a fisher mentioned a “porpoise,” dolphin was recorded.
When “dolphins” were mentioned, it was assumed that fishers were
discussing the dolphin fish, also known as dorado and Mahi Mahi (Coryphaena
spp.).
“Blackfish” was interpreted as pilot whales (Globicephela spp.).
When a dolphin species was described as “Flipper,” bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus) was recorded.
We visited the Barbados Museum and Historical Society’s museum and library,
the National Library Service, the National Archives, the Fisheries Division, the
library of the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, and the West
Indies Collection of the same library. In
addition, we examined the private collection of Mr. Charles, Mr. Elmer, and Ms.
Ina Jordan. At each place, we
examined every available publication, record, or object related to marine
mammals. All pertinent items were
photocopied, scanned, photographed, or noted.
Results and Discussion
Historical
Account
Environment
Barbados is a small southeastern Caribbean island (Figure 1), 430 square km
in size. It is geologically
distinct from the majority of Caribbean islands (Figure 2), which are volcanic
and form an arc stretching from Venezuela to Cuba. Barbados and Tobago, approximately 320 km to the south, are
the only two islands that form a different island arc that is tectonic in origin
(Watts, 1987) (Figure 3). As a
result of its formation, most of the bedrock in Barbados is biogenic limestone,
which originated on the ocean floor. The
topography has been heavily altered by above-ground and subterranean freshwater
flows, creating a large number of Karst caves and gullies.
There is archaeological evidence of prehistoric sperm whale and dolphin
presence in Barbados, but none of humpback whales (Ray, 1964; Wing, 2000).
Humpbacks are mentioned in the earliest accounts of whaling around the
island, however, showing that a population existed prior to the beginning of
human exploitation (Anonymous, 1857-1858; Anonymous, 1862-1864; Anonymous,
1864-1866). Like any marine
species, a humpback remains have to be deposited on shore in order for them to
be easily accessible to archaeologists. Thus
the lack of archaeological records for humpbacks is most likely the result of a
low stranding rate.
Humpback whales migrate to the Caribbean in the late winter and spring months
from their northern feeding grounds. They
spend their time in the Caribbean breeding and calving.
Figure 3: A map of the Caribbean islands showing
the primary and secondary island arcs, based on on Watts (1987).
Humpbacks in the West Indies have been shown to have migrated from the Gulf
of Maine, Newfoundland, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Greenland, Iceland, and Norway
(Martin et al., 1984; Clapham and Mattila, 1990; Stevick et
al., 1999, Clapham, 2002). The
most heavily used breeding grounds in the Caribbean include Silver Bank, Navidad
Bank, and Samana Bay, all in the Dominican Republic, as well as Mona Passage in
Puerto Rico, and Virgin Bank (Smith et al.,
1999). By far the most popular
among these sites are Silver and Navidad Banks, which may host as many as 85
percent of western North Atlantic breeding humpbacks (Winn et
al., 1975). The abundance of
humpbacks further south in the Caribbean, among the Windward Islands, is low,
probably the combined effect of Yankee and shore whaling in those areas.
Katona and Beard (1990) estimated the current size of the western North
Atlantic humpback whale population to be between 2,888 and 8,122 (95% CI)
individuals. Whitehead’s (1982)
estimate for the same group places the population between 2,000 and 6,000
individuals. He also estimated that
the peak population of humpbacks on Silver, Navidad, and Mouchoir Banks to be
2,000-3,500 individuals. The
population in these areas peaks in the winter months, when humpbacks are in the
Caribbean breeding and calving. Winn
et al. (1975) estimates that 85
percent of breeding humpbacks are on these banks during the breeding season,
which means that relatively few are distributed throughout the Lesser Antilles.
If Whitehead’s (1982) maximum estimate of peak population on Silver,
Navidad, and Mouchoir Banks is correct (3,500 individuals), then at most, only
around 620 animals inhabit the entire remainder of the Caribbean.
Humpbacks reproduce at a low rate, with females giving birth to only one calf
at a time and with an inter-birth interval of 2 years, on average (Clapham,
2002). They also exhibit a strong
mother-calf bond, something which was easy for whalers to exploit. If a humpback calf is struck or injured, its mother will stay
with it as long as it is alive. Likewise,
the calf will not abandon a wounded mother.
This means that, in most cases, when either member of a mother-calf pair
was attacked, usually both were killed. Species
exhibiting this trait are more susceptible to hunting pressures than others for
this reason (Oldfield, 1988).
Unlike humpback whales, very little is known about the stock structure and
migratory patterns of sperm whales. Like
humpbacks, they have a worldwide distribution, but their migratory patterns are
not as clear. Some groups of sperm
whales follow a somewhat regular migration pattern of moving north in the summer
and south in the winter, but these are mainly in mid-latitudes.
There is no clear seasonal pattern in the tropics (Whitehead, 2002).
There is significant evidence, however, that there is a single North
Atlantic stock (Dufault et al., 1999),
which includes the sperm whales present in the Caribbean.
Rice (1989) estimated that the pre-whaling North Atlantic sperm whale
population consisted of 330,000 individuals, about 12 percent of his estimated
worldwide population. His estimate
of the current North Atlantic population is 190,000 individuals, 10 percent of
his estimated world total. These
animals range throughout the Caribbean, spending most of their time in areas
where the water depth is greater than 1,000 m.
They tend to concentrate themselves in areas approximately 1,000 km
across, which are often associated with islands where the depth increases
quickly from the coast (Whitehead, 2002; Dufault, et al., 1999).
One such area, in which sperm whales are relatively highly concentrated,
is Dominica, where they reach densities of up to .55 whales per square kilometer
(Gordon et al., 1998). There
are few records for sperm whales around Barbados in scientific literature (Wing,
2000), and none in the whaling logbooks reviewed for this paper (Anonymous,
1857-1858; Anonymous, 1862-1864; Anonymous, 1864-1866) or in the much more
extensive sample reviewed by Townsend (1935).
Swartz et al. (2001) spent a total of four days in Barbados on a
recent visual and acoustic survey of the Caribbean, and recorded no sightings of
sperm whales.
Sperm whales, like humpbacks, have low fecundity, with females not reaching
sexual maturity until age nine, and with a gestation period of 14-16 months.
Calves are born singly (Whitehead, 2002).
Sperm whales also exhibit a strong mother-calf bond, such that the pair
will stay close together even if one is struck by whalers.
Thus, like humpbacks, when one member of a sperm whale mother-calf pair
is killed, the other is usually killed also (Oldfield, 1988).
The combined result of these characteristics is a low rate of recovery
from hunting pressures, like humpbacks.
Unlike whales and dolphins, there is no evidence that manatees ever inhabited
Barbados. There is one record of a
sighting of a live manatee on the island, but it is unreliable, as it is not
accompanied by any description, and is not consistent with the majority of the
literature on the subject (Schomburgk, 1848).
The lack of manatees probably has to do with Barbados’ location outside
the primary arc of Caribbean islands (Figure 3).
Because it is far away from its neighbors, and far east of most of them,
it would be difficult for a manatee to migrate.
The dominant wind and ocean currents in the latitudes of the Lesser
Antilles move from east to west. In
addition, manatees are not long-distance swimmers, and are dependent on
shallow-water ecosystems for feeding. Thus
any migrating manatee would not only have to travel a long distance to reach
Barbados, it would have to do so against the dominant wind and ocean currents,
and without feeding for the duration of the journey (Rouse, 1964).
Although present conditions would not support manatee migration, it is
possible that at some point in the manatee’s history in the southeastern
Caribbean, the oceanography of the area was better suited to long-distance
movements. For example, at the end
of the last glacial maximum (21,000 YBP), sea levels around Barbados are
believed to have been 120 m lower than today (Peltier, 2002).
This would have enlarged Barbados’ land area, and would have created
shallow-water habitat closer to the island’s nearest neighbors.
However, this would only have moved the shallow water surrounding
Barbados several kilometers closer to the primary island arc.
Thus, unless wind and ocean currents moved from west to east at the end
of the last glacial maximum, it is unlikely that manatees would have been able
to migrate to Barbados at that time either.
Despite the fact that Barbados has some suitable manatee habitat, such as
the Constitution River in Bridgetown, there is no evidence that a manatee
population was ever established there.
Barbados is one of very few Caribbean islands for which there are no records
of manatees (Lefebvre et al., 2001).
In addition to Barbados, this group includes Montserrat, Dominica, Nevis,
San Eustatius, Saba, St. Bartholomew, St. Martin, Anguilla, and Tobago (Romero,
2002). All of these islands except
for Barbados, Tobago, Montserrat, and Dominica are very small and have no
freshwater, and thus no manatee habitat. Montserrat
is volcanic, and has a long history of cataclysmic eruptions, so it is possible
that there were once manatees there that were wiped out.
Tobago, like Barbados did not have manatees due to its location outside
the primary arc of islands.
Manatees were wiped out from all of the Caribbean islands between Puerto Rico
and Trinidad, due largely to hunting (Lefebvre et
al., 2001). There are several
reasons for this. Manatees are an
easy target for hunters, being large, slow-moving, docile, and inhabiting
shallow waters. They also have a
significant amount of fat, making their meat highly nutritious. They have a low fecundity, with gestation lasting up to 400
days, calves born singly, and an inter-birth interval of 2.5 to 3 years (Husar,
1977). In addition, females do not
reproduce for the first time until they are 6-10 years old.
The combined effect of these characteristics is that manatees have little
ability to recover from hunting pressures on their populations (Jackson, 2001).
Human History
The name Barbados comes from a name given to the island by a Portuguese
mariner sailing to Brazil. He named
it Las Barbudos, meaning “the bearded ones,” after the bearded fig trees he
saw growing in abundance there (Sinckler, 1914).
There is some controversy over whether the name refers to the fig trees
or whether it was given in reference to a bearded race of Indians inhabiting the
island. The fig tree theory is
generally more accepted, however, as the first official seal of the island bears
the picture of a bearded fig tree. Whether
or not bearded fig trees were actually seen by early mariners passing Barbados
is uncertain. Although the trees do
exist in Barbados, they are not extremely common.
A more likely explanation of what the early sailors saw is various
different species of trees with Spanish moss (Thilandsia usneoides)
growing on them, which makes them appear similar to bearded fig trees (Aldemaro
Romero, 2002, personal communication).
The first known human inhabitants of the island were Amerindians, the Arawak,
who were named for their language group. They
migrated northward through the Lesser Antilles (the southeast Caribbean island
arc, stretching from Venezuela to Puerto Rico, Figure 2) from South America
around 1,750 Years Before the Present (YPB).
This first group of Arawak is known as the Saladoid, and is distinguished
from other Arawak groups by its pottery style.
Another Arawak group, the Barrancoid, was less vigorous in the West
Indies than the Saladoid, and is known to have reached Trinidad sometime later.
The most prominent Barrancoid settlements are in the Dominican Republic,
although there is evidence of Barrancoid presence throughout the Lesser Antilles
(Rouse, 1964).
Barbados’ next settlers, the Carib, were another Amerindian group.
They began colonizing the Lesser Antilles around 1,000 YBP, following the
same route as the Arawak, and, in most cases, driving them northward as they
migrated. Some evidence suggests,
however, that Barbados was home to a mixed population of Caribs and Arawaks,
possibly the result of the Carib killing Arawak men and marrying the women
(Rouse, 1964; Watts, 1987). The
Carib reached Barbados around 800 YBP. The
island was consecutively inhabited by these two Amerindian groups for a total of
about 1250 years. Their presence in
Barbados ended sometime around 1500, when the Spanish arrived to capture and
enslave the Carib (Sinckler, 1914; Rouse and Cruxent, 1963; Tree, 1972).
Columbus discovered Cubagua’s pearl beds in 1498, and large-scale
exploitation of them, involving the use of Amerindian slaves from neighboring
islands as divers, began shortly thereafter (Romero et
al., 1999). In addition, the Spanish Cédula (royal decree) of 1511
allowed Caribs to be taken as slaves to work in the mines of Puerto Rico (Tree,
1972). Thus Caribs were taken as
slaves to meet Spain’s rising labor demand in the region, which resulted in
Barbados being uninhabited from 1500 until the early 17th century.
Much of Arawak and Carib subsistence and culture in the Lesser Antilles was
based on marine organisms. The vast
majority of Amerindian settlements on the island were in coastal areas, and much
of the waste found in their middens was the remains of marine organisms. Animal
protein made up around 33 percent of the caloric yield of the Arawak diet, and
probably a similar percentage of the Carib diet. Fish provided 47 percent of that animal protein.
Fishing was done near the shoreline, using nets as well as hook and line
(Watts, 1987).
In addition to fish, on some islands, marine mammals made up a portion of the
Carib and Arawak diet. There are
records of manatee bones in Arawak middens on many southeast Caribbean islands,
and although an exhibit at the Barbados Museum and Historical Society mentions
findings of manatee bones in Barbados, this claim is not supported by the
literature. In other areas, manatee
flesh was eaten, and the bones were used to make tools, ornaments, and musical
instruments. They were easy to
capture, given their slow speed and shallow water, often inland habitat.
A single manatee yielded an average of around 440 kg of meat, plus some
fat, making it an excellent, easily exploitable food source.
They were hunted from canoes, using harpoons with floats and ropes
attached (Rouse, 1948; McKillop, 1985; Watts, 1987).
Sperm whale bones have been found in Amerindian middens in Barbados and
Tortola, Virgin Islands (Wing, 2000). There
is no evidence, however, that they were ever hunted by Arawaks or Caribs.
Neither group had sufficient technology to pursue large whales in the
open ocean (Watts, 1987; Sutty, 1995). These
bones most likely came from stranded animals that the Indians utilized.
Thus sperm whales were not an important part of the Amerindian
subsistence, as they were only utilized when the rare opportunity arose. This means that manatees were the only marine mammal to make
up a regular part of the Amerindian diet. Because
these were not present in Barbados, the marine mammal utilization of the Arawak
and Carib there was almost zero.
During
the hiatus in human habitation, between when the Carib were removed and the
arrival of the British, the only visitors to Barbados were the Portuguese, whose
ships stopped there to replenish freshwater supplies on the journey to and from
Brazil. The main lasting effect
they had on the island was the introduction of pigs, which were left behind by
Pedro á Campos, a Portuguese sailor, in 1563, for breeding purposes, so that
they could eventually provide food for passing sailors (Sinckler, 1914).
They established quite a successful feral population, and eventually, the
island became a supply point for meat as well as fresh water.
The pigs were still present when the British first arrived in 1625, but
there is no feral pig population in Barbados today.
The British established a colony in Barbados in 1627 (Sinckler, 1914) and
governed the island until 1966, when it was granted independence.
Under British rule, Barbados was cleared for agriculture and became a
major producer of sugar. By the middle of the 17th century, African slaves,
brought over to work on sugar cane plantations, vastly outnumbered British
residents. It is descendents of
these Africans who make up the majority of the population today.
There are similar stories behind the ethnic makeup of most of the other
Caribbean islands.
Yankee Whaling
Under British rule, Bridgetown became a busy port and Barbados a regular stop
on the routes of many cargo, passenger, and whale ships. At the peak of the shipping industry, several ships were
arriving at and departing from Bridgetown every day (Anonymous, 1839).
Although the whaling vessels’ purpose in going to Barbados was to
replenish supplies and recruit crew members, and was not specifically to look
for whales, humpbacks are described by the ships’ record keepers as
“plentiful,” just outside Bridgetown Harbor (Anonymous, 1857-1858;
Anonymous, 1862-1864; Anonymous, 1864-1866).
Thus whales were often taken in Barbados waters.
There is even a record of a bull humpback whale being taken in Carlisle
Bay (Figure 1), by the Bark Messenger on 19 March 1859 (Anonymous, 1959).
The Yankee whalers used boats to catch and kill whales. When a whale was spotted from on board the ship, rowboats
would be lowered to pursue it. They
would strike it with a harpoon attached to a rope, the purpose of which was to
catch, but not necessarily kill the whale.
Generally, after it was struck, the whale would either take the boat on a
wild chase at the surface, or would sound (dive deeply), out of self-defense.
Once the animal was tired enough to be approached by the boat again, it
would be killed using a lance, similar to that in Figure 4, which would
sometimes contain explosives, so that it would kill the animal quickly.
Once dead, the whale was dragged to the ship, where it was fastened to the
hull with chains. The jaw and head
were cut off and raised up to the deck, and then cutting stages were lowered, so
that the whale could be flensed (have its blubber cut off) while still in the
water. The blubber was taken into
the ship through hatches, and boiled down to oil on deck. Once cooled, the oil was casked and stored (Ellis, 2002).
The blubber oil and spermaceti brought in by the whaling industry was in high
demand for a number of uses. Blubber
oil was yielded by both sperm whales and humpbacks, but spermaceti was only
found in sperm whales, and indeed, the name “sperm whale” is shortened from
its earlier name, “spermaceti whale.” Spermaceti
was thus named because of the resemblance it bears to semen, its roots being
sperma, Latin for sperm, and ceti, Latin for whale.
The primary use of the blubber oil and spermaceti was as lamp fuel.
Spermaceti was also used to make candles.
Other uses included high-pressure lubricant, an ingredient in hydraulic
fluid, ink, detergent, cosmetics, as a tanning agent for leather, and a
degreaser for wool. By the time the
whaling industry was in decline, several substitutes for whale oil had been
developed, the most popular of which were petroleum products and jojoba oil
(Rice, 2002).
The two species of whale most heavily hunted in the southeastern Caribbean
were the humpback and the sperm whale. Because
these are migratory and have a worldwide distribution, we cannot assess the
impact of Yankee whaling on Barbadian or Caribbean whale stocks, but instead the
impact of whaling in Barbados waters on the entire North Atlantic populations of
humpback and sperm whales. Pre-whaling
estimates of population sizes exist only for sperm whales, not for humpbacks,
and the sperm whale estimates are for the entire North Atlantic.
Thus we cannot measure the exact impact of whaling on these stocks, but
we can look at present numbers and make estimates of the impact based on
evidence in whaling logbooks and literature sources.
Although the size and geographic distribution of the pre-whaling humpback
population is not known, the current southeastern Caribbean population estimate
of 620 whales would have been able to support a sizeable whaling industry for
over a century. This claim is
supported by Mitchell and Reeves’ (1983) estimate that, between 1866 and 1887,
Yankee whalers killed 2,421 humpbacks in the Caribbean. This is a kill rate of 115 whales per year.
At that rate, a population of 620 whales would have been wiped out in 5.5
years. This means that the
pre-whaling humpback population in the Caribbean must have been substantially
larger than it is today. These data support the fact that humpbacks’ ability to
recover from heavy whaling pressure is low.
No humpbacks have been hunted in the Caribbean for the better part of a
century, yet their population remains low.
It is interesting to note that relatively little effort was devoted by Yankee
Whalers to humpbacking in sites in the Greater Antilles that are known to have
high abundances of the whales today. Places
such as Samana Bay and Mona Passage were all but ignored by whale ships, despite
the fact that the occasional whaler had extraordinary success in these waters.
The whalers preferred locations in the Windward Islands such as Bequia,
St. Lucia, and Trinidad, all places in which humpbacks are presently scarce
(Reeves et al., 2002). This
suggests that whale populations in the southeastern Caribbean were once much
higher, perhaps as high as the populations in Samana Bay and Mona Passage today,
but that they were greatly reduced by whaling. By the same logic, the lack of whaling in the Greater
Antilles offers the most likely explanation of their current high abundance in
that area.
At the peak of the American whaling effort, in the 1830’s, about 5,000
sperm whales per year were being killed by whalers, worldwide (Whitehead, 2002). In addition, during the 18th century, at times,
there were as many as 25 ships were in the West Indies hunting whales (Duerden,
1901). According to Rice’s (1989)
estimates of a pre-whaling North Atlantic population of 330,000 and a
post-whaling population of 190,000, this group of sperm whales lost 45 percent
of its members as a result of whaling. According
to Goode (1884), “There is no reason to doubt that Sperm Whales were at one
time, nearly two centuries back, as abundant in the North Atlantic as in more
recent years in the North Pacific. The
vigorous prosecution of the whale fishery since the early part of the eighteenth
century by American vessels has had much to do with their present scarcity.”
Exactly how much of this whaling took place in the Caribbean, however, is
not known. According to Townsend
(1935), sperm whaling in the West Indies was practiced to a limited extent, and
only between February and May. It
is unlikely that sperm whales were hunted in Barbadian waters, due to the fact
that they were not sighted by whaling ships in the area.
Sperm whaling declined in the latter half of the 19th century, due
mainly to the introduction of substitutes for sperm whale products, but also
somewhat to the depletion of the stock (Whitehead, 2002). The depletion of the sperm whale stock, however, was not as
severe as that of the humpback whale stock.
This can be seen in the population numbers, as the highest current
estimate of the North Atlantic humpback population is 8,122, while the estimate
of the sperm whale population in the same area is 190,000.
The difference in the level of exploitation can also be seen in the fact
that sperm whaling was resumed after the end of the Yankee industry (although
not by American ships) around the 1940's, with catches of up to 30,000 whales
per year (Whitehead, 2002). Humpback
whaling was never resumed after it ended in the early 20th century.
Shore Whaling
The first record of a whale being taken in Barbados by a shore-based whaler
is from 1813, and the whale is described as a “Grampus,” more commonly known
as Risso’s Dolphin (Grampus griseus) (Schomburgk, 1848). Based on its dimensions, however, Mitchell and Reeves (1983)
believe it to be a young humpback. Regardless,
however, this date marks the beginning of shore whaling in Barbados, although a
commercial whaling industry did not begin operation until 1867 (Reeves et
al., 2002).
Barbados’ shore whaling industry was started by former crew members of
Yankee whaling ships. Ever since
1765, when the first New England whaling ships visited the West Indies and the
Caribbean, whalers would recruit Barbadians to join their crews when they
stopped at Bridgetown (Hohman, 1928). These
Yankee Whalers frequented Barbados, which was the central supply port to ships
in the West Indies in the 18th and 19th centuries (Goode,
1887; Hughes, 1961). Death and
desertion of crew members was not uncommon on whaling ships, so there was often
a need to recruit locals when the ships stopped for supplies. Some of these Barbadians who had worked on whaling ships
returned home after the voyages, having gained the necessary skills to hunt
whales, and started their own operations (Rathjen and Sullivan, 1970; Caldwell
and Caldwell, 1971; Adams, 1994). This
is similar to the origins of shore whaling in Bequia (Adams, 1971) and Grenada
(Romero and Hayford, 2000), but quite different from that of Trinidad (Romero et
al., 2002a), which developed its shore whaling operations independently from
foreign influence. This is also
quite different from Venezuela, whose only shore-based marine mammal
exploitation is a dolphin fishery (Romero et
al., 1997).
There were three shore whaling stations in Barbados.
The first, which operated from 1867 to 1920, was in Speightstown (Figure
1) and was owned by Mr. C. H. P. Jordan at the end of its operation.
The original owner is not known (Brown, 1942).
The second was also in Speightstown, located immediately next to Mr.
Jordan’s, and was owned by Allan O’N. Skinner prior to being shut down
(Elmer Jordan, 2002, personal communication).
The third was in Holetown (Figure 1) and began operation in 1869 (Reeves et al., 2002), under the ownership of Mr. A. Archer (Caldwell and
Caldwell, 1971).
Barbadian shore whaling, unlike Yankee ship-based whaling, was largely
opportunistic. The shore whalers
set out to capture a whale only after it had been spotted from shore first, as
opposed to the American whaling ships, which sailed all over the world in search
of whales. When a whale was
spotted, the whaling crew would set out in boats to pursue it.
The boats used were 7.62 to 9.14 m (25 to 30 ft.) long, rigged with sails
as well as oars, and each had a crew of 14.
The oars were used for maximum steering and control when pursuing a
whale, and the sails at other times. They
would use a harpoon to capture the whale and an explosive lance, known as the
bomb lance, to kill it (Figures 4 and 5). They
would then jump into the water and sew its mouth shut, to prevent it from
filling with water and sinking. Rather
than hauling it aboard a ship at this point, they would drag it ashore,
alongside the Speightstown jetty in Speightstown or on the beach in Holetown,
for flensing (Figure 6). The whale
would be flensed on the beach and the blubber would then be boiled in copper
kettles, of the same design as those used to boil sugar cane juice in the
production of sugar (Figures 7-9). Indeed,
the boilers used by the Jordan whaling station in Speightstown were sold to a
sugar factory after the station closed (Brown, 1942; Bair, 1962; Yates, 1998;
Elmer Jordan, 2002, personal communication).
Figure 4: A
dismantled bomb lance, belonging to Charles Jordan.
Figure 5: A whaling gun, from which the bomb-lance was shot,
belonging to Charles Jordan. Being
demonstrated by Aldemaro Romero.
Figure 6: The Speightstown jetty, circa 1911.
Figure 7: A copper boiler used by the C.H.P. Jordan whaling station
in Speightstown, currently belonging to Elmer Jordan, top view.
Figure 8: A copper boiler used by the C.H.P. Jordan whaling station
in Speightstown, currently belonging to Elmer Jordan, bottom view.
Figure 9: A sugar-boiling house, with a boiler similar to those used
in the whaling industry pictured in the foreground, date unknown.
Once it had been boiled down, the oil was put in barrels, it was exported to
England (Yates, 1998) and Canada (Geoffrey O’N. Skinner, 2002, personal
communication). The bones were
ground and used to make fertilizer. The
meat was sold locally for consumption, and was reportedly very nourishing and
preferred to beef, and was “used as a food by the negroes” (Skinner, 1914). The baleen plates were used to make brooms.
In these different ways, the entire whale carcass was used, although the
main generator of profit for the whaling operation was the oil (Anonymous,
1959).
After the closure of the Speightstown whaling station owned by C.H.P. Jordan
in 1920, rather than being sold or converted to fishing vessels, the two whale
boats that remained at that time were taken to Grenada. Ernest Greaves, the last whaler employed at the Jordan
station, operated in Grenada, using those boats, from 1920 to 1923.
He found ample whales there, but apparently, the tide was too strong to
run under sail, so he sold the boats there and went to work for the Norwegian
whale fishery on Glover Island, a small island off Grenada’s south coast.
Thus there is a direct connection between the Barbadian and Grenadian
whale fisheries, although the whaling methods employed by the Norwegians in
Grenada do not show signs of Barbadian influence (Marsland, 1925; Brown, 1942;
Romero and Hayford, 2000).
The opportunistic nature of the Barbadian shore-based whale fishery is
similar to that of Trinidad, but very different from Grenada and Bequia.
In Grenada, Norwegian whalers actively sought whales in ships (Marsland,
1925), while in Bequia, spotters on shore would look for whales and signal crews
out on whale boats using mirrors (Adams, 1971).
This is because of the scope of the industry in each country.
In Barbados and Trinidad, whaling operations were owned by local business
families, and were one of several ventures in which each family was involved
(Elmer Jordan, 2002, personal communication; Romero et al., 2002a). Whaling
was not their primary source of income. In
Grenada, although the first whaling venture was started up by a local banker as
a side business, a Norwegian whaling company soon became involved, and
considerable capital was invested. Whaling
was the primary business of the people running this operation.
By 1925, two ships were cruising the waters of Grenada in search of
whales, full time, with a third ship added to the effort in 1926 (Romero and
Hayford, 2000).
The boats used in Barbados are different from those used anywhere else in the
southeastern Caribbean. Trinidad
used pirogues, small, wooden fishing boats, which were oar-powered.
These had a crew of six rowers and one harpooner in the bow (Romero et
al., 2002a). Bequia used
7.62-7.92 m (25-26 ft.) open sailing boats, modeled after those built in
Nantucket. These had a crew of six,
including the harpooner and the captain (Adams, 1971).
The boats in Grenada were modern Norwegian whaling ships, which were
steam-powered, unlike the oar-powered boats of the neighboring countries,
cruised at a speed of 11 knots, and could tow up to five whales (Marsland,
1925). They could be operated by a
relatively small crew, as they did not need rowers. The large crew and medium size of the Barbadian boats makes
them substantially different from any others in the area, demonstrating that the
whaling industries of many neighboring southeast Caribbean countries had little
contact with each other.
The whaling stations in Barbados are also different from those in other
Caribbean countries. The Barbadian
stations consisted of a shack in which whaling gear was stored.
There were no permanent buildings. All
of the operations of the whaling industry that took place on shore were carried
out on the beach (Elmer Jordan, 2002, personal communication).
This is similar to the construction of stations in Bequia. The Bequia stations had a small shed for storing blubber and
a small structure that supported their boiling kettles, but no buildings of
substantial size (Adams, 1971). These
stand in stark contrast to Grenada, whose station on Glover Island was a
two-story building with a concrete chute for dragging whales up to a flensing
platform (Romero and Hayford, 2000). In
between Grenada and Barbados in terms of technological advancement were the
stations in Trinidad. These were
one-story buildings with no structures to assist with bringing whales onto the
beach, as whales were flensed in the water (Reeves et al., 2001; Romero et
al., 2002a). Thus the Barbadian
stations were the most primitive of the three types found in the southeastern
Caribbean.
In Trinidad’s and Bequia’s whaling industries, there are reports of
sharks attacking whale carcasses and eating the blubber (de Verteuil, 1858;
Adams, 1971). The economic losses
due to sharks were significant enough that Trinidadian whaling stations employed
men with axes to kill sharks and Bequia whalers would lance sharks from the
whale boats while whales were being brought ashore.
Although there are similar reports of sharks attacking whale carcasses in
Barbados (Elmer Jordan, 2002, personal communication), the Barbadian operations
never employed anyone to kill the sharks. In
fact, the whalers could reportedly walk through the water in the midst of the
frenzied sharks and not be harmed.
There were wide fluctuations in oil production over the duration of the
industry, however, the average annual production between 1889, the first year
production rose about 100 barrels, and 1902, described as the last successful
season, was 289 barrels per year (Figure 10).
According to Bair (1962), 10-20 whales were killed per year during the
peak of the industry, presumably during this time span (Figure 11).
Based on Mitchell and Reeves’ (1983) estimate that the average humpback
whale yields 25 barrels of oil, the average number of whales taken per year
between 1889 and 1902 is 11.6. This
estimate is based entirely on whales processed by the Barbadian shore whaling
industry. Mitchell and Reeves
include in their paper methods of factoring in the number of humpbacks killed
but not recovered, including whales killed but lost, struck but lost, struck and
lost with major wounds, struck and lost with whaling gear still attached, and
the number of calves orphaned. Without
detailed catch data, however, such as the whaling logbooks Mitchell and Reeves
used, it is impossible to accurately estimate this loss factor.
Like in the American humpback fishery, on which Mitchell and Reeves’
analysis is based, there was no doubt a loss factor in the Barbadian shore
fishery, but lost whales were not recorded.
It is certain, however, that, due to losses, the number of whales landed
is lower than the total number of whales killed. The total number of whales killed in the Barbadian shore
whaling industry, based on Blue Book data and Schomburgk (1848), is 187.
Figure 10: Total
number of barrels of whale oil exported from Barbados and its total value (in
British pounds). Based on Blue
Books for Barbados.
Figure 11: Total number of whales landed annually,
based Blue Book data and an estimate that one whale yields 25 barrels (Mitchell
and Reeves, 1983).
The Barbadian whale oil export market exhibited a normal economic
relationship between supply and demand (Figure 10).
The value of oil remained relatively constant at low levels of
production, but when production increased dramatically, the price of oil dropped
substantially. Other than the
one-year peak in 1907, the price of whale oil in the 20th century
never returned to its previous high value.
Indeed at the peak of production, in 1901, the price per barrel dropped
below £1. The fact that the price
per barrel remains relatively low after the peak suggests that the market was
saturated in those years. It also
suggests that the demand for whale oil was decreasing, which it was in the early
20th century, as people began to substitute alternatives for whale
products. The same factor
contributed to the demise of Trinidad’s whaling industry.
From the 1870's onward, there was an overproduction of whale oil and
kerosene was being used as lamp fuel, instead of whale oil.
Thus the price for whale oil plummeted (Romero et
al., 2002a)
There was often significant competition between the stations in Speightstown
over whales. Because the stations
were next to each other, they both saw whales at essentially the same time and
would race to be the first one to strike it.
In 1904, the government passed the Fisheries Regulation Act, updating all
of Barbados’ fishing regulations and consolidating them into a single bill
(Appendix II). This included laws
governing competition between whaling boats from different operations, probably
as a response to quarrels between the two stations. These laws include provisions that establish ownership of a
whale by the first boat that strikes it and the ownership of a mother by a boat
that strikes her calf, and vice versa. They
even detail how profits and expenses are to be split if two boats happen to
strike the same whale (Archer and Fergusson, 1944).
A similar law exists in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, governing the whale
fishery at Bequia. Written only a
few years earlier than the Barbados law, in 1887, the “Whalers Ordinance of
1887” lays out many of the same rules as the Fisheries Regulation Act.
The Whalers Ordinance was the result not only of quarreling, but also of
hostile behavior between whaling companies, such as boats ramming each other and
whalers scaring whales away to prevent their competitors from catching them
(Adams, 1971; Beck, 1986).
The fact that there were two whaling stations in one place, scouting and
competing for the same whales, probably means that a relatively high percentage
of the whales that passed Speightstown during the years of the stations’
operation were taken. If a whale
were passing along the west coast, heading south, the chances of it making it
past the two stations and Speightstown and another at Holetown, 7 km south
(Figure 1), would have been slim. This
intensity of whaling is probably the most important contributor to the vast
reduction in humpback whale populations passing along Barbados’ west coast.
The most common explanation for the end of the Barbadian whaling industry is
related to the intensity of the whaling on the west coast.
The argument is simply that the whale stock was depleted and did not
recover. This is the explanation
given by Earnest Greaves, the “last survivor” of the Speightstown whaling
industry (Brown, 1942). He
remembers 1902 to be the last really successful whaling season.
Elmer Jordan agrees that whaling stopped because the whales were depleted
(Appendix III). The export data
support this (Figure 10). In 1902, 405 barrels were produced. This is the middle of a sharp drop from the absolute peak in
production, in 1901, when 919 barrels were produced. The decline ended in 1904 with only 12 barrels being
produced. Although production
increased again in 1906, to 250 barrels, it never returned to its high levels of
the turn of the century.
These production data provide further support for the premise that the
whaling industry ended due to depletion of the whale stock. As figure 10 shows, despite minor oscillations, the
production curve gradually increases from the first year records were kept,
1876, until the peak in production in 1901.
After 1901, it falls sharply and never recovers.
Another small peak in 1906 is followed by decline and 10 consecutive
years of no production whatsoever, after which the industry shut down.
This trend suggests that as the intensity of whaling increased, the whale
population became less able to recover and was eventually eliminated.
A further factor supporting the hypothesis that whaling ended because the
whales were eliminated comes from a look at migratory patterns and whaling
histories of other Caribbean countries. Because
some whales migrated across the entire Caribbean Sea, from north to south and
back, to their preferred breeding and calving grounds, they would pass many
islands on the way. Any whale
killed by a whaling operation may be one that had already reached its
destination and was resting in its winter habitat, or it may be one that was en
route to another area. This means
that whales traveling as far south as Barbados would have been at risk from
several whaling operations before even entering Barbadian waters. Thus the whaling industry in Bequia, which was in operation
at the same time as the one in Barbados, may have impacted Barbados’ whale
stocks. Likewise, Barbadian whaling
probably influenced Trinidad’s whale stocks.
This experience in Barbados is similar to that of Grenada and Trinidad.
Grenada followed a similar trend of increasing production, but on a much
shorter time scale than Barbados. Large-scale
whaling in Grenada took place for only seven years, from 1920 to 1926.
The peak in production was in 1925, when 105 whales were taken.
The following year, 72 whales were taken, and by 1927, not a single whale
was taken, and the industry was dismantled.
The decline in whale populations is cited as a major reason behind the
end of Grenada’s industry. Trinidad’s
production did not take off as fast as Grenada’s.
The island’s first whaling station opened around 1826, and by 1830, 14
or 15 whales had been killed. Between
1830 and 1862 between 20 and 35 whales per year were captured. Then, around 1865, commercial whaling ceased.
The local extinction of humpback whales, the primary species exploited,
is cited as the primary reason behind the cessation of whaling (Romero and
Hayford, 2000; Romero, et al., 2002b).
Another explanation as to why fewer and fewer whales were returning to
Barbados had to do with a structural change in the sugar industry. In the late 19th century, when shore whaling
began, there were 200-300 sugarcane-grinding windmills and boiling houses around
the island, one at each plantation. In
the early 20th century, those windmills and boiling houses closed
down as growers began sending their cane to factories to be processed.
When boiling houses were numerous, many people claimed that the sweet
smell of cane juice could be smelled 20 miles out at sea.
They believed that this smell brought the whales close to shore, and that
once the factories were built, the smell was no longer strong enough to attract
the whales, which is why they stopped coming (Stoute, 1975).
This explanation is unlikely, due to the fact that both toothed and
baleen whales, such as the sperm and the humpback, respectively, have an
underdeveloped and probably nonfunctional sense of smell (Edinger, 1955; Wartzok
and Ketten, 1999).
Present Status
Present threats to marine mammals in Barbados are limited to incidental catch
in fishing nets, and the paucity of incidental catch reports suggests that this
is minimal (Christopher Parker, 2002, personal communication).
The primary use of nets by Barbadian fishers is to catch flying fishes (Chelipogon
spp., Cypselurus comatus, Exocoetus
spp., Hirundichthys spp., Oxyporhamphus
micropterus, Parexocoetus brachypterus,
Prognichthys gibbifrons), for which
41-45mm mesh gill nets are used. The
nets are between 10-30m long and 3m deep. These potentially put at least three species of cetaceans at
risk: the bottlenose dolphin, short-finned
pilot whale, and unidentified species of spotted dolphins (Vidal et
al., 1994).
The low abundance of marine mammals in Barbados’ waters is similar to the
situation in Grenada and Trinidad (Romero et
al., 2000). Populations in both
of these islands were heavily impacted by their whaling industries, resulting in
very few present-day sightings. Trinidad
does not have any whale or dolphin watching enterprises, and Grenada has only
two. The lack of major industries
in this area could be due as much to both islands’ lack of a serious tourist
industry, however, as to a lack of marine mammals. And although it is significant that Grenada has whale and
dolphin watching businesses, since Trinidad and Barbados do not, it is important
to note that the operations target local resident populations of dolphins and
sperm whales, neither of which were heavily commercially exploited, like the
humpback. Trinidad has a small
population of manatees, which tourists are sometimes allowed to visit, but they
are confined to a small swamp on private land along the central east coast of
the island. Sightings of marine
mammals in both places, like in Barbados, are limited primarily to those made by
fishers, who spend a significant amount of time on the water.
In sharp contrast to Barbados, Tobago, St. Vincent, Bequia, and St. Lucia all
have large numbers of marine mammals in their waters, and sightings are common.
Tobago even has a dolphin watching tour company serving its small but
growing tourism. St. Vincent and
the Grenadines and St. Lucia have enough marine mammals present even to carry
support small whaling operations (Hoyt, 1994).
They are the only two Caribbean countries that have whaling allowances
from the International Whaling Commission.
St. Lucia has an allowance of two humpbacks per year, and St. Vincent and
the Grenadines has an aboriginal whaling allowance of three humpbacks per year (Agard
and Gobin, 2000).
Marine mammals are not a common sight in the waters around Barbados.
This is evidenced by the fact that there are no dolphin and whale
watching operations for tourists, despite the fact that tourism is the largest
contributor to the national economy (Pariser, 2000).
Many Barbadians are not aware that there are whales and dolphins in their
waters. According to reports from fishers, however, dolphins and
whales, mostly bottlenose and humpback, are present (Appendix III).
The bottlenose dolphins are present year-round, but do not often get
closer to shore than a few miles. The
humpbacks go close to land, sometimes as close as 200 or 300 m, but are a
seasonal presence, with most of them passing Barbados from March through May.
There are also occasional reports from fishers of sightings of other
species, such as sperm whales, killer whales (Orcinus
orca), and pygmy sperm whales (Kogia
breviceps). There are
literature records for Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius
cavirostris), short-finned pilot whale (Globicephela
macrorhynchus), bottlenose dolphin, spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis), Stenella spp., sperm whales, humpback
whales, bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus),
Risso’s dolphin, and common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) in Barbados (Caldwell et al., 1971; Swartz et al., 2001).
Barbados’ lack of a whale or dolphin watching industry is probably the
result of two factors. First, based
on fishers’ reports, dolphins are never seen closer than 1.6 km from shore,
and the majority of sightings are several kilometers out. This means that boats would have to travel several miles to
reach an area where dolphins could be seen, which would make tours long and
expensive. Also, once they are
several kilometers away from the shore, boats would have to search a very large
area to find dolphins. Thus the
likelihood that any individual tour would see any dolphins is not high enough to
make the venture profitable (Best, 1999).
The second factor is that the majority of the whales in the area are
migratory. Although they pass close
to shore, they are only present a few months out of the year.
In addition, no individual pod of whales spends a significant amount of
time in one area. Because Barbados is merely a point along their migratory
pathway, they do not stop there for long periods of time. Thus the likelihood of seeing a whale on any given tour is
also too low to support a tourist operation.
Some argue that instead of attempting to pursue whale and dolphin watching,
it would be more economically feasible for Barbados and several other southeast
Caribbean countries to resume whaling. The
main proponents of this idea are Grenada, Dominica, Antigua, St. Kitts and
Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
They argue that the IWC’s international ban on whaling is not supported
by sufficient scientific data, but is rather a form of “Eco-Posturing” (Alleyne,
2001). They, along with China,
Japan, and Norway, are attempting to form a pro-whaling voting bloc within the
IWC to pass a resolution allowing what they call sustainable use of marine
resources. Their primary opponents,
Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Britain, France, Brazil, Germany,
Monaco, Italy and Mexico, base management decisions for whale stocks on much
more grave population assessments, and thus feel justified in banning whaling (Alleyne,
2001; Anonymous, 2001a).
Japan’s main interest in the issue lies in the fact that it is one of the
few countries that has continued to whale since the IWC whaling moratorium in
1986. Japan has been operating under a permit that allows whaling
for scientific purposes, however, much of the meat from the whales taken ends up
in supermarkets. The whales
actually being taken also differ from what Japan reports to the IWC. A recent genetic study of whale meat in Japanese supermarkets
showed that such species as sperm whales, killer whales, dolphins, porpoises,
fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus), sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis),
Bryde’s whales (Balaenoptera edeni), blue whales (Balaenoptera
musculus), gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), and humpback whales
are among those captured. Japan’s
scientific whaling permit only allows for the capture of minke whales (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata), and these must be taken in pelagic waters, but many of the
species found in supermarkets, minke whales included, appear to have come from
the genetically unique Sea of Japan (Baker et al., 2000).
Although Barbados is not a member of the IWC, it is involved in the issue as
it has the option of joining at any time. Barbados
also received money from Japan to upgrade its disaster emergency mechanism, a
move many see as Barbados selling its vote.
Japan has taken similar action in the six southeast Caribbean countries
who are currently IWC members, building fishing complexes.
Although Japan has been accused of attempting to buy votes, it denies any
foul play. Likewise all of the countries that have accepted aid from
Japan deny that their vote is for sale. (Ally and Peltier, 2001; Anonymous,
2001b).
Conclusions
Patterns of marine mammal exploitation in Barbados are different from those
of the neighboring countries, such as Trinidad and Tobago, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines, Grenada, and Venezuela. Although
they all share similarities, several factors make Barbados’ exploitative
history distinct from the rest of them. For example, while Barbados’, Bequia’s, and Grenada’s
whaling industries developed under heavy foreign influence, Venezuela’s and
Trinidad’s developed relatively independently.
Another example of differences among the different countries is the type
of boat used. Barbados used what
were essentially converted fishing boats. Grenada
used relatively similar boats that were copies of those used by Yankee whale
ships. Grenada had technologically
advanced steam ships. Venezuela
used simple wooden skiffs. Trinidad
used wooden pirogues, another type of converted fishing boat.
Thus, despite their geographical closeness and many shared historical events
(visits by Columbus, presence of Arawak and Carib Indians, visits from Spanish
and Portuguese trading and slave ships), each country has taken a distinct path
in the exploitation of its marine mammals.
One common trend, with the possible exception of Bequia, is that every
island has largely depleted its whale stocks, especially humpback whales.
Bequia has an abundant population of pilot whales, large enough to
support its small whaling operation, but that population continues to be reduced
by whaling (Caldwell et al., 1971).
has been greatly reduced by the country’s over 100 years of whaling or
not.
Acknowledgments
This research was generously funded by the Macalester College Environmental
Studies Program. The following
individuals provided me with valuable information: Mr. Elmer Jordan, Mr. Charles
Jordan, Ms. Ina Jordan; Dr. Christopher Parker, Fisheries Division, Barbados;
Dr. Julia Horrocks, Biology Department, University of the West Indies, Cave
Hill; and numerous local fishers. Ms.
Karen Solomon provided indispensable assistance with materials at the Barbados
National Library Service. Aaron
Albertson dedicated countless time and energy to securing inter-library loan
material. I would like to thank
Anna Payden for generously donating her time to create the maps, and for her
moral support throughout the research and writing process. I would also like to extend my thanks to my thesis committee,
Peter Vaughan, Environmental Studies Program, Macalester College; and Donald
Siniff, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota;
for their time and valuable feedback, and Aldemaro Romero, Environmental Studies
Program, Macalester College; for his indispensable advice, feedback, assistance
with field work, and mentorship throughout this process.
References
MS denotes unpublished, manuscript sources
.
Adams, J.E. 1971. Historical geography of whaling in Bequia Island, West
Indies. Caribbean Studies 11(3):55-74.
Adams, J.E. 1994. Last of the Caribbean Whalemen. Natural History
103(11):64-72.
Alleyne, D. 2001. Eco-posturing or whale management? Barbados: The
Daily Nation, July 19, 2001. Pp. 2.
Ally, T. and M. Peltier. 2001. Japan after Barbados to end ban on whaling.
Barbados: The Daily Nation, July 24, 2001. Pp. 4.
Anonymous. 1839. Shipping Intelligence. Barbados:
The Liberal, February 13, 1839-December 28, 1839.
Anonymous (MS). 1857-1858. Logbook of the Bark Willis
of Mattapoisett, Massachusetts, June 8, 1857-July 5, 1858. Old Dartmouth
Historical Society and Whaling Museum, New Bedford, Massachusetts.
Anonymous (MS). 1862-1864. Logbook of the Bark Mattapoisett
of Westport, Massachusetts, May 20, 1862-April 14, 1864. Old Dartmouth
Historical Society and Whaling Museum, New Bedford, Massachusetts.
Anonymous (MS). 1864-1866. Logbook of the Bark Mattapoisett
of Westport, Massachusetts, October 3, 1864-August 5, 1866. Old Dartmouth
Historical Society and Whaling Museum, New Bedford, Massachusetts.
Anonymous. 1959. Excerpt from “The Liberal” newspaper of Barbados, March
19, 1859. J. Barbados Museum Historical Soc. 26:122.
Anonymous. 2001a. Whaling body ready for battle. Barbados: The
Daily Nation, July 19, 2001. Pp. 20.
Anonymous. 2001b. Region likely to vote for pro-whaling. Barbados: The
Daily Nation, July 18, 2001. Pp. 12A.
Archer, C.V.H. and W.K. Fergusson. 1944. Laws of Barbados, Volume II.
Barbados: Advocate Company Limited.
Bair, A. The Barbados fishing industry. Montreal: McGill University Geography
Department Publication No. 6.
Baker, C.S., G.M. Lento, F. Cipriano, M.L. Dalebout, and S.R. Palumbi.
Scientific whaling: Source of illegal products for market? Science
290:1695.
Beck, H.P. 1986. “Bleows”: The whaling complex in Bequia. Folklife
Annual: A Publication of the American Folklife Center and the Library of
Congress. Pp. 42-61.
Best, T. 1999. Not worth it. Barbados: The
Daily Nation, May 27, 1999. Pp. 1B.
Brown, H.H. 1942. The sea fisheries of Barbados: a report. Development
and Welfare in the West Indies 1:18.
Caldwell, D.K. and M.C. Caldwell. 1971. Porpoise fisheries in the southern
Caribbean - present utilizations and future potentials. In Higman, J.B. ed., Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Session of the Gulf and
Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Science. Coral Gables, Florida.
Caldwell, D.K., M.C. Caldwell, W.F. Rathjen, and J.R. Sullivan. Cetaceans
from the Lesser Antillean island of St. Vincent. Fishery Bulletin
69(2):303-312.
Caldwell, D.K., W.F. Rathjen, and M.C. Caldwell. 1971. Cuvier’s beaked
whale, Ziphius cavirostris, from Barbados. Bulletin Southern California Academy of Sciences 70:52-53.
Clapham, P.J. 2002. Humpback Whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae). In Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. San Diego: Academic Press. Pp.
589-592.
Clapham, P.J. and D.K. Mattila. 1990. Humpback whale songs as indicators of
migration routes. Marine Mammal Science
6(2):155-160.
de Verteuil, L.A.A. 1858. Trinidad: its geography, natural resources,
administration, present condition, and prospects. London: Ward and Lock.
Duerden, J.E. 1901. The marine resources of the British West Indies. In West
Indian Bulletin. Bridgetown, Barbados: Imperial Department of Agriculture
for the West Indies. Pp. 121-141.
Dufault, S., H. Whitehead, and M. Dillon. 1999. An examination of the current
knowledge on the stock structure of sperm whales (Physeter
macrocephalus) worldwide. J. Cetacean
Res. Manage. 1(1):1-10.
Edinger, T. 1955. Hearing and smell in cetacean history. Monatsschrift für
Psychiatrie und Neurobiologie 129:37-58.
Ellis, R. Whaling, Traditional. In Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig, and J.G.M.
Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. San Diego: Academic Press. Pp.
1316-1328.
Gordon, J., A. Moscrop, C. Carlson, S. Ingram, R. Leaper, J. Matthews, and K.
Young. 1998. Distribution, movements, and residency of sperm whales off the
Commonwealth of Dominica, eastern Caribbean: implications for the development
and regulation of the local whalewatching industry. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn
48:551-557.
Hoyt, E. 1994. Discover whale and dolphin watching in the Caribbean. Bath,
U.K.: Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society.
Hughes, J.C. 1961. On sailors’ valentines. J.
Barbados Museum Historical Soc. 29:3-7.
Husar, S.L. 1977. The West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus). Wildlife
Research Report 7. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Jackson, J.B.C. 1997. Reefs since Columbus. Coral Reefs 16, Suppl.:
S23-S32.
Jackson, J.B.C. 2001. What was natural in the coastal oceans? Proc. Nat.
Acad. Sci. 98(10):5411-5418.
Jordan, E. 2002. personal communication. Cited from the videotape interview
transcribed in Appendix I.
Katona, S.K. and J.A. Beard. 1990. Population size and feeding aggregations
of the humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Rep.
Int. Whal. Commn Special Issue 12:295-305.
Lefebvre, L.W., M. Marmontel, J.P. Reid, G.B. Rathbun, and D.P. Domning.
2001. Status and biogeography of the West Indian Manatee. In Woods, C.A. and F.E.
Sergile, eds. Biogeography of the West Indies. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. Pp.
425-474.
Marsh, H. and L.W. Lefebvre. 1994. Sirenian status and conservation efforts. Aquatic
Mammals 23(3):155-170.
Marsland, H. 1925. Whaling in the West Indies. Canada-West
India Magazine 14(9):241.
Martin, A.R., S.K. Katona, D. Matilla, D. Hembree, and T.D. Waters. 1984.
Migration of humpback whales between the Caribbean and Iceland. J.
Mamm. 65(2):330-333.
McKillop, H.I. 1985. Prehistoric exploitation of the manatee in the Maya and
circum-Caribbean areas. World Archaeology 16(3):337-353.
Mitchell, E. and R.R. Reeves. 1983. Catch history, abundance, and present
status of northwest Atlantic humpback whales. Rep.
Int. Whal. Commn Special Issue 5:153-212.
Oldfield, M.L. 1988. Threatened mammals affected by human exploitation of the
female-offspring bond. Conservation
Biology 2(3):260-274.
Pariser, H.S. 2000. Explore Barbados. San Francisco: Manatee Press.
Peltier, W.R. 2002. On eustatic sea level history: Last Glacial Maximum to
Holocene. Quaternary Science Reviews 21:377-396.
Ray, C.E. 1964. A small assemblage of vertebrate fossils from Spring Bay,
Barbados. J. Barbados Museum Historical
Soc. 31:11-22.
Reeves, R.R., J.A. Khan, R.R. Olsen, S.L. Swartz, and T.D. Smith. 2001.
History of whaling in Trinidad and Tobago. J. Cetacean Res. Manage.
3(1):45-54.
Reeves, R.R., S.L. Swartz, S. Wetmore, and P.J. Clapham. 2002. Historical occurrence and distribution of humpback whales in the eastern
and southern Caribbean Sea, based on data from American whaling logbooks.
In litt.
Rice, D.W. 1989. Sperm Whale (Physeter
macrocephalus) Linneaus, 1758. Handbook
of Marine Mammals. Pp. 177-233.
Rice, D.W. 2002. Spermaceti. In Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig, and J.G.M.
Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. San Diego: Academic Press.
Pp.1163-1165.
Romero, A. 2002. The Environmental History of Marine Mammal Exploitation in
the Caribbean. In litt.
Romero, A., Agudo, A.I., and S.M. Green. 1997. Exploitation of cetaceans in
Venezuela. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 47:735-746.
Romero, A., R. Baker, J.E. Creswell, A. Singh, A. McKie, and M. Manna. 2002a.
Environmental history of marine mammal exploitation in Trinidad and Tobago, W.I.,
and its ecological impact. Environment and
History, in press.
Romero, A., S. Chilbert, and M.G. Eisenhart. 1999. Cubagua’s pearl-oyster
beds: The first depletion of a natural resource caused by Europeans in the
American continent. J. Political. Ecol.
6:57-78.
Romero, A. and K. Hayford. 2000. Past and present utilisation of marine
mammals in Grenada, West Indies. J.
Cetacean Res. Manage. 2(3):223-226.
Romero, A., K.T. Hayford, A. Romero, and J. Romero. 2002b. The marine mammals
of Grenada, W.I., and their conservation status. Mammalia,
in press.
Rouse, I. 1948. The Arawak. In Steward, J.H., ed. Handbook
of South American Indians. Washington, Government Printing Office. Pp. 508.
Rouse, I. 1964. Prehistory of the West Indies. Science
144:499-513.
Rouse, I. and J.M. Cruxent. 1963. Venezuelan Archaeology. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Schomburgk, R.H. 1848. The history of Barbados. London: Frank Cass and
Company Limited. Pp. 682.
Sinckler, E.G. 1914. The Barbados Handbook. London: Duckworth and Co.
Skinner, A.O. 1914. The whaling industry of Barbados. In Sinckler, E.G. The
Barbados Handbook. London: Duckworth and Co. Pp. 213-214.
Swartz, S.L., A. Martinez, T. Cole, P.J. Clapham, M.A. McDonald, J.A.
Hildebrand, E.M. Oleson, C. Burks, and J. Barlow. 2001. Visual and acoustic
survey of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the eastern and
southern Caribbean Sea: Preliminary findings. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-SEFSC-456. Miami, Florida: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Townsend, C.H. 1935. The distribution of certain whales as shown by logbook
records of American whaleships. Zoologica 19(1):3-52.
Tree, R. 1972. A history of Barbados. London: Granada Publishing Limited.
Wartzok, D. and D.R. Ketten. 1999. Marine mammal sensory systems. In
Reynolds, J.E. and S.A. Rommel, eds. Biology of Marine Mammals.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Watts, D. 1987. The West Indies: Patterns of development, culture, and
environmental change since 1492. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Whitehead, H. 1982. Populations of humpback whales in the North Atlantic. Rep.
Int. Whal. Commn 32:345-353.
Whitehead, H. 2002. Sperm Whale (Physeter
macrocephalus). In Perrin, W.F., B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia
of Marine Mammals. San Diego: Academic Press. Pp. 1165-1172.
Wing, E.S. 2000. Economy and subsistence I: Animal remains from sited on
Barbados and Tortola. In Drewett, P.L., ed. Prehistoric
Settlements in the Caribbean. London: Archetype Publications for the
Barbados Museum and Historical Society. Pp. 147-153.
Winn, H.E., R.K. Edel, and A.G. Taruski. 1975. Population estimate of the
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the West Indies by visual and acoustic
techniques. J. Fish. Res. Board Can.
32:499-506.
Yates,
A.W. 1998. Bygone Barbados. St. Michael, Barbados: Black Bird Studios.
Appendices
Appendix I:
Transcript
of a videotape interview with Elmer Jordan, son of Percy Jordan, last owner of
the C.H.P. Jordan whaling station in Speightstown.
Appendix II: The Fisheries Regulation Act of 1904,
Part III: Whaling. Source: Archer and Fergusson (1944).
Appendix III: Records of marine mammal sightings based on interviews with fishers.
Back to Top
