OCS Study MMS 2005-058 

Final Report 

Satellite Tracking of Bowhead Whales: The Planning Phase 

Lori Quakenbush 

Affiliate Assistant Professor 

Institute of Marine Science 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

loriq@ims.uaf.edu 

and 

Robert Small 

Marine Mammal Program Coordinator 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

Robert_Small@fishgame.state.ak.us

October 2005 
Contact information 

e-mail: carter@sfos.uaf.edu 

 phone: 907.474.1811 

 fax: 907.474.1188 

 postal: Coastal Marine Institute 

 School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences 

 University of Alaska Fairbanks 

 Fairbanks, AK 99775-7220

2
Table of Contents 

Abstract ............................................................................................................... 4 

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 4 

Methods ............................................................................................................... 6 

Results ................................................................................................................. 6 

Discussion ............................................................................................................ 10 

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. 11 

Study Products ....................................................................................................... 11 

References ........................................................................................................... 11 

Appendix A — Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission Meeting Handout ................................... 15 

Appendix B — Agenda for the Bowhead Tagging Work Session ........................................... 17 

Appendix C — Summary of Bowhead Satellite Tracking Work Session ................................... 19 

Appendix D — Bowhead Whale Satellite Tagging Project Update to AEWC ............................. 24 

3
Abstract 

Bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) are managed as an endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act due to depletion by commercial whaling during the late 1800s. Bowheads are an 

important subsistence and cultural resource for coastal people of northern Alaska. Until recently, the 

entire Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock was thought to migrate through the Beaufort Sea twice annually: 

during their eastward, spring migration and their westward, fall migration. Recent summer sightings 

indicate some bowheads may stay in the Bering and Chukchi Seas and not enter the Beaufort at all. The 

importance of the Beaufort Sea for feeding is also in question due to conflicting study results. Oil and gas 

leasing, exploration, development, and production are ongoing in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea and there is 

interest in pursuing such activities in the Chukchi Sea. Therefore, greater understanding of bowhead 

migration and feeding behavior and an increased knowledge of important feeding and summering areas 

are necessary for the conservation and management of the species. Satellite transmitters deployed on 

bowhead whales along their migration route can provide information on migration routes, migration 

timing, swim speed, diving behavior, residence times in portions of their range, and responses to 

industrial activity. Working with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), the North Slope 

Borough, the Minerals Management Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, BP Alaska, Inc., and 

ConocoPhillips we have cooperatively identified the priority objectives and procedures that are acceptable 

to all parties. Important components included meeting with and keeping AEWC informed and conducting 

a workshop that included the assistance of AEWC commissioners to establish priorities and determine 

feasible methods for attaching transmitters without interfering with subsistence whaling activities. 

Introduction 

Bowhead whales are the most important species for subsistence communities along the Beaufort 

Sea coast for both the amount of nutrition and the cultural importance they bring. Subsistence whaling 

communities are concerned that offshore and nearshore oil and gas activities (e.g., marine seismic 

projects, offshore oil drilling from ships and islands) may deflect whales away from shore, making 

hunting more difficult and dangerous, and may displace whales from feeding areas during the short open 

water season. Oil spills during whale migrations are also of concern. 

All bowhead whales from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock (BCBS), also known as the 

Western Arctic stock and the Bering stock, are thought to winter in the Bering Sea; however, prior to 

commercial whaling, some of the population migrated through the Chukchi Sea and into the eastern 

Canadian Beaufort Sea to summer, while others remained in the Bering Sea (Bockstoce and Botkin 1980). 

Few bowheads were seen in the Bering or Chukchi Seas during summer shipboard surveys in the 1970s 

and 1980s (Dahlheim et al. 1980, Miller et al. 1986), leading to speculation that the reduced population 

now all migrated through the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in spring and fall between wintering and summering 

areas. In the mid 1980s – early 1990s, however, reports of summer sightings in the western Beaufort Sea 

near Point Barrow suggested that some bowheads may not be spending summers in the eastern Beaufort 

Sea (Moore 1992). Sightings in July 1999 near Point Barrow (n = 8) and August 2000 near Cape 

Simpson (n = 50) indicate that the western Beaufort Sea may be an important summer area (Rugh et al. 

2003). Sightings along the Chukotka Peninsula throughout the spring and summer in 1994 (Ainana et al. 

1995 and others, summarized in Rugh et al. 2003) may indicate new summer areas are being used as the 

population continues to increase (George et al. 2004). Based on these combined observations, the 

presence of a separate stock of bowheads has also been proposed; however, additional research beyond 

the combined observations from increased survey effort will be required to assess population structure. 

The importance of the Beaufort Sea as feeding habitat to bowhead whales has been equivocal. 

Observations of feeding (Ljungblad et al. 1983, 1986; Lowry and Frost 1984; Moore et al. 1989), prey in 

stomach contents (Lowry et al. 2004), and isotope ratios of muscle tissue (Hoekstra et al. 2002) have all 

4
indicated that substantial feeding occurs in the Beaufort Sea. Two feeding studies (Richardson 1987, 

Richardson and Thomson 2001) and stable isotope ratios in baleen (Schell et al. 1989, Hobson and Schell 

1998, Schell and Saupe 1993) and in baleen and muscle tissue (Lee et al. 2005), however, indicated the 

amount of energy acquired in the Beaufort was not physiologically significant relative to that acquired in 

the Bering and Chukchi Seas. 

Specifically, isotope ratios in the baleen of adult bowhead whales showed little seasonal change 

and showed that the major feeding signal came from the Bering and Chukchi Seas in winter (Schell et al. 

1989, Hobson and Schell 1998, Schell and Saupe 1993), not from the Beaufort Sea in summer/fall. 

Subadult whale baleen, however, showed strong seasonal changes between summer (Beaufort) and winter 

(Bering) with significant feeding in both regions. A more recent study analyzed isotope ratios in 

bowhead muscle instead of baleen (Hoekstra et al. 2002) and found seasonal fluctuation in carbon 

isotopes for all age classes, suggesting that the Bering and Beaufort Seas are both important for feeding. 

Lee et al. (2005), however, got conflicting results in their isotope analysis of muscle tissue from the same 

whales, and when combined with baleen, their results indicated that the majority of the annual food intake 

bore the isotope signature of the Bering-Chukchi region, not that of the Beaufort Sea. 

 Within the Beaufort Sea, the eastern Canadian Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf areas are 

thought to be used as summer feeding areas for bowhead whales (Fraker and Bockstoce 1980, Würsig et 

al. 1985), and although feeding has been observed in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea (Ljungblad et al. 1983, 

1986; Lowry and Frost 1984; Moore et al. 1989) there is less agreement regarding its relative importance. 

Richardson (1987) concluded that the bowhead population obtained <1% and <1.4% of its annual energy 

needs in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea between Kaktovik and Canada in 1985 and 1986, respectively. 

Another feeding study conducted in 1998–2000 (Richardson and Thomson 2001) concluded that although 

bowheads in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea spent an average of 47% of their time feeding, they did not obtain 

more than 5% of their annual energy needs there. Aerial photography and resightings of identifiable 

individuals was the primary method used to determine residence time for whales in the study area, but this 

method may have underestimated the amount of time and/or the number of whales feeding there. A 

significant amount of feeding may also be occurring during behavior that has been recorded as migration 

(Ljungblad et al. 1986). 

Approximately 77% of 137 bowhead whales harvested near Barrow and Kaktovik between 1976 

and 2000 had food in their stomachs (Lowry et al. 2004). Subadult bowheads harvested in fall were 

heavier and had blubber of higher lipid content than those harvested in the spring (Thomson 2002). 

Stable isotopes, behavioral observations, stomach contents, and lipid levels indicate bowhead whales are 

feeding in the eastern and western areas of the Beaufort Sea, but further investigation is needed to 

determine the relative importance of the energy consumed and if the feeding areas are consistent in their 

location and importance from year to year. 

Satellite telemetry is a powerful tool that can be used to address questions regarding marine 

mammal movements and habitat use (Lowry et al. 2000; Baumgartner and Mate 2001a, b; Dietz et al. 

2001; Richard et al. 2001; Boyd et al. 2002). Detailed movements of individual whales can determine 

residence time in potential feeding areas. Further, satellite transmitters can collect and transmit 

information on diving behavior in association with location data that can be correlated with feeding and 

other behaviors. Satellite transmitters were deployed on 12 subadults from the BCBS in the Canadian 

Beaufort Sea in the fall (Mate et al. 2000). Telemetry data showed that the whales did not move together, 

and although they spent more time in shallow water, they also used deep water habitats, and they moved 

through heavy ice and open water (Mate et al. 2000). Satellite telemetry is being successfully used on 

bowhead whales in Canada and Greenland (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003). No tags have been deployed on 

bowheads of the BCBS in Alaskan waters or during spring or winter. 

5
Our objectives during the planning phase were: 

1. Design a study using satellite telemetry as a tool to answer questions regarding bowhead 

whale migration routes, migration timing, swim speed, diving behavior, residence times in 

portions of their range, and incidental exposure to industry activity, without interfering with 

subsistence whaling activities. 

2. Provide a forum for collaboration with whaling captains, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling 

Commission (AEWC), North Slope Borough (NSB), National Marine Fisheries Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NMFS/NOAA), Minerals Management 

Service (MMS), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and other interested parties. 

This forum would provide opportunities for input into the study design and for local 

involvement in the tagging. 

3. Prepare an Implementation Plan to seek three years of funding for satellite tagging and data 

collection. We will contact other organizations, including the oil and gas industry and 

NMFS, to explore joint funding possibilities. 

Methods 

The project objectives were accomplished through communication with all interested parties, 

presentations at AEWC meetings, and a workshop in Anchorage with representatives from the interested 

parties. 

Results 

Objective 1: Study Plan 

The Principal Investigators will continue to develop collaborations established during the 

University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Study “Satellite Tracking of Bowhead Whales: The 

Planning Phase”. In order to address all of the objectives, whales will be tagged at multiple locations 

during the spring and fall migrations. Up to 25 bowhead whales will be tagged in years 2–5. In Year 1 

(2005) the number of tags will be limited to 10 due to restrictions of the federal research permit issued by 

NMFS. An application was submitted in July 2004 to increase the number of transmitters allowed to 25 

per year. It is expected that the permit will be modified by 2006. 

The objectives of this study include: 

Objective 1: Work with the subsistence whalers to deploy satellite transmitters on bowhead 

whales, of different size categories, in order to document and describe their general pattern of 

year-round movements. 

Objective 2: Use satellite telemetry to document behavior during migration relative to the 

routes used and the environmental characteristics of those routes; i.e., polynyas, leads, 

bathymetry, ice conditions, and industrial disturbances. 

Objective 3: Document the timing of migration and the rate of travel. 

6
Objective 4: Estimate residence time for individual whales relative to specific geographic 

locations and/or habitat types. 

In Year 1, we will attempt to deploy all 10 tags in the fall at Kaktovik and/or Barrow. If all tags 

are not deployed in the fall, we will try to deploy the remaining tags from St. Lawrence Island (Gambell 

or Savoonga) during the winter. Due to open water conditions, St. Lawrence Island whalers have been 

able to hunt during winter in recent years. In addition to deploying tags, we will also obtain a skin biopsy 

from each whale receiving a tag. Biopsies will be done by crossbow with a floating biopsy dart. Darts 

will only penetrate 30 mm. Skin samples will allow us to determine the sex of the bowhead tagged and 

will be available for genetic analysis. 

During tagging the following information will be recorded: 

1. Date and time 

2. Location (latitude and longitude) 

3. Tagger 

4. Type of tag 

5. Type of boat 

6. Number of attempts to tag 

7. Distance to target whale when tag deployed 

8. Placement of tag on whale, written description and digital photo documentation 

9. Reaction of target whale to tag 

10. Reaction of target whale to boat 

11. Reaction of nearby whales to tagging activity 

12. Number of whales in the group 

13. Number of calves in the group 

14. Approximate length of tagged whale, estimated by whalers 

15. Does tagged whale have a calf 

In Year 2, we will attempt to deploy 18 tags at St. Lawrence Island (Gambell) in March, prior to 

the beginning of the spring migration. Tags not deployed there will be made available to be deployed 

“upstream” along the migration corridor. Point Hope, Wainwright, and Barrow will be locations for 

spring deployments. Any of these 18 tags not deployed in the spring plus the remaining 7 of the 25 total 

tags for the year will be deployed in the fall from Kaktovik, Barrow, and possibly Cross Island. 

Prior to deployments in Year 3, we will evaluate the data collected to date in order to determine 

the best allocation of tags by location, season, and bowhead size class. 

The principal investigators are dedicated to having Alaska Native subsistence whalers participate 

in this project in all aspects of planning, development, field logistics, expertise regarding bowhead 

behavior, and tag deployment whenever possible. We are also dedicated to conducting the tagging 

without interfering with the bowhead subsistence harvest. If there are acceptable levels of interference 

those levels will be identified and approved by the whaling captains of the community that would be 

affected. Without such approval, all tagging will be done without interfering with any whaling activities. 

Specific ideas for deploying tags without interfering with whaling are site and season specific. In 

Barrow during spring, tagging could occur during “cease fires” that are called when the lead is too narrow 

for whaling. In Barrow and Kaktovik during fall, tagging could occur after the quota was reached for the 

year by working with a crew dedicated to tagging. Tagging could also occur at Barrow during whaling if 

the tagging crew worked west of Barrow (downstream of the active whalers). At Gambell and Savoonga 

if the tags were carried in the whaling boats they could be deployed on whales that were approached but 

7
too big for harvest. Near Savoonga in the spring, whales passing by close to the ice edge could by tagged 

by standing on the ice. 

Satellite tags and their attachment technology are improving rapidly. We are communicating 

with and will likely contract Dr. Mads Peter Heide-Jørgensen, one of the leading experts in telemetry for 

large cetaceans. Dr. Heide-Jørgensen has configured and deployed over 100 satellite transmitters on 

bowheads in Canada and Greenland (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2003, pers. comm.) and his transmitters were 

used on the northern right whales tagged in the Bering Sea in 2004. Specific tag configuration (type, 

attachment method, duty cycle, dive data) will be determined soon for the first 10 tags to be deployed in 

the fall of 2005. We will likely start with a simple tag that records location data only. These tags are less 

expensive, more reliable, and will last longer. Once we see how the tags deploy and perform we will 

begin to deploy more sophisticated tags that record dive behavior. There are also tags available that 

measure oceanographic parameters such as temperature and salinity and we may use these for feeding 

information. As the project progresses we will continue to evaluate tags and attachments and make 

adjustments as necessary. 

Objective 2: Meetings 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission Meeting, 24 June 2004. Lori Quakenbush coordinated 

with John “Craig” George and Harry Brower Jr. (NSB staff), Charles D. N. Brower (NSB Director), and 

Maggie Ahmaogak (AEWC Executive Director) for an opportunity to present the satellite tagging study 

idea at a meeting of the AEWC commissioners in Barrow. Many of the commissioners were present in 

Barrow, others attended via telephone, and some were absent. The presentation occurred at the end of a 

long meeting and there were numerous questions. Harry Brower, Jr. suggested that a presentation and 

discussion be placed on the agenda of the next quarterly AEWC meeting so that all of the commissioners 

could participate in person in a discussion. The Commissioners agreed that time for a thorough 

discussion would be best and that having all of the Commissioners present in person would be good. It 

was agreed to place the satellite telemetry study on the agenda for the quarterly meeting, scheduled to 

occur on 28 October 2004 in Anchorage. 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission Meeting, 28 October 2004. Lori Quakenbush presented 

the project idea to the AEWC at their quarterly meeting in Anchorage in October 2004 (Appendix A). 

There was some confusion initially about the details of the tagging study. It was explained that the study 

details had not yet been determined because we were first seeking approval of the idea from the whalers 

and then seeking participation by the whalers to determine the study objectives and plan. Once we had 

their approval we would prepare a study plan with their input. Pursuing a satellite tagging study was 

approved by the AEWC in a roll call vote, however they wanted to reserve overall support of tagging 

until they could review and approve a study plan. We also explained that without interest and 

participation by the whalers we would not pursue the project. 

A Work Session for Planning the Study, 18 and 19 January 2005. An agenda and summary are 

included as Appendix B and C. The work session was held in Anchorage at the Captain Cook. Attendees 

included: 

• Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission – Harry Brower Jr. (Barrow), George Noongwook 

(Savoonga), and Merlin Koonooka (Gambell) 

• North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife Management – Charles D. N. Brower and John 

“Craig” George 

• National Marine Fisheries Service – David Rugh 

• Minerals Management Service – Chuck Monnett 

• ConocoPhillips – Caryn Rea 

8
• BP Alaska – Bill Streever 

• Alaska Department of Fish and Game – Robert Small and Lori Quakenbush 

The agenda for the Bowhead Tagging Work Session (Appendix B) included background 

presentations by Lori Quakenbush on the project to date, Craig George on bowhead distribution and stock 

structure, Chuck Monnett on feeding studies and disturbance, Dave Rugh on migration, and Harry 

Brower, George Noongwook, and Merlin Koonooka on local knowledge of stocks, feeding, and 

migration. Lori Quakenbush also described the technology and use of satellite transmitters. 

Each participant was invited to state three objectives important to him. Once the objectives were 

listed, all participants reviewed the objectives to see if any additional ones should be added. We 

prioritized the objectives by organizing them into similar categories and going through them one by one. 

Each participant gave a ranking of 1 (high), 2 (moderate), or 3 (low) to each objective. The priorities, 

their sponsors, and their rankings are included in Appendix C. 

Priority objectives identified by the workshop participants included: 

• Determine the summer distribution of bowhead whales in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas 

• Identify places where bowhead whales aggregate; i.e., wintering, feeding, breeding areas 

• Document annual variability in the migration route 

• Determine if there are long-term effects of industrial activity to bowhead whales 

• Document early spring movements of bowhead whales near St. Lawrence Island to define the 

beginning of the migration 

There was a keen interest in the stock structure question posed by IWC. Whether the BCBS of 

bowheads is made up of two stocks is in question. If there were two stocks then IWC would want to 

manage them as two and have separate harvest quotas for each. Funding is available through 

NMFS/NOAA to address this question and a study plan has been developed (Moore and George 2005). 

AEWC commissioners are mixed in their opinions about seeking information to determine if multiple 

stocks exist. Much of the information collected by satellite telemetry to address our priority objectives 

may also be useful to address stock structure. 

We also discussed how to approach whales for tagging without interfering with subsistence whaling. 

At Barrow in spring, tagging could occur during “cease fires,” called when hunting conditions are poor 

and the risk of a strike without landing a whale are too high. Tagging could occur either with the help of 

a crew or by standing on the lead edge. In Barrow and Kaktovik during fall, tagging could occur after the 

quota was reached for the year by working with a crew dedicated to tagging. Tagging could also occur at 

Barrow during whaling if the tagging crew worked west of Barrow (downstream of the active whalers). 

At Gambell and Savoonga, if the tags were carried in the whaling boats they could be deployed on whales 

that were approached but too big for harvest. Near Savoonga in the spring, whales passing by close to the 

ice edge could by tagged by someone standing on the ice. 

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission Meeting, 3 February 2005. Lori Quakenbush presented 

an update of the tagging project and the results of the January work session to AEWC at their Mini 

Convention in Barrow. Questions and concerns raised at this meeting included the impact of the tags on 

the whales, interference with subsistence whaling, and whether the IWC would consider deploying tags as 

strikes. 

It was important to the whalers that the tags be designed to have minimal long-term impacts on 

the whale’s health. It was pointed out that two of eight whales that were tagged with VHF radio 

transmitters in the eastern Beaufort in Canadian waters (Wartzok et al. 1990) were harvested at Gambell. 

9
It was stressed that it would not be acceptable for the study to interfere with whaling activities. There 

were also questions about the IWC’s definition of a strike and whether tags would count against the strike 

quota. Although it was explained that the tagging would be done under a NMFS research permit that 

would be independent of the quota even if whalers were deploying the tags, there is still some concern 

and skepticism that we need to address. More concern over stock structure led to how the results from 

tagging may be used to show separate stocks exist and how that would not be good for the whalers. 

Whereas it is true that telemetry data may be used to argue for the two-stock theory, it may also give 

evidence supporting one stock. We were reminded that the strength and tradition of AEWC and NSB, 

especially where IWC is concerned, has been their willingness to collect and present information 

regardless of its content. A resolution was passed to withdraw support if evidence of harm to the whales 

was discovered or if any interference with subsistence whaling activities occurred. 

Bowhead Genetic Workshop, Seattle, Washington, 23 and 24 February 2005. A workshop 

titled “Workshop on Bowhead Whale Stock Structure Studies in the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas: 

2005–2006” was sponsored by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center and National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory of NOAA and NSB to address IWC’s multiple stock concerns. Lori Quakenbush was invited 

to present a summary of the satellite-tagging project. Satellite tagging designed to learn about migration, 

feeding, and areas of concentration were of great interest because this type of information would also help 

to determine the stock structure. At this workshop NOAA, NSB, and others were preparing a plan to 

study stock structure within the BCBS. Satellite-tagging was also a component of their stock structure 

study plan, yet funding does not allow them to begin tagging before 2007. 

Objective 3: Implementation Plan 

Minerals Management Service is funding a study to be managed by the Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game (ADF&G) working in close cooperation with Alaska Native subsistence whalers, in which 

the whalers will participate in the study by providing logistics, bowhead behavior expertise, and by 

deploying the tags whenever possible. Satellite telemetry will be used to document year-round 

movements of bowhead whales throughout their range. The satellite telemetry study is one of four 

contracts supported under a multidisciplinary study entitled “Bowhead Whale Feeding in the Central and 

Western Alaskan Beaufort Sea”. Other contracts will support research on: 1) bowhead whale feeding 

behavior and prey distributions; 2) oceanographic conditions associated with feeding bowheads and their 

prey; and 3) integration and synthesis of the research. This is a 5-year study in which ADF&G will 

provide technical and analytical expertise, administrative support, and oversight in the study and 

subsistence whalers will provide expertise in aspects of field logistics and bowhead whale behavior 

resulting in the whaler’s deployment of the satellite tags whenever possible. 

We expect that the Request for Proposal from MMS to ADF&G will be received in early July 

2005 and that 10 tags will be deployed in September and October 2005. 

 

Discussion 

Learning more about bowhead whales was the goal of all the interested parties. We determined 

initially that interference with the subsistence harvest was not acceptable for this study. When and where 

to deploy tags was driven by the need to avoid interfering with the subsistence harvest. AEWC 

commissioners determined where, when, and how tags could be put on that would not affect whaling. 

Using that information, combined with the need for information on bowhead movements throughout the 

year, lead to a study design that was acceptable to all. 

10
We have successfully accomplished our objectives and are ready to move into the study phase. 

The study plan will be presented to AEWC for their approval during the summer of 2005 and we will 

continue to work with whalers from each village as the project develops. The contract with MMS is 

being developed, the funding is available, and this cooperative project is moving forward with all 

interested parties participating. 

Acknowledgments 

John “Craig” George and Todd O’Hara were instrumental in initiating the project. Charles D. N. 

Brower, Harry Brower, Jr., and Robert Suydam, all of the NSB, provided key ideas during the early 

planning stages. Maggie Ahmaogak and Thomas Napagiak, Jr. of the AEWC were gracious in including 

our presentations on their already full agenda. George Noongwook, Merlin Koonooka, and Harry Brower 

Jr. of the AEWC provided extremely useful ideas and information during the January work session to 

help determine the objectives of the study and how to achieve them. Chuck Monnett, MMS; Dave Rugh, 

NMFS; Caryn Rea, ConocoPhillips; and Bill Strever, BP Alaska, Inc., also contributed greatly to the 

work session. This study was funded in part by Cooperative Agreement No. 0102CA85294, Task Order 

35248, between the University of Alaska and the Minerals Management Service. We thank the NSB for 

matching funds and facilitation. 

Study Products 

1) Summaries of the meetings and workshop are included in this report as appendices. 

2) A study design for using satellite telemetry to provide information on year-round bowhead whale 

behavior, while not interfering with subsistence whaling, is included in the body of this final 

report. 

3) The application for a scientific research permit to place up to 25 transmitters per year on bowhead 

whales in the U.S. has been submitted to NOAA, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources by 

NMFS, National Marine Mammal Laboratory and is under review. We will be allowed to tag up 

to 10 bowhead whales in 2005 under Scientific Research Permit No. 782-1719. 

4) Funding has been secured through MMS for a five-year study to tag 10 bowhead whales in 2005 

and up to 25 in 2006–2010. 

5) Annual Report. Quakenbush, L.T. and R.J. Small. 2005. Satellite tracking of bowhead whales: 

The planning process, p. 132–136. In University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute Annual 

Report No. 11. OCS Study MMS 2005-xxx, University of Alaska Fairbanks and USDOI, MMS, 

Alaska OCS Region.

References 

Ainana, L., N. Mymrin, L. Bogoslavskaya, and I. Zagrebin. 1995. Role of the Eskimo Society of 

Chukotka in encouraging traditional native use of wildlife resources by Chukotka Natives and in 

conducting shore-based observations on the distribution of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, 

in coastal waters off the south-eastern part of the Chukotka Peninsula (Russia) during 1994. 

Report by the Eskimo Society of Chukotka to the Department of Wildlife Management, North 

Slope Borough, Barrow, Alaska. 135 pp. 

Baumgartner, M. F., and B. R. Mate. 2001a. Understanding the relationship between North Atlantic right 

whale movements and habitat characteristics from satellite-monitored radio tag data: A novel 

11
approach. 14th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals. Vancouver, Canada, 

November 28 – December 3, 2001 (Abstract). 

Baumgartner, M. F., and B. R. Mate. 2001b. Summer feeding season movements and fall migration of 

North Atlantic right whales from satellite-monitored radio tags. 14th Biennial Conference on the 

Biology of Marine Mammals. Vancouver, Canada, November 28 – December 3, 2001 (Abstract). 

Bockstoce, J. R., and D. B. Botkin. 1980. The historical status and reduction of the western Arctic 

bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) population by the pelagic whaling industry, 1848–1914. 

New Bedford Whaling Museum, New Bedford MA. 160 pp. Final report to the National Marine 

Fisheries Service by the Old Dartford Historical Society 03-78-MO2-2012. 

Boyd, I. L., I. J. Staniland, and A. R. Martin. 2002. Distribution of foraging by female Antarctic fur seals. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 242: 285–294. 

Dahleim, M., T. Bray, and H. Braham. 1980. Vessel survey for bowhead whales in the Bering and 

Chukchi Seas, June–July, 1978. Marine Fisheries Review. 42(9–10):51–57. 

Dietz, R., M. P. Heide-Jørgensen, P. R. Richard, and M. Acquarone. 2001. Summer and fall movements 

of narwhals (Monodon monoceros) from Northeastern Baffin Island towards Northern Davis 

Strait. Arctic 54(3):244–261. 

Fraker, M. A., and J. R. Bockstoce. 1980. Summer distribution of bowhead whales in the eastern 

Beaufort Sea. Marine Fisheries Review 42(9–10):57–64. 

George, J. C., J. Zeh, R. Suydam, and C. Clark. 2004. Abundance and population trend (1978–2001) of 

western Arctic bowhead whales surveyed near Barrow, Alaska. Marine Mammal Science 

20(4):755–773. 

Heide-Jørgensen, M. P., K. L. Laidre, Ø. Wiig, M. V. Jensen, L. Dueck, L.D. Maiers, H. C. Schmidt, and 

R. C. Hobbs. 2003. From Greenland to Canada in ten days: tracks of bowhead whales, Balaena 

mysticetus, across Baffin Bay. Arctic 56(1):21–31. 

Hoekstra, P. F., L. A. Dehn, J. C. George, K. R. Solomon, D. C. G. Muir, and T. M. O'Hara. 2002. 

Trophic ecology of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) compared with that of other arctic 

marine biota as interpreted from carbon-, nitrogen-, and sulfur-isotope signatures. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology, 80:223–231. 

Hobson, K. A., and D. M. Schell. 1998. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotope patterns in baleen from 

eastern Arctic bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 55:2601–2607. 

Lee, S. H., D. M. Schell, T. L. McDonald, and W. J. Richardson. 2005. Regional and seasonal feeding 

by bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) as indicated by stable isotope ratios. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 285:271–287. 

Ljungblad, D. K., S. E., Moore, and D. R. Van Schoik. 1983. Aerial surveys of endangered whales in the 

Beaufort, eastern Chukchi and northern Bering Seas, 1982. NOSC Technical Document 605. 

Report from Naval Ocean Systems Center, Dan Diego, CA for U.S. Minerals Management 

Service, Anchorage, AK. 382 pp. (NTIS AD-A134 772/3). 

12
Ljungblad, D. K., S. E., Moore, and J. T. Clarke. 1986. Assessment of bowhead whale (Balaena 

mysticetus) feeding patterns in the Alaskan Beaufort and northeastern Chukchi Seas via aerial 

surveys, fall 1979–1984. Report of the International Whaling Commission 336:265–272. 

Lowry, L. F., and K. J. Frost. 1984. Foods and feeding of bowhead whales in western and northern 

Alaska. Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute, Tokyo 35:1–16. 

Lowry, L. F., G. Sheffield, and J. C. George. 2004. Bowhead whale feeding in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 

based on stomach contents analysis. Journal of Cetacean Research Management 6(3):215–223. 

Lowry, L. F., V. N. Burkanov, K. J. Frost, M. A. Simpkins, R. Davis, D. P. Demaster, R. Suydam, and A. 

Springer. 2000. Habitat use and habitat selection by spotted seals (Phoca largha) in the Bering 

Sea. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1959–1971. 

Mate, B. R., G. K, Krutzikowsky, and M. H. Winsor. 2000. Satellite-monitored movements of radiotagged bowhead whales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas during the late-summer feeding season 

and fall migration. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 78(7):1168–1181. 

Miller, R. V., D. J. Rugh, and J. H. Johnson. 1986. The distribution of bowhead whales, Balaena 

mysticetus, in the Chukchi Sea. Marine Mammal Science. 2:214–222. 

Moore, S. E. 1992. Summer records of bowhead whales in the northeastern Chukchi Sea. Arctic 

45(4):398–400. 

Moore, S. E., J. T. Clarke, and D. K. Ljungblad. 1989. Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) spatial and 

temporal distribution in the central Beaufort Sea during late summer and early fall 1979–86. 

Report to the International Whaling Commission 39:283–290. 

Moore, S. E., and J. C. George. Convenors. 2005. Workshop on bowhead whale stock structure studies 

in the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas: 2005–2006. 

Richard, P. R., M. P. Heide-Jørgensen, J. R. Orr, R. Dietz, and T. G. Smith. 2001. Summer and autumn 

movements and habitat use by belugas in the Canadian High Arctic and adjacent areas. Arctic 54 

(3): 207–222. 

Richardson, W. J., ed. 1987. Importance of the eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea to feeding bowhead 

whales, 1985–1986. Report by LGL Ecological Research Associates Inc. to U.S. Minerals 

Management Service. NTIS No. PB 88 150271/AS. 131 pp. 

Richardson, W. J., and D. H. Thomson, eds. 2001. Bowhead whale feeding in the eastern Alaskan 

Beaufort Sea: update of scientific and traditional information. Draft Final Report by LGL 

Limited, Environmental Research Associates and LGL Ecological Research Associates Inc. to 

U.S. Minerals Management Service MMS# 1435-01-97-/CT-30842. 2 Vols. 

Rugh, D., D. Demaster, A. Rooney, J. Breiwick, K. Shelden, and S. Moore. 2003. A review of bowhead 

whale (Balaena mysticetus) stock identity. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 

5(3):267–279. 

Schell, D. M., S. M. Saupe, and N. Haubenstock. 1989. Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) growth and 

feeding as estimated by δ13C techniques. Marine Biology (Berl.) 103:433–443. 

13
Schell, D. M., and S. M. Saupe. 1993. Feeding and growth as indicated by stable isotopes. Pages 491–

509 in The bowhead whale. J. J. Burns, J. J. Montague, and C. J. Cowles, eds. Special 

Publication No. 2, The Society for Marine Mammalogy, Lawrence, KS. 

Thomson, D. H. 2002. Energetics of bowhead whales. In: W. J. Richardson and D. H. Thomson (eds.), 

Bowhead Whale Feeding in the Eastern Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Update of Scientific and 

Traditional Information, Vol. 2, Chapter 22. OCS Study MMS 2002-012. LGL Report TA2196-7. 

Report from LGL Ltd., King City, Ontario Canada to U.S. Minerals Management Service 

Anchorage, AK. 

Wartzok, D., W. A. Watkins, B. Würsig, J. Guerrero, and J. Schoenherr. 1990. Movements and behavior 

of bowhead whales. Report from Purdue University, Fort Wayne, Indiana for Amoco Production 

Co., P.O. Box 800, Denver, CO 80201, USA. 

Würsig, B., E. M. Dorsey, M. A. Fraker, R. S. Payne, and W. J. Richardson. 1985. Behavior of bowhead 

whales, Balaena mysticetus, summering in the Beaufort Sea: a description. Fishery Bulletin 

83:357–377.

14
Appendix A. Handout for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission Meeting, 28 October 2004. 

Bowhead Tagging – the planning phase 

Background: Bowhead whales are the most important species for subsistence 

communities along the Chukchi and Beaufort sea coasts. Concerns regarding 

bowheads include: 

Offshore and nearshore oil and gas activities 

- may deflect whales away from shore making hunting more difficult and 

dangerous 

- may displace whales from feeding areas 

- may cause oil spills that would affect migrating bowheads 

Stock structure 

- IWC is concerned that whales harvested at St. Lawrence Island may be a 

different stock than those harvested at Barrow 

General behavior 

- migration routes 

- migration timing 

- feeding areas 

- diving behavior 

- time spent in areas within spring and summer range 

These issues can all be addressed using satellite telemetry as a tool to determine 

bowhead movements and diving/surfacing behavior. 

1st Step: The Minerals Management Service, the Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, 

and the North Slope Borough were interested in what could be learned by tagging 

bowheads and put together money and other support to discuss the idea with the 

AEWC Commissioners. The idea was presented to Maggie Ahmaogak in May 

2004 and she invited me to speak to the AEWC Commissioners at your meeting in 

Barrow in June 2004. After an introduction and short discussion it was determined 

that a longer discussion with more Commissioners present would be best and 

bowhead tagging was put on the agenda for this meeting (October 2004). 

15
2nd Step: Without your approval this project will not happen. If the study is 

approved it must be conducted without interfering with subsistence whaling 

activities. With your approval this project could proceed in at least 2 ways: 

1) AEWC Commissioners could be involved in designing and conducting the 

study. That could include: 

a) Determine the most important questions to answer 

b) Determine which transmitters to use 

c) Determine when, where, and how to put transmitters on 

d) Put the transmitters on 

2) AEWC Commissioners could approve the study but not be involved directly 

in designing and conducting the study. 

3rd Step: If this study is approved by AEWC Commissioners the next step is to 

have a workshop with AEWC representatives, North Slope Borough, Mineral 

Management Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Dept. of Fish and 

Game, and oil company representatives to design the study. It was suggested that 

having a workshop in conjunction with the AEWC mini-convention in February 

2005 would be a good time for AEWC Commissioners to participate. 

If this study is not approved by AEWC Commissioners then I would drop my 

efforts to organize it. I think this project has the greatest potential for learning the 

most about bowheads if AEWC and the whalers are involved. 

4th Step: Only if approved. Secure the funding and start tagging. 

Submitted to AEWC 28 October 2004 by: 

Lori Quakenbush 

Wildlife Biologist 

Arctic Marine Mammals 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

1300 College Road 

Fairbanks, AK 99701 

Ph: (907) 459-7214; Fax: (907) 452-6410 

Lori_quakenbush@fishgame.state.ak.us

16
Appendix B. Agenda for Tagging Work Session, 18 and 19 January 2005. 

Satellite Tracking of Bowhead Whales: The Planning Phase 

A Work Session for Planning the Study

AGENDA 

Tuesday, 18 January 2005 

9:00 am – 4:30 pm 

Captain Cook, Club Room, Anchorage

8:45 Coffee 

9:00 Introductions 

Purpose of the Workshop 

Background Presentations 

 Project to Date Lori Quakenbush (ADF&G) 

 Distribution Craig George (NSB) 

 Genetics/Stock Structure Craig George 

 Feeding Studies and Disturbance Chuck Monnett (MMS) 

 Migration Dave Rugh (NMFS), Chuck 

Monnett, Craig George 

 Local Knowledge of Stocks, Feeding, Migration Harry Brower, George 

Noongwook, Merlin Koonooka 

(AEWC) 

 Satellite Transmitters Lori Quakenbush 

Reiteration of Purpose of Workshop 

12:00-1:30 Lunch 

Identify Objectives 

 Each participant state 3 objectives important to them 

 (Objectives do not have to be different from those already stated) 

Review Objectives 

 Are any objectives missing that should be included? 

Prioritize Objectives 

4:30 Recess 

17
Satellite Tracking of Bowhead Whales: The Planning Phase 

A Work Session for Planning the Study

AGENDA 

Wednesday, 19 January 2005 

9:00 am – 1:00 pm 

Captain Cook, Club Room, Anchorage 

9:00 Coffee 

9:15 Review Prioritized Objectives 

Design Study to Meet Objectives 

 

Location of tagging 

 

 Time of year for tagging 

 Sample size 

 Data to be collected by tag (e.g. location, dive, oceanographic) 

 

1:00 Adjourn 

18
Appendix C. Summary of Bowhead Satellite Tracking Work Session, 18 and 19 January 2005 

The purpose of this workshop is to: 

1. Identify and prioritize objectives regarding bowhead whales that can be addressed using satellite 

telemetry for incorporation into a study design. 

Such objectives could include: 

• Migration routes 

• Migration timing 

• Influence of ice 

• Water depth 

• Movement patterns 

• Swim speed 

• Feeding behavior 

• Diving behavior 

• Residence times in various regions 

• Behavior near industrial activity 

• Stock assessment 

2. Design a study using satellite telemetry as a tool to address priority objectives. 

 The study must be designed so as not to interfere with subsistence whaling and it is preferred that tags 

will be put on by whalers, if at all possible. 

Attendees included: 

• Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission – Harry Brower Jr. (Barrow), George Noongwook 

(Savoonga), and Merlin Koonooka (Gambell) 

• North Slope Borough, Department of Wildlife Management – Charles D. N. Brower, and John 

“Craig” George 

• National Marine Fisheries Service – David Rugh 

• Minerals Management Service – Chuck Monnett 

• ConocoPhillips – Caryn Rea 

• BP Alaska – Bill Streever 

• Alaska Department of Fish and Game – Robert Small, and Lori Quakenbush 

Background Presentations included: 

Project to Date – Lori Quakenbush gave an overview of the project to date. Tagging bowheads in 

Alaskan waters has been talked about for many years; however, issues with the status of the population 

and the IWC quota have kept it from being considered seriously. Currently, with acceptance of a 

population estimate of 8,100–13,500 (Craig et al. 2004) and a quota that meets current needs, remaining 

questions about migration, important habitats, and effects of industry have renewed interest in using 

satellite telemetry as a tool to learn more about bowhead whales. 

The first objective of the project is to design a study using satellite transmitters as a tool to answer 

questions regarding bowhead whale migration, feeding areas, wintering areas, and behavior around 

industrial activity, without interfering with subsistence whaling. Stock structure was not originally 

considered an objective of this study, but could be if desired. The second objective is to provide a forum 

for collaboration with whaling captains, AEWC, NSB, NMFS, MMS, oil industry, and other interested 

parties. This forum would provide opportunities for input into the study design and for whalers to be 

involved in the tagging. 

19
Meetings attended where the tagging project was presented include: 

6 May 2004 – Met with Maggie Ahmaogak, received invitation to AEWC meeting on 24 June 

2004. 

24 June 2004 – Presented project to AEWC at a special meeting in Barrow. Topic was deferred 

to a Quarterly meeting in Anchorage for more time and more commissioners present for 

discussion. 

28 October 2004 – Project presented to AEWC at Quarterly meeting in Anchorage. Approval 

to pursue a satellite tagging study as described was granted by a unanimous roll call vote. 

AEWC agreed to support the planning of the project but would reserve overall support of 

tagging until they could review and approve a study plan. 

Bowhead Genetics/Stock Structure – Craig George summarized a recent concern of IWC on the stock 

structure of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort (BCB) stock of bowheads. 

Bowhead Feeding Studies – Chuck Monnett summarized feeding studies in the Beaufort Sea. MMS 

recognizes that bowheads are feeding in the Beaufort Sea but they are trying to understand it better by 

addressing questions such as: 1) How much feeding occurs in the Beaufort Sea, and 2) How predictable is 

the time and place where feeding occurs? Answers to these questions are necessary in order to manage 

oil activity near the feeding areas. 

Bowhead Disturbance Studies – Chuck Monnett summarized several disturbance studies sponsored by 

MMS. 

 

Local Knowledge of Stocks, Feeding, Migration – Merlin Koonooka from Gambell, George Noongwook 

from Savoonga, and Harry Brower, Jr. from Barrow shared their knowledge of bowhead whale feeding, 

migration, and possible stock structure from their different regional perspectives. 

Satellite Transmitters – Lori Quakenbush gave a summary of what satellite transmitters are, how they 

work, what they do, and what is currently available. Information that can be collected includes: 1) 

location only, 2) location and depth information from diving, and 3) location and oceanographic 

information (i.e., water temperature and/or salinity). 

Note: Bowhead Distribution and Bowhead Migration were on the agenda as Background Presentations 

but were not presented as individual topics. 

Identification of Study Objectives. Each participant was invited to offer three objectives. 

Merlin Koonooka 

1) What are long-term affects of industrial activity? Could industrial noise cause stranding events 

like those that occur with other whales? 

2) What are the effects of a warming climate on bowheads? Warming could change the migration 

routes past St. Lawrence Island. 

3) Show that bowheads are only one stock. 

Harry Brower 

Document migration routes and migration timing. Ice is changing. Diomede, Kivalina, and 

Wales are no longer able to get out on the ice to hunt now. Bowheads are arriving earlier in the 

spring, but there is less daylight. Bowheads also are traveling along offshore leads more and less 

on nearshore leads. 

20
Craig George 

1) Document movements of whales along Chukotka coast in summer. St. Lawrence whalers say 

some whales don’t go by Barrow and some counts along the Russian coast 

2) Document movements of whales near St. Lawrence Island in spring and compare to Traditional 

Ecological Knowledge. 

3) Document bowhead response to disturbance by tagging near Kaktovik and tracking whales as 

they move through the oilfield. 

Dave Rugh 

Document summer distribution in Bering and Chukchi Seas and near Barrow. 

George Noongwook 

1) Document migration routes and timing 

2) Document spring migration near St. Lawrence Island. When does migration start? It may start 

earlier than when whalers begin whaling in April. Whalers may miss the small whales by starting 

to hunt in April. 

3) Document residence times in various regions. Where are the winter areas? Is there segregation by 

size in different winter areas? Harry says small whales get to Barrow first, maybe they winter 

together somewhere. 

Chuck Monnett 

1) Test current theory about migration route and identify deviations vs. constancy among years 

2) Identify places whales aggregate and determine if there are any demographic patterns 

3) Determine residence times for aggregations 

Caryn Rea 

Her general desire is to have location specific data available about bowheads so that when oil 

exploration is planned in a specified area drilling could be done with appropriate mitigation to protect 

bowheads. 

1) Determine effects of disturbance 

2) Document migration routes and movements 

3) Identify areas where whales spend time 

21
Prioritized Study Objectives. Study objectives were consolidated and rated by each participant for 

importance (1 = high, 2 = moderate, 3 = low). An overall rank was established (1–7) with 1 being most 

important. 

Over 

all 

Rank 

Name Objectives 

Rank 

[1=high] 

7 HB Opportunistic tagging to study effects of ice-breaker noise on whale behavior and 

migratory paths. [Comments: ice breakers form leads and whales sometimes 

follow them, TEK suggests whales were diverted ~

 30 miles offshore near Pt. Hope; 

disturbance is also an issue] 

2,2,3,2,3,3 

(15) 

2 CM; CR Test current theory about migration routes; identify deviations and consistency 

between years. [Comments: high variability; problem of tagging different whales 

between years.] 

1,1,1,2,1,1 

(7) 

3 CM Identify places whales aggregate and determine if there are demographic patterns 

(i.e., mother-calf pairs, size, age, migration timing) and where they occur. 

[Comments: could note changes in distributions] 

1,2,1,2,1,2 

(9) 

4 CM; CR Residence times: how long do whales remain in aggregation areas (on a scale of 

days). [Comments: general applications not just to feeding-days] 

1,2,2,2,2,1 

(10) 

2 MK Behavior, short and long-term effects of industrial activity/exposure (Comments: 

difficult to determine cause and effect; what if activity has a long-term effect?, how 

do you study long-term chronic effects? question of how effective tagging will be 

in answering this; already several studies underway looking at this (BP, BWASP) 

1,1,1,2,1,1 

(7) 

5 HB; 

GN; 

MK 

Effects of climate warming on: a) whale health, b) changing migration paths and 

timing due to ice conditions, c) later return of whales to SLI in fall. [Comments: 

hunting period is limited by daylight and temperature while migration is getting 

earlier (at Barrow), whales traveling more on ‘far side’ of the lead; can make better 

hunting decisions with this information; tagging might help us understand these 

relationships, e.g., sea ice vs. whales; so far animals appear healthy but see 

projections where changes to prey base is predicted] 

1,2,1,2,2,3 

(11) 

1 CG; 

DR; 

MK 

Stock Differentiation: A) Summer distribution in the Bering and Chukchi and 

Barrow area via tagging in late spring or summer (during feeding season); 

[Comments: includes movements of whales along the Chukotka coast in summer, 

follow whales into wintering areas; Barrow hunters do not have “problems” with 

current situation, science/political drivers]. B) Use tagging to determine if there is 

more than one stock at SLI; Noted on increasing numbers of whales at SLI; is this a 

different stock or a growing large stocks? 

1,1,1,1,1,1 

(6) 

2 CG; 

DR; GN 

Spring movements of whales near SLI to define migratory routes [comments: focus 

during breeding season and demographics of whales (large vs. small, size, sex) in 

spring near SLI] 

1,1,2,1,1,1 

(7) 

6 CG; 

DR; CR 

Disturbance: Within-year industrial disturbance study via tagging at the Canadian 

border with special focus on the mid-Beaufort area; include passive-acoustic buoys 

to monitor ambient noise; control area might be east of Kaktovik. (Comments: 

BWASP surveys are designed to look at whale distribution through time; in preindustrial period whales were closer to shore; surveys started after disturbance had 

occurred so may not detect effect) 

1,2,2,2,2,3 

(12) 

1 GN; 

(BT) 

Specific question about where bowheads are wintering. Is there spatial segregation 

during winter? [Comments: sex, age stocking, the winter question might be 

achieved by tagging near Barrow in fall and following whales into wintering areas] 

1,1,1,1,1,1 

(6) 

HB = Harry Brower, Jr.; CM = Chuck Monnett; CR = Caryn Rea; MK = Merlin Koonooka; GN = George 

Noongwook; DR = Dave Rugh 

22
Other Discussions. 

We also discussed how to deploy tags on whales without interfering with subsistence whaling. In 

Barrow, spring tagging could occur during “cease fires” called when hunting conditions are poor and the 

risk of a strike without landing a whale are too high. Tagging could occur either with the help of a crew 

or by standing on the lead edge. In Barrow and Kaktovik, during fall, tagging could occur after the quota 

was reached for the year by working with a crew dedicated to tagging. Tagging could also occur at 

Barrow during whaling if the tagging crew worked west of Barrow (downstream of the active whalers). 

At Gambell and Savoonga if the tags were carried in the whaling boats they could be deployed on whales 

that were approached but too big for harvest. Near Savoonga in the spring, whales passing by close to the 

ice edge could be tagged by standing on the ice. 

Design Study to Meet Objectives. 

We ran out of time to address this agenda item, however, the discussion and prioritization of 

objectives provided the information needed to design the study to meet the objectives. 

Literature Cited. 

George, J. C., J. Zeh, R. Suydam, and C. Clark. 2004. Abundance and population trend (1978–

2001) of western Arctic bowhead whales surveyed near Barrow, Alaska. Marine 

Mammal Science 20(4): 755–773. 

23
Appendix D. Bowhead Whale Satellite Tagging Project Update to AEWC, 3 February 2005. 

Bowhead Whale Satellite Tagging Project – Planning Phase Update 

Objective 1: Design a study using satellite transmitters as a tool to answer questions regarding bowhead 

whale migration, feeding areas, wintering areas, and behavior around industrial activity, without 

interfering with subsistence whaling. Stock structure was not an original objective of this study but 

could be, if desired. 

Objective 2: Provide a forum for collaboration with whaling captains, AEWC, NSB, NMFS, MMS, oil 

industry, and other interested parties. This forum would provide opportunities for input into the study 

design and for whalers to be involved in the tagging. 

HISTORY 

6 May 2004: Met with Maggie Ahmaogak, received invitation to AEWC meeting 

24 June 2004: Presented Project to AEWC at a special meeting in Barrow. 

28 October 2004: Presented Project to AEWC at Quarterly meeting in Anchorage. Pursuing a satellite 

tagging study was approved by a role call vote. AEWC agreed to support the planning of the project but 

would reserve overall support of tagging until they could review and approve a study plan. 

18 – 19 January 2005: Workshop to identify and prioritize objectives regarding bowhead whales that 

can be addressed using satellite telemetry. Begin to design a study. Study must not interfere with 

subsistence whaling and it is preferred that tags be put on by whalers, if possible. 

Workshop was attended by AEWC representatives (Harry Brower, Jr., George Noongwook, Merlin 

Koonooka), NSB (Craig George, Charles Brower), NMFS (Dave Rugh), MMS (Chuck Monnett), Oil 

Industry (Caryn Rea, Bill Streever), ADF&G (Lori Quakenbush, Bob Small). 

Priority objectives identified by the workshop participants included: 

• Summer distribution in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas 

• Identify places where whales aggregate (wintering and feeding areas) 

• Document variability in migration route from year to year 

• Determine if there are long-term effects of industrial activity to bowheads 

• Document early spring movements of whales near St Lawrence Island to define the beginning of 

the migration 

3 February 2005: Presented an update of the tagging project to AEWC at the Mini Convention in 

Barrow. 

Next Step: Develop study plan and present to AEWC. 

Submitted to AEWC 3 February 2005 by: 

Lori Quakenbush, Wildlife Biologist 

Arctic Marine Mammals, Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK 99701 

Ph: (907) 459-7214; Fax: (907) 452-6410 

Lori_quakenbush@fishgame.state.ak.us

24