Differentiating Serious and 

Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals: 

Report of the Serious Injury Technical Workshop 

10-13 September 2007, Seattle, Washington 

Workshop Steering Committee: 

Melissa S. Andersen (Chair) 

Karin A. Forney 

Tim V. N. Cole 

Tom Eagle 

Robyn Angliss 

Kristy Long 

Lynne Barre 

Lisa Van Atta 

Diane Borggaard 

Teri Rowles 

Brent Norberg 

Janet Whaley 

Laura Engleby 

United States Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-39 

September 2008 

i 

Differentiating Serious and Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals: 

Report of the Serious Injury Technical Workshop, 10-13 September 2007, 

Seattle, Washington 

Steering Committee: 

Melissa S. Andersen (Chair) 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

Karin A. Forney, Ph. D. 

NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

Timothy V.N. Cole 

NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Tom Eagle, Ph. D. 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

Robyn Angliss, Ph. D. 

NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

Kristy Long 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

Lynne Barre

NMFS Northwest Regional Office 

Lisa Van Atta 

NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office 

Diane Borggaard 

NMFS Northeast Regional Office 

Teri Rowles, D.V.M., Ph. D. 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

Brent Norberg 

NMFS Northwest Regional Office 

Janet Whaley, D.V.M 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

Laura Engleby 

NMFS Southeast Regional Office 

NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-OPR-39 

September 2008 

United States Department of Commerce 

Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (Ret.) 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

James W. Balsiger, Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
ii 

Suggested citation: 

Andersen, M. S., K. A. Forney, T. V. N. Cole, T. Eagle, R. Angliss, K. Long, 

L. Barre, L. Van Atta, D. Borggaard, T. Rowles, B. Norberg, J. Whaley, and 

L. Engleby. Differentiating Serious and Non-Serious Injury of Marine 

Mammals: Report of the Serious Injury Technical Workshop, 10-13 

September 2007, Seattle, Washington. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS-OPR-39. 94 p. 

This Technical Memorandum contains summaries of presentations given at the 

2007 Serious Injury Technical Workshop. These summaries (sections 3.0-6.0) 

were prepared by the author(s) of the presentations; therefore, statements and 

recommendations represent the views and opinions of the respective presenter(s). 

The summaries do not necessarily represent the views of the workshop Steering 

Committee or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The Steering 

Committee did not make any substantive changes to the summaries without 

permission from the author(s). The Steering Committee edited the summaries 

only to correct grammatical errors and other minor edits. 

This Technical Memorandum contains summaries of plenary and subgroup 

discussions that occurred during Days 1-3 of the workshop. While many of the 

comments and suggestions provided by the individual participants represent 

shared opinions among the participants, the intent of these discussions was not to 

reach consensus recommendations. Instead, the intent was to gather input from 

each individual participant based on his or her expertise and experience. For this 

reason, the discussions summarized in this Technical Memorandum do not 

represent consensus recommendations from the workshop participants to NMFS. 

This Technical Memorandum contains recommendations of Federal Government 

participants and the workshop Steering Committee concerning the guidance and 

process for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries. These 

recommendations do not represent official NMFS policy. 
iii 

Executive Summary 

Background 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) section 117 requires the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) to prepare stock assessment reports (SAR) for all stocks of marine 

mammals that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. These reports 

summarize human-caused mortalities and serious injuries to marine mammals by source. In 

addition, MMPA section 118 requires commercial fisheries to reduce mortality and serious 

injury of marine mammals to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury 

rate. This charge requires that NMFS distinguish between injuries that are serious and those that 

are not serious. NMFS defined “serious injury” in regulations (50 CFR 229.2) as “any injury 

that will likely result in mortality.” However, the MMPA and its legislative history do not 

provide guidance on how severe an injury must be to qualify as “serious.” 

To promote national consistency for interpreting the regulatory definition of serious injury, 

NMFS convened a workshop in April 1997 to discuss available information related to the impact 

of injuries to marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations (Angliss and 

DeMaster, 1998). Since 1997, additional information has been collected on human-caused 

injuries to marine mammals and survival rates of certain individual and/or species of marine 

mammals. For this reason, NMFS convened the Serious Injury Technical Workshop on 

September 10-13, 2007, with the primary objectives to: 1) review the recommendations and 

guidance from the 1997 workshop; 2) review new information obtained since the first workshop; 

and 3) discuss the use of, and necessary changes to, existing guidance for distinguishing serious 

from non-serious injuries. The 2007 workshop extended beyond discussions related only to 

marine mammal-commercial fishery interactions. Although other sources of human-caused 

injuries were mentioned during the workshop, much of the 2007 workshop discussions focused 

on types of injuries commonly observed from encounters with vessels and fisheries (e.g., blunt 

force trauma, penetrating, hidden, and gear and hooking injuries) because these interactions have 

been examined to the greatest extent. 

The 2007 workshop consisted of two sessions: an open session (Days 1-3) attended by over 65 

federal and non-federal participants, and a closed session (Day 4) attended by 36 federal 

participants. NMFS invited workshop participants based on their expertise in marine mammal 

serious injury issues, including marine mammal management, policy, marine mammal biology, 

pathobiology, and veterinary medicine. The primary purposes of Days 1-3 were to present a 

synthesis of new science and to gather new information on injured marine mammals. The 

information from Days 1-3 was also used to provide a scientific basis for recommendations by 

government officials in the closed session on Day 4. The primary purpose of the closed session 

(Day 4) was to draw on Days 1-3 presentations and discussions to consider potential changes to 

the existing serious injury guidance and associated administrative approaches. 

The topics addressed during Days 1-3 included: 

1) Evaluation of current data and determination systems (in plenary and breakout sessions); 

2) Overview of new information on survival of injured marine mammals (large cetaceans, 

 small cetaceans, pinnipeds, and manatees); 
iv 

3) Pathobiology of injuries; and 

4) Breakout activities to address key questions on the topic of determining severity of injuries 

 to marine mammals. 

Presentation Sessions (Days 1-2) 

Current Data Sources and Collection Programs

This session included presentations by the NMFS observer, stranding, and disentanglement 

programs. The presentations were designed to describe the types of information that are 

collected in these programs and the scope (including limitations) of the kinds of information that 

are reasonable to collect. In this way, these presentations provided workshop participants with a 

background of the information used to distinguish between serious and non-serious injuries in 

order to inform discussion and lead to realistic suggestions on the types of additional data needs 

for distinguishing between serious and non-serious injuries. 

Current Serious Injury Determination Systems 

Representatives from each NMFS region provided presentations describing the types of data 

collected and associated challenges, evaluating regional approaches for distinguishing serious 

from non-serious injuries, and the overall challenges each region faces. Workshop participants 

then discussed and evaluated the procedures described in each presentation for distinguishing 

serious from non-serious injuries. The most common comments from participants indicated a 

need for more national consistency in distinguishing between serious and non-serious injuries, 

and for increased communication between data collectors, stranding networks, and the staff 

responsible for distinguishing between serious and non-serious injuries. 

New Information on the Survival of Injured Marine Mammals: Large Cetaceans, Small 

Cetaceans, and Manatees

Invited speakers presented and discussed new information obtained over the past decade on the 

survival of injured marine mammals by taxonomic group (large cetaceans, small cetaceans, and 

manatees). The presentations were designed to present information gathered since the 1997 

workshop from longitudinal studies of various cetacean populations and scar-based analyses. 

Following the presentations, in plenary sessions, participants discussed if and how the 

information presented could be incorporated into the system for distinguishing serious from nonserious injuries. 

Pathobiology of Injuries

The final group of presentations addressed the pathobiology of injuries. The presentations were 

designed to describe how pathobiology may be used to determine whether an injury caused or 

contributed to the death of an animal, information that could serve to help predict the lethality of 

injuries to marine mammals. Following the presentations, in plenary sessions, participants 

discussed if and how the information presented could be incorporated into the system for 

distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries. 
v 

Subgroup Discussions (Day 3) 

Day 3 of the workshop was devoted to morning and afternoon breakout session discussions, 

which were designed to address the following six topics without gathering consensus 

recommendations from the group (i.e., all suggestions were considered opinions of individual 

participants): 

Concurrent morning sessions: 

1) Longitudinal/survival rates from a modeling perspective; 

2) Categorization of injuries and pathological consequences: Gear-related injuries; and 

3) Categorization of injuries and pathological consequences: Sharp, blunt force, and 

 penetrating injuries. 

Concurrent afternoon sessions: 

4) Large cetaceans; 

5) Small cetaceans; and 

6) Pinnipeds and other species. 

Key Outcomes from Day 3 Subgroup Discussions

Most common comments related to serious injury criteria and the determination process: 

1) NMFS should develop a risk assessment/matrix approach for use in distinguishing serious 

from non-serious injuries that is nationally consistent (incorporating flexibility while 

limiting subjectivity) and is based on factors affecting survival for each marine mammal 

species. 

2) NMFS should gather a national panel annually, including NMFS staff from each region, 

decision analysis experts, and other external experts to review serious injury 

determinations. 

3) NMFS should revise (and/or develop) and use consistent terminology based on the 

observable physical injuries to objectively describe injuries. 

Diverging views related to serious injury criteria and the determination process: 

1) Aside from assuming all injuries are mortal unless proven otherwise, a new approach is 

unlikely to significantly increase the number of injuries classified as “serious injuries” for 

large whales if it relies on anecdotal reports, as do current large whale systems. Even in 

well-documented populations, individuals are under observation by researchers for a 

small fraction of their lives. 

2) We must differentiate between means for improving the accuracy of injury assessment 

and prognosis when injuries are observed, and means for improving the accuracy of 

estimates of all (observed and unobserved) human-caused mortality and serious injury. 

The reliance on anecdotal reports makes these distinctly different for large whales. 

Most common comments related to data needs: 

1) The observer, stranding, and disentanglement programs are collecting useful data and 

have improved over the past decade. Further improvements could be made by 

standardizing data between all regions and between data collection programs; and 

increasing communication and coordination between NMFS staff from different 

programs and different regions. 
vi 

2) NMFS should examine data collected by a variety of NMFS programs and external 

researchers to determine whether injured animals are documented in multiple data sets. 

3) NMFS should continue longitudinal studies for currently well-monitored marine mammal 

populations and begin (or expand) studies for lesser or unmonitored populations. 

Most common comments related to the categorization of injuries: 

1) Participants agreed the following are or could be considered serious injuries for all 

marine mammals species: 

- Ingestion of gear; 

- Constricting lines or lines with the potential to constrict as an animal grows; 

- Head trauma; and 

- Body cavity penetration. 

2) Physiological and behavioral differences exist between species and taxonomic groups, 

which cause differences in the severity of certain injuries for different species. 

3) Vessel size and speed “source” information should be included in any guidance for 

distinguishing between serious and non-serious injuries because the severity of the injury 

resulting from a vessel strike depends on the size and speed of the vessel. 

Recommendations of Government Staff: Updated Process and Guidance for Distinguishing 

Serious from Non-Serious Injury (Day 4) 

The primary purpose of the closed federal session was to draw on presentations and discussions 

from the first three days, consider what has worked well in distinguishing serious from nonserious injuries since 1997, what has not worked well, and recommend potential changes to the 

existing serious injury guidance (Angliss and DeMaster, 1998, and subsequent NMFS Regional 

publications). 

Key Outcomes from Day 4 Discussions:

1) Most of the Day 4 participants expressed the view that the current serious injury guidance 

should be revised and updated to capture current knowledge about impacts of injury on 

marine mammals and to strive for improvements in national consistency in distinguishing 

serious from non-serious injuries. 

2) Nearly all the Day 4 participants recognized that NMFS is close to where it should be in 

the assessments of detected animals. However, undetected injuries exist that are not 

being incorporated into population assessments; therefore, NMFS needs to devise a 

mechanism to better account for undetected injuries. One participant noted that the 

development of one single set of criteria was not the appropriate mechanism for 

accounting for undetected injuries. 

3) The Day 4 participants supported the development and publication of an official NMFS 

policy to reflect the recommended serious injury guidance discussed on Day 4 (outlined 

below). This policy should strive for nationally consistent criteria to use when 

distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries, while allowing for flexibility in datarich situations. This policy should also include what is meant by the term “likely” in the 

definition for serious injury, “injury that will likely result in a mortality,” because 
vii 

different working definitions are currently in use for different stocks nation-wide. 

However, participants specifically recommended against pursuing these changes through 

rulemaking. Creating a legal definition for the term likely in the serious injury definition 

is not necessary and could have far-reaching implications beyond the realm of serious 

injury determinations. 

4) Federal participants constructed a matrix containing revised guidance for distinguishing 

serious from non-serious injuries (Table 1 below). The recommendations are expressed 

in matrix form for 33 injury scenarios arrayed across three taxonomic groups of marine 

mammals: large cetaceans, small cetaceans, and pinnipeds. Table 1 is based upon 

guidance from the 1997 Workshop (Angliss and DeMaster, 1998) and technical 

memoranda from NMFS’ Northeast Fishery Science Center (Cole et al., 2005; Cole et 

al., 2006; Nelson et al., 2007; Glass et al., 2008). Table 1 categorizes each injury 

scenario as “serious injury,” “not serious injury,” or “cannot be determined/case specific” 

(CBD) for each taxonomic group. Table 1 incorporates a synthesis of new information 

presented and discussed at the workshop. This table is meant to provide guidance for 

distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries in situations where there are little data 

and/or the resighting of an injured animal is unlikely. The purpose of the table is to 

improve national consistency in distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries, and to 

provide a starting point for developing future NMFS policy for distinguishing serious 

from non-serious injuries. 

In addition to specific revisions and updates to the existing guidance, Table 1 outlines 

two substantial recommended changes from the current process for distinguishing 

between serious and non-serious injuries as a whole: 

• Expand the dichotomous determination process (all injuries are “serious” or “not 

serious”) to include a third category representing uncertain cases (injuries can 

now be classified as “serious,” “not serious,” or “CBD/case specific”). The 

recommended addition of a “CBD/case specific” category takes into account two 

circumstances: 1) there is insufficient information about the impact of a particular 

injury to determine whether it is a serious or non-serious injury; and/or 2) it is 

possible to determine whether a particular injury is a serious or non-serious 

injury, but additional factors must be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

• Create guidance with separate criteria for different marine mammal taxonomic 

groups, to allow for differences in physiology and in the amount and type of data 

that are available. 
viii 

Table 1: Recommended Serious Injury Criteria for Different Taxonomic Groups * 

SI = Serious Injury; NSI = Not Serious Injury; CBD/case specific = Potential SI, but either 1) insufficient information 

about the impact of a particular injury, or 2) additional factors must be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine 

the severity; n/a = not applicable; TBD= To Be Determined; __ = areas lacking near-complete agreement among Day 

4 participants.

Criterion Injury/Information Categories Large 

Cetaceans

Small 

Cetaceans Pinnipeds

Pre-Existing Guidance (included in Angliss and DeMaster (1998) and/or NEFSC publications, retained with no 

changes) 

1 Ingestion of gear or hook SI SI SI 

Modified Criteria (some aspects retained from guidance provided in Angliss and DeMaster (1998) and/or 

NEFSC publications, with some changes or additions) 

2 

A free-swimming animal observed at a date later than 

its human interaction, exhibiting a marked change in 

skin discoloration, lesions near the nares, fat loss, or 

increased cyamid loads, etc. 

SI SI SI 

3 Gear constricted on any body part, or likely to become 

constricting as the animal grows SI SI SI 

4 

Uncertain whether gear is constricting, but appendages 

near the entanglement's point of attachment are 

discolored 

SI SI SI 

5 Anchored/immobilized (not freed) SI SI SI 

6 Head trauma (including eye injuries) SI SI SI 

7 Hook in mouth (excluding case 9 below), no trailing 

gear 

CBD/case 

specific SI SI 

8 Hook confirmed in head (excluding mouth), no trailing 

gear 

NSI SI CBD/case 

specific 

9 Hook confirmed in lip only, no trailing gear n/a CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

10 

Gear attached to free-swimming animal with potential 

to 1) wrap around pectoral fins/flippers, peduncle, or 

head; 2) be ingested; or 3) accumulate drag 

CBD/case 

specific SI SI 

11 Animal freed from gear and released without gear CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

12 Social animal separated from group or released alone CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

13 Dependent animal (e.g., calf, pup) alone postinteraction SI SI SI 

14 Wrap(s) of gear around pectoral fin/flippers, peduncle, 

head, abdomen, or chest 

CBD/case 

specific SI SI 

New Criteria 

15 Deep, external cut or laceration to body CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

16 Body cavity penetration by foreign object or body 

cavity exposure SI SI SI 
ix 

Criterion Injury/Information Categories Large 

Cetaceans

Small 

Cetaceans Pinnipeds

17 Visible blood loss CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

18 Loss or disfigurement of dorsal fin CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific n/a 

19 Partially severed flukes (transecting midline) SI SI n/a 

20 Partially severed flukes (not transecting midline) CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific n/a 

21 Partially severed pectoral fins or flippers CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

22 Severed pectoral fins or flippers CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific SI 

23 

Entanglement, immobilization or entrapment of a 

certain duration before being freed (TBD, speciesdependent) 

SI SI SI 

24 Body trauma not covered by cases 6, 15, and 16 above 

(e.g., broken appendages, hemorrhaging) 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

25 Detectable fractures SI SI SI 

26 

Hook in appendage, without trailing gear or with 

trailing gear that does not have the potential to wrap, be 

ingested, or accumulate drag 

NSI NSI NSI 

27 Animal brought on vessel deck following 

entanglement/entrapment n/a SI CBD/case specific 

28 Vertebral transection SI SI SI 

29 Collision with vessel of certain minimum size (TBD, 

species-specific) SI SI CBD/case specific 

30 Collision with vessel traveling at a certain minimum 

speed (TBD, species-specific) SI SI CBD/case specific 

31 Collision with vessel below a certain size threshold 

(TBD, species-specific) 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

32 Collision with vessel traveling below a certain speed 

threshold (TBD, species-specific) 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

33 Dog Bites° n/a n/a CBD/case 

specific 

* See section 8.1 for additional details on the intent and purpose of Table 1. 

° This criterion was not included by the Day 4 Participants. The workshop Steering Committee added this criterion 

for clarity. About 3⁄4 of the Day 4 participants preferred subsuming dog bites under criteria 6, 15, 16, or 24 

(depending on the injury inflicted by the dog bite). The pinniped experts generally preferred to include dog bites in 

a separate category, because of the additional potential for inter-species disease transmission. 
x 

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................iii 

Acronyms...................................................................................................................................... xi 

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1 

2.0 The 2007 Serious Injury Technical Workshop Goals, Objectives, and Organization...... 3 

2.1 Description and Causes of Injuries to Marine Mammals ................................................ 3 

2.2 Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................... 4 

2.3 Workshop Organization...................................................................................................... 5 

2.4 Existing Guidance for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injuries..................... 6 

3.0 Current Data Sources and Collection Programs............................................................... 10 

4.0 Current Systems for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injuries........................ 14 

4.1 Evaluation........................................................................................................................... 24 

4.2 Breakout Group Discussion on Evaluation of Current Data and Systems for 

Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injuries......................................................... 26 

5.0 New Information on the Survival of Injured Marine Mammals...................................... 29 

5.1 Large Cetaceans................................................................................................................. 29 

5.2 Small Cetaceans and Manatees......................................................................................... 33 

5.3 Plenary Discussion ............................................................................................................. 38 

6.0 Pathobiology of Injuries....................................................................................................... 40 

6.1 Plenary Discussion ............................................................................................................. 42 

7.0 Day 3 Breakout Group Discussions on Key Topics ........................................................... 44 

7.1 Longitudinal/survival rates from a modeling perspective ............................................. 44 

7.2 Categorization of injuries and pathological consequences: gear-related injuries (e.g., 

entanglements, hookings, and ingestions)........................................................................ 46 

7.3 Categorization of injuries and pathological consequences: sharp, blunt force, and 

penetrating injuries............................................................................................................ 48 

7.4 Large Cetaceans................................................................................................................. 50 

7.5 Small Cetaceans ................................................................................................................. 52 

7.6 Pinnipeds and other species.............................................................................................. 55 

7.7 Summary of Day 3 Breakout Group Sessions................................................................. 57 

8.0 Recommendations of Government Staff............................................................................. 60 

8.1 Recommended Revisions and Updates to the Process and Guidance for Distinguishing 

Serious from Non-Serious Injury ..................................................................................... 60 

8.2 Changes from Existing Guidance Represented in Table 1 ............................................ 65 

8.3 Addressing Areas of Uncertainty ..................................................................................... 72 

8.4 Burden of Proof in the Face of Uncertainty .................................................................... 73 

9.0 Concluding Comments ......................................................................................................... 75 

10.0 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 76 

11.0 References............................................................................................................................ 77 

12.0 Appendixes........................................................................................................................... 81 

Appendix A: Agenda (Day 1-3)............................................................................................... 81 

Appendix B: Background Documents Provided to Participants......................................... 85 

Appendix C: List of Participants............................................................................................ 89 
xi 

Acronyms 

AFSC Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

AKR Alaska Regional Office 

CBD Cannot Be Determined/Case Specific 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GAMMS Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks 

LOF List of Fisheries 

MMC Marine Mammal Commission 

MMHSRP Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

NER Northeast Regional Office 

NGO Non-Governmental Organization 

NMFS NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOS NOAA’s National Ocean Service 

PBR Potential Biological Removal Level, as defined by the MMPA 

PIFSC Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

PIR Pacific Islands Regional Office 

SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

SER Southeast Regional Office 

SWFSC Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

SWR Southwest Regional Office 

TBD To Be Determined 

TRP Take Reduction Plan 

TRT Take Reduction Team 

ZMRG Zero Mortality Rate Goal, as defined by the MMPA 

1 

1.0 Introduction 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) section 117 directs the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare stock assessment 

reports (SAR) for all stocks of marine mammals that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of the 

United States. These reports summarize human-caused mortalities and serious injuries by source. 

The MMPA also states that a stock of marine mammals is designated as a strategic stock if it is 

listed as depleted under the MMPA, is listed or is likely to be listed as or threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or has serious injury and mortality levels 

exceeding the stock’s Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level.1

MMPA section 118 governs the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing 

operations and directs NMFS to categorize fisheries based upon whether a fishery has frequent 

(Category I), occasional (Category II), or remote likelihood (Category III) of incidental mortality 

and serious injury of marine mammals. In addition, MMPA section 118(b) requires commercial 

fisheries to reduce mortality and serious injury of marine mammals to insignificant levels 

approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate.2 Section 118(f) of the MMPA states that 

NMFS shall develop a take reduction plan (TRP) for strategic stocks interacting with Category I 

or II fisheries, and may develop a TRP for any marine mammal stocks interacting with Category 

I fisheries, to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury levels to specified goals. 

Under the MMPA, NMFS must manage serious injuries and mortalities of marine mammals 

incidental to commercial fishing operations. This charge requires that NMFS be able to 

distinguish between injuries that are serious and those that are not serious. Serious injury has 

regulatory meaning under the MMPA; however, the MMPA and its legislative history do not 

provide guidance on how severe an injury must be to be considered serious. To implement 

MMPA sections 117 and 118, NMFS defined “serious injury” in regulations (50 CFR 229.2) as 

“any injury that will likely result in mortality.” 

To promote national consistency in the interpretation of the regulatory definition of serious 

injury, NMFS convened a workshop in April 1997 to discuss available information related to the 

impact of injuries to marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations (Angliss and 

DeMaster, 1998). These discussions resulted in a framework upon which NMFS could develop a 

consistent approach for determining which injuries should be considered serious injuries. 

The guidance developed at the 1997 Workshop (Angliss and DeMaster, 1998) served as the best 

available scientific information for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries. NMFS staff 

have used the information from the 1997 workshop in evaluating injury reports submitted by 

commercial fishers, fishery observers, and stranding and disentanglement network participants to 

determine which injuries should be considered serious. Since 1997, additional information has 

been collected on human-caused injuries to marine mammals and survival rates of certain 

individual and/or species of marine mammals. For this reason, NMFS convened the 2007 

 

1 Potential Biological Removal (PBR) is the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be 

removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. 2

 Referred to as the Zero Mortality Rate Goal (ZMRG). NMFS identified ZMRG as 10% of a stock’s PBR level (69 FR 73338; 

July 20, 2004).
2 

Serious Injury Technical Workshop to review information obtained since 1997, review 

recommendations and guidance from the 1997 workshop and the use of this guidance in 

distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries, and discuss any necessary changes to the 

process and guidance for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries. 
3 

2.0 The 2007 Serious Injury Technical Workshop Goals, Objectives, and Organization 

Additional information has been collected that may allow NMFS to re-evaluate whether a 

particular injury to a marine mammal would likely result in the death of that animal. In addition, 

annual updates to the SARs required under MMPA section 117 indicate that, while incidental 

take of marine mammals in fisheries is a large source of human-caused serious injury, injuries to 

marine mammals from vessel collisions are also relatively common. Accordingly, participants at 

the 2007 workshop recognized the need to extend the guidance for distinguishing between 

serious and non-serious injuries of marine mammals beyond injuries sustained by interactions 

with fisheries, to include other anthropogenic causes of injuries. Although other sources of 

human-caused injuries were mentioned during the workshop, much of the workshop discussions 

focused on types of injuries commonly observed from encounters with vessels and fisheries (e.g., 

gear3

 and hooking, penetrating, blunt force trauma, and hidden injuries) because these 

interactions have been examined to the greatest extent. The 2007 workshop was organized to 

focus on the type of injury, regardless of the cause or source of the injury. 

2.1 Description and Causes of Injuries to Marine Mammals 

Marine mammals interact with multiple anthropogenic activities, which sometimes result in 

injury or death of the animal. Injuries observed in marine mammals include blunt force trauma, 

penetrating, and fishery-related injuries. Human interactions can also cause various internal 

injuries to marine mammals that cannot be detected by visual or external observations. 

Gear and Hooking Injuries

Gear and hooking injuries most commonly observed in marine mammals include injuries 

resulting from interactions with hooks, fishing line, fishing nets, etc. Marine mammals generally 

become entangled in gear around the head, body, and, in cetaceans, the flukes, pectoral fins, or 

dorsal fin. Entanglement can lead to constricting lines wrapped around the animal or anchoring 

(immobilizing) the animal. Entanglement around the head can impede the animal’s ability to 

feed. Constricting line can cut into or through blubber, muscles and bone (i.e., penetrating 

injuries), or can constrict blood flow to or sever appendages. Line with pots/traps attached or 

heavy gear with or without anchors attached can create drag as the animal swims altering the 

energetics of swimming. Drag can cause the lines to constrict, further injuring the animal or 

pulling the lines through an appendage entirely. If anchoring (immobilization) does not cause 

the animal to drown or asphyxiate, it can cause injuries resulting from constricting lines, 

starvation from the inability to feed, and internal injuries from prolonged stress and/or severe 

struggling. 

Hooking injuries and ingested gear are most common in small cetaceans and pinnipeds, but have 

been observed in large cetaceans (e.g., sperm whales). The severity of the injury depends on the 

species, whether ingested gear includes hooks, whether the gear works its way into the 

gastrointestinal (GI) tract, whether the gear penetrates the GI lining, and the location of the 

hooking (e.g., embedded in the animal’s stomach or other internal body parts). 

 

3

 For the purposes of this Technical Memorandum, gear is defined as any part of the fishing equipment, excluding the hook. 
4 

Penetrating Injuries (Non Gear- or Hook-Related)

Penetrating injuries can result from interactions with a variety anthropogenic activities. In 

addition to the penetrating injuries caused by interactions with fishing gear and hooks described 

above, penetrating injuries that have also been observed in marine mammals include propeller 

cuts from vessels or alternative energy sources with underwater blades, gunshot and stab 

wounds, and bite wounds (e.g., pinniped interactions with domestic pets or wild terrestrial 

carnivores, such as coyotes). The severity varies depending on the species, the individual, 

location of the injury on the body, and the depth of penetration. 

Blunt Force Trauma

Blunt force trauma to cetaceans and manatees is most often the result of a vessel strike or interor intraspecific aggression. Blunt force trauma to pinnipeds can be caused by vessel strikes or 

direct interaction with humans (e.g., hit with a blunt object). Blunt force injuries include, but are 

not limited to, bone fractures, organ damage, and internal hemorrhages. Determining the 

severity of a blunt trauma injury can be difficult since blunt trauma injuries often show little or 

no external evidence. Therefore, these injuries are likely to be missed by a visual, external 

examination or by assessment at sea in live animals. 

Hidden Injuries

Hidden injuries to marine mammals can result from interactions with a large range of human 

activities, including those described in the preceding paragraphs. Examples of hidden injuries 

include bone fractures, damage to vital organs, muscle tears, myopathy as a result of 

entanglement, and stress-related internal damage. In order to determine the likelihood of a 

hidden injury, one would assess the animal’s actions and behaviors. While hidden injuries were 

discussed at the workshop, they cannot be quantified or assessed through visual or external 

examination alone; therefore, they were not considered in extensive detail by the workshop 

participants. 

2.2 Goals and Objectives

During the 2007 workshop, NMFS scientists and managers evaluated the agency’s process for 

distinguishing between serious and non-serious injuries that have been used since the 1997 

workshop and reviewed additional information, research, and data needs from fishery observer, 

disentanglement, and stranding programs that would facilitate the evaluating of injuries. 

The primary objectives of this workshop were to: 

1) Review recommendations from the 1997 workshop and information obtained since 1997. 

a. Types and frequencies of observed injuries. 

b. Evidence of survival of marine mammals sustaining such injuries. 

2) Discuss the use of, and necessary changes to, existing guidance for distinguishing serious 

from non-serious injuries. 

a. Identify when information is insufficient to determine the severity of the injury. 

b. Identify data needs for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries. 
5 

c. Review existing data sources, raise awareness in these data collection programs of 

information needed, and identify constraints in distinguishing serious from nonserious injuries. 

3) Discuss potential actions following the workshop. 

2.3 Workshop Organization 

The workshop consisted of two sessions: an open session (Days 1-3) and a closed federal 

session (Day 4). Days 1-3 of the workshop were open to federal and non-federal participants, 

and public observers. The format for the first three days included a mix of plenary presentations 

and discussions and breakout session activities. The primary purposes of Days 1-3 were to 

present a synthesis of new science and to gather new information from longitudinal studies and 

pathobiology experts on the survival of injured marine mammals. The information from Day 1-3 

was also used to provide a scientific basis for recommendations by government officials in the 

closed session on Day 4. The primary purpose of the closed session was to draw on Days 1-3 

presentations and discussions to consider potential changes to the existing serious injury 

guidance and associated administrative approaches. 

The main topics addressed during Days 1-3 included the following (see Appendix A for Days 1-

3 agenda): 

• Evaluation of current data and determination systems (in plenary and breakout sessions). 

• Overview of new information on survival of injured marine mammals (large cetaceans, 

small cetaceans, pinnipeds, and manatees). 

• Pathobiology of injuries. 

• Breakout activities to address key questions on the topic of determining severity of 

injuries to marine mammals. 

The workshop was organized around three presentation sessions. Day 1 began with 

presentations describing the types of data collected, challenges in data collection, evaluating 

regional approaches to distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries, and the challenges each 

region faces. Day 2 began with speakers presenting and discussing new information obtained 

over the past decade on the survival of injured marine mammals by taxonomic group (large 

cetaceans, small cetaceans, and manatees). The final group of presentations addressed the 

pathobiology of injuries, including: predicting lethality from vessel trauma, gear and hook 

trauma, pathobiological consequences of injury, capture myopathy,4

 and hidden trauma in 

pinnipeds. 

Over 65 invited and public participants attended the Serious Injury Technical Workshop. NMFS 

invited a broad range of participants based upon their expertise in marine mammal serious injury 

 

4 Capture myopathy is a phenomenon associated with, and following, the capture, handling and transportation of animals. 

Alternate names for capture myopathy include: muscular dystrophy, capture disease, degenerative polymyopathy, overstraining 

disease, white muscle disease, leg paralysis, muscle necrosis, idiopathic muscle necrosis and exertional rhabdomyolysis. The 

pathophysiology associated with capture, handling and transportation of animals is extremely complex and associated with the 

sex, body condition, health of the animal, length of time of chase/pursuit, method/roughness of handling, the environmental 

condition (heat/cold) and other factors (Spraker, presentation at the 2007 workshop). 
6 

issues, including marine mammal management and policy, marine mammal biology, 

pathobiology, and veterinary medicine. NMFS staff from each regional office and science center, 

and the headquarters’ Office of Protected Resources participated. Other invited participants 

included federal agencies, state resource management agencies, stranding response 

organizations, and representatives of the three regional Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), 

universities, research institutes, and environmental non-government organizations (NGO). In 

addition to the 65 invited participants, Days 1-3 were open to the public. One member of the 

public attended. A full list of participants is provided in Appendix C. 

2.4 Existing Guidance for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injuries 

The 1997 Serious Injury Workshop discussed several options for the process and criteria used for 

distinguishing between serious and non-serious injuries. Recommendations from the workshop 

were outlined in the 1997 workshop report (Angliss and DeMaster, 1998), and focused almost 

exclusively on injuries from interactions with fisheries. The intent of the 1997 workshop was for 

NMFS to use the results and recommendations from the workshop to develop proposed 

guidelines for what constitutes a serious injury, to be published in the Federal Register. 

However, the recommended serious injury guidance was never published as official guidelines or 

regulations. NMFS Regional staff responsible for distinguishing serious from non-serious 

injuries have followed the guidance in Angliss and DeMaster (1998) to varying degrees. 

1997 Workshop Guidance for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injuries

Participants at the 1997 workshop did not reach agreement on what process NMFS should use to 

determine which injuries should be considered serious. Participants discussed three options: 

1) Provide training to editors of observer data so they can determine which injuries are likely 

to be serious. 

2) Have one person or a group of NMFS employees determine which injuries are likely to be 

serious. 

3) Develop a panel of outside experts to determine which injuries are likely to be serious. 

 

Participants at the 1997 workshop recognized that guidelines for what constitutes a serious injury 

across marine mammal species could include: 

1) All animals should be considered seriously injured if they are observed injured in any way 

or are observed trailing gear; 

2) Some portion of animals trailing gear or injured in any way should be considered 

seriously injured; or 

3) No animals that are observed injured or trailing gear that are not moribund5

 should be 

considered seriously injured. 

The workshop participants generally accepted the second option as the realistic middle ground 

because of observations of living or dead marine mammals with healed injuries and observations 

of marine mammals that disentangle themselves from fishing lines and/or nets. 

Participants did identify certain injuries scenarios that could be considered serious or not serious, 

and which should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, for each taxonomic group separately. 

 

5

 A moribund animal is one that is in a state of dying or approaching death. 
7 

Large cetacean subgroup6

Participants in the large whale subgroup indicated that any entanglement which impeded 

mobility or feeding, and the entanglement of young whales in ways that could cause trauma and 

mortality as the animal grows, should be considered a serious injury. However, specific criteria 

that indicated how to determine whether an entanglement impeded locomotion or ability to feed 

were not identified. 

Small cetacean subgroup7 

Types of injuries that should be considered serious: 

1) Ingestion of hooks. 

2) Swimming abnormally when released. 

3) Entanglement with trailing gear when released. 

4) Entanglements that result in an animal being separated from its pod. 

5) Hooked near the eyes or the head. 

Types of injuries that should be considered not serious: 

1) Hooked externally (e.g., skin, blubber), except when hook is near the eyes or the head. 

2) Swimming normally or were entangled in line or net, but have subsequently become 

disentangled. 

Considerations for the case-by-case examination: 

1) Behavioral response of the animal (e.g., abnormal swimming behavior). 

2) The specific portion of the gear involved in an entanglement, and the weight and drag 

characteristics of the gear. 

Pinnipeds8

Types of injuries that could be considered serious: 

1) Hooked in the mouth (internally). 

2) Entanglement with trailing gear. 

Types of injuries that could be considered not serious: 

1) Hooked in the body. 

Types of injuries to be assessed on a case-by-case basis: 

1) Entanglement without gear trailing. 

2) Auditory damage via acoustic harassment devices. 

Recommendations Identified at the 1997 Workshop 

General: 

1) Include marine mammal scientists in the observer debriefing process. 

2) Improve marine mammal training for observers.

3) Increase observer coverage in fisheries where the potential for serious injury problems 

appears to be significant (i.e., longline fisheries).

 

6

 The large whale subgroup specifically addressed entanglement interactions. 7

 The small cetacean subgroup specifically addressed interactions with longline fisheries. 8

 A pinniped subgroup was not formed to discuss pinniped injuries, but a discussion was led by D. DeMaster of the AFSC. 
8 

4) Develop a reporting system for observers that encourages more elaborate comments by 

observers on injuries, such as hooking, and whether an entangled animal was completely 

disentangled prior to being released.

5) Provide guidelines for use by data editors/peer review committee for determining 

whether an injury should be classified as serious.

Research Needs: 

1) Determine survival rates of animals entangled/injured in different types of fishing gear. 

2) Analyze existing data on large cetacean survival and reproductive fitness by examining 

entanglement type and scarring data. Also, examine stranding data for evidence of scars 

likely related to past or existing entanglements. 

3) Develop/improve methods for collecting blood and biopsy samples from entangled, 

stranded, or free-ranging animals to enable better determination of the effects of stress 

and marine mammal stock structure. 

4) Develop methods for radio or satellite tagging entangled animals released alive. Ensure 

that equipment is available for tagging entangled animals. 

5) Survey the existing stranding networks for evidence of hook and line interactions. 

6) Develop necropsy methods that would provide information on fishery specific mortality 

that can be added to the database on salvaged animals and to existing databases on 

individually recognizable animals. 

Regional Criteria to Evaluate Injuries of Large Whales 

The NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) adapted the guidance outlined in 

Angliss and DeMaster (1998) and developed specific criteria for distinguishing serious from 

non-serious entanglement and ship-strike injuries in baleen whales. These criteria were 

developed over a decade of evaluation of case histories and published in NEFSC mortality and 

serious injury determination reports (Cole et al., 2005; Cole et al., 2006; Nelson et al., 2007; 

Glass et al., 2008).9

The NEFSC categorizes entanglement events as serious injuries if one of the following 

indications is confirmed on a living whale: 

1) Fishing line constricted on any body part, or likely to become constricting as the whale 

grew. 

2) It was uncertain if the line was constricting, but appendages near the entanglement’s 

point of attachment were discolored and likely compromised. 

3) The whale showed a marked change in appearance following entanglement, including 

skin discoloration, lesions near the nares, fat loss, or increased cyamid loads. 

4) Gear was ingested. 

5) Whale was anchored. 

 

9

 NMFS’ Northeast Region (NER) first published interim criteria for distinguishing serious from non serious injuries to right, 

humpback, and minke whales interacting with the Northeast lobster trap/pot fishery in the 1997 LOF (62 FR 33, January 2, 1997, 

comment/response 14). Because of the absence of national guidelines and because interim criteria for serious injury were 

urgently needed to address the impact of the lobster pot fishery to right and humpback whales at the time, the NER developed 

and utilized interim criteria for determining what constitutes a serious injury to baleen whales. After the April 1997 Serious

Injury Workshop, the NEFSC revised their criteria based on the Workshop Report (Angliss and DeMaster, 1998). 
9 

A whale is typically not considered seriously injured by the NEFSC (or the Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center [AFSC]) if all constricting lines were removed or shed, and the whale had no 

other injuries that would otherwise be considered “serious.” The NEFSC does not forecast how 

an entanglement or injury might increase the whale’s susceptibility to further injury (e.g., from 

additional entanglements or collisions with vessels). The NEFSC does not consider injuries that 

impaired the whale’s locomotion or feeding serious injuries unless they were likely to be fatal in 

the foreseeable future. 

The NEFSC categorizes ship strike events as serious injuries if, following the appearance of a 

linear laceration or large gouge, a living whale exhibited a marked change in skin discoloration, 

lesions near the nares, fat loss, or increased cyamid loads. 
10 

3.0 Current Data Sources and Collection Programs 

The following sections (3.0-6.0) contain summaries of presentations given at the 2007 

Workshop. These summaries were prepared by the author(s) of the presentation; therefore, 

statements and recommendations do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the 

Workshop Steering Committee or NMFS. 

The “Current Data Sources and Collection Programs” portion of the workshop included 

presentations by the NMFS observer, stranding, and disentanglement programs. These programs 

provide the vast majority of the information used by NMFS staff when evaluating injury events 

to determine severity. The presentations were designed to describe the types of information that 

are collected in these programs and the scope (including limitations) on the types of information 

that could reasonably be expected to be collected. In this way, these presentations provided 

workshop participants with a background on the information used to distinguish between serious 

and non-serious injuries. This information was intended to inform discussion and lead to 

realistic suggestions on the types of additional data needed for distinguishing between serious 

and non-serious injuries. 

Collection of marine mammal data by U.S. observer programs (Amy Van Atten, NMFS NER 

Observer Program) 

Under the MMPA, NMFS has the authority to place observers on board vessels engaged in 

commercial fishing operations that incidentally take marine mammals. Data collected by NMFS 

observer programs are used to assess the level of serious injury and mortality of marine 

mammals, develop marine mammal stock assessments, and identify bycatch reduction measures 

to ensure the recovery and conservation of these species. NMFS currently conducts ten observer 

programs, which monitor over 42 fisheries nationwide for incidental take of marine mammals, 

bycatch of other protected resources, and discards of fish. Not all programs focus on observing 

marine mammal bycatch. 

 

Fisheries currently monitored under the authority of the MMPA include: Kodiak set-gillnet 

(Category II), California/Oregon pelagic drift gillnet (Category I), California pelagic longline 

(Category II), Southern California set gillnet (Category III), Mid-Atlantic gillnet (Category I), 

New England and Mid-Atlantic small mesh trawl (Category II), New England groundfish trawl 

and gillnet fisheries (bottom trawls Category II, sink gillnets Category I), Mid-Atlantic Illex

squid trawl (Category II), Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean pelagic longline (Category I), 

Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet (Category II), and the North Carolina inshore gillnet 

(Category II).10 

 

Marine mammal data are typically collected using the following types of forms: 

• Incidental Take Form- for documentation of species, type of marine mammal take, and 

deterrents used. 

• Biological Information Form- for documentation of species, length, weight, sex, and 

tissue/teeth samples for fisheries permitted under 50 CFR 229.7. 

 

10 Fishery categories listed in this paragraph are the categories of each fishery on the Final 2007 LOF (72 FR 14466, March 28, 

2007). 
11 

• Sightings Form- for documentation of species, number of animals, and behavior for 

animals near or around fishing gear. 

• Photos and comments are also recorded to provide further information on marine 

mammal incidental takes. 

 

Each observer program’s training manual contains detailed information on data collection forms 

and procedures. There is no national standardized format for these manuals. In addition to the 

information collected on marine mammals, observers also collect a variety of data on other 

species, gear type, fishing location, estimated weight of retained and discarded catch, species 

composition of discarded catch, reasons for discard, weight, length, sex, dissections from tagged 

fish, socioeconomic data, biological samples, and seabird and sea turtle interactions. Data 

collection on protected species is a priority for all regional observer programs. 

 

When considering changes to current marine mammal data collection procedures, there are a 

number of inherent tradeoffs. For example, observer programs must balance the collection of 

more data, the need to provide high quality data for all species of interest, improvements in data 

management and processing, and cost. Observer programs strive to provide the best data 

possible to aid in the conservation and protection of marine mammals and other species, and are 

willing to work with protected resources experts to identify possible improvements in observer 

data collection. 

Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program: data collection (Teri Rowles and 

Janet Whaley, NMFS Office of Protected Resources) 

The Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program (MMHSRP) began in 1992 after 

the passage of the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Act. The MMHSRP goals 

are to: collect and disseminate information on the health and health trends of marine mammal 

populations in the wild; correlate the health and health trends of marine mammal populations in 

the wild with biological, chemical, and physical environmental parameters; and coordinate 

effective responses to marine mammal unusual mortality events. The program has developed the 

following components: response networks, surveillance, research and development, banking, 

quality assurance, information management, outreach/education, and grant assistance. 

Over the last 15 years, the program has conducted the following activities to obtain health 

information and data to inform health assessments: 

• Visual observations. 

• Health assessments. 

• Physical examinations. 

• Analytical results, such as pathology, toxicology, infectious disease, and injuries. 

• Necropsies, including cause of death. 

• Morphometrics and life history data. 

Data sources have included strandings, entanglements, out of habitat animals (e.g., a bottlenose 

dolphin trapped in a freshwater habitat), by-caught animals, live capture release studies, 

subsistence hunts, translocations, and free swimming animals. The program collects information 
12 

and samples to evaluate the cause of stranding, cause of mortality, or cause of morbidity 

(including infectious and non-infectious causes and human interactions). 

Most data collected comes from stranded animals. Over the last 15 years, over 40,000 animals 

have been reported stranded in the United States. These have included single animal strandings, 

mass (i.e., multiple animals) strandings, and unusual mortality events. Basic information, such as 

length, girth, sex, and whether there are signs of human interaction (e.g., fishery gear marks on 

the animal, propeller cuts) are collected from all stranded animals. The data collection forms and 

the data fields have changed over the last 15 years and are becoming more specific in the types 

and manner of information required. 

To collect better data on marine mammal injuries and to better assess the role human interactions 

play in mortality and morbidity, the MMHSRP must use a decision tree matrix, use standardized 

terminology, evaluate the animal in a consistent and defined manner, and ensure that data are 

reported in a consistent manner by trained personnel. To determine whether human interactions 

contributed to the stranding event, the observation data, event history, and experience of the 

observer are evaluated. To address the question of whether human interactions likely caused the 

death of the animal, full necropsies, analyses, and interpretation of the complete case must be 

reviewed. In order to improve the quality of the evaluations on evidence of human interactions, 

consistent protocols must be used by trained personnel reporting the information in consistent 

format, and having access to the data to support the interpretations, observations, and findings. 

The MMHSRP is currently adopting a standardized protocol and database for collecting 

stranding event information, determining human interactions, determining cause of death, 

determining whether human interaction contributed to death, and providing training to stranding 

network personnel. 

Large whale disentanglement systems (Dave Mattila, NOS, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary) 

Introduction 

Responding to reports of entangled whales and releasing them, along with documentation of the 

animal, can supply data about the causes, extent and severity of the entanglement problem. 

Using disentanglement techniques developed by Dr. Jon Lien (Memorial University of 

Newfoundland), the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies and others, under the supervision 

and authorization of the National MMHSRP, and in cooperation with many federal, state and 

NGO entities, response networks are in various stages of development throughout the country. 

The safe and professional documentation of the whale, specifics of the entanglement event, and 

gear are becoming an integral part of the disentanglement response. Amongst other management 

issues, some of these data gathered through the disentanglement response are useful in 

distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries. Of particular use are identifications and 

resights of released (i.e., disentangled) individuals in order to determine survivorship through 

long-term tracking studies, documentation of wounds for ground-truthing scar studies, other 

newly developed assays of individual health, and the verification of events in order to clarify the 

reliability of opportunistic reports (Robbins et al., 2007a). 

 
13 

Current Assessment Techniques 

Certain aspects of the current assessment criteria used by the disentanglement networks to 

determine whether an entanglement is potentially life threatening, and therefore warrants 

intervention, may be of use to this workshop. These criteria have evolved over time as our 

understanding of which entanglements are life threatening (in the short and long term) and which 

entanglements are likely to be shed by the animal on their own. They rely on a determination of 

the species and body part(s) involved, the type and constriction (immediate and the potential to 

constrict in the future) of the entangling material, as well as the wounds (acute and chronic) and 

estimated overall health of the animal. In addition, the animal’s behavior and geographic 

location are sometimes factors considered. 

Current and Potential Data Collection (with discussion of limitations)

Mattila et al. (2007) summarized some of the data that are, or can be, safely collected during 

large whale disentanglement operations. In this presentation, those aspects which are applicable 

to helping assess serious injury were summarized, including: the data collected to help 

understand entanglement impacts on marine mammals and for use in ground-truth scarification 

studies, the safe collection of visual and physical samples, and some experimental tools being 

developed (e.g., breath collection to gather ketones to assess stress levels). Certain portions of 

the event documentation and data collected are currently distributed to members of 

disentanglement networks through network web sites. In using these data it is important to keep 

in mind certain caveats, including, but not limited to: there is an absence of negative data (e.g., 

data does not include what was not seen), and some real time report narratives are assumed to be 

“incorrect,” some of which may be updated but may still include inaccuracies. 

Key issues and questions 

Since large whale entanglements are cryptic, rarely witnessed events, where the animals often 

swim off with the entangling gear, determining the actual number of deaths and serious injuries 

as a result of these events is extremely problematic. Key questions remain: 

– What are the respective survival rates of released (vs. non-released) animals? 

– What types of data can we safely collect in order to determine the likely fate of 

individuals? 

– What type of data may help to illuminate the overall extent of the problem? 

– What are the “trade offs” from the disentanglement process (e.g., injuries from the 

disentanglement process)? 

A Note on Vessel Collisions in Hawaii 

Reports of vessel collisions are increasing in Hawaii. Several factors are likely to contribute to 

this increase in collisions, including: increasing whale population, increasing numbers and speed 

of vessels, increased outreach, and subsequent reporting. The advent of high-speed ferry 

transport to the islands has increased public and NOAA’s concern about potential collisions. 

Part of NOAA (NOAA Fisheries and NOAA Sanctuaries) and the State of Hawaii’s response is 

to attempt to more fully document any collisions and their subsequent outcomes. 
14 

4.0 Current Systems for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injuries 

This section of the workshop included presentations by NMFS Regional staff responsible for 

distinguishing between serious and non-serious injuries of marine mammals. Regional 

representatives responsible for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries were asked to 

describe their experiences with the types of interactions and injuries observed in their regions, 

current methods used for determining the severity of an injury, and key issues and questions they 

encounter when attempting to distinguish between serious and not-serious injuries. These 

presentations provided workshop participants with background on the differing approaches for 

distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries based on region, species, type of injury, and 

amount of available information on injury events. These presentations also set up breakout 

group sessions (described in section 4.2 below) discussing what has and has not worked well 

when attempting to distinguish serious from non-serious injuries, and constraints on data 

collection affecting serious injury determinations. 

Baleen whale serious injury determinations in the Northeast Region over the past 10 years

(Tim Cole, NMFS NEFSC) 

 

Nature of interactions 

From 2001 – 2005, 133 large whale entanglement events occurred along the Gulf of Mexico, 

U.S. east coast and adjacent Canadian Maritimes (Nelson et al., 2007). Of these events, 11 were 

determined to be serious injuries. In many cases there is insufficient information to make a 

determination. Live whales have been observed with ship strike injuries, but despite ship strikes 

being implicated as a leading anthropogenic cause of death for right, humpback, fin and sei 

whales, the NEFSC has rarely assigned a serious injury to a ship strike event. Blunt trauma 

injuries show little or no external evidence (bodily or behaviorally), and are likely to be missed 

by our visual, external examination of living whales. 

 

Cause of injuries 

Traps/pots: When entangling gear could be attributed to a particular fishery, lobster trap/pot 

gear was involved in 8 of 14 right whale entanglements between 1993 and 2002 where the gear 

type could be reliably identified (Johnson et al., 2005).11 One or two reports of humpback 

and/or minke whales anchored by trap gear are received by NMFS each year. 

 

Sink gillnet: Johnson et al. (2005) identified sink gillnet gear in 11 of 22 events involving 

humpbacks and reliably identifiable gear between 1997 and 2002.12 Sink gillnet gear was 

identified in 2 of 14 events involving right whales in which the gear could be reliably identified. 

 

Trawls: Since 1989, 5 pilot whales, 5 white-sided and 3 common dolphins were reported to have 

been released alive or of unknown condition within the Northeast Sea Sampling data. 

 

Ship strikes: Ship strike injuries and deaths have been documented for several cetacean species, 

 

11 In six additional right whale entanglement cases the gear type could not be identified. In these cases, the gear type involved in 

the entanglement was categorized as unknown (Johnson et al., 2005). 12 In three additional humpback whale entanglement cases the gear type could not be identified. In these cases, the gear type 

involved in the entanglement was categorized as unknown (Johnson et al., 2005).
15 

including right, humpback, blue, and fin whales. Relatively intensive survey effort for right 

whales each year discovers one or two individuals with lacerations from propellers of small (less 

than 65 feet (19.8 m)) vessels. The NEFSC currently do not have a means of identifying living 

whales that have sustained blunt trauma. 

 

Methods of determining serious injury 

All small cetaceans recorded as released alive or of unknown condition by the Northeast Sea 

Sampling program are counted as serious injuries. Large whale entanglement or ship strike 

events are evaluated using criteria outlined in Cole et al., 2005 (see also Cole et al., 2006; 

Nelson et al., 2007; and Glass et al., 2008). 

 

Key issues and questions 

• There is great disparity in report/data quality, ranging from vague reports from the 

general public to comprehensive necropsies conducted by field experts. 

• Often, there is a lack of external evidence in cases of blunt trauma. 

• Accounting for an animal’s health prior to injury (already sick? pre- or postpartum?) is an 

important consideration. 

• What behaviors, in conjunction with an entanglement, are likely to cause serious injury? 

• Should the size of an injury be used as an indication of its seriousness? 

• Should the presence of constricting line always trigger a serious injury determination? 

• What are the effects of short, repeated, or chronic injuries? 

• Can anecdotal reports provide a means for estimating actual rates of serious injury for a 

population/stock? 

 

Small cetacean and North Atlantic right whale serious injury determinations in the Southeast 

Region (Lance Garrison, NMFS SEFSC) 

Nature of interactions 

Several categories of injuries occur in the Southeast region (SER). These include: 

• Injuries to small cetaceans caused by hookings or entanglements with longline gear. 

• Injuries to small cetaceans from interactions with other fishing gear, where animal is 

released alive. 

• Injuries to small cetaceans where animal is either hooked externally or ingests gear, 

including cases of repeated hookings. 

• Entanglements and vessel collisions with right whales, with particular attention to very 

young calves. 

• Injuries to small cetaceans from vessel collisions. 

 

Cause of Injuries 

Longline gear: The Atlantic pelagic longline fishery operates from the Grand Banks off Canada 

to the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. The majority of interactions with marine mammals 

occur in the Mid-Atlantic Bight, which extends from New York south to North Carolina. 

Fishermen report that pilot whales depredate their catch, and observer data indicates that there is 

a significant positive correlation between interactions with pilot whales and damage to swordfish 

catch (Draft PLTRP, 2006). Similarly, observer data show a positive correlation between 

interactions with Risso’s dolphins and damage to swordfish catch (Draft PLTRP, 2006). There 
16 

are not enough encounters between longline gear and other marine mammals to determine 

whether depredation or just chance encounters with the gear are responsible for the interactions. 

In general, most marine mammals that interact with longline gear are released alive with varying 

degrees of injury. Interactions take the form of hookings in the mouth and in other areas of the 

body, as well as entanglements in fishing line. 

Entanglements most frequently occur in the mainline. Animals are generally cut free of the gear 

and not classified as seriously injured on release. Hookings are most often in the mouth and the 

hook is not removed prior to release. Frequently, the gangion or leader line parts off before the 

animal can be brought near the boat and the animal is released both hooked in the mouth and 

trailing significant amounts of entangling gear. When an animal becomes hooked or entangled, 

the crews typically work rapidly to release the animal, as undue struggling has the potential to 

further harm the animal as well as the crew. Factors that influence whether the gear can be 

removed include the size of the animal, the location and severity of the hooking/entanglement, 

the condition of the seas, and the experience of the crew. 

 

Traps/pots: Dolphins generally become entangled in line around the flukes, pectoral fins, or 

head. Animals may drown or be seriously injured by dragging crab trap/pot gear for extended 

periods of time. Dolphins are frequently released alive from these entanglements (8 bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in South Carolina alone in the crab trap/pot fishery, with 5 since 

2003; McFee et al., 2006). However, the extent of serious injury caused by entanglements has 

not been assessed. The Atlantic crab trap/pot fishery is included under the Bottlenose Dolphin 

Take Reduction Plan (BDTRP; 71 FR 24776, April 26, 2006). 

 

Shrimp trawl: Lazy lines13 on shrimp trawls have caused mortality to bottlenose dolphins 

throughout the southeast. There are anecdotal accounts of entanglement in which the animal is 

released alive. 

 

Recreational gear: The range of the coastal stocks of bottlenose dolphins frequently overlaps 

with recreational activities of people. Illegal feeding of dolphins is prevalent in the southeast. In 

some areas, this activity is causing behavioral changes of the animals (such as conditioning to 

people and loss of wariness of people and vessels) which may be contributing to depredation on 

recreational and commercial gear. Dolphin depredation on bait/catch of recreational gear is 

increasing, and, in some cases, dolphins are being repeatedly hooked or entangled in gear. 

Observed and anecdotal reports of depredation show dolphins cleaning the hook of bait or catch 

or snapping the line. 

NMFS SER staff have also observed females teaching begging and depredation behaviors to 

their calves and other animals. Injuries generally include lures/hooks lodged in the mouth or 

head region, partial or total ingestion of lures/hooks, and monofilament nests entangled around 

various parts of the body either in combination with hooks/lures or separately. In 2007, there 

were increased dolphin strandings with recreational gear attached, ingested, or entangled, 

especially in Sarasota Bay and Indian River Lagoon, Florida. A review of Florida statewide 

 

13 A lazy line is a rope that runs from the front of the net (mouth) to the codend (area of the net where the catch is 

collected), and allows the codend of the net to be hauled on deck to release the catch without dragging the entire 

trawl net onboard the vessel. 
17 

stranding data from 2001-2006, shows 28 cases of tackle ingestion, 15 entanglements, and 5 

cases of hooks or lures in the mouth. In some cases, mortality was a direct result of the 

interaction. The fates of animals that do not strand dead with recreational gear attached but 

sustain multiple hookings or entanglements are not known, nor is the potential impact of chronic 

injuries from these interactions. (Case study: female bottlenose dolphin with calf in Panama 

City, FL, that was hooked on two separate occasions within 6 months). 

 

Ship strikes: The Southeast United States is the only known calving area for North Atlantic right 

whales. There are several major ports in the Southeast (Canaveral, Jacksonville, Brunswick, 

Fernandina Beach, Savannah, and Charleston) along the right whale migratory pathway to the 

Northeast United States. Calves may be particularly vulnerable to ship strikes and entanglements 

in fishing gear. In 1991, a calf was documented in the Southeast with propeller gashes. In 2005, 

NMFS staff observed this same animal floating dead off Cumberland Island, the cause of death 

likely her healed propeller wounds splitting open as her girth expanded with advancing 

pregnancy. 

Vessel collisions with small cetaceans are not documented as frequently as with large whales. 

However, when a vessel collision occurs, it often results in mortality from blunt trauma or severe 

propeller wounds. There are cases in which small cetaceans--notably bottlenose dolphins--

survive boat strikes but sustain injuries and disfigurement to dorsal fins and other body parts. In 

Sarasota Bay, Wells and Scott (1997) documented four cases of vessel strikes on bottlenose 

dolphins in which all four animals survived the strike. 

One of the animals struck was a female less than 2 months old. Her wounds consisted of a large 

gash on the left side of the dorsal fin with trailing yellowish necrotic tissue, which ultimately 

caused the dorsal fin to curl to the right. She was seen swimming normally alongside her mother 

with the fresh wounds, but later died at age 4 from a lung infection. It is unknown to what extent 

her early injuries from the vessel collision may have impacted her overall health. Likewise, the 

effect on long-term survival in similar cases is unknown. (Case studies: mortality of a striped 

dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) in Destin, FL; propeller wounds to dorsal fin from a bottlenose 

dolphin in the Indian River Lagoon, FL). 

 

Methods of determining serious injury 

Serious injury determinations in the SER are made based on the guidelines provided in Angliss 

and DeMaster (1998). For small cetaceans interacting with the pelagic longline fishery, it was 

concluded that animals that ingested hooks, were released with significant amounts of trailing 

fishing gear, were swimming abnormally, or suffered some obvious severe external trauma 

should be considered seriously injured. Animals that are hooked externally or are released and 

swim away normally are not considered seriously injured. For large whales, the guidelines 

indicate that entanglement of young whales in a way that could cause trauma and mortality as the 

whale grows should be considered a serious injury. However, no further distinction was made in 

assessing injuries of calves as compared to larger animals. 

 

Serious injury determinations for cetaceans interacting with the longline fishery are made on a 

case-by-case basis after reviewing the observations, comments, and photographs of fishery 

observers. These determinations are made and reported annually in technical memoranda that 
18 

provide estimates of bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery of both marine mammals and sea 

turtles (Fairfield-Walsh and Garrison, 2006). In general, the NEFSC makes serious injury 

determinations for large whales. However, recently the SER made a cause-of-death 

determination for an entangled right whale calf in order to facilitate timely management action. 

This determination was based on necropsy findings, photographs, and other observations. 

Currently, there is no process in place for making serious injury determinations in the SER for 

small cetaceans that have been reported injured due to vessel collisions or interactions with 

commercial or recreational gear in fisheries other than the pelagic longline fishery. These injuries 

are generally not included in estimates of total human-caused serious injury and mortality in 

SARs. 

 

Key issues and questions 

Longline gear- Issues include: 

• The observer may or may not be able to see the nature of the injuries if the animal is 

released far from the boat or in poor visibility. In addition, the report form that has been 

used did not prompt consistency in observer comments regarding the nature of the injury 

or the condition of the animal upon release. 

• Specific criteria indicating the amount of gear a cetacean would have to trail before it was 

considered a serious injury was discussed at the previous serious injury workshop, but 

consensus was not reached. 

• The fishery is now required to use circle hooks. More information is needed to determine 

whether injuries caused by circle hooks are different than those caused by “J” hooks 

(specifically the degree to which hooks are ingested). 

• There has been a lack of consistency and detail in reporting by observers regarding the 

nature of the injury as well as the condition of the animal upon release (due to factors 

discussed above). 

• Fishermen may be more able (and motivated) to release animals with a minimum of harm 

if they receive proper training, but almost no effort in establishing such a program has 

been made. 

• Fishermen have also indicated that they would be more motivated to take on the risk of 

disentangling or dehooking an animal if the animal released without gear was then 

determined to be only injured (as opposed to seriously injured). 

 

Trap/pot- The ultimate fate of animals released alive from an entanglement is unknown. 

Questions include: 

• How can internal injuries that may have resulted from an entanglement be assessed? 

• Is the extent of entanglement injuries more serious depending on location of 

entanglement (e.g., head, pectoral fins, fluke)? 

• Do injuries incurred during such entanglements cause the animals to be more susceptible 

to other stressors? 

• Depending on the extent of the injuries, should entanglements in which dolphins are 

released alive be included in serious injury and mortality estimates under TRPs? 

 

Recreational gear- Questions include: 

• Must an injury be acute to be serious? What about injuries that have latent impacts on an 
19 

animal’s ability to forage, defend itself against predators, or reproduce? 

• What is the fate of small cetaceans released with a hook/lure in their mouth or other body 

part? With an ingested hook? Could a hook in the mouth lead to death? 

• If the hook/lure is shed naturally (e.g., corrodes, gets displaced, or tears out) are there 

potential longer-term implications of injuries where the hook/lure was lodged? From 

repeated hookings? From shedding of gear? 

• Are calves more susceptible to serious injury than adults from these interactions? 

 

Ship strikes- Objective criteria are also needed for making serious injury determinations for 

vessel-struck small cetaceans, and a process for including serious injuries of vessel-struck small 

cetaceans in the estimates of human-caused takes needs to be developed. Questions include: 

• Should guidelines differentiate what constitutes serious injury for smaller animals 

(including right whale calves) considering the size, behavior, and strength of the animal? 

• How should we account for potential longer-term implications and effects on 

survivability if an animal appears to be behaving normally following vessel strike? 

• Can we develop serious injury criteria for propeller lacerations? 

 

Serious injury determinations in Hawaii (Karin Forney, NMFS SWFSC, and Bud Antonelis, 

NMFS PIFSC). 

Nature of interactions 

Cetaceans: The majority of interactions involve small cetaceans hooked in the mouth or with an 

ingested hook, presumably because they are taking catch or bait off longline gear. Most of these 

animals are released when the line breaks or is cut, trailing variable amounts of gear ranging 

from about 1 meter of line to tens of meters of line and some floats or weights. There were a few 

cases of animals hooked in the fluke or other body part; some of these died but others were 

released with trailing line. Humpback and sperm whales were observed entangled in mainline 

and/or branchline, and all but one were released with some trailing gear (variable lengths of line, 

at times with floats and weights) wrapped around their bodies or flukes/pectoral fins. 

 

Hawaiian monk seals: The majority of interactions involve monk seals becoming hooked, 

usually in the mouth, presumably because they are taking bait from the longline gear. NMFS 

rarely receives reports of the actual hooking event, but later documents seals hauled out with 

hooks and some trailing line or gear. Most hooked animals are captured by NMFS personnel 

who then remove the hook. In some instances, hooks fall out without intervention. In one 

instance, a deeply-ingested hook and attendant gear were removed surgically. Seals also 

become entangled in near-shore lay nets in the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). Finally, seals 

become entangled in derelict fishing gear and other flotsam, primarily in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). NMFS field personnel remove the gear whenever possible. Injuries 

and mortalities have been documented. 

 

Cause of Injuries 

Cetaceans- Pelagic longline: Includes shallow sets targeting swordfish and deep sets targeting 

tunas. Cetacean species observed (reported as # killed/ # injured14) in this fishery during 1994-

 

14 Includes all injuries, both serious and non-serious. 
20 

2004 were: False killer whale (1/17), short- finned pilot whale (2/4), Risso's dolphin (0/7), 

bottlenose dolphin (1/2), short-beaked common dolphin (0/1), pan- tropical spotted dolphin (1/0), 

spinner dolphin (0/2), Blainville's beaked whale (1/0), humpback whale (0/3), sperm whale (0/2), 

unidentified cetaceans (0/14). False killer whale takes in this fishery are of the greatest concern 

because they are a strategic stock (takes exceed PBR under the MMPA). 

 

Hawaiian monk seals: 

Near-shore recreational shore-casting: Most interactions have occurred from a type of shorecasting known as slide-rig fishing, which targets primarily carangids (ulua), and ‘whipping’, 

which targets scad (akule). From 1994 through July 2007, 42 hooking incidents were reported in 

the MHI, one resulting in mortality. 

Near-shore lay net: This fishery involves setting underwater gill nets on near-shore reefs of the 

MHI for nonselective catch. From 1994 through July, 2007, 6 entanglement incidents have been 

documented, with 3 mortalities. 

Debris entanglement: Entangling debris comprises items of fishery and non-fishery origins, and 

occurs primarily in the NWHI. During 1982-2006, 268 entanglements occurred, with 36 injuries 

and 8 mortalities. 

 

Methods of determining serious injury 

Based on the guidelines developed at the 1997 Serious Injury Workshop (Angliss and DeMaster, 

1998), cetaceans are considered seriously injured if one or both of the following applies: 1) they 

are hooked in the mouth/head or have ingested a hook; and/or 2) they are released with trailing 

gear that is likely to impair feeding or locomotion. Serious injury determinations are made on a 

case-by-case basis using the observer's description of the interaction, the behavior and body size 

of the animal, the amount and types of gear attached when the animal was released, and where 

on the body the animal was hooked/entangled. Monk seals are considered seriously injured if 

one or more of the following conditions apply: 1) they are hooked in the mouth deeper than the 

lip (i.e. inside the mandible, at base of tongue, or having swallowed the hook); 2) they are 

entangled in an actively fishing lay net; 3) they are entangled in debris which has cut through the 

skin of the animal; 4) they are entangled in debris and are subsequently disentangled, and the 

intervener(s) specifically state in a field report that the animal could not have escaped unaided; 

and/or 5) they are entangled in debris which is in turn caught on shallow substrate, effectively 

immobilizing the animal. 

 

Key issues and questions 

Cetaceans: Hooked cetaceans are often very active, complicating an assessment of where and 

how the animals are hooked. Many animals break the line and swim away with varying amounts 

of gear attached before they are close enough for the observer to see details. Tuna sets (the 

majority) are hauled after dark, making it difficult for observers to identify species and observe 

details of the interaction events. To increase the collection of data relevant to serious injury 

determinations, new forms are currently being tested that have check boxes allowing observers to 

quickly record information on location and type of hook or entangled gear, amount and types of 

gear left attached to the animal, and the animal’s behavior. Questions include: 

• What is fate of small cetaceans released with a hook in their mouth (lip? jaw? skull?) or 

with an ingested hook? 

• Is there any evidence they shed the hook on their own? Would a hook in the mouth 
21 

significantly impair feeding, cause infection, or lead to death? 

• At what point does trailing gear become a problem likely to cause death for small 

cetaceans (how much and what type of gear)? 

• How does the impact of trailing gear differ: 

o when an animal is hooked in the mouth, head, body, pectoral fin, fluke? 

o when an animal has line entangled around the head, body, pectoral fins, fluke? 

• What types of additional data would be useful to try to collect regarding the nature of the 

injury or the types and amounts of gear involved? 

• Can any behaviors appropriately be used to indicate that an animal has sustained a serious 

injury (e.g., swimming abnormally, 'squealing', active/lethargic)? 

 

Hawaiian monk seals: Seals are presumed to become hooked by taking bait rather than catch, but 

additional data need to be collected to confirm this sequence of events. Moreover, interviews 

with fishermen who have inadvertently hooked and released seals can provide information on 

what types of bait may be more or less likely to be taken by seals. A key issue is that the 

subpopulation of seals in the MHI is increasing, so fishery interactions are likely to increase. 

Some steps have been taken to mitigate the effects of hookings. PIFSC personnel have been 

advocating the use of barbless hooks in the shorecasting fishery, a practice which would not 

diminish hookings, but would lead to a hooked animal more likely to lose the hook without 

human intervention. 

 

In determining serious injuries, the effect of human intervention has not been considered, and 

perhaps this warrants further discussion, at least on the management side. If humans remove a 

deeply embedded (or ingested) hook, or release an animal from a lay net, and the animal 

survives, should the event still be considered a serious injury? 

Cetacean serious injury determinations off the U.S. Western Contiguous Coast (Karin Forney, 

NMFS SWFSC) 

Nature of interactions 

Most cetacean-fishery interactions on the U.S. West coast involve small cetaceans, and the 

interaction generally leads to the death of the animal. Large whales, however, may swim away 

with gear attached. Between 1999 and May 2007, at least ten humpback whales off the U.S. 

West Coast were observed entangled in fishing gear, including line from crab pots, traps, and 

nets. In some cases, the animals were freed or subsequently stranded dead, but in most cases, the 

fate of the animal is unknown. Ship strikes have also been implicated in the deaths of 

humpback, blue, and fin whales. Additional whales have been observed with ship strike injuries 

(e.g., propeller gashes), but their fate is not generally known. A few humpback whales have 

been observed with healed scars from apparent ship strikes. 

 

Cause of Injuries 

Pelagic drift gillnet fishery (~20 inch mesh): Large whales are occasionally entangled and 

released with a portion of the net, or they may swim through the net and continue with or without 

gear attached. Pingers (i.e., acoustical deterrent devices) may be attached. 

 

Traps/pots: Humpback whales occasionally get entangled in traps/pots set for spot prawns or 
22 

crabs, and may swim away with lines, traps and/or floats attached. They may also become 

anchored. 

 

Ship strikes: Ship strike injuries and deaths have been documented for several cetacean species, 

including humpback, blue, and fin whales. 

 

Methods of determining serious injury 

Carretta et al. (2004) summarized the approach used to determine serious injury in marine 

mammals entangled in driftnet fishing gear: 

 

"Occasionally, entangled animals were released with injuries that made future survival doubtful. 

These cases of “serious injuries” were defined by reviewing observer notes and comparing the 

extent of the injuries with the serious injury guidelines used by NMFS (Angliss and DeMaster, 

1998). ... Serious injuries may include--but are not limited to--the following: animals released 

with trailing gear that would impair the animal’s mobility or ability to feed, ingested hooks, 

visible blood flow, loss or damage to an appendage, listless appearance or inability to defend 

itself, inability to swim or dive upon release from fishing gear, signs of equilibrium imbalance, 

perforation of any part of the body by fishing gear, and animals that swim abnormally after 

release." 

 

Ship strike injuries are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but serious injury determinations are 

not always possible. 

 

Key issues and questions 

• How much and what type of trailing gear is likely to cause the mortality of large whales? 

• How does the impact differ: 

o when an animal has gear entangled around the head, body, pectoral fins, fluke? 

o if the animal is entangled in bottom-anchored gear and struggles for a period of 

time? 

o by type of gear (monofilament line, multifilament line, netting, pots, floats 

attached, etc.)? 

• What types of entanglement injuries are whales known to have survived (or not)? 

• What types of ship strike injuries are whales known to have survived (or not)? 

Large whale and pinniped serious injury determinations in Alaska (Robyn Angliss, NMFS 

AFSC) 

Nature of interactions 

Injuries to several different marine mammal stocks in Alaska result from vessel strikes and 

incidental entanglement in a variety of fishing gear. Most of the federally-regulated fisheries 

(groundfish trawl, longline, and pot fisheries) have some level of observer coverage. There are 

occasional reports of marine mammal incidental mortalities reported for some of these fisheries, 

but very few reported injuries. However, because most fisheries that may cause incidental injury 

or mortality of marine mammals in Alaska are not observed, information on the entanglements 

can be collected only through opportunistic accounts from commercial fishers, researchers, and 

the general public. 
23 

Due to the opportunistic nature of the reporting, many entanglement/injury reports are received 

in areas where there is substantial research effort, public boating, and public awareness of 

entanglements, such as in Southeast Alaska. Far fewer reports of injury or entanglement are 

available in less populated areas, such as Bristol Bay. The extent of entanglement ranges from 

loose loops of line around the body and/or pectoral fins with no apparent wounds, to gear that 

has cut deeply into the flesh, to gear that is so tightly wound around the animal that the head and 

flukes were bound together. In many cases, the entangling line cannot be identified to a fishery. 

A disentanglement program in Southeast Alaska aids some of the entangled humpback whales 

and thus reduces the total number of animals that would otherwise be considered injured. A few 

injuries of bowhead whales and fin whales due to entanglement or ship strikes have been 

reported, but the frequency of these reports is under one animal per year. 

 

Cause of Injuries 

Traps/pots: Large whales—primarily humpback and gray whales--are entangled in a variety of 

pot fisheries. Types of pot fisheries include commercial crab pot, commercial shrimp pot, 

personal use pot, subsistence use pot, or unspecified. In many cases, it is not possible to 

determine from the records what type of pot fishery was responsible for the entanglement. 

Salmon gillnet: Ranks second in entanglement rates for humpback and gray whales. 

 

Salmon purse seine: Infrequent entanglement of humpback and gray whales. 

 

Troll gear: Steller sea lions have been reported with hooks and flashers in their mouths. Reports 

are currently infrequent, but occurrence of this type of event is also known to be underreported. 

 

Ship strikes: Collisions between humpback whales and pleasure craft in Southeast Alaska occur 

at a rate of ~1/year. 

 

Methods of determining serious injury 

Until 2004, the method to assess whether an injury should be considered “serious” involved one 

individual who reviewed a stranding report summary. Entanglements or other injuries reported 

through the observer program or through stranding reports were considered serious if they were 

deemed to be likely to impede movement or feeding, per the serious injury guidelines (Angliss 

and DeMaster, 1998). Entanglements that clearly bound an animal’s appendages sufficiently to 

prevent movement or that wrapped around an animals’ mouth were considered to be likely to 

impede movement or feeding. Entanglement in or dragging of large quantities of gear were 

considered to be likely to impede movement, and were considered serious injuries. If the report 

of the entanglement/injury was poor, a best guess was made; the assessment erred on the 

conservative side and designated an injury as “serious.” 

 

Due to concerns about how the serious injury designation was being made for humpback whales, 

the Alaska SRG (AKSRG) convened a subcommittee to review the raw data for each 

entanglement and make recommendations regarding whether each entanglement should be 

considered “serious,” “not serious,” or “cannot be determined (CBD)” (Wynne et al., 2003). The 

2005 draft SAR included the majority opinion of the AKSRG for each humpback whale 

entanglement event. In 2006, the AFSC and Alaska Region (AKR) reviewed the AKSRG’s 
24 

assessment of each entanglement event for consistency with the serious injury guidelines 

(Angliss and DeMaster, 1998), and with the exception of three records, accepted the AKSRG’s 

advice. For the 2006 draft SARs, of the 38 injuries of humpback whales between 2001-05, 9 

(24%) were considered seriously injured, 18 (47%) were considered not seriously injured, and 

the information on the remaining interactions was insufficient to make a determination. 

 

Key issues and questions 

• It would be helpful to learn how some types of entanglements directly affect survival of 

an individual large whale in the short-term (days to weeks) and long-term (a year). 

Entanglement types include: single or multiple wraps of line, line through the mouth or 

restricted to other parts of the body, trailing small or large amounts of pot gear, and 

trailing small or large amounts of gillnet gear. 

• There are a variety of opinions as to whether a hook in a pinniped’s mouth should be 

considered a serious injury. Whether this does, in fact, commonly cause mortality of the 

pinniped should be explored. 

• The Wynne et al. (2003) white paper documented a remarkable lack of consensus among 

several experts as to whether many different types of humpback whale entanglements or 

injuries should be considered serious or not serious. It would be helpful to develop a set 

of guidelines or a process that can be used to reduce this variability. 

The AKSRG has suggested that “serious injury” be assessed in a probabilistic manner (e.g., 

stating that there is a 50% chance the animal would die as a result of the injury) instead of 

simply using the terms “injured” or “seriously injured.” 

 

4.1 Evaluation 

The last two presentations in this section of the workshop provided a synthesis of all the regional 

approaches to distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries (described above), followed by a 

non-NMFS evaluation of the serious injury determination process in Alaska. The purpose of the 

first presentation was to present similarities, differences, needs, and common operational 

constraints across regions, as well as to discuss inconsistencies in serious injury determinations 

nationwide. The second presentation presented an exercise performed by the AKSRG in which 

AKSRG members were asked to review NMFS data on injury events and make a serious injury 

vs. death determination (as discussed by Angliss in section 4.0 above). This presentation served 

to show participants a model or case study for assessing the serious injury determination 

processes. 

Synthesis of regional approaches to serious injury determinations (Tim Cole, NMFS NEFSC) 

Across the regions, the species groups involved in interactions with humans potentially leading 

to serious injury include: mysticetes (baleen whales), odontocetes (toothed cetaceans), otariids 

(eared seals/sea lions), phocids (true, or earless, seals), and sirenians (manatees and dugongs). 

Primary data sources for making determinations include: fisheries observer programs, stranding 

and disentanglement networks, and opportunistic reports from researchers and the public. 

Key causes of injury include: hooking (longline, troll, recreational), entanglement (trap/pot, 
25 

gillnet, monofilament, longline), entrapment (trawl, seine), and collisions (vessel hull, propeller). 

 

Key variables contributing to whether an injury should be considered serious include: 

• Animal age. 

• Animal health. 

• Animal behavior. 

• Injury type (e.g., puncture, laceration, blunt trauma, compression). 

• Injury location (e.g., mouth, head, body, flipper, tail, internal). 

• Injury size. 

• Injury duration (e.g., short, repeated or chronic). 

• Entanglement type (e.g., hooked, constricting line, loose line, anchored, entrapment).

• Entanglement size (e.g., size, length and number of branches of line; number of buoys, 

traps or anchors; volume of netting). 

• Entanglement constriction (e.g., tight, loose, multiple wraps). 

• Entanglement duration. 

 

The task of making serious injury determinations consistent across regions is characterized by 

the following key issues and challenges: 

• The amount and quality of primary data varies. 

• Assessing internal injuries on free-swimming animals is a challenge. 

• Behavior has limited reliability as an indicator of serious injury. 

• Susceptibility of animals to other health threats or complications following injury. 

• Accounting for serious injury in stock assessments (whether to use procedures that are 

either absolute or probabilistic, e.g., 50% chance the animal would die as a result of the 

injury; anecdotal data for smaller species). 

• Estimating populations’ actual rate of serious injury from opportunistic data is difficult. 

Report from the Serious Injury Subcommittee of the Alaska Scientific Review Group (Kate 

Wynne, University of Alaska)

In 2003, the AKSRG was asked by NMFS staff to review a table of humpback whale 

entanglements planned for inclusion in the 2005 Alaska SAR. The group was provided with a 

scoring grid, and for each event, the group was asked to determine those events that would result 

in “serious injury or death” and those that would not. 

No category was provided for outcomes that “cannot be determined” and the scoring grid did not 

provide a place to code “criteria used” in making the determination. Members of the SRG 

submitted divergent responses, which raised issues for discussion at the November 2003 

meeting. AKSRG members raised concerns that, while dichotomous outcome determinations 

(will die vs. won’t die) are ideally suited for MMPA implementation, they were difficult to make 

based on the data provided (Wynne et al., 2003). 

AKSRG participants discussed several sources of uncertainty and interpretational discrepancies 

that led to differences among AKSRG responses. Given the management implications of this 

ambiguity, the AKSRG suggested that the definition and determination of lethal entanglement 
26 

should be a NMFS priority, warranting a joint discussion among the AKSRG and formal advice 

to NMFS. 

 

To address this issue, AKSRG formed a subcommittee to provide more detailed response to 

NMFS regarding serious injury determinations. The subcommittee included five experienced 

Alaskan marine mammalogists (Wynne et al., 2003), three of whom have received NMFS 

training in whale disentanglement assessment and response. The subcommittee agreed to 

reassess the outcome of humpback whale entanglement events reported in the SAR Table and to 

identify the criteria they used to determine which events likely represented lethal interactions. 

While completing this task, the subcommittee encountered inconsistencies in information 

provided in the SAR Table that could alter their outcome determinations. 

 

The scoring grid enabled the reporting of the level of agreement for coding the set of 

entanglement and collision events. The group of mammalogists reached complete agreement on 

the anticipated outcome of entanglement or collision less than 18% of the cases presented 

(Wynne et al., 2003). Committee members’ comments indicated their difficulties making 

objective outcome determinations were due to insufficient information and/or sources of 

subjectivity. In more than 80% of cases, at least one member believed the information provided 

was inadequate to determine the likely outcome of the incident (Wynne et al., 2003). As a result 

of this exercise, three sources of subjectivity (original event descriptions by observers, 

distillation of original information into tables and reports, and at the reviewer level when 

determining the outcome) were identified by subcommittee members with suggestions for their 

minimization (Wynne et al., 2003). 

4.2 Breakout Group Discussion on Evaluation of Current Data and Systems for 

Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injuries 

Following the presentations under session 4.0, participants discussed the issues in plenary then 

split into 3 breakout groups. Each breakout group was comprised of an equal number of 

participants from each region and field of expertise, in order to prompt discussions that were 

national in scope and considered each marine mammal taxonomic group. Each group discussed 

the following questions: 

1) What has worked well with serious injury determinations? 

2) What has not worked well? 

3) How have constraints on data collection affected serious injury determinations? 

The most common comment from participants was that the process for distinguishing serious 

from non-serious injuries lacks consistency (between regions and individual serious injury 

determinations) and communication. Participants pointed out inconsistencies between regions in 

making determinations (e.g., for different species, using a risk-averse vs. risk-prone approach, 

using inclusive vs. conservative criteria) and interpreting the data and serious injury guidance. 

Participants also pointed out the need for increased communication between data collectors, 

stranding networks, and the staff responsible for distinguishing between serious and non-serious 

injuries. 
27 

Additional participant comments and suggestions provided during plenary and breakout group 

discussions included needs for: 

• Movement from a qualitative approach for distinguishing between serious and nonserious injuries to a quantitative approach. Need to develop a mechanism to increase 

national consistency and standardization, which incorporates the flexibility to adapt to 

new information and applies to different species without subjectivity. Components of 

such a mechanism include: 

o Standardized data collections and interpretation of data. 

o Relatively simple nationwide criteria for use in a decision tree approach to 

distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries (similar to the process currently 

in use by the NEFSC described in section 2.4). 

o Movement away from a dichotomous process for distinguishing serious from nonserious injuries (i.e., injured animal is either “seriously” or “not seriously” 

injured). Include a “CBD” option to ensure that injury events without clear 

outcomes (e.g., death) do not default to the “non-serious” category. 

o Incorporation of external expertise and review into the criteria and process for 

distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries (e.g., the AKSRG serious injury 

determination exercise, Wynne et al., 2003). The responsibility for a serious 

injury determination should not rest on a single person, which leads to 

inconsistency in the determinations because of differing interpretations of the data 

or serious injury guidance. 

• Increased communication: 

o Between NMFS, stranding networks, and the public to raise awareness of how to 

report an injured or stranded animal, which will lead to better data collection and 

reporting. Participants considered that current communication needs are greatest 

along the U.S. West coast. 

o Within NMFS between the observer program, stranding program, take reduction 

team (TRT) members, and staff responsible for distinguishing serious from nonserious injuries, to better understand how data are used by each program and what 

data needs exist. Increasing coordination can lead to more consistent reporting 

and interpretation of the data. 

• Continued training for observers and stranding network participants on the physiology of 

marine mammals and encouragement of efforts to obtain digital images of animals, when 

possible. 

• Development of incentives for fishermen to collect and enable data collection. 

• Identification and mining of the existing data to determine whether or not connections 

exist between necropsy findings and visual observations. By determining the types and 

characteristics of injuries that have led to the deaths of marine mammals, it may be 

possible to distinguish between serious and non-serious injuries based on similar case 

studies, removing the need to resight all animals observed injured. For example, if an 

animal is observed with a type of injury that is known to have caused death in other 

individuals of the same species, then it might be considered dead in the absence of a 

subsequent live-sighting. The NEFSC has gone through this process qualitatively over 

the last 10 years. 

• Increased data collection on offshore species and populations, including at-sea necropsies 

and increased effort to tow ashore carcasses found at sea. 
28 

• Increased focus on ship strikes and the resulting injuries. 

• Development of databases and websites with real-time data, similar to the ship strike, 

stranding, and disentanglement databases. 

• Increased research through longitudinal studies of marine mammal populations. 

Documenting and tracking the fates of injured animals has provided significant 

information. 

• Investigate novel tools for monitoring injuries and mortalities in unobserved fisheries. 
29 

5.0 New Information on the Survival of Injured Marine Mammals 

This section of the workshop included presentations on new information on the survival of 

injured marine mammals. The presentations were designed to present information gathered since 

the 1997 workshop from longitudinal studies of various cetacean populations (showing the 

fate/survival of injured individuals) and scar-based analyses (as a way to document the impacts 

of injuries as they heal). The presentations were split by taxonomic group (large cetaceans, 

small cetaceans, and manatees), each followed by a facilitated plenary discussion. The large 

cetacean presentations discussed information on injuries observed in humpback, right, blue, and 

gray whales; the small cetacean and manatee presentations discussed information on injuries 

observed in common dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, spinner dolphins, Risso’s dolphins, harbor 

porpoise, pilot whales, false killer whales, and manatees. The presentations informed the plenary 

discussions and subsequent Day 3 breakout group sessions, which considered if and how the 

information presented could be incorporated into the system for distinguishing serious from nonserious injuries. A review of the facilitated plenary discussions from the large cetaceans, and 

small cetaceans and manatees sections is combined in section 5.3 review of the discussion for 

pinnipeds is included in the pathobiology presentations and discussions in section 6.1. 

5.1 Large Cetaceans 

Serious injury determinations for right whales: What’s missing? (Richard Pace, NMFS 

NEFSC, with contributions from A. Knowlton, New England Aquarium, Boston, MA)

The linkage between serious injury determinations and the stock assessment process is guided by 

the Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (GAMMS; Wade and Angliss, 1997). 

Stock assessments require an accounting of human-caused mortality incurred by any marine 

mammal stock in order to assess the stock’s status. Unlike most small cetacean and pinniped 

stocks for which fishing-related mortality is estimated from a potentially unbiased sampling 

process, large whale human-caused mortality assessments are direct counts of dead whales that 

are almost surely biased strongly downward due to low recovery rates of carcasses and fate 

determination rates of discovered carcasses (Number dying >15 Number detected > Number of 

necropsies > Number causes determined). Historically, assigning mortality causes to large whale 

deaths required significant (nearly irrefutable) pathological evidence. Similarly, the criteria for 

labeling an observed injury of a large whale as serious (sensu MMPA) required there to be little 

doubt among experts that said injury would result in mortality. 

Serious injury evaluations produce one of three outcomes: 1) no error when the determination 

matches the outcome, 2) an error of commission when an injury is declared serious but does not 

result in mortality, or 3) an error of omission when a fatal injury is not labeled as serious (which 

also occurs in the case of insufficient information). The longitudinal resighting data of 

individually recognized North Atlantic right whales were compared to the record of serious 

injury determinations for 1991-2004. During that period, 12 catalogued individual right whales 

had serious injuries. All but 2 of these individual whales had significant sighting histories prior 

to their injuries and were documented as seen more than 1 year post injury. One whale had a 

relatively sparse sighting history, but has not been seen during the 10 years post injury. The 

 

15 The symbol “>” means “more than.” 
30 

remaining whale was seen 2 years post injury during which sightings noted declines in apparent 

health status, and it has not been seen since. Additionally, 5 right whales sustained injuries that 

met the NEFSC criteria for serious injury but died and were thus reported as mortalities in the 

SAR. Therefore, NEFSC made no obvious errors of commission in right whale serious injury 

determinations reported for 1991-2004. 

A set of serious injury determinations were also examined from an “alternative knowledgebase” 

that resulted from well-defined criteria applied to entanglement related injuries to right whales. 

The alternative knowledgebase declared 48 injuries as serious including 11 declared by NEFSC, 

5 that would have been declared by NEFSC had they not been ultimately reported as deaths, and 

5 others for which their sightings histories end soon after their injuries were reported. Thus, 

NEFSC made a minimum of 5 errors of omission (rate= 5/21 x 100 = 24%). Further, the 

alternative knowledgebase had a moderately high commission to correct serious injury 

declaration ratio (27:21 or 1.3 errors of commission per correct serious injury declaration). 

Any refinement of the process to determine serious injury will continue to miss the assessment 

gap in counting human caused mortality of right whales. The addition of the 5 apparent 

omissions over a 14 year periods amounts to <0.4/yr additional fishing related deaths. This 

hardly adjusts for the estimated/reasoned difference of 4 human caused mortalities per year not 

accounted for in recent SARs. A suggested conclusion is that staff developing serious injury 

criteria for large whales need not fear that errors of commission will result in inflated human 

caused mortality assessments. 

Scar-based inference into entanglement and serious injury for humpback whales (Jooke 

Robbins, Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies) 

 

Entanglement in fishing gear is a documented source of injury and mortality to humpback whales 

and other cetaceans. Although any body part can be involved, at least 53% of humpback whale 

entanglements involve the flukes and caudal peduncle (Johnson et al., 2005). Even short-term, 

mitigated events produce scars at this location that persist from one year to the next (Robbins and 

Mattila, 2001). These injuries generally take the form of wrapping linear scars and abrasions, 

notches and other penetrating injuries, and occasionally substantial deformation. 

Since 1997, systematic photographic sampling and scar analysis have been used to study 

entanglement scarring on free-ranging Gulf of Maine humpback whales (Robbins and Mattila, 

2001, 2004). More recently, the same techniques have been applied to humpback whales in other 

U.S. areas, including Hawaii (Robbins and Mattila, 2004; Robbins et al., 2007b), Southeast 

Alaska (Neilson, 2006; Robbins et al., 2007b), and areas of the U.S. West Coast (Robbins et al., 

2007b). Entanglement-related scarring has been detected in all of the areas in which research has 

been conducted to date. For example, more than half of the Gulf of Maine population has 

experienced at least one entanglement, and annual acquisition rates range from 8% to 25%. Yet, 

even where public awareness is high and a formal reporting network exists, fewer than 10% of 

new entanglement injuries correspond to successfully reported and adequately documented 

events. 

Serious injury determinations presently depend on evidence that an event has occurred and that it 
31 

is likely to lead to death. Scar analysis indicates that the vast majority of entanglement events of 

humpback whales are not witnessed. 

Nearly all of the types of physical injuries observed in documented entanglements have also been 

observed among free-ranging (surviving) humpback whales. However, animals that die from 

entanglement do not necessarily have injuries as severe as those observed on free-ranging 

animals. Thus, external (i.e., externally visible) injuries alone may not be predictive of whether 

or not an entanglement will result in a serious injury. The mouth is involved in at least 43% of 

humpback whale entanglements, including cases known to have led to death (Johnson et al., 

2005). However, significant injuries at the head, such as those observed among North Atlantic 

right whales, are not common among free-ranging Gulf of Maine humpback whales. 

Scar research has also provided insight into the fate of injuries over time. It is not uncommon for 

entanglement injuries of humpback whales to persist in a “raw” state from one year to the next, 

depending on the size of the original injury. In more rare cases, entanglement injuries appear not 

to ever heal. However, humpback whales also appear to tolerate persistent raw wounds from 

other sources, such as jaw scuffing acquired during bottom feeding. Therefore, it is unclear what 

the impact these persistent wounds might have on the health of the animal. 

Occurrence of injuries on humpback, blue, and gray whales along the U.S. West coast and 

in the Structure of Populations, Levels of Abundance, and Status of Humpbacks (SPLASH) 

Project (John Calambokidis, Erin Falcone, Lisa Schlender, and Jessie Huggins, Cascadia 

Research) 

Along the U.S. West coast, long-term studies of three species, blue, humpback, and seasonal 

resident gray whales, have provided information on the fate of seriously injured animals. Blue 

and humpback whales have been individually identified annually since 1986, and the catalog for 

each species numbers just under 2,000 individuals. For both species, the majority of the group 

using this region has been identified. For gray whales, photographic identification from northern 

California to British Columbia has tracked a group about 250 regularly-returning seasonal 

residents as well as stragglers from the larger overall gray whale population. In each of these 

populations, animals with severe injuries have been documented. Although the exact causes of 

these injuries are not always clear, some appear to be ship strikes, propeller scars, and 

entanglement. While it is difficult to measure survival rates for these injured animals, it is clear 

that many with fairly severe injuries are surviving and continuing to be observed over the course 

of multiple years. While some individuals have been directly observed entangled, in most cases 

identification photographs allowing long-term tracking of survival of these individuals have not 

been available. 

One special case that occurred in 2007 was a mother and calf, both severely injured from a 

possible collision, swimming far up the Sacramento River to the Port of Sacramento and 

becoming the focus of a major rescue effort. While the ultimate fate of these two animals after 

they left San Francisco Bay is not known, it did provide an opportunity to closely examine shortterm changes in their injuries and their reaction to a prolonged period in fresh water. 
32 

SPLASH represents an extensive collaborative effort (more than 50 research groups) to examine 

the abundance, trends, and structure of the entire North Pacific population of humpback whales, 

including occurrence of injuries. A key strength of this dataset is the comparison if affords of 

different locations. The dataset contains data collected in a consistent manner for all known 

feeding and wintering areas for humpback whales in the North Pacific. Entanglement rates have 

been computed and will be summarized separately. Both entanglement and other types of 

injuries, including killer whale rake marks, are shown to vary by geographic region. The dataset 

identifies specific regions where certain types of injuries are more likely to occur.

A description of severe injuries on humpback whales in southeastern Alaska (Jan Straley, 

University of Alaska) 

Humpback whales in southeastern Alaska have been studied since the late 1960s. These 

longitudinal studies have provided useful information on life history parameters, including 

reproduction and survival. Another useful outcome of these long term sighting histories of 

individual whales is health assessment, although this was not a consideration when these studies 

began. As such, determining when specific injuries are received remains difficult. Using 

photography, initially 35mm slides and black and white film and now digital, 35 humpback 

whales have been documented with an injury, 18 classified as severe. A severe injury was 

defined as penetrating the blubber layer. The source of these injuries was not determined for 

certain; however, over half (10) of the injuries were most likely caused by a collision with a 

motorized vessel propeller (two were seen with fresh injuries). Three whales have injuries 

caused by probable entanglements with a line wrapped around the body. One whale has had an 

unhealed injury at the base of the tailstock for at least 20 years, possibly resulting from a line 

entanglement. The source of four injuries is unknown; two of these, which involved injuries to 

the flukes or tailstock, have not healed. All but two of the 18 whales seen with injuries have 

been sighted in two or more years. Six whales are known females, two are males, and 10 are of 

unknown sex. Of the six females, five have been seen with calves after the first sighting with the 

injury. It is apparent that humpback whales can sustain severe injuries, survive, and continue to 

reproduce. However, some whales with no visible outside injury do not survive, as evidenced by 

a humpback whale found dying with an inflated tongue and no obvious external severe injuries 

during the summer of 2007. The draft necropsy report concluded the probable cause of death 

was trauma, but this is not definitive. It is suspected that there was a blow to the chest/neck that 

caused a rupture of part of the respiratory tract with air exhaled into the tissues of the tongue, 

causing it to inflate. 

Survival and fecundity rates of entangled humpback whales (Jooke Robbins, Provincetown 

Center for Coastal Studies) 

Case studies show that individual humpback whales can survive severe injuries and that females 

with such injuries can go on to reproduce. However, the likelihood that a given type or level of 

injury will have a positive outcome is harder to determine. Humpback whales without outwardly 

severe injuries can die after exposure to human activities, and mitigation efforts like 

disentanglement do not ensure animal survival. 
33 

In the Gulf of Maine, a well-established reporting network exists to detect and respond to 

entangled humpbacks. There has also been annually intensive photo-identification research on 

the free-ranging population since the 1970s. Provided that an entangled individual is sufficiently 

documented, there is a possibility of resighting the animal should it survive. In such cases, 

mark-recapture statistical analyses can provide a framework for comparing apparent survival 

among individuals. They can also provide a means of estimating and comparing other vital rates, 

such as reproductive rates. This talk described an on-going study using multi-state statistical 

models to model the survival and fecundity of entangled Gulf of Maine humpback whales 

(Robbins, in prep.). 

In this study, apparent survival is being estimated for 865 Gulf of Maine humpback whales seen 

at least once between 1997 and 2006. Individuals are classified as either juveniles or adults and 

can occupy one of three entanglement states in a given year: 1) never reported entangled, 2) 

entangled in that year or 3) entangled in any previous year. When an individual was entangled in 

a given year and also had a previous history, priority is being given to the current case. This 

model structure allows juveniles to be assessed separately from adults and for immediate 

survival impacts to be differentiated from chronic effects. Other factors considered include the 

initial assessment of the disentanglement team, the disentanglement action (if any) and the final 

“serious injury” determination. 

In a second, on-going multi-state statistical analysis, annual calving probabilities are being 

estimated for 203 mature Gulf of Maine females, including those reported to have been 

entangled. Each year that a mature female was documented, she can be placed into one of four 

states depending on her calving status (accompanied by a calf or not) and her documented 

entanglement history. This model structure allows the annual calving probabilities to be 

compared among females with and without an entanglement history. 

Multi-state statistical models are data intensive, but can provide unique insight into the effects of 

discrete events in the lifetime of an animal. Mark-recapture statistical approaches like these 

should be preferred in studies of survival and fecundity in species in which individuals are freeranging and can be uniquely identified. Preliminary results of these analyses and potential 

sources of bias were presented. 

5.2 Small Cetaceans and Manatees 

Evidence of fishery interactions in small cetaceans in the mid-Atlantic (Aleta Hohn, NMFS 

SEFSC) 

 

In North Carolina, records of stranded marine mammals with signs of interactions with fisheries 

date to 1992, when a database of strandings was established. Since 1997, strandings have been 

routinely and systematically examined for signs of interactions with fisheries. Since 1992, there 

have been six species of small cetaceans identified with signs of fishery interactions (common 

dolphin [Delphinus delphis], short-finned pilot whale [Globicephala macrorhynchus], Risso’s 

dolphin [Grampus griseus], harbor porpoise [Phocoena phocoena], striped dolphin [Stenella 

coeruleoalba], and bottlenose dolphin [Tursiops truncatus]), comprising 237 animals. Of these, 

88% were bottlenose dolphins. Most of the identified marks were fresh rather than healed. Both 
34 

harbor porpoises (n=1) and bottlenose dolphins (n=35) have been found with gear still attached. 

Marks found on carcasses are primarily from monofilament line, including recreational line and 

monofilament gillnet. Other gear types include braided line from unidentified sources, crab pot 

line, and trawl lines. Along other mid-Atlantic states, the primary gear types associated with 

strandings are gillnets and crab pot lines. 

 

Four species of whale (minke [Balaenoptera acutorostrata], Bryde’s [Balaenoptera edeni], 

North Atlantic right [Eubalaena glacialis], and humpback [Megaptera novaeangliae]) have been 

identified with marks or gear from fishery interactions. The majority (13 of 17 events) have 

been humpback whales. 

 

In January 2005, there was a mass stranding on 33 short-finned pilot whales north of Cape 

Hatteras, NC. Of those, 27 were examined for signs of human interaction. Nine had well-healed 

scars (8 deep, 1 superficial) indicative of possible interactions with longline gear, including five 

of the 21 (23.8%) females and four of six (66.7%) males. All of the females with scars were 

adults (16 of the 21 female were adults) while males of all age classes had scars (1 adult, 2 

juveniles, 1 calf with scars, and one calf and one juvenile without). With one exception, the 

scars were limited to areas around the mouth, including broken teeth for three animals. The 

exception was a large female with healed scars around the leading and trailing edges of the 

dorsal fin. It is possible there were other healed scars post-cranially; however, conditions during 

the stranding response prevented full evaluation of the animals for fishery interactions. 

 

The mass stranding of pilot whales in January 2005 was the first in North Carolina in 10 years; 

three prior mass strandings occurred in 1994-1995, albeit comprising only 2-3 animals during 

each event. Thus, there is no comparative record for evaluating possible longline entanglements. 

None of the individually stranded pilot whales were noted to have healed scars; therefore, it is 

reasonable to suggest that they were not examined for scars. However, including individual 

strandings, there has been a seasonal component to the strandings, with pilot whale strandings 

occurring in January – March. This finding is consistent with when the highest levels of take in 

the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery off of North Carolina have occurred. 

 

Healed line marks are rare. A bottlenose dolphin and a striped dolphin were identified with 

deep, healed scars around the mouth, including broken teeth. A Risso’s dolphin showed a healed 

lesion on the right side of dorsal fin, cut through 1.5 cm deep at the deepest point and thought to 

have been caused by trailing gear. This case also showed a partially healed 1-2 mm (0.4-0.8 in) 

lesion at the insertion of its flukes. 

 

The paucity of healed scars due to monofilament from gillnets suggests low survival of animals 

entangled in that gear, while the 2005 mass stranding of pilot whales indicates that some 

interactions in, presumably, longline gear can be survived. The current sample size is too low 

and earlier observations are not sufficiently detailed to draw conclusions about rates. 
35 

Consequences of injuries on survival and reproduction of bottlenose dolphins in Sarasota Bay, 

Florida (Randy Wells, Chicago Zoological Society/Mote Marine Laboratory; Wells et al., In 

Press, Marine Mammal Science) 

Research initiated in 1970 and continuing today on bottlenose dolphins along the central west 

coast of Florida has led to the development of several long-term datasets of relevance to 

examining the effects of serious injuries. Data have come from photographic identification 

studies, capture-release operations, and from Mote Marine Laboratory’s Stranding Investigations 

Program. The sighting database compiled since 1975 includes 32,347 dolphin group sightings, 

with 91,059 identifications of distinctive individual dolphins, derived from a photographic 

identification catalog of 3,958 individually-identifiable dolphins. 

The capture-release database, compiled since 1984, includes veterinary examination records and 

health data in 676 sets of measurements from 214 individuals (some sampled up to 14 times). 

Exams include examination of the oral cavity, and in some cases stomach tubing. The stranding 

program, operating since 1985, responds in three counties including and extending beyond the 

Sarasota Bay dolphin range. 

To date, basic information and data have been obtained from 413 bottlenose dolphins, with 319 

necropsies. Sixty-seven of the examined dolphins have sighting histories in our database. Data 

from these sources have been used to investigate the effects of gear ingestion, entanglement, 

vessel strikes, and amputations from unknown causes. Details of specific cases were presented. 

 

Gear Ingestion: Records include 12 cases in which gear or severe scarring from gear were 

related to ingestion. One dolphin is still alive, with extensive healed scarring at the angle of the 

gape; she has produced multiple calves subsequent to the injury. Seven apparently died directly 

from gear: 4 with embedded hooks in the mouth, throat, or goosebeak, and 3 with line wrapped 

around the goosebeak (perhaps from regurgitation). In 2 cases, gear was considered to have 

contributed to mortality, but shark attack or a stingray barb were identified as the primary causes 

of death. In 4 cases, non-embedded small hooks were found in the stomach, but these were not 

identified as the cause of death. Embedded gear has only been found in carcasses, never during 

more than 600 health assessment examinations of live animals, suggesting that embedded hooks 

are frequently fatal. In cases when embedded hooks were implicated as cause of death, the 

animals had lost 22-36% of their body weight, suggesting that mortality was delayed following 

hooking. 

 

Gear Entanglement: Of 49 cases of entanglement in gear by well-known dolphins, most were 

based on scars, but 12 dolphins were observed with gear, including 8 in monofilament, 3 in crab 

trap float lines, and one in a bathing suit. Two of these died from entanglement, one died as a 

probable complication of entanglement, 7 others might have died without intervention, and two 

shed the gear on their own and survived. Most injuries involved lines cutting through 

appendages, a process that occurred over periods of weeks to months. Nine of 10 adult females 

observed with entanglement wounds or scars subsequently produced calves. 

 

Vessel Strikes: Ten cases of apparent vessel strikes have been recorded, involving mothers with 

calves, dependent calves, independent juveniles, and a compromised adult. Only two of these 
36 

have resulted in death, and one of these involved an already-compromised juvenile. Propeller 

cuts on the backs or dorsal fins have been observed to heal in most cases, although permanent 

disfigurement is common. The surviving mother has produced and successfully reared 3 calves 

since the injury. 

 

Amputations of Unknown Origin: Cases involving major disfigurement or loss of significant 

dorsal fin (n=34) or fluke (n=3) tissue were monitored over time. On average, individuals 

survived a minimum of 8 years with these wounds. All identified females with these injuries 

(n=8) produced calves.

Limited information on interaction outcomes for Pacific false killer whales (Karin Forney, 

NMFS SWFSC)

False killer whales are the most frequently caught cetacean in the Hawaii-based tuna longline 

fishery, and the Hawaii Pelagic stock is considered strategic under the MMPA. Observer data 

suggest that false killer whales primarily become hooked while depredating tuna and other catch 

from the gear. Most of the false killer whales that have been observed caught by on-board 

observers were released alive with hooks in their mouth, esophagus, or ingested, and with 

varying amounts of gear still attached. In some cases, false killer whales broke free before the 

on-board observer could ascertain the nature of the hooking/entanglement, because the line 

parted or was cut by vessel crew. The fate of false killer whales injured by longline fishing gear 

is unknown, but animals hooked in the mouth/head or having ingested gear are considered 

seriously injured based on previous serious injury determination guidelines (Angliss and 

DeMaster, 1998). 

The presentation summarized limited photographic evidence of potential outcomes of 

interactions between false killer whales and fishing gear. It is difficult to put these observations 

into a broader context because of their opportunistic and circumstantial nature, but the 

information nonetheless may be useful to increase our understanding of injury outcomes. 

In a study conducted by Baird, R. W. and A. M. Gorgone (2005), the authors review rates of 

major dorsal fin disfigurements from photo-identification studies of false killer whales around 

the main Hawaiian Islands. Three of 80 distinctive individuals (3.75%) were photographically 

documented to have major dorsal fin disfigurements that appear to be to be most consistent with 

fishing line injuries. This rate of severe dorsal fin disfigurement is higher than in any other 

odontocete population for which published data are available worldwide. Two of the three false 

killer whales with disfigured dorsal fins were seen with calves, suggesting they were adult 

females and reproductively active despite their injuries. 

 

The 2005 Pacific Islands Cetacean and Ecosystem Assessment Survey (PICEAS), conducted by 

SWFSC/NOAA, was designed to obtain abundance estimates of false killer whales and other 

cetaceans in an area between Hawaii, Johnston Atoll, and Palmyra Atoll. This is the region 

where the majority of takes of false killer whales in the Hawaii-based longline fishery have been 

documented. The survey included visual search effort and acoustic monitoring using a towed 

hydrophone array. Fourteen groups of false killer whales were sighted and approached by the 

vessel (8 were detected visually, 6 were detected acoustically and later confirmed visually). In 
37 

one of these groups, a severely emaciated individual was photographed. The animal may have 

had line around the head, but it was too distant to determine unequivocally whether gear was 

present. It is possible that this observation represented an animal injured by fishing gear and no 

longer able to feed itself. 

Serious injury to Florida manatees16 (Alexander Costidis, University of Florida, Florida Fish & 

Wildlife Conservation Commission) 

 

Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris) are a subtropical subspecies of the West 

Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). The Florida manatee ranges from the coastal and inshore 

waters of Florida in the winter months, to the southeastern United States in summer months. The 

coastal range of the manatee population has led to an inevitable interaction with human activities 

such as fishing and boating. In Florida, approximately 24% of annual Florida manatee mortality 

is due to collisions with watercraft (Lightsey et al., 2006). 

While propeller lacerations (sharp-force trauma) are quite often cited as the cause of death of 

manatees struck by boats, impact injuries (blunt-force trauma) account for more deaths than do 

propeller injuries. There is a wide range of watercraft injuries sustained by manatees, some of 

which can be explained by some relatively unique behavioral, anatomical, and morphological 

features. Watercraft injuries can be separated into three categories based on the physical 

characteristics of the injury and the inciting structure. Impact injuries are most common, 

accounting for 58% of all watercraft-related mortality and can be caused by blunt objects such as 

keels, hulls, and gear casings, or sharper objects such as propellers, rudders, and skegs (Lightsey 

et al., 2006; Rommel et al., 2007). Sequalae of impact injuries typically involve subdermal 

contusions, muscle/tissue shredding, bone fractures, vertebral separations, and inertial organ 

tears. The second most common type of injury accounts for 32% of all watercraft-related 

mortality and involves open propeller lacerations that expose muscle and bone, or open the 

pleural and/or abdominal cavities to the environment (Lightsey et al., 2006). 

Common findings from such injuries include lacerated organs and bones, exsanguinations, 

severed vertebral columns, and partial or complete body transection. Finally, approximately 

10% of watercraft related mortality is caused by a combination of blunt- and sharp-force trauma 

which can present with any number of the afore-mentioned sequalae of each respective category 

(Lightsey et al., 2006). Empirical and anecdotal evidence suggests that certain anatomical and 

physiological traits possessed by manatees allow them to survive injuries that would be 

considered fatal to most other mammals. As such, throughout their lives most manatees obtain 

numerous sublethal injuries that lead to substantial exostoses and bone remodeling as well as 

other chronic conditions such as pyothorax and abscessation. 

Over 90% of adult Florida manatees have evidence of at least one sublethal interaction with a 

 

16 Management responsibility for manatees is the jurisdiction of the FWS. The Steering Committee included a 

presentation on manatees at the workshop because the FWS and its partners have a large amount of resight data of 

individual manatees (injured and otherwise), and the Steering Committee considered that these resight data might 

serve as a reasonable model for other marine mammal species. However, in his presentation, Costidis noted 

peculiarities about manatee anatomy and physiology that would prevent the use of manatees as a model for 

pinnipeds and cetaceans. 
38 

watercraft (pers. comm. S. Rommel, University of Florida). To date, little is known about the 

types and sizes of watercraft that injure manatees, or the activity (recreational vs. commercial) 

the vessels were conducting at the time of collision (Rommel et al., 2007). Finally, two other 

causes of death seen in Florida manatees involve other human activities and include such things 

as entanglement and floodgate or water control structure deaths. Entanglements seen in 

manatees usually involve either monofilament or crab pot rope around one or both pectoral 

flippers; however, occasional entanglements with anchor or mooring lines do occur. The most 

common sequalae of entanglement are either complete or partial amputation of one or both 

pectoral flippers, with the manatee usually surviving the injury long after amputation. Some 

exceptions have occurred where an infectious or septic event was established. However, in most 

cases the flippers appear to necrotize gradually due to ischemic necrosis, thereby allowing the 

manatee to slowly isolate the flipper and any infections occurring within it. 

A small number of manatees have been found with rope entanglements around the pectoral 

flippers and cranial thoracic region. These cases are relatively rare. A small percentage of 

manatees in Florida are also killed by crushing and/or drowning in floodgates and canal locks 

found in intercoastal bodies of water such as channels and canals. These types of injuries have 

only been documented when resulting in fatal interactions and therefore nothing is known about 

whether sublethal interactions of this type occur. Water control structure-related deaths 

frequently involve rectangular or symmetrically shaped, often-bilateral impressions on the 

dermis and epidermis, with substantial subdermal contusions, internal hemorrhage, muscle and 

organ shredding, and occasionally evidence of wet drowning (water entering the lungs). 

5.3 Plenary Discussion 

Following the presentations on reviewing new information on survival of injured marine 

mammals, participants discussed the following question in plenary: “What elements from these 

analyses could be incorporated into a new (national) system for distinguishing between serious 

and non-serious injuries?” 

Participants identified the following elements to consider in distinguishing serious from nonserious injury: 

• A system for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries must allow for 

parsimonious decisions in the absence of data. 

• NMFS must determine how far into the future to look to predict the survival of an injured 

animal before it is considered a serious injury (i.e., an animal dies one week/one 

month/one year/10 years as the result of an injury, the injury is considered “serious”). 

This will have implications for management measures, such as TRPs. 

• Need to develop a mechanism for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries that 

balances errors of omission (not assigning a serious injury when an injury was actually 

serious) and errors of commission (falsely calling an injury serious when it was actually 

not serious). 

• Cumulative impacts are an important consideration when distinguishing serious from 

non-serious injuries (e.g., how one type of injury may predispose an animal to another 

type or more severe injury). 
39 

• Depth of an injury (i.e., penetrating injury into the blubber layer vs. into the muscle or 

body cavity) is a key determinant of whether an injury should be considered serious. 

• Key factors affecting the severity of an injury in small cetaceans include: location of the 

hook in the body of an animal, existence of any gear trailing from the mouth, and depth 

of penetrating injuries. 

• Need to provide incentives to fishermen to remove gear and hooks from caught marine 

mammals, when possible. 

• The existing guidance, which suggests that an animal is not seriously injured when it 

swims away strongly after a capture-release scenario, may not be supported by more 

recent evidence regarding capture myopathy and other hidden injuries. Therefore, this 

guideline should be revised. 

• The presentations demonstrate that terminology (e.g., laceration, sharp trauma, incision) 

should be more specific or precise when describing injuries. 

Participants identified the following research needs: 

• Continue work on mark-recapture (longitudinal) studies, especially for large whale and 

offshore species. While a statistically valid sample size does exist for determining 

probabilities of survival for most large whale species, opportunistic resighting data leads 

to a bias because resighting data considers only survivors. 

• Determine the ability of different fishing hooks (based on strength, size, and shape) to 

retain catch while allowing marine mammals to escape, taking into consideration large 

animals are more able to straighten hooks than smaller animals. 
40 

6.0 Pathobiology of Injuries 

This section of the workshop included presentations on the pathobiology of injuries. The 

presentations were designed to describe how pathobiology may be used to determine whether an 

injury caused or contributed to the death of an animal, information which could serve to help 

predict the lethality of injuries incurred by marine mammals. The presentations discussed 

peracute (instantaneous death), acute (death within a short period), and chronic (death over time 

or significant debilitation that affects feeding, mobility, or reproduction) injuries, including 

hidden injuries and the potential effects of capture myopathy. The presentations informed the 

plenary discussions and subsequent Day 3 breakout group sessions, which considered if and how 

the information presented could be used by staff evaluating injury events to help distinguish 

between serious and non-serious injuries. 

Predicting lethality from vessel and gear trauma in North Atlantic right whales (Michael 

Moore, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute)

Human-induced traumas in North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) fall in to three 

categories (Campbell-Malone et al. In press; Moore et al., 2004): sharp propeller incisions, blunt 

vessel impacts, and constrictive laceration by fishing gear. Accurate prognoses from field 

observations of live but impacted animals are essential for triage of entanglements and accurate 

prognostication of the likelihood of a particular case being fatal. These forecasts are an essential 

part of governmental regulatory process. Data were synthesized from management records of 

persistent entanglement cases, photo-identification of live sightings of entangled or vessel struck 

whales, and from necropsy reports. Vessel interactions tend to be peracute to acute whereas 

entanglement in animals that are unable to immediately shed the gear is typically very chronic 

with fatal cases having an average duration of 5 months, and persistent non-lethal cases up to 

many years (Moore et al., 2006). 

 

Out of 77 mortalities recorded since 1970, a necropsy was performed on 45 cases (CampbellMalone, 2007; Moore et al., 2004): vessel collision has been the cause of death in 24 of them. Of 

the ship-strike related mortalities, the cause of death in 56% (15) of the cases was acute sharp 

trauma alone, while 20% (9) were attributed to blunt trauma. Other cases were more complex. 

A scoring matrix was established to characterize and evaluate propeller wounds: a sum of the 

product of cut depth (0 to 4) and number of cuts for each of head, upper and lower back, 

peduncle and fluke. Results were (mean +/- SD (N): Alive 7.4+/- 4.5 (24) and Dead 16.0 +/- 15.2 

(15). Cuts in the upper back and head were more likely to be lethal than in the caudal part of the 

body, although lethal cuts were observed in all body regions. External evidence was absent in 

44% (4/9) of blunt trauma cases. Thus the extent of non-lethal blunt trauma is not known. 

Skeletal fractures were observed in 89% (8/9) of the lethal blunt trauma cases and a broken 

mandible was observed in 33% (3/9) of all lethal blunt trauma cases examined by necropsy. As a 

fully healed mandibular fracture has never been observed in a right whale, a fractured mandible 

is believed to represent a fatal injury. The apparent density and mechanical properties of bone 

tissue from the mandible were determined experimentally. These data were then used as inputs 

for a finite element model capable of predicting the stress sufficient to induce fatal fracture of a 

mandible (Campbell-Malone, 2007). On-going work will compare such stresses with the forces 
41 

produced by vessels to determine the vessel speed and size combinations capable of fracturing a 

mandible. 

From 1970 to July 2007, there have been 47 reported cases of significant entanglement, 15 

entanglement related deaths, and 6% of the cases are presumed to be dead given an absence from 

the sighting record for 6 or more years. For entanglement trauma, significant parameters were 

scored subjectively in terms of severity. For 18 persistent entanglement cases where a full data 

set were available, scores on a scale of 0-35, were lethal above 17 and non lethal below 14, and 

of mixed outcome between those numbers. We are still refining the model to deal with cases 

where data are missing. We hope to rank cases in terms of severity, and compare the ultimate 

outcome. 

Ongoing development of the biomechanical model and a simple scoring system to evaluate 

entanglement and propeller cut cases should enhance our prognostic capacity. 

Consequences of injury (David Rotstein, University of Tennessee/NMFS) 

Serious injury can be defined as that which results in death instantaneously (peracute), within a 

short period (acute), or over time (chronic) or in significant debilitation that affects feeding, 

mobility, or reproduction. For marine mammals, sources of injury include 

gunshot/projectiles/arrows, entanglements and ingestions, and sharp and blunt force trauma. 

While these injuries may have grossly observable changes such as lacerations, amputations, and 

hemorrhage, internal changes may be less evident and could be of incredible significance to 

survival. 

Pathologic consequences of injury fall into two categories: anatomic and physiologic. The 

anatomic location of an injury could lead to peracute to acute death (e.g., head trauma) or 

chronic debilitation (e.g., fracture of mandible and starvation). Physiologic consequences of 

injury include shock, pain, or blood loss leading to an inflammatory cascade, activation of the 

sympathetic nervous system, hormone release (epinephrine and norepinephrine) and vascular 

changes with potential end results of hypothermia, coagulation defects, organ failure, and death. 

However, these may not be readily determinable in an animal surviving a traumatic event, and in 

animals that die, tissue autolysis or loss may prevent a complete assessment. 

Factoring into all of this are the signalment (species, gender, age class) and history (nutritional 

status, body condition), reproductive status, natural history (indigenous, migratory), and preexisting disease states that may adversely affect healing or ability to avoid an insult. If the 

sources of trauma and animal factors are considered, then these could provide components of a 

categorization of injury and possible response to injury similar to human traumatic insult 

categorization. 

Capture myopathy in mammals and how this condition may apply to marine mammals (Terry 

Spraker, Colorado State University) 

Capture myopathy is a condition that has been described in terrestrial mammals and birds 

following capture, handling, and/or transportation, but it appears to be rare in marine mammals 
42 

and carnivores. There are numerous names for capture myopathy, including muscular dystrophy, 

capture disease, degenerative polymyopathy, overstraining disease, white muscle disease, leg 

paralysis, muscle necrosis, idiopathic muscle necrosis, and exertional rhabdomyolysis. 

The pathophysiology associated with capture, handling and transportation of animals is 

extremely complex and associated with the sex, body condition, health of the animal, length of 

time of chase/pursuit, method/roughness of handling, the environmental condition (heat/cold), 

and other factors. The primary pathophysiological changes are characterized by intra- and 

intercellular lactic acidosis and regional ischemia that predispose to rhabdomyolysis and necrosis 

of various internal organs especially in the cortex of the kidneys. Hyperthermia or hypothermia 

can play a vital role in the outcome of capture myopathy. 

There are at least four stages or forms of capture myopathy: capture shock syndrome, ataxic 

myoglobinuric form, ruptured muscle form, and the delayed-peracute form. The most likely 

scenarios in which capture myopathy may be a problem in marine mammals would be in 

dolphins that have been caught several times in tuna fisheries in a short period of time (perhaps a 

week), and perhaps in eared seals following capture (acute shock) or during recapture on the 

second or third day following the initial capture (peracute form). 

Hidden Trauma in pinnipeds

Trauma is a common cause of death in pinnipeds. There are two primary types of trauma: sharp 

and blunt trauma. Gunshot is a third condition that may be placed under the category of sharp 

trauma (e.g., bullets, arrows, etc.). Usually sharp trauma can be observed on external 

examination, but blunt trauma is often missed. Primary causes of sharp trauma include bite 

wounds, boat propellers, entanglement by netting, and perhaps gun shot/arrows. 

Causes of blunt trauma are most common in young animals and are usually caused by crushing 

type wounds. Pups are commonly crushed by older animals, especially in crowded conditions 

and during territorial fighting by the males. Other scenarios include being hit by boats, falling 

off of cliffs during times of excitement, etc. An important type of blunt trauma to the head and 

abdomen is not uncommon in northern fur seals that is associated with dystocia. The most 

common types of hidden trauma are caused by blunt trauma. Necropsy of pinnipeds is of utmost 

importance to confirm trauma, especially blunt trauma. A tremendous degree of internal damage 

(e.g., fractured liver, kidney, skull) can follow blunt trauma and be totally missed following 

external exanimation. 

6.1 Plenary Discussion 

Following the presentations on pathobiology, participants again discussed, “What elements from 

these analyses could be incorporated into a new (national) system for distinguishing between 

serious and non-serious injuries?” 

Participants reiterated multiple necessary considerations for a serious injury determination 

system presented in section 5.3: 

• The analyses demonstrate that terminology (e.g., laceration, sharp trauma, incision) or 

precision of terminology needs to be more specific when describing injuries. 
43 

• The existing guidance, which suggests that an animal is not seriously injured when it 

swims away strongly after a capture-release scenario, may not be supported by more 

recent evidence regarding capture myopathy and other hidden injuries. 

• Cumulative impacts need to be considered when distinguishing serious from non-serious 

injuries (e.g., how one type of injury may predispose an animal to another type or more 

severe injury). For example, while there is no simple predictor(s) of capture myopathy, 

the chance of capture myopathy occurring increases with the number of captures. 
44 

7.0 Day 3 Breakout Group Discussions on Key Topics 

Day 3 of the workshop was devoted to morning and afternoon breakout session discussions, 

organized to address the following six topics: 

Morning concurrent breakout groups

1) Longitudinal/survival rates from a modeling perspective (7.1). 

2) Categorization of injuries and pathological consequences: Gear-related injuries (7.2). 

3) Categorization of injuries and pathological consequences: Sharp, blunt force, and penetrating 

injuries (7.3). 

Afternoon concurrent breakout groups

4) Large cetaceans (7.4). 

5) Small cetaceans (7.5). 

6) Pinnipeds and other species (7.6). 

The workshop Steering Committee designed the morning breakout group questions (7.1-7.3) to 

gather participant input on the data used and the data needed to predict survival rates of injured 

animals, and suggestions for how to categorize and address injuries in serious injury 

determinations. Afternoon breakout group questions (7.4-7.6) were designed to gather input on 

how to categorize injuries, address data needs, and account for scientific uncertainty specific to 

each species group based on differences between each taxonomic group. 

During the morning session, participants were grouped according to expertise on the subjects 

listed as 1-3 above. Participants addressing topics 2 and 3 were posed identical questions, 

developed by the Steering Committee prior to the workshop. For the afternoon session, 

participants were grouped according to species expertise, thus providing participant overlap 

across the morning and afternoon sessions. Each afternoon breakout group was presented with 

an identical set of questions to address, developed by the Steering Committee prior to the 

workshop. In some cases, breakout groups presented with identical questions provided similar or 

identical comments and suggestions as the other groups. This is evident in the redundant 

statements reported in sections 7.2-7.3 (groups 2 and 3 morning breakout groups) and 7.4-7.6 

(afternoon breakout groups). While the majority of the comments and suggestions presented in 

sections 7.1-7.6 represent responses agreed upon by all participants in a given breakout group, 

the intent of these sessions was not to reach consensus recommendations. The intent was to 

gather input from each individual participant on the questions based on his or her expertise 

and/or regional experience. Where disagreement occurred, it is noted. 

7.1 Longitudinal/survival rates from a modeling perspective 

Question 1: What needs to be in a model to accurately predict long-term survival? 

• Factors that are potentially important when predicting survival include: 

o Individual animal level: life stage (e.g., adult or juvenile), sex, body condition, 

and detection probability.

o Population level: level of sampling effort (i.e., heavily monitored populations vs. 

unmonitored populations), natural survival rate.
45 

o Injury specific: injury timing and classification.

• Basic data collection should be standardized, while retaining the flexibility for innovation 

in data collection. 

• The various sources of information available for each population (e.g., sighting, observer, 

and stranding data) should be connected and coordinated, thereby increasing the available 

mark-recapture data. Individual animals not detected in one data set may be detected in 

another data set, increasing resighting instances for certain individuals. 

• Longitudinal studies provide valuable data on the survival of individual animals. Many 

are already established for many cetacean populations and their continuation is important. 

In populations without long-term data sets, individuals may not be reliably reencountered or re-identified, posing a challenge for studies of survival of animals within 

that population. Satellite or VHF tagging is one possible option for filling data gaps 

when longitudinal resighting studies are not possible. 

• A tiered approach may be necessary given the different state of knowledge among 

populations and species. Well-studied populations may allow a different level or type of 

analysis than for those which only opportunistic data are available. Well-studied 

populations might provide a foundation for developing approaches to be used to assess 

data-poor populations. 

• Performance testing should be conducted to quantify uncertainties in model-based 

survival rate estimates. 

Question 2: What is the most viable model currently available? What types of models, if any, 

need to be developed taking into account new information? 

• Experimental designs using control vs. experimental (i.e., treatment) individuals or 

groups (e.g., experiments involving the deliberate injury, to various extents, of marine 

mammals and monitoring their survival) would be the most informative. However, such 

experimental studies are not generally viewed as appropriate for megafauna such as 

marine mammals. 

• Mark recapture models are informative, provided that individuals are resighted and 

recognized. While mark-recapture models may work well for well-monitored 

populations, other approaches (e.g., reviewing stranding data) are needed for less known 

populations and because some injured animals are never detected and/or resighted. 

• Analyses of stranding data have been used in the absence of experimental manipulation 

and mark-recapture modeling. However, stranding data can be problematic because 

sightings of stranded animals are opportunistic and often have no sighting history from 

which to determine body condition, and other factors, prior to an injury or mortality 

event. There are also biases from a modeling perspective on which animals will strand 

and be sighted by humans, or sink into the ocean.

Question 3: Are sufficient data (quantity and types) available for testing? 

• Well-documented injury events are only a subset of the total number of injury events, and 

this reduces the data available for study. 

• Longitudinal data exist for a variety of species, such as North Atlantic right whales, 

humpback whales in the North Atlantic and Pacific, and some well-studied small 

cetaceans (e.g., bottlenose dolphins in Florida), which can be used to predict survival of 

injured individuals of these species. 
46 

• Where analyses are still data-limited, injury types and outcomes could potentially be 

studied across populations with similar characteristics, such as with humpback whales in 

the Gulf of Maine and humpback whales in southeast Alaska. 

Question 4: Are the predictors (or signs that are known to indicate the severity of an injury) 

applicable across taxa? 

• Some predictors of the severity of an injury may be applicable across species or taxa with 

similar life histories to make assumptions about survival, but these do not account for 

variation in the environmental conditions encountered by each species or individual 

animal. 

• Capture myopathy of the most vulnerable species (i.e., those species that are less able to 

cope with or survive stressful situations) could be used until more is known about a given 

species. 

7.2 Categorization of injuries and pathological consequences: gear-related injuries 

(e.g., entanglements, hookings, and ingestions) 

Question 1: What type of nationally consistent categorization of injuries and outcomes will be 

functional for classification of injuries using data collected by various methods? 

• A risk assessment/decision analysis framework should be developed to assign mortality 

risks to individuals based on factors affecting survival for each taxonomic group and 

injury type. This type of framework will require examination of current data and the 

collection of additional data in the future. The decision analysis framework should be 

developed by a panel of marine mammal and veterinary experts in cooperation with risk 

assessment experts. 

Question 2: Are there categories of injuries that are: a) likely to have a serious outcome (i.e., 

mortality or reproductive impairment), b) unlikely to have a serious outcome; or c) not clearly 

determinable? How do we evaluate uncertainites?: 

a) Injuries likely to have a serious outcome (based on the information provided in the workshop 

presentations): 

• Ingestion of gear. 

• Hook in mouth or head (especially for small cetaceans). 

• Gear attached on body with potential to wrap around pectoral fins, peduncle or head, or 

to be ingested (e.g., hook with line that might be ingested). 

• Foreign bodies penetrating into body cavity. 

• Multiple wraps of line around pectoral fin, peduncle, head, abdomen, or chest. 

• Deep external injuries (depth criteria to be determined (TBD), e.g., penetrating muscles, 

bones, or organs vs. penetrating the skin or blubber). 

• Partially severed flukes, especially when midline is affected. 

• Small cetaceans brought on the deck of a vessel following an interaction. 
47 

b) Injuries unlikely to have a serious outcome: 

• For small cetaceans, a hook in the fluke with minimal trailing gear that does not have the 

potential to wrap around any body part or to accumulate drag (e.g., algal growth or 

marine debris). 

c) Injuries for which the outcome cannot clearly be determined: 

• For small cetaceans, the loss or severe disfigurement of the dorsal fin. There is evidence 

that small cetaceans can survive and reproduce without the dorsal fin, but these 

observations include information only on the survivors, and it is unknown what 

proportion of animals may die as a result of the loss of the dorsal fin. The nature of the 

injury causing the loss of the dorsal fin will affect the likelihood of surviving. 

• For large whales, entanglement with line or gear in the mouth. Some large whales may 

survive a mouth entanglement, but the proportion is unknown. 

• Animals released without gear following entanglement. Some regions previously 

considered disentangled animals not seriously injured, but capture myopathy 

considerations suggest some of these animals may subsequently die. The health of the 

animal may be comprised to a greater extent the longer it is immobilized by an 

entanglement. 

Question 3a: What factors play a role in an animal’s response to traumatic injuries and how 

would we evaluate them in the field?

• The condition of the animal (e.g., did the injury take place during a time of physiological 

stress, such as the fasting part of the animal’s life cycle?). 

• The duration of the stressor (e.g., the duration of an entanglement). 

• The animal’s age, sex, and reproductive status (e.g., juveniles may ‘grow into’ wrapped 

gear, increasing the severity of the entanglement due to the penetration of constricting 

lines). 

• Environmental factors (e.g., individuals out of their normal habitat [such as dolphins in 

freshwater], climate stressors). 

• Social stressors (e.g., separation of individuals from the group, cow/calf separation). 

• The cumulative effects of repeated exposures. 

• The susceptibility of the species to capture myopathy (e.g., pelagic dolphins are 

potentially more susceptible than coastal bottlenose dolphins or pinnipeds; North Atlantic 

right whales may be more susceptible than humpback whales). 

Question 3b: How do we address hidden factors that may affect the risk of serious injury over 

time? 

• Whenever possible, conduct follow-up tracking (i.e., gather resighting data) to help 

identify additional causal factors and injury outcomes. 

• Conduct real-time communications between the disentanglement, observer, and stranding 

programs about ongoing entanglements to raise awareness among stranding network 

participants and increase information exchange about potential factors affecting the 

animal’s survival. 

• Researchers doing at-sea surveys should document and report any injuries or other 

relevant observations on marine mammal injuries. 
48 

Question 4: Based on the information we have from longitudinal studies, what is the most 

appropriate way to evaluate or score severity of injury and response of the animal? 

• See answer to question 1 in this section (7.2) above. 

7.3 Categorization of injuries and pathological consequences: sharp, blunt force, 

and penetrating injuries 

Question 1: What type of nationally consistent categorization of injuries and outcomes will be 

functional for classification of injuries using data collected by various methods? 

• A risk assessment matrix/approach would assist in developing a nationally consistent 

categorization of injuries and outcomes. Key variables to consider in developing a risk 

assessment matrix may include: 

o Geographic location. 

o Species. 

o Type of injury (e.g., blunt or sharp trauma, penetrating wound, or appendage 

loss). The type of injury could be further organized into subcategories, such as 

percent of body covered by wounds, the number of wounds, amount of blood loss, 

etc. 

o Location of wound on body. 

o Level of experience of observer documenting the injury event. 

o Previous history of the animal (e.g., previous injuries or entanglement events, 

individual sighting history). 

o Environmental events (e.g., times and areas of high fishing activity, marine 

mammal unusual mortality events, harmful algal blooms). 

o Environmental conditions (e.g., water temperature and salinity). 

o Overall body condition of animal (e.g., skin color, emaciated vs. robust, cyamid 

loads) and changes in body condition over time after the injury. 

o Behavior changes (e.g., how the animal reacted to the interaction that caused the 

injury). 

o Size and speed of a vessel involved in a ship strike or propeller injury event. 

o Life history characteristics of animal (e.g., lactating or pregnant female, fasting 

vs. feeding, juvenile vs. adult, healthy vs. diseased). 

• The risk assessment matrix should be tested with data from North Atlantic right whale 

injury cases, because the longitudinal data on individual right whales is the most robust. 

Also, the matrix should be tested against injury cases where the animal is known to have 

died to assess whether the serious injury determinations coincide with the animal’s actual 

fate. 

• The injuries that are not clearly determinable may need to have some regional and species 

specific flexibility to account for differences in the impact of a given injury on difference 

individual animals and/or species. 

• An interdisciplinary, national panel should also be convened to assist NMFS in 

distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries and case-by-case consultations on 

injuries that are not clearly determinable. This panel should include experts with 

combined expertise in forensics, animal health, and risk assessment. 
49 

Question 2: Are there categories of injuries that are: a) likely to have a serious outcome (i.e., 

mortality or reproductive impairment), b) unlikely to have a serious outcome; or c) not clearly 

determinable? How do we evaluate uncertainties? 

Participants in this breakout group prefaced their responses to question 2 with several general 

comments: 

• Key terms used to describe injuries need rephrasing. Rather than using the terms sharp, 

blunt force, or penetrating to describe injuries, the terminology should be based on 

physical injuries that can be objectively described, such as incision, laceration, and 

swelling. 

• The New England Aquarium considered a wound of 4 cm depth or greater as serious for 

North Atlantic right whales (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001). 

• Determining when an animal received a wound may be important. If the injured animal 

has been able to survive with the injury for a given period of time, the animal may be 

more likely to continue to live with the injury into the future. It is also important to 

consider the cumulative effects of previous wounds or injuries incurred by an animal. 

a) Injuries likely to have a serious outcome: 

• Head trauma. 

• Vertebral transection. 

• Body cavity penetration or exposure. 

• Direct hit by a vessel of a certain size (TBD). 

b) Injuries unlikely to have a serious outcome: 

• For large whales, wounds penetrating into blubber but no deeper.

• Shallow wounds (excluding wounds to the head, chest or penetrating into the body 

cavity). 

c) Injuries for which the outcome cannot clearly be determined: 

• Wounds penetrating into the muscle may require additional descriptors from the observer 

to determine severity (e.g., age, history of previous wounds). 

Question 3a: What factors play a role in an animal’s response to traumatic injuries and how 

would we evaluate them in the field? 

• Life history of animal (e.g., pregnant or lactating female, fasting vs. feeding, age). 

• Species. Different species respond differently to similar injuries. 

• Movement patterns of the animal (e.g., highly migratory vs. remain local). 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., different temperatures and salinities may affect healing 

rates, harmful algal blooms may impact an animal’s susceptibility to an injury and 

recovery from an injury). 

Question 3b: How do we address hidden factors that may affect the risk for serious injury over 

time? 

• Not specifically addressed. 
50 

Question 4: Based on the information we have from longitudinal studies, what is the most 

appropriate way to evaluate or score severity of injury and response of the animal? 

• Data from longitudinal studies can inform a revised process for distinguishing serious 

from non-serious injuries. 

7.4 Large Cetaceans 

Question 1: Given the data we have, do the categorizations and classifications of injuries 

identified in the preceding breakout groups fit this taxonomic group? What are the unique 

characteristics in this taxonomic group that would change the categorization and classification 

of injuries? How does age, type of injury, location of injury, species, etc., impact the 

classification of an injury? 

Participants suggested the following ideas would help improve serious injury classifications: 

• The majority of participants stated that NMFS should move away from the binary 

threshold of “serious injury” or “not serious injury,” by developing a matrix to provide 

more room to handle injury cases that are difficult to categorize. The developed criteria 

should be applicable to a wide range of taxa and regions (i.e., criteria should lead to 

nationally consistent results when distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries). One 

participant warned that a subjective scoring system analogous to triage evaluation may 

provide false precision. 

• A revised classification scheme should include the following considerations: (1) any 

changes should be an improvement over the current system, (2) the system should be as 

simple as possible, and (3) the system should be scientifically and legally defensible. 

• NMFS should not shy away from adding criteria to those currently outlined in Angliss 

and DeMaster (1998) and the NEFSC mortality and serious injury determination reports 

(Cole et al., 2005; Cole et al., 2006; Nelson et al., 2007), or from asking for more data to 

be collected to inform serious injury determinations. More data may provide a better 

opportunity to evaluate an injury case. 

• There are varying levels of information available for different marine mammal 

populations, providing opportunities for different levels of analysis (e.g., estimating 

mortality rates for injuries using mark-recapture studies is possible for well-studied 

populations, but not for less-studied populations). 

• Data from longitudinal case studies indicating which types of injuries are serious should 

be used to make determinations in injury cases of individuals of the same species where 

fate of that individual is unknown. It could be useful to consider extrapolating data on 

the survival of injured animals from well-monitored populations to animals with similar 

injuries from other populations or similar species.

• Any resighted animal that is clearly in poor condition and has evidence of human 

interactions (e.g., entanglement or ship strike) should be classified as “seriously injured,” 

even if it was not initially considered a serious injury at the time of the injury event (e.g., 

observed at the time of the interaction and then observed again in worse condition, or 

observed in poor condition with evidence of previous interaction). 

• Serious injury determinations can be informed by the manner in which the gear is located 

on the animal (e.g., fishing lines are hanging vertically (indicating heavy gear) vs. 

horizontally off the animal, or the fishing lines are cutting into the animal). 
51 

• Anchoring or immobilizing whales in gear may increase risk of death from hidden 

injuries, stress, or capture myopathy. 

Question 2: What are our data needs, and how do we address these? 

Field data: 

• Conduct follow-up research on observed injuries, such as through photo-identification 

and tagging efforts, and develop long-term longitudinal databases. 

• Investigate wounds that do not appear to heal over time. 

• Researchers should obtain photos to document injuries, not just for the purposes of photoidentification. 

• Improve data collection of entangled humpback whales in the Alaska region by 

increasing staffing and enhancing awareness of stranding and injured marine mammals. 

Many parts of Alaska are underrepresented due to limited staff available for detecting and 

monitoring humpback whale entanglements. 

Communication and coordination: 

• Improve communication and coordination between stranding networks, regional offices, 

researchers, disentanglement networks, Canadian colleagues, and NMFS staff responsible 

for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries. 

• Develop more consistent terminology for describing injuries, including injury categories 

(e.g., serious, moderate, severe). 

Health assessments: 

• Continue efforts to develop tools and techniques for conducting visual and remote health 

assessments on marine mammals. 

Necropsy: 

• Increase support for necropsy response, including responses to dead whales observed at 

sea, whether or not there is external evidence of human interactions. Increase forensic 

expert involvement in necropsy analyses. 

Review of existing data: 

• Review cases and case histories of disentangled marine mammals to better understand the 

nature of the interactions. Involve fishermen and veterinarians in this review to improve 

the ability to recreate the entanglement. 

• Model survival based on different injury categories. 

Specific research topics to address: 

• Increase investigation of the physical indications of capture myopathy. This could be 

done by collecting new data (e.g., ketones in breath samples of disentangled animals), 

and reviewing sighting and disentanglement databases for animals that exhibited 

suspicious symptoms (e.g., animal remained in place once disentangled instead of 

swimming away) and see whether or not those animals survived the interaction. 

• Continue biomechanical testing on the manner in which gear interacts with animals, and 

how different parts of gear interact with different parts of an animal’s body. 
52 

• Investigate whether rope in the mouth decreases survivorship by increasing muscular 

expenditure while swimming (i.e., mouth suction theory). 

Question 3: How can the scientific uncertainty concerning the impact of an injury (short- or 

long-term) be handled in making serious injury determinations? 

• Extrapolating data on the survival of injured animals from well-monitored populations to 

animals with similar injuries from other populations or similar species. 

• Use a Bayesian approach to help distinguish serious from non-serious injuries in a 

decision tree matrix with priors for parameters where values are unknown. 

• Start with the assumption that every injury is a serious injury. 

• Create a CBD category to address cases where uncertainty exists in distinguishing 

between serious and non-serious injuries. Develop a risk-assessment matrix to remove 

cases from the CBD category. 

• Pro-rate CBD cases based on what is known about specific injury cases in certain species 

(as shown in Forney and Kobayashi, 2007). 

• Shift from a base count of injuries to an extrapolation to account for unobserved injuries 

and mortalities. 

• Address other uncertainties, such as the size of vessels and which fisheries are causing 

interactions. Also, address uncertainties for attributing serious injury to a given marine 

mammal when the stock to which the individual belongs is unknown. 

7.5 Small Cetaceans 

Note: This breakout group defined small cetaceans as all odontocetes excluding sperm whales. 

Question 1: Given the data we have, do the categorizations and classifications of injuries 

identified in the preceding breakout groups fit this taxonomic group? What are the unique 

characteristics in this taxonomic group that would change the categorization and classification 

of injuries? How does age, type of injury, location of injury, species, etc., impact the 

classification of an injury? 

The breakout group considered key findings presented from the morning breakout session 

discussions, attempted to clarify points that were vague, and folded into their discussions the 

issues that may be specific to small cetaceans. The response to question 1 is both a fleshing-out 

of the morning discussions as well as an expansion. The breakout group focused its deliberations 

on the topics of fishing gear-related injuries and traumatic injury, but also noted some unresolved 

issues. 

Gear-related injuries:

• The severity of certain injuries is similar across all taxa (e.g., multiple wraps of fishing 

line causing constriction, ingestion of gear), and there may not always be a distinction in 

the severity of a given injury between small and large whales. However, some injuries 

that are not serious in large cetaceans are serious for small cetaceans. For example: 

o A hook in mouth is serious in small cetaceans because of the potential for 

ingestion. 
53 

o The duration of entrapment becomes an issue with small cetaceans. After a given 

amount of time, large animals may be more apt to free themselves, while small 

cetaceans may have increased difficulty reaching the surface. 

o Stress response may be more “urgent” in small cetaceans than in larger cetaceans. 

• The ability to differentiate robustness between species and taxonomic groups is important 

for determining the severity of an injury (i.e., species respond differently to stress, 

potentially increasing the severity of a given injury for certain species). The response of 

a given species to stress should be included in a risk assessment/decision framework. 

• The type and amount of gear remaining on an animal after it swims away from the vessel 

should be recorded. This information provides an indication of the potential for the 

animal to ingest the gear, for the gear to wrap and constrict, or for the gear to accumulate 

drag as the animal swims. 

• Cleanness of a cut and the depth of a wound made by gear are also important. A clean, 

one-time wound is not as serious as constricting fishing line cutting into the animal over 

time. 

• Visible blood does not mean an injury is serious. Observers and other data recorders 

should record the presence or absence of visible blood, instead of using subjectivity to 

describe the amount of blood present (i.e., lots of blood, a small amount of blood). 

• Observers should attempt to distinguish between actively fishing gear interacting with the 

animal vs. derelict fishing gear. In the case of actively fishing gear, observers will have a 

better idea of the maximum amount of time the gear has been on the animal, whereas 

opportunistic sightings of stranded animals or animals swimming with passive (ghost) 

gear do not give an indication of how long the animal has been entangled. 

• An entanglement that immobilizes or significantly impairs the movement of a species that 

must eat every day may be more serious than for a species that is in the fasting portion of 

its annual feast/fast cycle (e.g., bottlenose dolphins must eat every day vs. humpback 

whales that fast during migration to breeding grounds). 

• Social structure of the species and age of the individual animal are key factors in 

determining the severity of an injury (e.g., a social or dependant animal released alone 

may be subject to additional stress and reduced survival). 

• Any small cetacean that is brought on the deck of a vessel is subject to a high risk of 

death due to hidden injuries or some other factor (an thus could be designated as 

seriously injured). 

Traumatic injuries:

• The location of propeller wounds on the body is an important factor in distinguishing a 

serious from a non-serious injury. For example, propeller wounds on the head or neck 

are more likely to be serious injuries than wounds behind the animal’s midsection. 

• Resighting data may be more difficult to obtain with small cetaceans, but observers 

should document all resighting data possible. 

• The size and speed of a vessel involved in a vessel-strike event are important factors in 

distinguish between a serious or non-serious injury. 

Unresolved issues/questions:

• Is a serious injury to a pregnant cetacean or a cetacean with a calf a serious injury to the 

cow, the fetus or calf, or both? 
54 

• How should the effects of whale-watching and chasing of dolphins by people engaged in 

other recreational activities (e.g., boating, kayaking, swimming) be incorporated into 

serious injury determinations? Would these cases be included in the SARs? 

• How should research-related serious injuries be incorporated into serious injury 

determinations? 

Question 2: What are our data needs, and how do we address these?

• Collect additional data on post-release survival. Additional comments here included: 

o Tools exist for collecting data on post-release survival (e.g., telemetry, tagging), 

but telemetry or tagging would need strict experimental boundaries and designs to 

include studies using control and experimental groups. 

o The reality of tagging and telemetry studies is such that we would need to balance 

the cost, effort involved, stress on the animal, tag failure rate, and small sample 

size, with the difficulties in interpreting the data collected. 

o Before determining how best to gather data on the survival of an injured animals, 

the survival window (amount of time the animal survives with an injury to be 

considered seriously injured) would have to be defined. 

o Consider chartering vessels to gather the data that observers may not able to 

gather, and/or to perform the follow-up studies. 

o When a tag stops recording data, it is often difficult to determine whether a 

mortality has occurred or the tag has failed or been lost. Creating a redundant 

tagging system could provide confirmation of mortalities. 

• Biopsies should be taken by all observer programs, when possible, to increase the number 

of genetic tags available for analysis. Pair genetic and photo-identification, whenever 

possible. 

• The stranding network should increase photo-identification work on stranded animals for 

comparisons between data sets. 

• Provide improved support and resources for stranding networks. Encourage thorough 

necropsies on every animal possible. 

• Focus on improving the data collected by the observer program. 

o Provide observers with better tools and resources at sea, including a consistent set 

of questions to answer, and training to allow identification and recording of the 

characteristics of a dying animal (e.g., arching of the back in small cetaceans is 

indicative of imminent death). 

o Encourage observers to bring carcasses back to shore, whenever possible. 

o Train observers in safe release techniques for entangled marine mammals. 

Specific analyses and studies: 

• Propeller scar studies for small cetaceans, similar to scar studies on large whales (such as 

those described in presentations by Robbins and Calambokidis). 

• Data-mining of existing observer data, especially for fisheries which lack key drivers for 

data gathering, such as TRTs or interactions with strategic stocks. 

• Examine existing robust databases of health assessments for cases of injuries that will 

increase the sample size (e.g., the Sarasota Dolphin Research Program, killer whales in 

the Pacific Northwest, or Hector’s dolphins). 
55 

• Investigate stress responses in marine mammals to better characterize the impact of stress 

on the survival of an animal. 

• Develop better identification for beaked whales and collect more biopsies from these 

species. 

• Investigate the effect of noise on marine mammals as a potential serious injury.17 

Question 3: How can the scientific uncertainty concerning the impact of an injury (short- or

long-term) be handled in making serious injury determinations?)

• Develop a risk analysis/decision framework. Potential alternative approaches: 

o Bring the staff responsible for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries 

together with policy staff and decision analysis experts to develop a decision tree 

for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries based on a set of criteria.18

o Convene a small group of experts to work on a white paper to be reviewed by the 

SRGs. 

• Modify the process for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries so that 

determinations are made by a national group rather than by individuals. 

• Institute a training or certification process for staff responsible for distinguishing between 

serious and non-serious injuries to increase national consistency. 

• Consider a policy decision that shifts the burden of proof. That is, recognizing that there 

is a continuum of injury severities; create a system that makes the working assumption 

that an injury is serious unless contradicted by empirical evidence or a consensus of 

professional judgment to the contrary. When there is uncertainty, determine that the 

injury is a serious injury. 

o This would cause a fundamental change in how determinations are made and 

would have management implications (e.g., additional TRTs). 

7.6 Pinnipeds and other species 

Question 1: Given the data we have, do the categorizations and classifications of injuries 

identified in the preceding breakout groups fit this taxonomic group? What are the unique 

characteristics in this taxonomic group that would change the categorization and classification 

of injuries? How does age, type of injury, location of injury, species, etc., impact the 

classification of an injury? 

Gear-related injuries:

Injuries likely to have a serious outcome: 

• Ingestion of gear (although not generally observed in pinnipeds). 

• Gear attached to body with trailing gear that has the potential to anchor or drag, or to 

wrap around flippers, body, or head. 

• Foreign objects penetrating into a body cavity. 

• Multiple wraps of line or netting around the body. 

• Missing a front or back flipper(s), for both otariids and phocids. 

 

17 The impacts of sound/noise on marine mammals were not specifically addressed at this Workshop. 18 This bullet outlines the process followed on Day 4 of the workshop. 
56 

• Deep external injuries (e.g., severe wounds extending through the skin and blubber, well 

into the muscle, or puncturing the body cavity). 

Injuries unlikely to have a serious outcome: 

• Confirmed hooked in the lip (soft tissue only). 

• Hooked in flipper or other party of the body (excluding the head) with minimal trailing 

gear that does not have the potential to wrap around body or appendage(s). 

Injuries for which the outcome cannot clearly be determined: 

• Hooked in the head. The severity depends on several factors, including the hooking 

location on head, the depth of penetration, and the type of hook. 

• Animals stressed from being encircled or trapped (e.g., purse seine). 

• Animals released without gear following an entanglement. The severity depends on the 

extent of the injury, the duration of time the animal was submerged, the duration of time 

the animal was entangled in the gear, and the degree of restraint. 

• Pinnipeds brought on vessel. Unlike with small cetaceans, this is typically not considered 

to be a serious injury. However, the severity of the injury also depends on the manner in 

which the animal was brought onboard (e.g., in net, over a roller, or through the power 

block). 

Injuries caused by blunt trauma and penetration:

Injuries likely to have a serious outcome: 

• Head trauma (including broken jaw or the eye popped out), vertebral transection, and 

cavity penetration or exposure (includes bullets). 

• Any detectable fractures, which will lead the animal to eventually strand or die due to 

thrombosis (a blood clot in the heart or blood vessel) or a secondary infection. 

Injuries for which the outcome cannot clearly be determined: 

• Feral, wild or domestic carnivore bites (i.e., dog or coyote bites), the severity of which 

depends on the extent of the injury. 

• Direct hit by a vessel is a serious injury depending on the size, speed, and inertia of the 

vessel relative to the size of the animal, the depth of propeller wound (into the blubber or 

muscle), and the type of vessel (e.g., water ski, car, boat). 

• Direct hit by blunt object (e.g., baseball bat), the severity of which depends on the extent 

of the impact. 

Unique characteristics of pinnipeds that affect the categorization and classification of injuries:

• Sea lions and seals can be examined relatively closely by an observer or stranding 

program participant. Therefore, it is possible in many cases to get an accurate description 

of an injury and assess its severity. 

• Some pinnipeds have adapted to fishing operations or other human activities and do not 

appear to experience the same level of stress as other marine mammal taxa. 

• Certain pinniped behaviors may predispose them to serious injuries. For instance, those 

likely to repeatedly interact with fishing operations/gear are more likely to be shot (e.g., 

California sea lions). 
57 

Key contextual features that affect the classification of an injury:

• Factors contributing to the severity of an injury in cetaceans also generally apply to 

pinnipeds and other marine mammal species. Juveniles, pups and young-of-the-year 

animals have soft craniums and are therefore more vulnerable to blunt trauma. Dependent 

animals are generally more at risk. 

Question 2: What are our data needs and how do we address these?

• In general there is good reporting and follow-up (including resight data) of injured 

pinnipeds from stranding and response networks (especially in Hawaii). Specific 

suggestions for addressing data needs: 

o Standardize data collection nationally and between the data collection programs 

(stranding, disentanglement, and observer programs). 

o Conduct more studies on post-injury survival in pinnipeds. 

o Increase efforts to capture and rehabilitate pinnipeds that are observed entangled or 

with human-caused injuries. When this is not possible, document the observation and 

mark the animal (e.g., with paint) to allow for follow-up observations. 

o Identify existing databases to work on risk assessment and probability of survival. 

o Emphasize the use of high quality photos to document injuries, body condition, 

healing, and entanglement events. Photos provide better information to staff 

responsible for distinguishing between serious and non-serious injuries, when that 

person has not personally seen the injured animal. 

Question 3: How can the scientific uncertainty concerning the impact of an injury (short or 

longterm) be handled in making serious injury determinations? 

• A greater level of precaution may be warranted for strategic stocks, endangered, or 

declining species (such as monk seals) compared to species with increasing populations 

(such as California sea lions). The importance of including scientific uncertainty into the 

decision-making process is heightened when dealing with strategic stocks, or endangered 

and threatened species. 

• Include confidence levels (codes) for reliance of data in the determination process. 

• As a starting point, assume serious injury for cases marked by insufficient data until the 

data supports a non-serious determination. 

7.7 Summary of Day 3 Breakout Group Sessions 

Many common themes and suggestions emerged from the Day 3 breakout groups, presented 

above as each group separately. While rare, diverging views were stated at times. This section 

summarized the common suggestions and needs identified by all of the breakout groups. 

Similar suggestions related to serious injury criteria and the determination process:

• NMFS is likely underestimating serious injuries through the current determination 

processes. Therefore, NMFS should develop a risk assessment/matrix approach for use 

in distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries. This approach should be: 

o Nationally consistent. The matrix should incorporate flexibility, while limiting 

subjectivity in the determinations. The matrix should be developed in such a way 
58 

as to avoid circumstances that exist under the current determination process where 

a given injury is considered “serious” in one region and “not serious” in another. 

o Based on factors affecting survival for each marine mammal species and 

taxonomic group. 

o Sufficiently flexible to include additional relevant factors when there is 

uncertainty in the outcome of an injury event 

• NMFS should gather a national panel annually, including staff responsible for 

distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries from each region, decision analysis, and 

other external experts (veterinarians, pathobiologists, marine mammal researchers) to 

review serious injury determinations. This panel review will help to decrease individual 

subjectivity in the determinations, leading to increased national consistency. 

• NMFS should revise (and/or develop) and use consistent terminology to objectively 

describe injuries. The terminology should be based on the observable physical injuries 

(i.e., laceration, incision, swelling). 

Diverging views to suggestions related to serious injury criteria and the determination process:

• Aside from assuming all injuries are mortal unless proven otherwise, a new approach is 

unlikely to significantly increase the number of injuries classified as “serious injuries” for 

large whales if it relies on anecdotal reports, as the current large whale systems do. Even 

in well-documented populations, individuals are under observation by researchers for a 

tiny fraction of their lives. For example, for North Atlantic right whales—one of the 

most thoroughly studied species—only the most prolonged entanglements are longer than 

the average period between detections of individuals. Most mortalities are never 

observed. 

• We must differentiate between means for improving the accuracy of injury assessment 

and prognosis when injuries are observed, and means for improving the accuracy of 

estimates of all (observed and unobserved) human-caused mortality and serious injury. 

The reliance on anecdotal reports makes these distinctly different for large whales. 

Similar suggestions related to data needs:

• The observer, stranding, and disentanglement programs are collecting useful data and 

have improved over the past decade. Participants indicated that further improvements 

could be made by: 

o Standardizing data between all regions, for all species and taxonomic groups, and 

between data collection programs. 

o Increasing communication and coordination between the data collection programs 

and the staff responsible for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries, and 

between each region. 

• NMFS should examine data collected by the observer, stranding, and disentanglement 

programs, and external partners, to determine whether injured animals documented in one 

data set are resighted in another data set. This could increase the data available on a 

given injury case. 

• Longitudinal studies provide valuable information on individuals and populations, 

including the survival of injured animals. Longitudinal studies should be continued for 

currently well-monitored populations and started (or expanded) for lesser or unmonitored 

populations. 
59 

Similar suggestions related to the categorization of injuries:

• Participants in each breakout group identified the following injuries as serious injuries for 

all marine mammals (in addition to other injuries identified by individual breakout 

groups), including: 

o Ingestion of gear. 

o Constricting lines or lines with the potential to constrict as an animal grows. 

o Head trauma. 

o Body cavity penetration. 

• Physiological and behavioral differences exist between species and taxonomic groups, 

which cause differences in the severity of certain injuries for different species. For 

example, a hook in the mouth is a serious injury for small cetaceans and pinnipeds, but 

not a serious injury for large cetaceans. 

• Vessel size and speed “source” information should be included in the serious injury 

matrix because the severity of the injury resulting from a vessel strike depends on the size 

and speed of the vessel. 
60 

8.0 Recommendations of Government Staff 

The final day of the workshop was a closed federal session. Thirty-six federal participants with 

expertise in marine mammal biology, pathobiology, veterinary medicine and management 

attended from NMFS, NOS, FWS, the U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program, and the Marine 

Mammal Commission. The primary purpose of the closed federal session was to draw on 

presentations and discussions from Days 1-3 of the workshop, consider what has worked well in 

distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries since 1997, what has not worked well, and 

recommend potential changes to the existing serious injury guidance, as outlined in Angliss and 

DeMaster (1998) and as adapted for use by the NEFSC (Cole et al., 2005; Cole et al., 2006; 

Nelson et al., 2007; Glass et al., 2008). Information from Day 4 discussions is presented in 

sections 8.0-8.4. 

Most participants expressed the view that the current serious injury guidance should be revised 

and updated to capture current knowledge about impacts of injury on marine mammals and to 

improve national consistency in distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries. Nearly all the 

participants recognized that NMFS is close to where it should be in the assessments of detected 

animals. However, undetected injuries exist that are not being incorporated into population 

assessments; therefore, NMFS needs to devise a mechanism to better account for undetected 

injuries. One participant suggested that serious injury guidelines are not the appropriate 

mechanism for accounting for undetected injuries. This participant noted that the 1997 

workshop report presented recommendations but did not identify a single set of criteria for 

determinations; instead, researchers from each region worked to adapt and refine the 

recommendations for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries, building on experience 

since the first workshop. 

Participants expressed nearly unanimous support for the development and publication of an 

official NMFS policy to strive for nationally consistent criteria to use when distinguishing 

serious from non-serious injuries, while allowing for flexibility in data-rich situations. This 

policy should also include what is meant by the term “likely” in the definition for serious injury, 

“injury that will likely result in mortality,” because different working definitions are currently in 

use for different stocks nation-wide. One participant noted that creating a legal definition for the 

term likely in the serious injury definition could have far-reaching implications beyond the realm 

of serious injury determinations. Participants concluded that rulemaking or a change to the 

regulatory definition of "serious injury" was not necessary to improve serious injury 

determinations. 

The section below describes recommended revisions to the process and criteria for distinguishing 

between serious and non-serious injuries, developed by federal participants present on Day 4 of 

the workshop. 

8.1 Recommended Revisions and Updates to the Process and Guidance for 

Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury 

The workshop Steering Committee reviewed the guidance for distinguishing between serious and 

non-serious injuries provided in Angliss and DeMaster (1998) and the various NEFSC 
61 

publications (see Section 2.3 above), and recommended revisions and additions based on the Day 

1-3 presentations and discussions. Federal participants subsequently discussed the Steering 

Committee’s recommendations and constructed a matrix containing a revised set of criteria for 

distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries (Table 1).19 Table 1 incorporates a synthesis of 

new information presented and discussed at the workshop and is a first step towards creating 

guidance that attempts to improve national consistency in serious injury determinations across 

regions. 

Table 1 is meant to serve as a starting point for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries. 

In addition, Table 1 is meant to provide guidance in situations where there are little data and/or 

resighting of an injured animal is unlikely. Participants recognized that alternate guidance may 

be available in data-rich situations where an injured animal has a higher likelihood of being 

resighted (as with baleen whales in the NER). In this manner, Table 1 provides a means by 

which to strive for national consistency while retaining flexibility for situations where better 

information is available. Table 1 is intended as a precursor for developing future NMFS policy 

for distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries. 

In addition to specific revisions and updates, Table 1 outlines two substantial recommended 

changes to the current process for distinguishing between serious and non-serious injuries as a 

whole: 

 

1) Expands the dichotomous determination process (all injuries are “serious” or “not 

serious”) to include a third category representing uncertain cases (injuries can now be 

classified as “serious,” “not serious” or “CBD/case specific”). Currently, cases with 

insufficient information are often (but not consistently) considered “not serious,” likely 

leading to an underestimate of the actual number of serious injuries. The recommended 

addition of a “CBD/case specific” category takes into account two circumstances: 1) there is 

insufficient information about the impact of a particular injury to determine whether it is a 

serious or non-serious injury; and/or 2) it is possible to determine whether a particular injury 

is a serious or non-serious injury, but additional factors must be considered on a case-by-case 

basis. 

2) Creates guidance with separate serious, non-serious, or CBD/case specific determinations 

criteria for different marine mammal taxonomic groups (i.e., large cetacean, small cetacean, 

and pinnipeds), to allow for differences in the severity of an injury based on the animal’s 

physiology and the amount and type of data that are available. 

Participants added definition to Table 1 by making the following clarifications: 

• Table 1 addresses most of the injuries likely to be observed in marine mammals. Capture 

myopathy was not explicitly included in the list of injuries because it is difficult to 

observe as a phenomenon. However, some participants considered the potential impacts 

of capture myopathy as a factor to be considered when an injury determination falls into 

 

19 The recommended matrix does not consider criteria for determining serious injuries for FWS trust marine mammal species 

(manatee, sea otter, polar bear, dugong, marine otter and walrus). Recommended serious injury criteria for pinnipeds may be 

applicable to walrus; however, due to physiological differences, each of the criteria in the matrix would need to be assessed 

separately for a serious injury determination for the remaining FWS trust species. 
62 

the “CBD/case specific” category. Also, participants noted that not all categories will 

have externally visible injuries. 

• A major goal in developing Table 1 was to identify the types of injuries that would 

clearly be considered serious injuries. 

• The injury categories established in Table 1 cover most types of injury regardless of the 

source. However, there were a few source-dependent injuries that participants considered 

necessary (e.g., collision with vessel of a certain size or speed). 

• Injury determinations that are “CBD/case specific” may vary by region (e.g., because of 

the types and quality of data that are available) or species (e.g., because a given injury 

may be more severe for some species than for others). 

• Participants offered distinctly divergent advice for just two of the 33 injury categories, 

identified with gray shading in Table 1: 

o Criterion 10 in Table 1, “Gear attached to free-swimming animal with potential to 1) 

wrap around pectoral fins/flippers, peduncle, or head; 2) be ingested; or 3) 

accumulate drag,” for large cetaceans could be considered either a “serious injury” or 

“CBD/case specific.” In a straw poll (with several abstentions), about 2/3 of the 

participants present voted for the injury determination to be included as “CBD/case 

specific” and about 1/3 voted for “serious injury.” Participants agreed that this injury 

event is “serious” for both small cetaceans and pinnipeds. 

o Whether the injury “dog bite” should have its own unique category, or whether it 

should be subsumed as part of any of the following categories in Table 1: Head 

trauma (including eye injuries) (criterion 6); Deep, external cut or laceration to body 

(criterion 15); Body cavity penetration by foreign object or body cavity exposure 

(criterion 16); or body trauma not covered by cases 6, 15, or 16 above (e.g., broken 

appendages, hemorrhaging” (criterion 24). In a straw poll (with several abstentions), 

about 3⁄4 of the participants preferred including dog bites within these categories. The 

pinniped experts present generally preferred to include dog bites in a separate 

category, because of the additional potential for inter-species disease transmission. 

For this reason, the workshop Steering Committee modified Table 1 finalized on Day 

4 of the workshop to include dog bites as a separate criterion (criterion 33). The lack 

of agreement by workshop participants is indicated by the gray highlighting on this 

criterion in Table 1. 
63 

Table 1: Recommended Serious Injury Criteria for Different Taxonomic Groups * 

SI = Serious Injury; NSI = Not Serious Injury; CBD/case specific = Potential SI, but either 1) insufficient information 

about the impact of a particular injury, or 2) additional factors must be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine 

the severity; n/a = not applicable; TBD= To Be Determined; __ = areas lacking near-complete agreement among Day 

4 participants.

Criterion Injury/Information Categories Large 

Cetaceans

Small 

Cetaceans Pinnipeds

Pre-Existing Guidance (included in Angliss and DeMaster (1998) and/or NEFSC publications, retained with no 

changes) 

1 Ingestion of gear or hook SI SI SI 

Modified Criteria (some aspects retained from guidance provided in Angliss and DeMaster (1998) and/or 

NEFSC publications, with some changes or additions) 

2 

A free-swimming animal observed at a date later than 

its human interaction, exhibiting a marked change in 

skin discoloration, lesions near the nares, fat loss, or 

increased cyamid loads, etc. 

SI SI SI 

3 Gear constricted on any body part, or likely to become 

constricting as the animal grows SI SI SI 

4 

Uncertain whether gear is constricting, but appendages 

near the entanglement's point of attachment are 

discolored 

SI SI SI 

5 Anchored/immobilized (not freed) SI SI SI 

6 Head trauma (including eye injuries) SI SI SI 

7 Hook in mouth (excluding case 9 below), no trailing 

gear 

CBD/case 

specific SI SI 

8 Hook confirmed in head (excluding mouth), no trailing 

gear 

NSI SI CBD/case 

specific 

9 Hook confirmed in lip only, no trailing gear n/a CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

10 

Gear attached to free-swimming animal with potential 

to 1) wrap around pectoral fins/flippers, peduncle, or 

head; 2) be ingested; or 3) accumulate drag 

CBD/case 

specific SI SI 

11 Animal freed from gear and released without gear CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

12 Social animal separated from group or released alone CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

13 Dependent animal (e.g., calf, pup) alone postinteraction SI SI SI 

14 Wrap(s) of gear around pectoral fin/flippers, peduncle, 

head, abdomen, or chest 

CBD/case 

specific SI SI 

New Criteria 

15 Deep, external cut or laceration to body CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

16 Body cavity penetration by foreign object or body 

cavity exposure SI SI SI 
64 

Criterion Injury/Information Categories Large 

Cetaceans

Small 

Cetaceans Pinnipeds

17 Visible blood loss CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

18 Loss or disfigurement of dorsal fin CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific n/a 

19 Partially severed flukes (transecting midline) SI SI n/a 

20 Partially severed flukes (not transecting midline) CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific n/a 

21 Partially severed pectoral fins or flippers CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

22 Severed pectoral fins or flippers CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific SI 

23 

Entanglement, immobilization or entrapment of a 

certain duration before being freed (TBD, speciesdependent) 

SI SI SI 

24 Body trauma not covered by cases 6, 15, and 16 above 

(e.g., broken appendages, hemorrhaging) 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

25 Detectable fractures SI SI SI 

26 

Hook in appendage, without trailing gear or with 

trailing gear that does not have the potential to wrap, be 

ingested, or accumulate drag 

NSI NSI NSI 

27 Animal brought on vessel deck following 

entanglement/entrapment n/a SI CBD/case specific 

28 Vertebral transection SI SI SI 

29 Collision with vessel of certain minimum size (TBD, 

species-specific) SI SI CBD/case specific 

30 Collision with vessel traveling at a certain minimum 

speed (TBD, species-specific) SI SI CBD/case specific 

31 Collision with vessel below a certain size threshold 

(TBD, species-specific) 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

32 Collision with vessel traveling below a certain speed 

threshold (TBD, species-specific) 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

CBD/case 

specific 

33 Dog Bites° n/a n/a CBD/case 

specific 

* See section 8.1 for additional details on the intent and purpose of Table 1. 

° This criterion was not included by the Day 4 Participants. The workshop Steering Committee added this criterion 

for clarity. About 3⁄4 of the Day 4 participants preferred subsuming dog bites under criteria 6, 15, 16, or 24 

(depending on the injury inflicted by the dog bite). The pinniped experts generally preferred to include dog bites in 

a separate category, because of the additional potential for inter-species disease transmission. 
65 

8.2 Changes from Existing Guidance Represented in Table 1 

The initial elements of Table 1 were derived from the existing guidance established at the 1997 

workshop (Angliss and DeMaster, 1998) and from published documents on serious injury 

determination for baleen whales in the NEFSC (Cole et al., 2005; Cole et al., 2006; Nelson et al., 

2007; Glass et al., 2008). Participants then made specific changes based on the Days 1-3 

presentations and discussions. 

All of the guidance provided in Angliss and DeMaster (1998) was incorporated into Table 1, 

some with changes or additional details (as described below). All of the NEFSC criteria for what 

constitutes a serious injury for baleen whales were incorporated unchanged into Table 1. In 

addition, Table 1 incorporates many of Angliss and DeMaster’s considerations for distinguishing 

between serious and non-serious injuries on a case-by-case basis into the “CBD/case specific” 

category (see section 2.4 in this document). 

The information below, describing the similarities between Table 1 and the existing serious 

injury guidance, was not explicitly discussed during Day 4 of the workshop. The workshop 

Steering Committee developed this information for this Technical Memorandum to facilitate the 

readers’ review of the proposed serious injury criteria presented in Table 1. 

Unchanged criteria between existing guidance and Table 1

Criterion 1: “Ingestion of gear or hook” 

• Large cetaceans, small cetaceans, and pinnipeds: Only one criterion in Table 1 was 

retained from existing guidance (in this case from Angliss and DeMaster) without 

changes to any of the taxonomic groups. Angliss and DeMaster considered “Ingestion of 

gear or hook” a serious injury for all taxonomic groups, and it is also considered a serious 

injury for all taxonomic groups in Table 1. 

Changes to, or differences from, existing guidance

The following discussion reflects where guidance provided in Angliss and DeMaster and/or in 

NEFSC documents were modified in Table 1 for: 1) added clarity; 2) to distinguish a serious 

from a non-serious injury for a species group not included in either Angliss and DeMaster or 

NEFSC documents; or 3) participants at the 2007 workshop considered the serious injury 

determination for a given injury scenario to be different than existing guidance. (Numbers 

correspond with the criteria numbers in Table 1.) 

Criterion 2: “A free-swimming animal observed at a date later than its human interaction, 

exhibited a marked change in skin discoloration, lesions near the nares, fat loss, or increased 

cyamid loads, etc.” 

• Large cetaceans: Considered a “serious injury” in NEFSC documents. Remains a 

“serious injury” in Table 1. 

• Small cetaceans and pinnipeds: Not discussed in existing guidance. Included as a 

“serious injury” in Table 1. 
66 

Criterion 3: “Gear constricted on any body part, or likely to become constricting as the animal 

grows.” 

• Large cetaceans: Considered a “serious injury” in NEFSC documents. Remains a 

“serious injury” in Table 1. 

• Small cetaceans and pinnipeds: Not discussed in existing guidance. Included as a 

“serious injury” in Table 1. 

Criterion 4: “Uncertain whether gear is constricting, but appendages near the entanglement’s 

point of attachment discolored and likely compromised.” 

• Large cetaceans: Considered a “serious injury” in NEFSC documents. Remains a 

“serious injury” in Table 1. 

• Small cetaceans and pinnipeds: Not discussed in existing guidance. Included as a 

“serious injury” in Table 1. 

Criterion 5: “Anchored/immobilized (not freed).” 

• Large cetaceans: Considered a “serious injury” in NEFSC documents. Remains a 

“serious injury” in Table 1. 

• Small cetaceans and pinnipeds: Not discussed in existing guidance. Included as a 

“serious injury” in Table 1. 

Criterion 6: “Head trauma (including eye injuries).” 

• Large cetaceans: Not discussed in existing guidance. Included as a “serious injury” in 

Table 1. 

• Small cetaceans: Small cetaceans hooked near the eyes or the head were considered 

“seriously injured” in Angliss and DeMaster. Participants at the 2007 workshop 

broadened this criterion to include any head trauma, including eye injuries, retaining it as 

a “serious injury” in Table 1. 

• Pinnipeds: Not discussed in existing guidance. Included as a “serious injury” in Table 1. 

Criteria 7: “Hook in mouth (excluding case 9 below), no trailing gear.” 

• Large cetaceans: Existing guidance does not address hooking injuries for large 

cetaceans. Participants at the 2007 workshop noted that hooking injuries are unlikely to 

occur with baleen whales. Therefore, Table 1 lists a hook in the mouth as “CBD/case 

specific” for large cetaceans. 

• Small cetaceans: Angliss and DeMaster list a hook in the head (near the eyes) as 

“serious” for small cetaceans. Table 1 includes additional detail to this guidance by also 

including a hook in the mouth as “serious” for small cetaceans. 

• Pinnipeds: Angliss and DeMaster list a hook in the mouth (internally) as “serious” for 

pinnipeds. Table 1 includes additional detail to this guidance by also including a hook in 

the mouth as “serious” for pinnipeds. 

Criterion 8: “Hook in head (excluding mouth), no trailing gear.” 

• Large cetaceans: Existing guidance does not address hooking injuries for large 

cetaceans. Participants at the 2007 workshop noted that hooking injuries are unlikely to 

occur with baleen whales. Therefore, Table 1 lists a hook confirmed in the head, but not 

the mouth as “not serious” for large cetaceans. 
67 

• Small cetaceans: Angliss and DeMaster list a hook in the head (near the eyes) as 

“serious” for small cetaceans. Table 1 includes additional detail to this guidance by also 

including a hook confirmed in the head, but not the mouth, as “serious” for small 

cetaceans. 

• Pinnipeds: Angliss and DeMaster list a hook in the mouth (internally) as “serious” for 

pinnipeds. Table 1 includes additional detail to this guidance by also including a hook 

confirmed in the head, but not the mouth, as “CBD/case specific” for pinnipeds. 

Criterion 9: “Hook confirmed in lip only, no trailing gear.” 

• Large cetaceans: Existing guidance does not address hooking injuries for large 

cetaceans. Participants at the 2007 workshop noted that hooking injuries are unlikely to 

occur with baleen whales. Therefore, Table 1 lists a hook confirmed in the lip only as 

“not applicable/not observed” for large cetaceans. 

• Small cetaceans: Angliss and DeMaster list a hook in the head (near the eyes) as 

“serious” for small cetaceans. Table 1 includes additional detail to this guidance by also 

including a hook confirmed in the lip only as “CBD/case specific” for small cetaceans. 

• Pinnipeds: Angliss and DeMaster list a hook in the mouth (internally) as “serious” for 

pinnipeds. Table 1 includes additional detail to this guidance by also including a hook 

confirmed in the lip only as “not serious” for pinnipeds. 

Criterion 10: “Gear attached to free-swimming animal with potential to 1) wrap round pectoral 

fins/flippers, peduncle, or head; 2) be ingested; or 3) accumulate drag.” 

• Large cetaceans: Existing guidance does not specifically address this injury scenario for 

large cetaceans. While participants at the 2007 workshop included this injury scenario in 

Table 1, they disagreed on the severity of such events for large cetaceans. During a straw 

vote at the workshop to get an idea of how many of the participants considered the injury 

“serious” for large cetaceans, about 2/3 of the participants stated that they consider the 

injury determination “CBD/case specific,” and about 1/3 consider it “serious.” This 

disagreement is highlighted in Table 1 by shading in the box under large cetaceans. 

• Small cetaceans and pinnipeds: Angliss and DeMaster consider small cetaceans and 

pinnipeds entangled with trailing gear to be “seriously injured.” Participants at the 2007 

workshop agreed with Angliss and DeMaster, and listed this injury as “serious” in Table 

1 for small cetaceans and pinnipeds. Participants added details to the guidance listed in 

Angliss and DeMaster to specify that the injury is “serious” not only if the animal is 

released with trailing gear, but if that trailing gear has the potential to wrap, be ingested 

or accumulate drag. 

Criterion 11: “Animal freed from gear and released without gear.” 

• Large cetaceans: The NEFSC technical memorandums state that a baleen whale is 

typically not considered seriously injured if all constricting lines are removed or shed, 

and the whale has no other injuries that would otherwise be considered serious. 

Participants at the 2007 workshop agreed that additional factors need to be assessed in 

order to determine whether an animal released free of gear after an entanglement is 

seriously injured (e.g., length of time the animal was immobilized). Therefore, 

participants classified these injury determinations as “CBD/case specific” for large 

cetaceans. 
68 

• Small cetaceans: Angliss and DeMaster consider this injury scenario to be “not serious” 

for small cetaceans if the animal was swimming normally after begin freed from the gear. 

Participants at the 2007 workshop agreed that an animal swimming normally after an 

interaction does not always mean the animal is not seriously injured. Participants agreed 

that additional factors need to be assessed in order to determine whether an animal 

released free of gear after an entanglement is seriously injured (e.g., length of time the 

animal was immobilized, risk of myopathy and renal failure). Therefore, participants 

classified these injury determinations as “CBD/case specific” for small cetaceans. This 

represents a change from the guidance in Angliss and DeMaster. 

• Pinnipeds: Angliss and DeMaster consider that this injury scenario should be assessed on 

a case-by-case basis for pinnipeds. Participants at the 2007 workshop retained this injury 

scenario as “CBD/case specific” for pinnipeds. 

Criterion 12: “Social animal separated from group or released alone.” 

• Large cetaceans: Existing guidance does not specifically discuss this situation for large 

cetaceans. Participants at the 2007 workshop listed the separation of a social animal from 

its group as “CBD/case specific” for large cetaceans. 

• Small cetaceans: Angliss and DeMaster state that and entanglement that results in an 

animal being separated from its pod is a serious injury for small cetaceans. Participants 

at the 2007 workshop agreed that additional factors needed to be assessed to determine 

whether a small cetacean separated from its pod is a serious injury to that individual. 

Therefore, participants classified these injury scenarios as “CBD/case specific” for small 

cetaceans. This represents a change from the guidance in Angliss and DeMaster.

• Pinnipeds: Existing guidance does not specifically discuss this situation for pinnipeds. 

Participants at the 2007 workshop listed the separation of a social animal from its group 

as “CBD/case specific” for pinnipeds. 

Criterion 13: “Dependent animal (e.g., calf, pup) alone post–interaction” 

• Large cetaceans, small cetaceans, and pinnipeds: Existing guidance does not 

specifically discuss this situation for a dependent animal. Participants at the 2007 

workshop included this criterion in addition to criterion 12 to specifically address 

dependent animals separate from its mother or pod, considered a “serious injury” for all 

taxonomic groups. 

 

Criterion 14: “Wrap(s) of gear around pectoral fin/flippers, peduncle, head, abdomen, or chest.” 

• Large cetaceans: Angliss and DeMaster list constricting wraps of gear that anchors the 

animal or leads to the inability to use an appendage for locomotion or feeding as 

“serious” for large cetaceans (although participants at the 1997 workshop did not agree at 

what point an entanglement impedes locomotion). Participants at the 2007 workshop 

modified the guidance, listing this injury scenario as “CBD/case specific” for large 

cetaceans because of known cases of large whales surviving for extended periods of time 

with gear wrapped around appendages or the body, including cases of such animals 

reproducing successfully. Therefore, the severity of the injury depends on the specifics 

of the entanglement. 

• Small cetaceans and pinnipeds: Not discussed in existing guidance. Participants at the 

2007 agreed that this injury scenario is “serious” for both small cetaceans and pinnipeds. 
69 

New Criteria Included in Table 1

Participants recommended entirely new criteria for those cases not explicitly covered by existing 

guidance, but deemed necessary based on the information provided in the Days 1-3 presentations 

and discussions. (Numbers correspond with criterion numbers in Table 1.) 

Criterion 15: “Deep, external cut or laceration to body.” 

• Large cetaceans, small cetaceans, and pinnipeds: Participants at the 2007 workshop 

considered this injury scenario to be “CBD/case specific” for all taxonomic groups. 

Criterion 16: “Body cavity penetration by foreign object or body cavity exposure.” 

• Large cetaceans, small cetaceans, and pinnipeds: Participants at the 2007 workshop 

considered this injury scenario to be “serious” for all taxonomic groups. 

Criterion 17: “Visible blood loss.” 

• Large cetaceans, small cetaceans, and pinnipeds: Participants at the 2007 workshop 

considered this injury scenario to be “CBD/case specific” for all taxonomic groups. 

Criteria 18-22 (details below): Existing guidance does not specifically address damage, or the 

degree of damage, to fins/flippers and flukes. Participants at the 2007 workshop stated that the 

severity of the injury depended on which appendage is lost or compromised, and the extent of the 

compromise. This detail is reflected in Table 1 by separating the criteria for damaged 

appendages into five separate criteria. 

Criterion 18: “Loss or disfigurement of dorsal fin.” 

• Large cetaceans and small cetaceans: Participants at the 2007 workshop viewed the loss 

of the dorsal fin as “CBD/case specific” for large and small cetaceans. In the case of 

small cetaceans, information presented during Days 1-3 of the workshop showed that 

small cetaceans have been documented living for some time and reproducing after the 

loss or disfigurement of the dorsal fin. 

• Pinnipeds: This injury scenario is not applicable to pinnipeds. 

Criterion 19: “Partially severed flukes (transecting midline).” 

• Large cetaceans and, small cetaceans: Participants at the 2007 workshop viewed 

partially severed flukes, where the injury transects the midline, as a “serious injury” for 

large and small cetaceans. 

• Pinnipeds: This injury scenario is not applicable to pinnipeds. 

Criterion 20: “Partially severed flukes (not transecting midline).” 

• Large cetaceans and small cetaceans: Participants at the 2007 workshop viewed 

partially severed flukes, where the injury does not transect the midline, as “CBD/case 

specific” for large and small cetaceans. 

• Pinnipeds: This injury scenario is not applicable to pinnipeds. 

Criterion 21: “Partially severed pectoral fins/flippers.” 

• Large cetacean, small cetaceans, and pinnipeds: Participants at the 2007 workshop 

viewed partially severed pectoral fins/flippers as “CBD/case specific” for each group. 
70 

Criterion 22: “Severed pectoral fins/flippers.” 

• Large cetaceans and small cetaceans: Participants at the 2007 workshop viewed fully 

severed pectoral fins as “CBD/case specific” for large and small cetaceans. 

• Pinnipeds: Participants at the 2007 workshop viewed fully severed pectoral fins as 

“serious” for pinnipeds. 

Criterion 23: “Entanglement, immobilization or entrapment of a certain duration before being 

freed (TBD, species-dependent).” 

• Large cetaceans, small cetaceans and pinnipeds: While anchoring and immobilization is 

considered a serious injury for large cetaceans in existing guidance, participants at the 

2007 workshop considered Dr. Spraker’s presentation on capture myopathy (section 6.0) 

and added this criterion to include animals from each taxonomic group that were 

immobilized or entangled for a certain duration before being disentangled. 

Immobilization for a significant period of time may impact an animal’s ability to survive, 

even after disentanglement. Participants did not discuss or agree upon the length of time

an animal must be immobilized prior to disentanglement for the injury to be considered 

“serious.” Also, while participants considered this to be a “serious injury” for all 

taxonomic groups, they noted that the duration of immobilization leading to a “serious 

injury” was species-dependent. 

Criterion 24: “Body trauma not covered by cases 6, 15, and 16 above (e.g., broken appendages, 

hemorrhaging).” 

• Large cetaceans, small cetaceans and pinnipeds: While head trauma is discussed 

generally in existing guidance (see criterion 6 above), participants at the 2007 workshop 

stated that a criterion was needed to address trauma specifically to the body. This injury 

scenario was included in Table 1 to distinguish body trauma other than lacerations or 

body cavity penetration (criteria 15 and 16). Participants listed this injury scenario as 

“CBD/case specific” for all taxonomic groups because various other factors about the 

injury need to be considered before making a determination of severity. All participants 

agreed that, regardless of the type of body trauma, the injury determination was 

“CBD/case specific” for all species. 

Criterion 25: “Detectable fractures.” 

• Large cetaceans, small cetaceans, and pinnipeds: Participants at the 2007 workshop 

considered this injury scenario to be “serious” for all taxonomic groups. 

Criterion 26: “Hook in appendage, without trailing gear or with trailing gear that does not have 

the potential to wrap, be ingested, or accumulate drag.” 

• Large cetaceans, small cetaceans, and pinnipeds: Participants at the 2007 workshop 

considered this injury scenario to be “not serious” for all taxonomic groups.

Criterion 27: “Animal brought on vessel deck following entanglement/entrapment.” 

• Large cetaceans: This injury scenario is not applicable to large cetaceans. 

• Small cetaceans: Participants at the 2007 workshop considered a small cetacean brought 

onto the deck of a vessel following entanglement as “seriously injured” because such 

handling causes substantial stress and injury to small cetaceans. 
71 

• Pinnipeds: Participants at the 2007 workshop considered a pinniped brought onto the 

deck of a vessel following entanglement as “CBD/case specific,” because their 

physiology allows them to stay out of the water for extended periods of time. Also, the 

severity of the injury depends on the manner in which the pinniped is brought onto the 

deck (e.g., in net, over roller, through power block).

Criterion 28: “Vertebral transection.” 

• Large cetaceans, small cetaceans, and pinnipeds: Participants at the 2007 workshop 

considered this injury scenario to be “serious” for all taxonomic groups. However, 

vertebral transection injuries are most commonly reported as mortalities (especially in 

large whales), as an internal examination is often necessary to observe the injury.

Criteria 29 and 31: “Collision with vessel of certain minimum size (TBD, species-specific)” and 

“Collision with vessel below a certain size threshold (TBD, species-specific).” 

• Large cetaceans and small cetaceans: Participants at the 2007 workshop considered an 

injury “serious” when a large or small cetacean is hit by a vessel above a certain size 

(criterion 29). The large whale breakout group considered that a whale hit by a 

commercial transport ship (e.g., container ship or tanker) is likely to die regardless of 

vessel speed. When any cetacean is hit by a vessel smaller than a certain size (criterion 

31), the injury determination is in “CBD/case specific.” Participants did not discuss 

where to set this size threshold, and recommended that such a threshold be determined 

based on further veterinary and technical input prior to the publication of an official 

NMFS policy. 

• Pinnipeds: Participants considered an injury “CBD/case specific” when a pinniped is hit 

by a vessel above a certain size (criterion 29) or below a certain size (criterion 31). 

Participants did not discuss where to set this size threshold, and recommended that such a 

threshold be determined based on further veterinary and technical input prior to the 

publication of an official NMFS policy.

Criteria 30 and 32: “Collision with vessel traveling at a certain minimum speed (TBD, speciesspecific)” and “Collision with vessel traveling below a certain speed threshold (TBD, speciesspecific).” 

• Large cetaceans and small cetaceans: As with vessel size, participants at the 2007 

workshop considered an injury “serious” when a large or small cetacean is hit by a vessel 

traveling at or above a certain minimum speed (criterion 30). When any cetacean is hit 

by a vessel traveling below a certain speed (criterion 32), the injury determination is in 

“CBD/case specific.” Participants did not discuss where to set this speed threshold, and 

recommended that such a threshold be determined based on further veterinary and 

technical input prior to the publication of an official NMFS policy. 

• Pinnipeds: Participants considered an injury “CBD/case specific” when a pinniped is hit 

by a vessel traveling at or above (criterion 30) or below a certain speed (criterion 32). 

Participants did not discuss where to set this speed threshold, and recommended that such 

a threshold be determined based on further veterinary and technical input prior to the 

publication of an official NMFS policy.
72 

Criterion 33: “Dog bites” (this criterion was not specifically indentified by the Day 4 

participants, but was added by the workshop Steering Committee for this Technical 

Memorandum to fully capture the discussion surrounding dog bite injuries to pinnipeds). 

• Large cetaceans and small cetaceans: This injury scenario is not applicable for large or 

small cetaceans. 

• Pinnipeds: Criterion 33 is highlighted in Table 1, indicating lack of consensus on this 

criterion. The majority of Day 4 participants viewed dog bites as a form of head trauma, 

body trauma, or laceration (and therefore to be subsumed under criteria 6, 15, 16, or 24), 

but the pinniped experts recommended that dog bites be listed as a separate injury 

criterion due to the added potential for disease transmission. The pinniped experts 

considered an injury “CBD/case specific” when a pinniped is bitten by a dog. However, 

the pinniped experts did not discuss what types (e.g., penetrating, trauma, laceration, etc.) 

of injuries resulting from dog bites would be considered serious. 

8.3 Addressing Areas of Uncertainty 

After developing Table 1, Day 4 workshop participants discussed how to address the many 

“CBD/case specific” situations that appear in the table. Participants identified two main reasons 

why a particular type or cause of injury would be classified as “CBD/case specific”: 

• There is insufficient information about the general type of injury and its longer-term 

impacts on marine mammals to distinguish between a serious and a non-serious injury no 

matter how much information is available on conditions surrounding the injury event; 

and/or 

• Distinguishing between a serious and a non-serious injury is possible, but additional 

factors must be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine the severity of such an 

injury on a given animal. Important factors for a given case may include, but are not 

limited to: 

o Age. 

o Sex. 

o Location of the injury. 

o Body condition of the animal at the time the injury is sustained and when/if the 

animal is resighted at a future date. 

o State of the animal upon release. 

o Past injuries incurred by the animal (i.e., cumulative impacts). 

Participants outlined the following general approach to address and reduce the areas of 

uncertainty inherent in the “CBD/case specific” situations: 

1) Convene key NMFS staff from each region responsible for distinguishing serious from 

non-serious injuries along with veterinarians and risk assessment experts on a periodic 

basis, perhaps annually. The purpose would be to discuss and attempt to reach consensus 

on how to assess particular cases. There was also strong support for establishing a peer 

review process (such as the AKSRG process, as described by Wynne in section 4.1) to 

support future serious injury determinations. 

2) Begin developing a probabilistic/risk assessment framework that addresses the varying 

amounts of information available for different species and the corresponding levels or 
73 

shades of gray in each case. There was particular support for pursuing a risk assessment 

approach with relevant risk analysis experts. 

3) Use injury determinations considered “CBD/case specific” to identify priority research 

needs and inform future research proposals. Participants also suggested that the research 

recommendations from the 1997 workshop be reviewed to see whether they have been 

addressed. 

4) Evaluate and refine the framework (i.e., Table 1 and the associated process for 

distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries) over time in an adaptive process. 

8.4 Burden of Proof in the Face of Uncertainty 

Day 4 workshop participants discussed the ambiguity of the term “likely” contained in the 

regulatory definition of serious injury (i.e., “any injury that will likely result in mortality,” 50 

CFR 229.2). At one extreme, likely could mean any probability greater than 0.50 (the chance of 

occurring is greater than not occurring). At the other extreme, likely means just short of being 

certain that death would occur; that is, a very high probability that death would occur. 

Participants noted that the current regulatory definition was inadequate due to the broad range of 

interpretations that may be applied to the term “likely.” Furthermore, the descriptions of NMFS’ 

application of the current guidance (see sections 4.0 and 4.1 above) suggested there was a degree 

of region-to-region inconsistency in which end of this range (greater than 0.50 chance of death, 

to being just short of certain that death would occur) is being applied currently when 

distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries. 

Participants noted potential consequences of interpretations from either extreme of the range of 

interpretations of “likely,” from the potential for over-regulation to inadequate marine mammal 

conservation. As indicated by Pace’s presentation (section 5.1), there are errors of omission and 

errors of commission, and there are clearly some animals that are injured and subsequently die of 

those injuries but are not observed (therefore not included in the existing data sets). In current 

use, any injury not specifically labeled as “serious” (i.e., those considered “not serious” and 

“CBD/case specific”) is not included in estimates of human-caused mortality and serious injury; 

thus, these cases are not included in assessing the status of marine mammal stocks. 

After stating there was no explicit guidance in the text of the MMPA to provide guidance in 

making these interpretations, participants briefly discussed the MMPA’s legislative history. 

Committee reports from the House (U.S. House of Representatives Report 92-707, December 4, 

1971) and Senate (U.S. Senate Report 92-863, June 15, 1972) from the initial passage of the 

MMPA addressed the issue burden of proof. These reports both noted that people who requested 

authorization to take marine mammals carried the burden to show that the requested taking must 

not be to the disadvantage of marine mammal populations or species. The House report 

emphasized that the burden was, indeed, a heavy one. Furthermore, these reports noted that 

NMFS and the FWS should not authorize such take if the burden was not met. 

There was agreement among workshop participants (with the exception of a few) that the term 

“likely” within the definition of serious injury should not be toward the “certain death” end of 

the range of interpretations and should be more risk-averse for marine mammal conservation. 
74 

There was, however, no agreement on what chance of death would be an appropriate threshold 

value. Participants agreed that interpreting “likely” in the definition of serious injury to be more 

risk-averse (i.e., not to only mean certain death) would constitute a change in the way many 

serious injury determinations are currently made. For example, this change would impact the 

current categorization of some fisheries on the MMPA List of Fisheries (LOF), and potentially 

qualify additional fisheries for management under a TRT. However, participants agreed that the 

outcome should not drive the decision. Participants suggested evaluating which stocks would 

benefit, and how the LOF might change if a more risk-averse approach were applied. 

Participants recommended that this be examined during the development of an official NOAA 

policy on distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries. 

The participants discussed alternatives to achieve a more risk-averse approach. One of these was 

to consider an injury as “serious” unless there was sufficient information to conclude that death 

would not likely occur. Another mechanism included modeling the effects of various injuries on 

marine mammals to predict the likelihood of death. If the predicted likelihood of death for a 

given injury is higher than a threshold established as policy, then the injury would be considered 

“serious.” However, not all participants agreed with this approach. One participant noted that a 

scoring system or similar modeling method may give false precision, especially since NMFS is 

expected to make a binary decision (an injury is “serious” or not). This participant considered 

the use of well-defined data fields when distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries. 

Participants discussed various consequences of likelihood thresholds, including the potential for 

over-regulation of human activities and under-protection of marine mammals. However, there 

were no additional conclusions or recommendations resulting from these discussions. 

Workshop participants also discussed other uncertainties involved in evaluating the effects of 

injuries to marine mammals and the need for NMFS to establish guidance to account for humancaused injuries determined to be serious, a management responsibility required by the MMPA.20 

This guidance should account for cases where insufficient information is available to assign the 

serious injury to a specific fishery (for classification of fisheries on the MMPA LOF) or to a 

specific vessel (for ship-strike injuries). These serious injuries and mortalities could be included 

in a general category of fishery-related or ship strike-related mortality and serious injury. These 

discussions are not included in this report because they do not relate directly to the purpose of 

the workshop: distinguishing serious from non-serious injury. 

 

20 MMPA section 117(a)(3): “estimate the annual human-caused mortality and serious injury of the stock by source...” 
75 

9.0 Concluding Comments 

Information and suggestions/recommendations made by participants of this workshop will form 

the basis for a NMFS policy on distinguishing serious from non-serious injuries. The next step 

from this workshop is to publish a proposed policy for distinguishing serious from non-serious 

injuries in the Federal Register for public comment, with a final policy published after public 

comments are reviewed, addressed and incorporated. 
76 

10.0 Acknowledgements 

The workshop objectives were successfully met in part due to Scott McCreary and Eric Poncelet 

of CONCUR, Inc., by their assistance prior to and during the workshop. Their expertise, 

professionalism, and diligence were key assets to the success of the workshop. The Days 1-3 

and Day 4 Workshop Summaries prepared by CONCUR, Inc., along with meeting minutes from 

plenary and breakout group discussions, were used as the basis in writing this Technical 

Memorandum. 

The Steering Committee appreciates contributions from each of the invited presenters and 

participants. Their time and effort in offering updated scientific information and 

recommendations contributed to the achievement of the workshop goals. 

The breakout group session discussions were successful due, in part, to the volunteer session 

facilitators and rappoteurs: Melissa Andersen, Diane Borggaard, Stacey Carlson, Vicki Cornish, 

Christina Fahy, Erin Fougeres, Lance Garrison, Kristen Koyama, Kristy Long, Brent Norberg, 

Jeremy Rusin, Michael Simpkins, Jamison Smith, Lisa Van Atta, Janet Whaley, and Nancy 

Young. 

Lynne Barre provided essential logistical support for presentation sessions. 
77 

11.0 References 

 Angliss, R.P. and D.P. DeMaster. 1998. Differentiating Serious and Non-Serious Injury of 

Marine Mammals Taken Incidental to Commercial FO operations. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSOPR-13, 48 Pp. 

 Baird, R. W. and A. M. Gorgone. 2005. False Killer Whale Dorsal Fin Disfigurements as 

a Possible Indicator of Long-line Fishery Interactions in Hawaiian Waters. Pacific Science 59: 

593-601. 

Campbell-Malone, R., S. Barco, P.-Y. Daoust, A. Knowlton, W. McLellan, D. Rotstein and 

M. Moore. In press. Gross and Histologic Evidence of Sharp and Blunt Trauma in North Atlantic 

Right Whales (Eubalaena glacialis) Killed by Ships. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine. 

Campbell-Malone, R. 2007. Biomechanics of North Atlantic Right Whale Bone: 

Mandibular Fracture as a Fatal Endpoint for Blunt Vessel-Whale Collision Modeling. Doctoral 

Thesis, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint 

Program in Biological Oceanography. 

 Carretta, J.V., T. Price, D. Petersen, and R. Read. 2004. Estimates of Marine Mammal, 

Sea Turtle, and Seabird Mortality in the California Drift Gillnet Fishery for Swordfish and 

Thresher Shark, 1996-2002. Marine Fisheries Review 66(2): 21-30. 

 Cole, T.V.N., D.L Hartley, and M. Garron. 2006. Mortality and Serious Injury 

Determinations for Baleen Whale Stocks along the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, 2000-

2004. U.S. Dep. Commer. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 06-04. 18 Pp. Available at 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/crd/crd0604/ 

 

 Cole, T.V.N, D.L. Hartley, and R.L. Merrick. 2005. Mortality and Serious Injury 

Determinations for Northwest Atlantic Ocean Large Whale Stocks, 1999-2003. U.S. Dep. 

Commer. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 05-08. 18 Pp. Available at 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/crd/crd0508/ 

 Glass, A., T.V.N Cole, M. Garron, R.L. Merrick, and R.M. Pace. 2008. Mortality and 

Serious Injury Determinations for Large Whale Stocks along the United States Eastern Seaboard 

and Adjacent Canadian Maritimes, 2002-2006. U. S. Dep. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. 

Ref. Doc. 08-XX. XX Pp. Available at: 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/crd/crd0705/ 

 Draft Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan (PLTRP). 2006. Submitted by the Atlantic 

Pelagic Longline take Reduction Team to NMFS, June 8, 2006. Available at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/trt/pl- trt.htm 

 Fairfield-Walsh, C. and L. Garrison. 2006. Estimated Bycatch of Marine Mammals and 

Turtles in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fleet during 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SEFSC-539. 52 Pp. 
78 

 Forney, K. A. and D. R. Kobayashi. 2007. Updated Estimates of Mortality and Injury of 

Cetaceans in the Hawaii-based Longline Fishery, 1994-2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SWFSC-412. 35 Pp. http://swfsc.noaa.gov 

 Johnson, A., G. Salvador, J. Kenney, J. Robbins, S. Kraus, S. Landry, and P. Clapham. 

2005. Analysis of Fishing Gear Involved in Entanglements of Right and Humpback Whales. 

Marine Mammal Science 21(4): 635-645. 

 Knowlton, A.R. and S.D. Kraus. 2001. Mortality and serious injury of northern right 

whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 

(Special Issue) 2: 193-208. 

 

 Lightsey, J. L., Rommel, S. A., Costidis, A. M., Pitchford, T. D. 2006. Methods Used 

During Gross Necropsy to Determine Watercraft-Related Mortality in the Florida Manatee 

(Trichechus manatus latirostris). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 37(3): 262–275. 

 Mattila, D. K., S. Landry, E. Lyman, J. Robbins, and T. Rowles. 2007. Scientific 

Information that can be Gained through Large Whale Disentanglement. Unpublished Report to 

the Scientific Committee of the 59th meeting of the International Whaling Commission, 

Anchorage Alaska, USA. Report number SC/59/BC1. 

 McFee, W.E., L.G. Burdett, and L.A. Beddia. 2006. A Pilot Study to Determine the 

Movements of Buoy Line used in the Crab Pot Fishery to Assess Bottlenose Dolphin 

Entanglement. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 34. 35 Pp. 

Moore, M., A. Bogomolni, R. Bowman, P. Hamilton, C. Harry, A. Knowlton, S. Landry, 

D. Rotstein, and K. Touhey. 2006. Fatally Entangled Right Whales Can Die Extremely Slowly. 

Oceans'06 MTS/IEEE-Boston, Massachusetts September 18-21, 2006 - ISBN: 1-4244-0115-1. 

Moore, M.J., A.R. Knowlton, S.D. Kraus, W.A. McLellan, and R.K. Bonde. 2004. 

Morphometry, Gross Morphology and Available Histopathology in North Atlantic Right Whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis) Mortalities (1970-2002). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 

6:199-214. 

 Neilson, J.L. 2006. Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Entanglement in Fishing 

Gear in Northern Southeast Alaska. Master's thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 133 Pp. 

 

 Nelson, M., M. Garron, R.L. Merrick, R.M. Pace, and T.V.N. Cole. 2007. Mortality and 

Serious Injury Determinations for Large Whale Stocks along the United States Eastern Seaboard 

and Adjacent Canadian Maritimes, 2001-2005. U. S. Dep. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. 

Ref. Doc. 07-05. 18 Pp. Available at: 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/crd/crd0705/ 

 

Robbins, J. In Prep. Survival and Fecundity Rates of Entangled Humpback Whales. 

 
79 

 Robbins J., J. Kenney, S. Landry, E. Lyman, and D. Mattila. 2007a. Reliability of 

Eyewitness Reports of Large Whale Entanglement. Unpublished Report to the Scientific 

Committee of the 59th meeting of the International Whaling Commission Anchorage Alaska, 

USA. Report number SC/59/BC2. 

 Robbins, J., J. Barlow, A. M. Burdin, J. Calambokidis, C. Gabriele, P. Clapham, J. Ford, R. 

LeDuc, D. K. Mattila, T. Quinn, L. Rojas-Bracho, J. Straley, J. Urban, P. Wade, D. Weller, B.H. 

Witteveen, K. Wynne, and M. Yamaguci. 2007b. Comparison of Humpback Whale 

Entanglement across the North Pacific Ocean Based on Scar Evidence. Unpublished Report to 

the Scientific Committee of the 59th meeting of the International Whaling Commission, 

Anchorage Alaska, USA. Report number SC/59/BC. 

 Robbins, J. and D. K. Mattila. 2004. Estimating Humpback Whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) Entanglement Rates on the Basis of Scar Evidence. Report to the National Marine 

Fisheries Service. Order number 43ENNF030121. 22 Pp. 

 Robbins, J. and D. K. Mattila. 2001. Monitoring Entanglements of Humpback Whales 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Gulf of Maine on the Basis of Caudal Peduncle Scarring. 2007. 

Unpublished Report to the Scientific Committee of the 59th meeting of the International 

Whaling Commission Anchorage Alaska, USA. Report number SC/53/NAH25. 

 Rommel, S. A., A. M. Costidis, T. D. Pitchford, and J. E. M. Lightsey. 2007. Forensic 

Methods for Characterizing Watercraft from Watercraft-Induced Wounds on the Florida Manatee 

(Trichechus manatus latirostris). Marine Mammal Science 23(1): 110–132 

 United States House of Representatives. 1971. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1971. 

Report 92-707, December 4, 1971. Report of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. 

92nd Congress, 1st Session. 56 Pp. 

 United States Senate. 1972. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Report 92-863, 

June 15, 1972. Report of the Committee on Commerce. 92nd Congress, 2nd Session. 61 Pp. 

 Wade, Paul R. and Angliss, Robyn P. 1997. Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal 

Stocks: Report of the Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (GAMMS) Workshop, 

April 3-5, 1996, Seattle, WA. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-12, 93 Pp. 

 Wells, R. S., J. B. Allen, S. Hofmann, K. Bassos-Hull, D. A. Fauquier, N. B. Barros, R. E. 

DeLynn, G. Hurst, V. Socha and M. D. Scott. In press. Consequences of injuries on survival and 

reproduction of common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) along the west coast of 

Florida. Marine Mammal Science. 

 

 Wells, R. S. and M. D. Scott. 1997. Seasonal Incidence of Boat Strikes on Bottlenose 

Dolphins near Sarasota, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 13(3): 475-480. 
80 

 Wynne, K., J. Straley, C. Matkin, L. Lowry, and S. Hills. 2003. Report from the Serious 

Injury Subcommittee of the Alaska Scientific Review Group. Unpublished manuscript submitted 

to the Alaska Scientific Review Group. 11Pp. Available from the author or R. Angliss, NMFS 

AFSC. 
81 

12.0 Appendixes 

Appendix A: Agenda (Day 1-3) 

SERIOUS INJURY TECHNICAL WORKSHOP 

September 10-12, 2007 

Seattle, WA 

MEETING OBJECTIVES

1) Review information obtained since 1997 workshop 

a. Types and frequencies of observed injuries 

b. Evidence of survival of marine mammals sustaining such injuries 

2) Discuss the use of, and needed changes to, existing guidance in making serious injury determinations 

a. Identify when information is insufficient to determine the severity of the injury 

b. Identify data needs for making serious injury determinations 

c. Review existing data sources for making serious injury determinations, and identify constraints 

3) Discuss potential implications of the workshop 

DAY 1, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 (8:30 AM-5:30 PM) 

Review and Discuss Existing Processes for Making Serious Injury Determinations 

Register through https://reefshark.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/siw/ 

8:00 AM 

8:30 AM 

Late Registration 

Welcome, Introductions, and Getting Organized 

3⁄4 Welcome and opening (John Bengtson, AFSC; David Cottingham, NMFS Headquarters) 

3⁄4 Participant introductions (CONCUR, Inc.) 

3⁄4 Objectives of the workshop (Tom Eagle, NMFS Headquarters) 

3⁄4 Process for the workshop (CONCUR, Inc.) 

• Ground rules 

• Agenda overview 

9:00 AM Review of Existing Guidelines to Distinguish Serious from Non-Serious Injuries (1997 

workshop report) (Robyn Angliss- AFSC) 

9:15 AM Evaluate Current Data and Determination Systems (Session Chair: Tim Cole) 

Current Data Sources 

3⁄4 National Observer Program (Amy Van Atten, NER Observer Program) 

3⁄4 Health and Stranding Program (Teri Rowles, HQ MMHSRP) 
82 

9:45 AM 

10:25 AM 

10:40 AM 

11:40 PM 

12:20 PM 

1:45 PM 

2:05 PM 

2:15 PM 

4:15 PM 

4:30 PM 

5:30 PM 

6:30 

Current Determination Systems 

3⁄4 Baleen whale serious injury determinations in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (Tim ColeNEFSC) 

3⁄4 Small cetacean serious injury determinations in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (Lance 

Garrison- SEFSC) 

BREAK 

3⁄4 Serious injury determinations in Hawaii (Karin Forney- SWFSC and Bud AntonelisPIFSC) 

3⁄4 Cetacean serious injury determinations off the U.S. Western Contiguous Coast (Karin 

Forney- SWFSC) 

3⁄4 Large whale and pinniped serious injury determinations in Alaska (Robyn Angliss- AFSC) 

Synthesis 

3⁄4 Synthesis of regional case studies (Tim Cole- NEFSC)

3⁄4 Non-NMFS evaluation of serious injury determination processes: White Paper of the AK 

Scientific Review Group (Kate Wynne- AK SRG) 

LUNCH (On Your Own)

3⁄4 Large whale disentanglement systems (David Mattila- NOS, Humpback Whale National 

Marine Sanctuary) 

3⁄4 Introduction to breakout group session (Melissa Andersen- NMFS Headquarters) 

Facilitated Breakout Group Discussion on the Evaluation of Current Data and Serious 

Injury Determination Systems 

Breakout group structure and questions TBD 

Breakout group leaders and reporters summarize breakout group discussions 

Breakout groups present summary statements 

ADJOURN DAY 1 

Please join fellow workshop participants at “forty-two,” a unique wine bar in the lobby of the 

Watertown Hotel.
83 

DAY 2, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 (8:30 AM-5:30 PM) 

Review and Discuss New Information from Survival Evaluations and the Pathobiology of Injuries 

8:30 AM 

8:45 AM 

 

9:50 AM 

10:05 AM 

11:05 AM 

12:35 PM 

1:45 PM 

Overview: Questions from Day 1 and Review Day 2 Agenda 

Overview of New Information on Survival of Injured Marine Mammals

Large Whales (Session Chair: Tom Eagle) 

3⁄4 Survival of injured North Atlantic right whales based on photo-id data and longitudinal 

tracking (Richard Pace- NEFSC) 

3⁄4 Survival of injured humpback whales, and other large whales, in the Atlantic and Pacific

(Jooke Robbins- Center for Coastal Studies; John Calambokidis- Cascadia Research; Jan 

Straley- University of Alaska) 

1) Scar-based insight into entanglement and serious injury (Jooke Robbins) 

2) Case studies of injuries and survival along the U.S. west coast (John Calambokidis) 

3) Case studies of injuries and survival in Southeast Alaska (Jan Straley) 

4) Statistical analysis of survival (Jooke Robbins) 

BREAK 

Facilitated Discussion on Large Whales 

Small Cetaceans and Manatees (Session Chair: Karin Forney) 

3⁄4 Fishery interactions in small cetaceans in the mid-Atlantic (Aleta Hohn- SEFSC) 

3⁄4 Bottlenose dolphins in Sarasota Bay, FL (Randy Wells- Chicago Zoological Society/Mote 

Marine Lab) 

3⁄4 Limited information on interaction outcomes for Pacific false killer whales (Karin Forney to 

present Baird et al. scarring study and other photos) 

3⁄4 Injuries and outcomes in manatees (Alexander Costidis- FL Fish & Wildlife Conservation 

Commission) 

LUNCH (On Your Own) 

Facilitated Discussion on Small Cetaceans and Manatees 

2:45 PM 

3:45 PM 

4:00 PM 

4:30 PM 

5:30 PM 

Pathobiology of Injuries (Session Chair: Teri Rowles) 

3⁄4 Predicting lethality from vessel and gear trauma in North Atlantic right whales (Michael 

Moore- Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst.)

3⁄4 Categories and consequences of injuries (David Rotstein- University of Tennessee/NMFS) 

BREAK 

3⁄4 Injuries observed in pinnipeds (CA sea lions, Northern Fur seals, and monk seals) (Terry 

Spraker- Colorado State University) 

Facilitated Discussion on the Pathobiology of Injuries 

ADJOURN DAY 2 
84 

DAY 3, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 (9:00 AM-5:00 PM) 

Breakout Groups Sessions 

9:00 AM 

9:30 AM 

11:30 AM 

11:45 AM 

12:30 PM 

1:45 PM 

3:45 PM 

4:00 PM 

5:00 PM 

Overview: Questions from Day 2 and Review Day 3 Agenda 

3⁄4 Outline breakout group sessions (CONCUR, Inc.) 

o Group composition (TBD) 

o Questions for discussion (TBD)

Breakouts Group Activity 

Session One 

Group 1: Longitudinal/survival rates from a modeling perspective 

Group 2: Categorization of injuries and pathological consequences: Gear-related 

 injuries (i.e., entanglements, hookings, and ingestions) 

Group 3: Categorization of injuries and pathological consequences: Sharp, blunt 

 force, and penetrating injuries 

Breakout group leaders and reporters summarize breakout group discussions 

Breakout groups present summary statements 

LUNCH (On Your Own) 

Session Two 

Group 1: Large cetaceans 

 Group 2: Small cetaceans 

 Group 3: Pinnipeds and other species 

Breakout group leaders and reporters summarize breakout group discussions 

Breakout groups present summary statement/ Plenary Discussion 

ADJOURN DAY 3 
85 

Appendix B: Background Documents Provided to Participants 

In addition to the presentation summaries provided in this Technical Memo, workshop 

participants received the following background documents prior to the Workshop: 

Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Program (AMMOP) Manual. 2005. Incidental Take 

Observer Forms and Instructions. Pp. 4.28-4.41. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/nop/Observer_training_resources.html 

Angliss, R.P. and D.P. DeMaster. 1998. Differentiating Serious and Non-Serious Injury of 

Marine Mammals Taken Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-OPR-13, 48 pp. 

Baird, R. W. and A. M. Gorgone. 2005. False Killer Whale Dorsal Fin Disfigurements as 

a Possible Indicator of Long-line Fishery Interactions in Hawaiian Waters. Pacific Science 59: 

593-601. 

Barco, S. and K. Touhey. 2006. Handbook for Recognizing, Evaluating, and 

Documenting Human Interactions in Stranded Cetaceans and Pinnipeds. 69 Pp. 

 Burdett, L. G., J. D. Adams, and W. E. McFee. 2007. The Use of Geographic Information 

Systems as a Forensic Tool to Investigate Sources of Marine Mammal Entanglement in 

Fisheries. Journal of Forensic Science 52(4): 904-908. 

 

 Cole, T.V.N., D.L Hartley, and M. Garron. 2006. Mortality and Serious Injury 

Determinations for Baleen Whale Stocks along the Eastern Seaboard of the United States, 2000-

2004. U.S. Dep. Commer. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 06-04. Available at 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/crd/crd0604/ 

 Cole, T.V.N, D.L. Hartley, and R.L. Merrick. 2005. Mortality and Serious Injury 

Determinations for Northwest Atlantic Ocean Large Whale Stocks, 1999-2003. U.S. Dep. 

Commer. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 05-08. 18 pp. Available at 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/crd/crd0508/ 

Committee on Characterizing Biologically Significant Marine Mammal Behavior, National 

Research Council. 2005. Rational Management with Incomplete Data. In: Marine Mammal 

Populations and Ocean Noise: Determining When Noise Causes Biologically Significant Effects. 

The National Academies Press. Pp. 69-85. 

 Garrison, L. P. 2007. Interactions Between Marine Mammals and Pelagic Longline 

Fishing Gear in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean between 1992 and 2004. Fishery. Bulletin 105: 408-

417. 

 

Garrison, L. P. 2005. Estimated Bycatch of Marine Mammals and Turtles in the U.S. 

Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fleet During 2004. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-531. 48 Pp. 
86 

Gorzelany, J. F. 1998. Unusual Deaths of Two Free-ranging Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus) Related to Ingestion of Recreational Fishing Gear. Marine Mammal 

Science 14(3): 614-617. 

 Johnson, A., G. Salvador, J. Kenney, J. Robbins, S. Kraus, S. Landry, and P. Clapham. 

2005. Analysis of Fishing Gear Involved in Entanglements of Right and Humpback Whales. 

Marine Mammal Science 21(4): 635-645. 

 Lightsey, J. L., Rommel, S. A., Costidis, A. M., Pitchford, T. D. 2006. Methods Used 

During Gross Necropsy to Determine Watercraft-Related Mortality in the Florida Manatee 

(Trichechus manatus latirostris). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 37(3): 262–275. 

Mattila, D. K., S. Landry, E. Lyman, J. Robbins, and T. Rowles. 2007. Scientific 

Information that can be Gained through Large Whale Disentanglement. Unpublished Report to 

the Scientific Committee of the 59th meeting of the International Whaling Commission, 

Anchorage Alaska, USA. Report number SC/59/BC1. 

Moore, M., A. Bogomolni, R. Bowman, P. Hamilton, C. Harry, A. Knowlton, S. Landry, 

D. Rotstein, and K. Touhey. 2006. Fatally Entangled Right Whales Can Die Extremely Slowly. 

Oceans'06 MTS/IEEE-Boston, Massachusetts September 18-21, 2006 - ISBN: 1-4244-0115-1. 

Moore, M.J., A.R. Knowlton, S.D. Kraus, W.A. McLellan, and R.K. Bonde. 2004. 

Morphometry, Gross Morphology and Available Histopathology in North Atlantic Right Whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis) Mortalities (1970-2002). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 

6:199-214. 

 Nelson, M., M. Garron, R.L. Merrick, R.M. Pace, and T.V.N. Cole. 2007. Mortality and 

Serious Injury Determinations for Large Whale Stocks along the United States Eastern Seaboard 

and Adjacent Canadian Maritimes, 2001-2005. U. S. Dep. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. 

Ref. Doc. 07-05. 18 Pp. Available at: 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/crd/crd0705/ 

New England Fisheries Observer Program Biological Sampling Manual. 2007. Marine 

Mammal, Sea Turtle, and Seabird Incidental Take Log. Pp. 242-266. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/nop/Observer_training_resources.html 

New England Fisheries Observer Program Biological Sampling Manual. 2007. Marine 

Mammal, Sea Turtle, and Debris Sighting Log. Pp. 242-266. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/nop/Observer_training_resources.html 

North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program Manual. 2007. Marine Mammal Interactions 

and Sightings. Pp. 12.1-12.16. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/nop/Observer_training_resources.html 
87 

Pacific Islands Longline Observer Program Manual. 2006. Marine Mammal Biological 

Data Form. Pp. 101-108. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/nop/Observer_training_resources.html 

Pettis, H. M., M. R. Rosalind, P. K. Hamilton, S. Brault, A. R. Knowlton, and S.D. Kraus. 

2004. Visual Health Assessment of North Atlantic Right Whales (Eubalaena glacialis) using 

photographs. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:8-19. 

Robbins J., J. Kenney, S. Landry, E. Lyman, and D. Mattila. 2007. Reliability of 

Eyewitness Reports of Large Whale Entanglement. Unpublished Report to the Scientific 

Committee of the 59th meeting of the International Whaling Commission Anchorage Alaska, 

USA. Report number SC/59/BC2. 

Rommel, S. A., A. M. Costidis, T. D. Pitchford, and J. E. M. Lightsey. 2007. Forensic 

Methods for Characterizing Watercraft from Watercraft-Induced Wounds on the Florida Manatee 

(Trichechus manatus latirostris). Marine Mammal Science 23(1): 110–132 

Southeast Region Pelagic Observer Program Manual. 2007. Bottom Longline Marine 

Mammal Incidental Take Form Instructions. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/nop/Observer_training_resources.html 

Southeast Region Pelagic Observer Program Manual. 2007. Pelagic Longline Marine 

Mammal and Seabird Incidental Take Form Instructions. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/nop/Observer_training_resources.html 

Southeast Region Pelagic Observer Program Manual. 2007. Shark Gillnet Marine 

Mammal and Seabird Incidental Take Form Instructions. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/nop/Observer_training_resources.html 

Southwest Regional Observer Programs Biological Sampling Manual. 2006. Marine 

Mammal Life History Form. Pp. 97-114. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/nop/Observer_training_resources.html 

Spraker, T. R. 1993. Stress and Capture Myopathy in Artiodactylids. In: Zoo and Wild 

Animal Medicine: Currently Therapy 3. M.E. Fowler (ed.). Pp. 481-488. 

 Wells, R.S. and M.D. Scott. 1994. Incidence of Gear Entanglement for Resident Inshore 

Bottlenose Dolphins near Sarasota, Florida. In: Gillnets and Cetaceans, Report to the 

International Whaling Commission (Special Issue 15). Eds: W. F. Perrin, G. P. Donovan, J. 

Barlow. Pp. 629. 

 Wells, R.S. and M.D. Scott. 1997. Seasonal Incidence of Boat Strikes on Bottlenose 

Dolphins near Sarasota, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 13(3): 475-480. 
88 

Wells, R. S., S. Hofmann, and T. L. Moors. 1998. Entanglement and Mortality of 

Bottlenose Dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Recreational Fishing Gear in Florida. Fishery 

Bulletin 96: 647-650. 

West Coast Groundfish Observer Program Manual. 2006. Marine Mammals, Seabirds and 

Sea Turtles. Pp. 8.1-8.52. 

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/nop/Observer_training_resources.html 

Woodward, B. L., J. P. Winn, M. J. Moore, and M. L. Peterson. 2006. Experimental 

Modeling of Large Whale Entanglement Injuries. Marine Mammal Science 22(2): 299-310. 

Wynne, K., J. Straley, C. Matkin, L. Lowry, and S. Hills. 2003. Report from the Serious 

Injury Subcommittee of the Alaska Scientific Review Group. Unpublished manuscript submitted 

to the Alaska Scientific Review Group. 11 Pp. Available from the author, R. Angliss, NMFS 

AFSC. 
89 

Appendix C: List of Participants 

Facilitation

Scott McCreary, Ph.D. 

CONCUR, Inc. 

1832 Second Street 

Berkeley, CA 94710 

510-649-8008 

Scott@concurinc.net 

Eric Poncelet, Ph.D. 

CONCUR, Inc. 

1832 Second Street 

Berkeley, CA 94710 

510-649-8008 

Eric@concurinc.net 

Invited Participants

Melissa Andersen 

NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources 

1315 East West Hwy 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

301-713-2322 

Melissa.Andersen@noaa.gov 

Robyn Angliss, Ph.D. 

NMFS 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

7600 Sand Point Way NE 

Seattle, WA 98115 

206-526-4032 

Robyn.Angliss@noaa.gov 

George "Bud" Antonelis, Ph.D. 

NMFS 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

2570 Dole Street 

Honolulu, HI 96822 

808-983-5710 

Bud.Antonelis@noaa.gov 

Adam Bailey 

NMFS 

Pacific Islands Regional Office 

1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110 

Honolulu, HI 96814 

808-944-2248 

Adam.Bailey@noaa.gov 

Susan G. Barco 

Virginia Aquarium Stranding Response 

717 General Booth Boulevard 

Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451 

757-437-7765 

sgbarco@virginiaaquarium.com 

Lynne Barre 

NMFS 

Northwest Regional Office 

7600 Sand Point Way NE 

Seattle, WA 98115 

206-526-4745 

Lynne.Barre@noaa.gov 

John Bengtson, Ph.D. 

NMFS 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

7600 Sandpoint Way NE 

Seattle, WA 98115 

206-526-4016 

John.Bengtson@noaa.gov 

Hannah Bernard 

Hawai'i Wildlife Fund 

P.O. Box 790637 

Paia, Maui, Hawaii 96779 

808-575-2046 

wild@aloha.net 

Diane Borggaard 

NMFS 

Northeast Regional Office 

One Blackburn Drive 

Gloucester, MA 01930 

978-281-9300 

Diane.Borggaard@noaa.gov 
90 

Diane Bowen 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Marine Mammal Program 

4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 400 

Arlington, VA 22203 

703-358-1709 

Diane_Bowen@fws.gov 

Robert Braun, D.V.M. 

NMFS 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

47-928 Kamakoi Rd 

Kaneohe, HI 96744 

808-239-0440 

Robert.Braun@noaa.gov 

John Calambokidis 

Senior Research Biologist 

Cascadia Research Collective 

218 1/2 West 4th Ave. 

Olympia, WA 98501 

360-943-7325 

calambokidis@cascadiaresearch.org 

Stacey Carlson 

NMFS 

Southeast Regional Office 

263 13th Avenue, South 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

727-824-5312 

Stacey.Carlson@noaa.gov 

Tim Cole 

NMFS 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

166 Water Street 

Woods Hole, MA 02543 

508-495-2087 

Tim.Cole@noaa.gov 

Vicki Cornish 

Director, Marine Wildlife Conservation 

The Ocean Conservancy 

2029 K Street N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

202-351-0452 

vcornish@oceanconservancy.org 

Alexander M. Costidis 

University of Florida 

3700 54th Avenue S., 

Saint Petersburg, Fl 33711 

727-893-2904 

Alex.Costidis@MyFWC.com 

David Cottingham 

NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources 

1315 East West Hwy 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

301-713-2322 

David.Cottingham@noaa.gov 

Jonathan Cusick 

NMFS 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

2725 Montlake Blvd. E. 

Seattle, WA 98112 

360-332-2793 

Jonathan.Cusick@noaa.gov 

Joe DeAlteris, Ph.D. 

University of Rhode Island 

Fisheries, Woodward Hall 

Kingston, Rhode Island 02881 

401-874-5333 

joede@uriacc.uri.edu 

Tom Eagle, Ph.D. 

NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources 

1315 East West Hwy 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

301-713-2322 

Tom.Eagle@noaa.gov 

Laura Engleby 

NMFS 

Southeast Regional Office 

263 13th Avenue, South 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

727-824-5312 

Laura.Engleby@noaa.gov 
91 

Christina Fahy 

NMFS 

Southwest Regional Office 

501 W. Ocean Blvd. Suite 4200 

Long Beach, CA 90802 

562-980-4023 

Christina.Fahy@noaa.gov 

Carol Fairfield-Walsh, Ph.D. 

NMFS 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

949 Laconia Road 

Tilton, NH 03276 

603-731-1333 

Carol.Fairfield@noaa.gov 

Karin Forney, Ph.D. 

NMFS 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

110 Shaffer Road 

Santa Cruz, CA 95060 

831-420-3908 

Karin.Forney@noaa.gov 

Erin Fougeres, Ph.D. 

NMFS 

Southeast Regional Office 

263 13th Avenue, South 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

727-824-5312 

Erin.Fougeres@noaa.gov 

Lance Garrison, Ph.D. 

NMFS 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

75 Virginia Beach Drive 

Miami, FL 33149 

305-361-4488 

Lance.Garrison@noaa.gov 

Frances Gulland, Vet. MB, MRCVS, Ph.D. 

The Marine Mammal Center 

Marin Headlands 

1065 Fort Cronkhite 

Sausalito, CA 94965 

415-289-7344 

Francis.Gulland@noaa.gov 

Aleta Hohn, Ph.D. 

NMFS 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center- Beaufort 

Laboratory 

101 Pivers Island Rd 

Beaufort, NC 28516 

252-728-8797 

aleta.hohn@noaa.gov 

Steven Jeffries 

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife 

7801 Phillips County Road, SW 

Takoma, Washington 98498 

253-589-7235 

jeffrsjj@dfw.wa.gov 

Dave Johnston, Ph.D. 

NMFS 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

2570 Dole Street 

Honolulu, HI 96822 

808-983-5398 

Dave.Johnston@noaa.gov 

Amy Knowlton 

New England Aquarium 

Central Wharf 

Boston, MA 02110 

617-973-0210 

aknowlton@neaq.org 

Kristin Koyama 

NMFS 

Northeast Regional Office 

1 Blackburn Drive 

Gloucester, MA 01930 

978-281-9300 

Kristen.Koyama@noaa.gov 

Kristy Long 

NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources 

1315 East West Hwy 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

301-713-2322 

Kristy.Long@noaa.gov 
92 

Janell Majewski 

NMFS 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

2725 Montlake Blvd East 

Seattle, WA 98112 

206-406-4729 

Janell.Majewski@noaa.gov 

Bridget Mansfield 

NMFS 

Alaska Regional Office 

709 West 9th Street 

Juneau, AK 99802 

907-586-7642 

Bridget.Mansfield@noaa.gov 

David Mattila 

Hawaii Islands Humpback Whale National 

Marine Sanctuary 

726 South Kihei Road 

Kihei, Maui, Hawaii 96753 

808-879-2818 

David.Mattila@noaa.gov 

William McLellan, Ph.D. 

University of North Carolina- Wilmington 

Biology and Marine Biology 

601 South College Road 

Wilmington, NC 28403 

910-962-7266 

mclellanw@uncw.edu 

Michael J. Moore, Ph.D. 

Research Specialist 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 

Mailstop 50 

Woods Hole, MA 02543 

508-289-3228 

mmoore@whoi.edu 

Marcia Muto 

NMFS 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

7600 Sand Point Way NE 

Seattle, WA 98155 

206-526-4026 

Marcia.Muto@noaa.gov 

Brent Norberg 

NMFS 

Northwest Regional Office 

7600 Sand Point Way NE 

Seattle, WA 98115 

206-526-6550 

Brent.Norberg@noaa.gov 

Ann Pabst, Ph.D. 

University of North Carolina- Wilmington 

Biology and Marine Biology 

601 South College Road 

Wilmington, NC 28403 

910-962-7266 

pabsta@uncw.edu 

Richard Pace, Ph.D. 

NMFS 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

166 Water Street 

Woods Hole, MA 02543 

508-495-2253 

Richard.Pace@noaa.gov 

Andy Read, Ph.D. 

Duke University 

Duke Marine Laboratory 

135 Duke Marine Lab Road 

Beaufort, NC 28516 

252-504-7590 

aread@duke.edu 

Jooke Robbins, Ph.D. 

Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies 

5 Holway Avenue 

Provincetown, MA 02657 

508-487-3623 

jrobbins@coastalstudies.org 

David Rotstein, D.V.M. 

NMFS contractor and University of Tennessee 

2407 River Drive, Room A201 

Knoxville, TN 37996 

865-974-8205 

Dave.Rotstein@noaa.gov 
93 

Teri Rowles, D.V.M., Ph.D. 

NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources 

1315 East West Hwy 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

301-713-2322 

Teri.Rowles@noaa.gov 

Jeremy Rusin 

NMFS 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

8604 La Jolla Shores Drive 

La Jolla, CA 92037 

858-546-7101 

Jeremy.Rusin@noaa.gov 

David Schofield 

NMFS 

Pacific Islands Regional Office 

1601 Kapiolani Blvd, Suite 1110 

Honolulu, HI 96814 

808-944-2269 

David.Schofield@noaa.gov 

Gina Shield 

NMFS 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

166 Water Street 

Woods Hole, MA 02543 

508-495-2139 

gshield@whsun1.wh.whoi.edu 

Michael Simpkins, Ph.D. 

Marine Mammal Commission 

4340 East West Highway, Suite 905 

Bethesda, Maryland 20814 

301-504-0087 

msimpkins@mmc.gov 

Jamison Smith 

NMFS 

Northeast Regional Office 

3 Heritage Way 

Gloucester, MA 09130 

978-281-9336 

Jamison.Smith@noaa.gov 

Terry Spraker, D.V.M., Ph.D. 

Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory 

E100 Veterinary Teaching Hospital 

Colorado State University 

300 West Drake 

Fort Collins, CO 80523 

970-297-1281 

tspraker@lamar.colostate.edu 

Jan Straley 

University of Alaska Southeast Sitka Campus 

1332 Seward Ave 

Sitka, Alaska 99835 

907-747-7779 

Jan.Straley@usa.alaska.edu 

Lisa Thompson 

NMFS 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

7600 Sandpoint Way NE 

Seattle, WA 98115 

206-526-4229 

Lisa.Thompson@noaa.gov 

Katie Touhey 

Cape Cod Stranding Network 

P.O. Box 287 

Buzzards Bay, MA 02532 

508-743-9805 

Kt2e@capecodstranding.net 

Lisa Van Atta 

NMFS 

Pacific Islands Regional Office 

1601 Kapiolani Blvd Ste 1110 

Honolulu, HI 96814 

808-944-2257 

Alecia.VanAtta@noaa.gov 

Amy Van Atten 

NMFS 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

166 Water Street 

Woods Hole, MA 02543 

508-495-2266 

Amy.Van.Atten@noaa.gov 
94 

Stephanie Venn-Watson, D.V.M. 

U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program 

SSC San Diego 

53560 Hull Street Code 2351 

San Diego, California 92152 

619-767-4335 

Stephanie.Wong@navy.mil 

Randall S. Wells, Ph.D. 

Chicago Zoological Society 

c/o Mote Marine Laboratory 

1600 Thompson Parkway 

Sarasota, Florida 34236 

941-388-2705 

rwells@mote.com 

Janet Whaley, D.V.M. 

NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources 

1315 East West Hwy 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

301-713-2322 

Janet.Whaley@noaa.gov 

Kate Wynne 

University of Alaska 

118 Trident Way 

Kodiak, AK 99615 

907-486-1517 

ffkmw@uaf.edu 

Nancy Young 

NMFS 

Southeast Regional Office 

263 13th Avenue South 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

727-824-5312 

Nancy.Young@noaa.gov 

Sharon Young 

Humane Society of the United States 

22 Washburn Street 

Sagamore Beach, MA 02562 

508-833-0181 

syoung@hsus.org 

Members of the Public

Richard Lambertsen, Ph.D. 

Ecosystems International, Inc. 

c/o 29357 Hickory Ridge Road 

Easton, MD 21601 

410-253 5039 

rlambert1752@yahoo.com