NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98

Marine Mammal Strandings

in the United States

Proceedings of tIuJ Second

Manene Mammol Stranding Workshop

Miami, FlorU/o,

December 3-5, 1987

John E. Reynolds III

Daniel K. Odell (editors)

u.s. Department of Commerce

January 1991
NOAA Technical Report NMFS _

The major responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMF ) are to monitor and assess the abundance and geographic distribution

of fishery resources, to understand and predict fluctuations in the quantity and distribution of these resources, and to establish levels for their optimum

use. NMFS is also charged with the development and implementation of policies for managing national fishing grounds, development and enforcement

of domestic fisheries regulations, surveillance of foreign fishing off United States coastal waters, and the development and enforcement of international

fishery agreements and policies. NMFS also assists the fishing industry through marketing service and economic analysis programs, and mortgage insurance and vessel construction subsidies. It collects, analyzes, and publishes statistics on various phases of the industry.

The NOAA Technical Report NMFS series was established in 1983 to replace two subcategories of the Technical Reports serie•. "Special Scientific

Report-Fisheries" and "Circular." The series contains the following types of reports: Scientific investigations that document long-term continuing

programs of NMFS; intensive scientific reports on studies of restricted scope; papers on applied fishery problems; technical reports of general interest

intended to aid conservation and management; reports that review in considerable detail and at a high technical level certain broad areas of research;

and technical papers originating in economics studies and from management investigations. Since this is a formal series, all submitted papers receive

peer review and those accepted receive professional editing before publication.

Copies of NOAA Technical Reports NMFS are available free in limited numbers to governmental agencies, both Federal and State. They are also

available in exchange for other scientific and technical publications in the marine sciences. Individual copies may be obtained from: U.S. Department

ofCommerce, National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Although the contents have not been copyrighted

and may be reprinted entirely, reference to source is appreciated.

69. Environmental quality and aquaculture systems: Proceedings of the

thirteenth U.S.-Japan meeting on aquaculture, Mie, Japan, October 24-25,

1984, edited by Carl J. Sindermann. October 1988, 50 p.

70. New and innovative advances in biology/engineering with potential

for use in aquaculture: Proceedings of the fourteenth U.S.-Japan meeting

on aquaculture, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, October 16-17,1985, edited

by Albert K. Sparks. November 1988, 69 p.

71. Greenland turbot &inhardJius hippoglossoides of the eastern Bering Sea

and Aleutian Islands region, by Miles S. Alton, Richard G. Bakkala, Gary

E. Walters, and Peter T. Munro. December 1988, 31 p.

72. Age determination methods for northwest Atlantic species, edited

by Judy Penttila and Louise M. Dery. December 1988, 135 p.

73. Marine flora and fauna of the Eastern United States. Mollusca:

Cephalopoda, by Michael Vecchione, Clyde F. E. Roper, and Michael

J. Sweeney. February 1989, 23 p.

74. Proximate composition and fatty acid and cholesterol content of 22

species of northwest Atlantic finfish, by Judith Krzynowek, Jenny Murphy, Richard S. Maney, and Laurie J. Panunzio. May 1989, 35 p.

75. Codend seleetion of winter flounder PseudJJpleuronates americanus, by

David G Simpson. March 1989, 10 p.

76. Analysis offish diversion efficiency and survivorship in the fish return

system at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, by Milton S. Love,

Meenu Sandhu, Jeffrey Stein, Kevin T. Herbinson, Robert H. Moore,

Michael Mullin, and John S. Stephens Jr. April 1989, 16 p.

77. Illustrated key to the genera of free-living marine nematodes of the

order Enoplida, by Edwin). Keppner and Armen C. Tarjan. July 1989,

26 p.

78. Survey of fishes and water properties of south San Francisco Bay,

California, 1973-82, by Donald E. Pearson. August 1989, 21 p.

79. Species composition, distribution, and relative abundance of fishes

in the coastal habitat off th(: southeastern United States, by Charles A.

Wenner and George R. Sedberry. July 1989, 49 p.

80. Laboratory guide to early life history stages of northeast Pacific fishes,

by Ann C. Matarese, Arthur W. Kendall Jr., Deborah M. Blood, and

Beverly M. Vinter. October 1989, 651 p.

81. Catch-per-unit-effort and biological parameters from the Massachusetts coastal lobster (Homo.rus americanus) resource: Description and Trends,

by Bruce T. Estrella and Daniel J. McKiernan. September 1989, 21 p.

82. Synopsis of biological data on the cobia Rachyantron canadum (Pisces:

Rachycentridae), by Rosalie Vaught Shaffer and Eugene L. Nakamura.

December 1989, 21 p.

83. Celaphopods from the stomachs of sperm whales taken off California, by Clifford H. Fiscus, Dale W. Rice, and Allen A. Wolman. December 1989, 12 p.

84. Results of abundance surveys ofjuvenile Atlantic and Gulf menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus and B. paJrunus, by Dean W. Ahrenholz, James F.

Guthrie, and Charles W. Krouse. December 1989, 14 p.

85. Marine farming and enhancement: Proceedings of the Fifteenth

U.S.-Japan Meeting on Aquaculture, Kyoto, Japan, October 22-23, 1986,

edited by Albert K. Sparks. March 1990, 127 p.

86. Benthic macrofauna and habitat monitoring on the continental shelf

of the northeastern United States. I. Biomass, by Frank Steimle. February 1990, 28 p.

87. Life history aspects of 19 rockfish species (Scorpaenidae: Sehastes) from

the Southern California Bight, by Milton S. Love, Pamela Morris, Merritt McCrae, and Robson Collins. February 1990, 38 p.

88. Early-life-history profiles, seasonal abundance, and distribution of

four species of clupeid larvae from the northern Gulf of Mexico, 1982 and

1983, by Richard F. Shaw and David L. Drullinger. April 1990, 60 p.

89. Early-life-history profiles, seasonal abundance, and distribution of

four species of carangid larvae off Louisiana, 1982 and 1983, by Richard

F. Shaw and David L. Drullinger. April 1990, 37 p.

90. Elasmobranchs as living resources: Advances in the biology, ecology,

systematics, and the status of the fisheries, edited by Harold L. Pratt Jr.,

Samuel H. Gruber, and Toru Taniuchi. July 1990, 518 p.

91. Marine flora and fauna of the northeastern United States, Echinodermata: Crinoidea, by Charles G. Messing and John H. Dearborn. August

1990, 30 p.
NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98

Marine Mammal Strandings

in the United States

Proceedings of the Second

Marine Mammal Stranding Workshop

Miami) Florida

December 3-5) 1987

John E. Reynolds III

Daniel K. Odell (editors)

Sponsored by

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Protected Resources

1335 East/West Highway, Rm. 8268

Silver Spring, MD 20910

January 1991

u.s. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Robert Mosbacher, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

John A. Knauss, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere

National Marine Fisheries Service

William W. Fox Jr., Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
The National Marine Fisheries SelVice (NMFS) does not approve,

recommend or endorse any proprietary product or proprietary

material mentioned in this publication. No reference shall be made

to NMFS, or to this publication furnished by NMFS, in any advertising or sales promotion which would indicate or imply that NMFS

approves, recommends or endorses any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned herein, or which has as its purpose

an intent to cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to

be used or purchased because of this NMFS publication.

Text printed on recycled paper

II
CONTENTS

Introduction

MARINE MAMMAL STRANDINGS IN THE UNITED STATES

v

J .E. REYNOLDS III

D.K. ODELL

R.J. HOFMAN

G.S. MARTIN Jr.

D.K. ODELL

D.J. SEAGARS

E.A. JOZWIAK

J. SCORDINO

S.T ZIMMERMAN

E.T NITTA

G.S. EARLY

TP. McKENZIE

J.E. HEYNING

M.T WALSH

D.O. BEUSSE

W.G. YOUNG

J.D. LYNCH

E.D. ASPER

D.K. ODELL

G.D. BOSSART

M.T WALSH

D.K. ODELL

J.D. LYNCH

D.O. BEUSSE

R. FRIDAY

W.G. YOUNG

D.A. DUFFIELD

J. CHAMBERLIN-LEA

J. C. SWEENEY

D.K. ODELL

E.D. ASPER

W.G. GILMARTIN

An assessment of the accomplishments of the regional marine mammal stranding

networks and some recommendations for enhancing their productivity in the future

History, goals, and achievements of the regional marine mammal stranding networks

in the United States

Legal framework for collection of specimens and data from beached and stranded

marine mammals

A review of the Southeastern United States Marine Mammal Stranding Network:

1978-1987

The California Marine Mammal Stranding Network, 1972-1987: implementation,

status, recent events, and goals

Overview of the Northwest Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network, 1977-1987

A history of marine mammal stranding networks in Alaska, with notes on the distribution of the most commonly stranded cetacean species, 1975-1987

The marine mammal stranding network for Hawaii, an overview

The Northeast Regional Marine Mammal Stranding Network

Collecting and archiving of cetacean data and specimens

Medical findings in a mass stranding of pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) in

Florida

Histopathologic findings of a mass stranding of pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus)

Use of corneal cell culture for R-band chromosome studies on stranded cetaceans

HI

1

7

17

19

25

35

43

55

63

69

75

85

91
J. CALAMBOKIDIS

J. BARLOW

C.D WOODHOUSE

J.T. HARVEY

R.L. DEITER

N.A.OVERSTROM

S. SPOTTE

J. L. DUNN

A.D. GOREN

H.W. KAUFMAN

M.C. CALDWELL

D.K. CALDWELL

Chlorinated hydrocarbon concentrations and their use for describing population

discreteness in harbor porpoises from Washington, Oregon, and California

Marine mammal beachings as indicators of population events

Survival and behavior of previously captive harbor seals after release into the wild

Recovery and necropsy of marine mammal carcasses in and near the Point Reyes

National Seashore, May 1982-March 1987

A resident belukha whale (Delphinapterus leucas) in Long Island Sound

A note describing sounds recorded from two cetacean species, Kogia breviceps and

Mesoplodon europaeus, stranded in northeastern Florida

101

111

117

123

143

151

Workshop Participants

IV

155
Introduction

Over a decade ago, in August 1977, the First Marine

Mammal Stranding Workshop was convened in Athens,

Georgia. That workshop, organized by j.R. Geraci and

D.J. St. Aubin, not only considered biology and pathology

of stranded marine mammals, but it also served as a

springboard for the formation of regional marine mammal

stranding networks in the United States. The ramifications

have been extremely important to the field of marine mammalogy since, for some species, examination or rehabilitation of stranded specimens serves as virtually the only

source of information on distribution, anatomy, physiology, reproduction, and pathology. The First Marine Mammal Stranding Workshop led to increased awareness of the

marine mammals themselves, as well as the logistic and

legal factors associated with effective handling of the

animals.

A number of individuals indicated that they felt that a

Second Marine Mammal Stranding Workshop held prior

to the Seventh Biennial Conference on the Biology of

Marine Mammals (Miami, Florida; December 1987)

would be both timely and productive. Accordingly, we

organized the workshop and scheduled it to occur on 3-5

December. Our goals for the workshop were several, including 1) providing descriptions of some research, especially new techniques, regarding stranded marine mammals!; 2) providing a forum where scientists could interact

and possibly initiate cooperative research activities; 3)

presenting information regarding procedures used effectively to handle stranded animals; 4) assessing ways to

standardize data and specimen collection, archiving, and

retrieval; and 5) providing a forum for assessing accomplishments and status of regional stranding networks to

date, as well as for making recommendations regarding

future activities of the networks. Nearly 100 individuals

representing Federal and State governments, academic institutions, the oceanarium industry, consulting groups,

conservation organizations, and the private sector attended

the workshop (see Workshop Participants, this volume).

The majority of the papers presented at the workshop

are presented in this volume, and they address the goals

stated above. The second and third papers provide a

historical view of the regional networks, as well as a discussion of legal implications of handling stranded marine

mammals. The following six papers summarize the

organization, accomplishments, frustrations, and goals of

the six regional marine mammal stranding networks in the

I In this volume, different authors have used terms such as "stranded",

"beached", and "beach cast" to describe marine mammals on beaches.

Although Hofman differentiates between "beached" and "stranded"

in his paper (paper 2), we have allowed authors to use the term they

prefer to describe dead or live marine mammals that accidently swim

ashore, wash ashore, or are trapped by receding tides.

v

United States. The next nme papers cover a variety of

specific topics including a description of specimen collection and archiving, specific case histories involving marine

mammals, and assessments of the use of certain approaches

(i.e., cytogenetic and pollutant studies) to permit a better

understanding of marine mammal natural history. The

final paper in this volume includes a relevant paper that

was not given at the workshop.

The Second Marine Mammal Stranding Workshop

could not have been planned or held without the help of

many individuals and organizations. The participants

themselves were an active, vocal group whose presentations and discussions were thorough and productive; group

discussion leaders Murray johnson, Charles Woodhouse,

Steven Zimmerman, and Aleta Hohn deserve special mention for their skill in conducting fruitful sessions. Thomas

McIntyre, Robert Hofman, and james Mead were particularly helpful in organizing the workshop. We thank the

Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at

the University of Miami for serving as host for the event.

We also thank Andrew Dizon and Lindajones (National

Marine Fisheries Service) for their help in publishing the

workshop proceedings and Dean Wilkinson (National

Marine Fisheries Service) for his many helpful suggestions

and for his support. Several graduate students at U niversity of Miami (Nelio Barros, Vicki Credle, Michael Carvan, and Miriam Marmontel) contributed considerable

time and energy to help the workshop run smoothly.

Finally, we are grateful to the organizations that provided

monetary support that permitted the workshop to be held,

receptions to occur, and publication and dissemination of

this proceedings volume. Those organizations are Cetacean Society International, Eckerd College, Florida

Department of Natural Resources, Florida Power & Light

Company, National Marine Fisheries Service, Sea World

of Florida, and Sea World Research Institute.

The First Marine Mammal Stranding Network catalyzed considerable research regarding marine mammals

and considerable rethinking of the logistics of dealing with

strandings. We hope that the information contained in this

volume will also be useful to scientists, managers, enforcement personnel, and others whose work involves stranded

marine mammals.

john E. Reynolds III

Marine Science Department

Eckerd College

St. Petersburg, FL 33733

Daniel K. Odell

Sea World of Florida

7007 Sea World Drive

Orlando, FL 32821

An Assessment of the Accomplishments of the Regional Marine

Mammal Stranding Networks and Some Recommendations

for Enhancing Their Productivity in the Future

JOHN E. REYNOLDS III

Marine Sciences Department

Eckerd College

St. Petersburg, FL 33733

DANIEL K. ODELL

Sea World oj Florida

7007 Sea World Drive

Orlando, FL 32821-8097

The Second Marine Mammal Stranding Workshop involved presentdtion and discussion of 22 papers (17 of

which appear in this volume) that considered a variety of

topics (see Introduction). The Workshop also included two

panel discussions, one dealing with mass strandings, the

second with the extremely high mortality of bottlenose

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) that began along the midAtlantic coast in late June 1987. As a culminating event,

workshop participants were randomly divided into four

working groups (with each group numbering about 20

people) to discuss a variety of questions, including the

following:

• What have the regional stranding networks done well

that should be continued?

• What could the networks do better, given adequate

funding?

• What types of research should be emphasized 10 the

future?

• What basic funding requirements are needed for maintenance and for enhancement of network activities? .

• What could be done to standardize data collection and

enhance quality control?

Four workshop participants graciously agreed to moderate and report on the working group discussions within particular groups and to report on their group's ideas to all

workshop participants. Those individuals (Murray Johnson, Charles Woodhouse, Aleta Hohn, and Steven Zimmerman) did skillful jobs in promoting and moderating

discussions and in structuring their reports, and we are

grateful for their contributions.

This paper summarizes the responses of the four working groups to the questions posed above. No effort was

made to determine quantitatively how many participants

agreed with various points; however, the following discussion is based on general group consensus as determined

by each group's moderator. A draft of this paper was sent

to all workshop participants for their comments, and was

revised accordingly.

It should be noted that activities ofthe regional networks

described in papers 4-9 of this volume were not formally

compared or contrasted in terms of their effectiveness.

Wilkinson (in prep.) considers network effectiveness and

makes appropriate recommendations.

Network Accomplishments . _

Workshop participants felt that the networks have done

several things well. First, there was general agreement that

most regional networks had established an effective organizational framework consisting of a regional coordinator(s)

who maintained a data base and who organized volunteers

to respond to stranding events. There was agreement that

the network personnel respond well to unusual events, such

as mass strandings, and that public knowledge and interest

regarding marine mammals has increased.

One important benefit of the well-structured networks

has been publication and dissemination of good-quality

scientific information. For example, anatomical specimens, especially hard parts, have been and are being

collected and used for distributional and systematic studies,

and the results of these studies are routinely published

in peer review journals. Another benefit has been that

people have learned how to evaluate, transport, and rehabilitate abandoned, injured, and sick pinnipeds, manatees, and sea otters; efforts with cetaceans have been less

successful.
2 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

One of the working groups maintained that three important benefits derive from the eflicient operation of the

stranding networks. First, as we gain experience dealing

with live-strandings, and as better communications lead

to shorter response times, the pain and suffering of livestranded animals can be reduced. Second, the networks

provide a means for planning and organizing responses to

human health and disposal problems. Third, the networks

have helped increase scientific knowledge and public

awareness of marine mammals and problems affecting their

health and welfare.

Future Goals _

Workshop participants made a number of recommendations regarding areas where the networks could improve

if there were increased funding available for travel, specimen preparation, salaries, and equipment. The extent to

which stranding networks have relied on volunteers and

"good will" has limited, in some cases, what can be done.

Participants recommended (in no particular order) that individuals involved in regional stranding networks should

do the following:

• Learn to recognize and notify relevant authorities before

initiating investigations of strandings that might be

caused by human activities (e.g., illegal dumping,

harassment, commercial fishing) so as to permit the

establishment of a chain of custody of evidence. Such

notification would help ensure that possible humanrelated mortalities are properly and effectively investigated. Subsequently, efforts could be made to work

with the appropriate agencies to prevent or reduce such

mortality.

• Determine cause of death in all possible instances. Some

workshop participants noted that cause of death was not

determined as frequently as is desirable. Lack of effort,

lack of resources, and lack of appropriate training were

cited as some of the reasons why cause of death is not

being determined in all cases.

• Educate the public and volunteers of the possible consequences of returning live animals to the sea, the value

of studying both live and dead stranded animals, the

methods and purposes of various study techniques, and

the possible dangers associated with contact with both

live and dead stranded marine mammals. The view was

expressed that people generally respond positively when

they are well-informed. Public relations, a problem during some past stranding events, could be improved: a)

by using well-informed people trained in public relz,tions

to deal with the press and with questions by other interested individuals at the stranding events; b) by distributing prepared information packages or brochures

that describe types and causes of strandings, purposes

and methods of investigating strandings, how to report

strandings, and possible dangers associated with attempts to rescue or handle stranded animals; and c) by

providing thanks or acknowledgment for help provided

by the public. Some participants suggested that educating school children would be an effective way to

communicate the importance of studying stranded

marine mammals. The press kits developed by The

Cousteau Society and the Smithsonian Institution would

be very useful.

• Accurately and promptly record, verify, and archive

Level A data (see Hofman 1991). This recommendation

relates to quality control and data standardization, which

we will address later in this paper. Participants believed

very strongly that people responding to and investigating

marine mammal strandings must conscientiously attempt to collect a full and accurate set of baseline (Level

A) data. The view was expressed that collection of inaccurate data could be more harmful than collection of

no data at all.

• Accurately and effectively tag, label, or otherwise mark

all specimens at the time of collection (see Heyning 1991).

Participants involved in developing and using museum

and other collections noted that specimens that are not

accurately and permanently tagged or marked often will

become useless over time.

• Tag or otherwise mark all live-stranded animals as soon

as possible to a) make it easier to maintain records, and

establish priorities for carrying out various tasks; b) avoid

taking duplicate samples or administering duplicate

treatments to individual animals; and c) ensure that

animals that escape or are deliberately returned to the

sea can be recognized as they beach again or are seen

at sea. The latter procedure is important because scant

information is available concerning post-release survivorship and behavior.

• Maintain records of calls not responded to, changes in

operational procedures, and other factors that may

change over time. The stranding networks are still in

their infancy, and failure to keep good records of reporting and other procedures may make it difficult or

impossible to detect or assess the significance of changes

in the nature, frequencies, or locations of strandings.

• Develop and maintain inventories or directories indicating what and where data and specimens are archived.

Such directories would assist scientists and other users

to locate data and specimen materials, and thereby promote research and ensure maximum benefit from the

regional stranding programs.

• Increase communication within and among regional networks. The need for better feedback to participants and

to individuals assisting in stranding events was noted.

Annual meetings of members and others interested in

the regional networks were suggested as a means by

which participants, regional coordinators, and Federal
_____ Reynolds and Odell: Assessment of Accomplishments of Regional Marine Mammal Stranding Networks 3

and State government representatives could review and

agree on ways to improve logistic procedures and scientific protocols for investigating and reporting the results

of marine mammal strandings. For some regions, it was

suggested that data summaries should be distributed to

participants more promptly, and that specimen requests

should be advertised. It was pointed out that computerization of all data at the regional level would

enhance dissemination of information .

• Respond to frequent strandings of pinnipeds, and

develop and maintain a centralized data file for pinniped

strandings, as is being done for rarer strandings of cetaceans and sirenians. In some regions pinniped strandings

occur so frequently that there is little interest and not

enough participants to respond consistently. Some workshop participants felt that more volunteers, and funds

to provide necessary resources to these volunteers, should

be sought and acquired in these regions.

• Train and periodically evaluate the performance of

volunteers, professional staff, and participating institutions. This recommendation, similar to the above recommendation for quality control and data standardization,

relates to quality control; thus, it will be discussed in

greater detail later in this paper. Some workshop participants felt that some volunteers were poorly trained

and had insufficient resources to respond effectively to

stranding events. Others felt that some volunteers simply

do incomplete or inaccurate jobs and that it would be

better to have fewer volunteers involved in investigating

stranding events.

• Increase coverage of certain remote and inaccessible

coastlines to determine frequency and types of marine

mammals strandings there. Periodic aerial surveys may

be the only way to accomplish this. Prohibitive costs of

such surveys could be circumvented if the surveys were

,. piggy-backed" on an existing routine patrol.

It Encourage increased participation by agencies such as

the Coast Guard and National Guard who have manpower and resources that could facilitate handling of

-stranded animals. Mass strandings, especially those involving large whales, would be cases where such help

could be particularly useful.

• Exercise responsibility. ethics, and courtesy in terms

of release and use of data from stranded animals. There

was uncertainty in some participants' minds regard- .

ing to whom stranding data "belong." Data collected

during investigations of both live and dead stranded

marine mammals may be of value to scientists, to State

or Federal agencies responsible for protecting and

conserving marine mammals and the ecosystems of

which they are a part, and to organizations maintaining marine mammals in captivity for purposes of scientific research or public display. As a general rule, data

belong to the individual(s) who collect them or to the

agency that funds or coordinates the investigation.

Thus, as a matter of practice, data should not be made

available to or used by individuals or organizations not

involved in particular investigations without the approval

of the appropriate individual or organization. Conversely, these individuals and organizations are responsible for analyzing and publishing the results of stranding investigations in a timely manner and for making

the data available to anyone with a legitimate interest

in them.

Future Research _

The research recommendations proposed by the workshop participants involved both live and dead stranded

marine mammals. Certain recommendations also involved

research involving methods of program or procedural

assessment. Workshop participants noted that both live and

dead stranded marine mammals provide unique opportunities for acquiring biological and medical information;

scientists should be well-trained and well-prepared to make

the best use of these opportunities.

With regard to live strandings, participants recommended that networks continue and expand efforts to

develop criteria and procedures for quickly evaluating the

medical status of live-stranded animals to focus efforts

on determining why they strand, what happens to them

physiologically when they strand, and how they can best

be treated. Field protocols (including transport, tagging,

and release methods) should be developed and published.

With regard to treatment, it was pointed out that little is

known about survival and behavior of stranded animals

that are returned to the sea, and that tagging and, where

possible, radio and satellite tracking should be done to provide a basis for deciding when and what animals should

be returned to the sea. Indeed, tagging of rehabilitated

pinnipeds prior to return to the wild is required in the

Southwestern Region by the National Marine Fisheries

Service. Similarly, it was noted that criteria should be

developed to assist in determining when euthanasia would

be more humane. A suggestion was made that a paper be

developed and published describing potential benefits and

consequences of returning stranded and rehabilitated

marine mammals to the sea.

With regard to dead animals, a strong recommendation

was made to establish a tissue data bank and to determine

current levels of potentially harmful contaminants in tissues

from recently stranded animals (by species, age, sex, and

geographic location). Participants noted that new biochemical and cytogenetic techniques could be used on

banked tissues to assess the extent to which marine mammals from different groups and geographic areas are

genetically related. Functional anatomical and systematic

research will continue to require access to well-preserved

speCimens.
4 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

As indicated in the previous section of this paper, every

effort should be made to investigate and determine cause

of death. In those instances where human activities cause

mortality or illness, identification of cause-effect rela:ionships can help determine steps required to reduce or prevent the deleterious impacts.

Another category of research relates to standardizing,

periodically evaluating, and improving methods for reporting, responding to, and archiving data from strandings.

This is particularly important if one of the goals of the

stranding network is to develop long time series of data

that will be useful for detecting changes in the nurrber,

species, ages, and other characteristics of marine mammals

that strand in different areas, as indices of the status of wilLi

populations and of marine ecosystems. Participants noted

that changes in procedures and effort devoted to ob~aining reports of, and responding to, strandings could r.lake

it difficult to detect changes and trends in stranding patterns. To provide the basis for identifying and evaluating

possible sources of bias, they recommended that a) complete records of reporting and response procedures and

changes be carefully maintained; and b) directed studies

be done in representative" index" areas to provide baselines for assessing the effects of changes in reporting and

response procedures on such things as the numbers and

proportions of strandings that are observed, reported, and

investigated. Participants also suggested that as many data

as possible be recorded in a digital, electronic format,

possibly using a standard "prompted" entry form.

Funding Requirements _

Discussions of funding requirements covered a variety of

items ranging from administrative support provided by

coordinators, to sponsorship of workshops, to purchase of

equipment and supplies, to support of travel and research

activities. Appropriate funding sources were not determined, although one of the working groups suggested that

the National Marine Fisheries Service and other agencies

should encourage corporate and local government support.

Two working groups suggested that money derived from

fines generated by violations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act be used to support the stranding networks. A

final suggestion was that support be sought locally; for example, a local hospital might be willing to do occasional

clinical analyses.

The most critical funding needs are for equipment, supplies, and travel. Noncapital equipment such as knives,

collecting vials, specimen containers, data forms, scales,

and other tools would greatly enhance the quantity and

quality of the data collected at stranding events. Additional

funds are needed to purchase equipment and supplies for

biological and pathological studies. Another critical need

is travel money, since responses could be consider ably

improved and made more consistent if funds were available

to reimburse investigators and volunteers for fuel, food,

lodging, and telephone costs associated with strandings.

Several workshop participants thought that a contingency

fund should be established to help ensure a thorough

response to unusual situations (e. g., the die-off of about

740 Tursiops truncatus in the mid-Atlantic in 1987-1988).

Capital equipment needs include cameras (essential to

document and verify species identifications); radio and

satellite tags for attachment to representative live-stranded

animals that are released; and personal, IBM-compatible

computers, with appropriate software and hardware for

storing, transmitting, and accessing data files. A suggestion was made that a corporation such as IBM might be

willing to provide computers at no cost or reduced cost and

that regional coordinators should determine computer

needs and make inquiries to determine if they might be

met by voluntary contributors.

Workshop participants felt that stable, long-term funding should be obtained to support the activities of regional

coordinators and of a national stranding coordinator, the

latter being a position that some workshop participants felt

was needed. These funds could provide secretarial support

for data entry into computers, as well as telephone and

general office expenses. Some funds should be acquired to

provide "800" telephone numbers that people can use to

report strandings. A role that might be assumed by a

national stranding coordinator would involve acquiring

funds to enhance regional network activities.

The other general category of funding needs involved

provision of travel money for network participants to attend international, national, and regional meetings related

to stranded marine mammals. The workshop participants

felt that regional workshops and training sessions for

volunteers should be supported because such gatherings

would have important consequences in terms of the quality and quantity of information collected.

Data Collection and Quality

Control Needs _

Standardization and quality control were identified as important needs by all workshop participants. One of the

working groups, in fact, devoted its entire session to these

topics. A number ofspecific and general recommendations

were made.

Standardization, it was felt, should be approached to

ensure that members have common objectives, standardized data forms, and training in collecting, recording, and

reporting various types of data. Communication among

and within regions, via newsletters or periodic meetings,

is necessary to keep people working together toward common goals, as well as to provide both positive and negative

feedback.
_____ Reynolds and Odell: Assessment of Accomplishments of Regional Marine Mammal Stranding Networks 5

Some participants felt that the National Marine Fisheries

Service should take a leading role in efforts to standardize

procedures used throughout the regions, although it was

noted that presently the level of participation and involvement by Service personnel varies considerably from region

to region. Several specific recommendations were made by

the workshop participants regarding ways to enhance standardization. They are as follows:

• Develop and publicize agreed network objectives. Clear

and uniform goals would allow individuals within a

region to work better as a team.

• Have one person responsible for verifying, recording,

and archiving data within a region. Presumably this individual would be the regional coordinator or someone

working closely with the coordinator.

• Hold periodic training sessions to teach volunteers and

technicians how to collect, record, and report data.

Small, illustrated brochures or handbooks could be

developed to accompany training sessions. Training sessions should concentrate not only on logistics of handling

the animals, but also on specimen collection and preservation, methods for taking accurate measurements, and

how to report latitude and longitude accurately.

• Have regular meetings of network coordinators and network members to review the objectives and operations

of the network. Periodic (quarterly) newsletters should

be developed to convey information regarding operational changes, specimen requests, and recent stranding

events within regions. Such newsletters could also be a

vehicle for providing feedback (positive and negative)

to network members.

• Use standardized data forms that are consistent among

all regional stranding networks. Perhaps the form used

by the Smithsonian Institution could be adopted by all

regions. A system should be developed to evaluate standard forms periodically to assess their adequacy.

• Computerize and standardize data archival and retrieval

systems among the regions to make data more accessible

and more comparable.

Quality control was a serious concern among the workshop participants. A general feeling was expressed that network coordinators should discuss and establish performance

standards and a system for periodically evaluating performance of network members. One of the working groups

made some specific recommendations regarding evaluations and standards.

This group began its discussion by examining how individuals become authorized to handle stranded marine

mammals. For cetaceans and pinnipeds, a Letter of

Authorization (LOA) is provided by the National Marine

Fisheries Service to certain people or organizations. Criteria used to determine the suitability of a particular individual to hold a LOA were unclear. The working group

thought that one way to address quality control would be

to encourage the National Marine Fisheries Service to

develop clear criteria that are consistent among regions for

use in evaluating whether a person or institution holding

or requesting a LOA should keep or receive it. Further,

each LOA should clearly specify the authority and responsibilities of the holder. For example, a particular LOA

holder might be restricted to handling only dead animals,

and not be permitted to transport or to hold live ones. LOA

holders should be required to report their activities periodically to their regional coordinator. Minimum reporting

requirements should be specified in LOA's. Finally, LOA

holders' activities should be reviewed annually to determine whether they are complying with the terms and provisions of the LOA (e.g., to assess completeness and accuracy of the data they collect, frequency with which they

provide voucher materials and photographs of stranded

animals, timeliness of their response to strandings, and

their effectiveness as part of a regional "team"). The

review process, it was noted, should be: a) regional in

scope; b) consistent among regions; c) informal, at least

initially; and d) constructive and having a goal of improving compliance with standards of quality. LOA holders who

regularly provide deficient data or who do not respond adequately to stranding events would not be granted an annual renewal of their LOA.

The working group that provided the specific recommendations did not address who should conduct annual reviews

of LOA holders. In many regions, there are very few LOA

holders, so a review process would be easy. In other regions

(e.g., the Southeastern Region) the large number of LOA

holders would make the review process a major task.

Nonetheless, the group felt that a review process, combined

with consistent criteria for issuing a LOA in the first place,

is necessary to ensure consistent high quality among and

within regional stranding networks.

Conclusion _

Considerable thought went into the recommendations

emanating from the working groups. Not all participants

agreed with all of the recommendations described above.

Some recommendations seemed to recur from group to

group. We believe that the following ideas (most of which

require somefunding) were widely and strongly supported by

the workshop participants:

• Communication among and within regions should be

enhanced by newsletters, meetings, workshops, and informal conversations;

• Data should be collected, recorded, and reported as accurately and completely as possible, using standardized

data forms. Computers should be used to help ensure

that data are archived and retrie\·ed in a consistent,
6 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

efficient fashion among the networks. Data should be

recorded in standardized, digital (coded) formats;

• Additional effort should be directed at educating the

public regarding marine mammals and marine mammal

strandings. Public relations could be improved by using

information brochures, by placing designated p.lblic

relations experts at strandings, and by requiring feedback to and recognition of individuals, particularly volunteers, who report or otherwise assist with strandings;

• Criteria and mechanisms to assess performance and to

ensure quality control need to he developed;

• A tissue bank for marine mammal specimens should be

established, archived, and advertised among scientists

who might use such specimens for research; and

• Individuals should be responsible, ethical, and courteous

in their use of stranding data. Acknowledgment of people

who assist in data collection or analysis is important.

The stranding networks have provided an important and

effective framework for humane handling of stranded

marine mammals, for generating scientific information,

and for informing the public. Nonetheless, growth and improvement of the networks is necessary. We hope that the

recommendations provided in this paper will serve as a

useful guideline and form the basis for discussions that will

permit even more effective and humane responses to

stranded marine mammals.

Acknowledgments _

We are extremely grateful to the working group chairs,

Murray Johnson, Charles Woodhouse, Aleta Hohn, and

Steven Zimmerman, for their effective leadership of discussions. We are also grateful to Robert Hofman, who

made his notes regarding workshop group discussions

available to us as a resource as we compiled this paper,

and who commented on an early draft of this paper.

Thomas McIntyre also provided useful comments on a

draft of the paper. We thank Deborah Duffield, who

provided a thorough and articulate closing statement

following the workshop group activities. Finally, we appreciate the willingness of all workshop participants to

express their viewpoints and to work diligently to make

recommendations designed to improve the manner in

which stranded animals are handled.

Citations _

Heyning, J.E.

1991. Collecting and archiving of cetacean data and specimens. In

Marine mammal strandings in the United States: proceedings of

the second marine mammal stranding workshop; 3-5 December

1987, Miami, FL UE Reynolds and D.K. Odell, eds.), p. 69-

74. De-p. Commer.. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 98.

Hufman. R.J.

1991. History, goals, and achievements of the regional marine

mammal stranding networks in the United States. In Marine

mammal strandings in the United States: proceedings of the second

marine mammal stranding workshop; 3-5 December 1987, Miami,

FL U.E. Reynolds and O.K. Odell, eds.), p. 7-15. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 98.

Wilkinsun, D.M.

In prep. Program review of the marine mammal stranding

networks.
History, Goals, and Achievements of the Regional Marine

Mammal Stranding Networks in the United States

ROBERT J. HOFMAN

Marine Mammal Commission

1625 1 Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006

ABSTRACT

This paper provides a brief description of the background, purposes, and results of the August

1977 Workshop on Marine Mammal Strandings which led to the establishment of the current

system of regional marine mammal stranding networks in the United States. It notes that the

networks do not have clearly articulated goals and that it, therefore, is difficult to judge their

performance. It proposes adoption of four general goals: 1) to minimize the threats of beached

and stranded marine mammals to human health and safety; 2) to minimize pain and suffering

of live-stranded animals; 3) to derive maximum possible scientific and educational benefits from

strandings; and 4) to establish long-time series of data necessary to determine natural variation

and detect changes in mortality patterns and other variables that may be indicators of population

and habitat status. It identifies actions that could be taken by the networks and network coordinators to help meet the suggested goals.

Introduction _

The value of beached and stranded marine mammals· no

doubt has been recognized for thousands, if not tens or

hundreds of thousands of years. In many coastal areas,

early humans searched for and used beached and stranded

marine mammals for food and for sources of bone and other

materials to construct tools, weapons, etc. It is not unreasonable to presume that some beaches were searched

systematically, at least at certain times of the year, and that

procedures were established to notify other clan or tribe

members when animals were found and to govern the

dismemberment and the distribution of parts from these

animals. Thus, in a historic sense, the first marine mammal stranding networks were organized and operated by

stone age societies.

Recognition of the scientific value of beached and

stranded marine mammals also is not new. The original

descriptions of many marine mammal species were based

upon examination of carcasses found washed-up on

beaches. Recognizing the relative rarity and value ofsuch

specimens, some of the earliest physicians and natural

• In this paper, lhe term "beached" refers to dead marine mammals that

wash up on beaches and the term "stranded" refers to live marine mammals lhal swim onto beaches or are slranded by receding tides.

historians in several parts of the world may have made

known their interest and established procedures for reporting and recovering beached and stranded marine mammals. Thus, recognition of the scientific value of beached

and stranded marine mammals may date back to the

earliest civilizations.

A cursory review of recent literature on marine mammal strandings indicates that salvage/necropsy and rescue/

rehabilitation programs have been developed and implemented in a number of countries to facilitate reporting of

and appropriate responses to beached and stranded marine

mammals (see, for example, the papers in this volume including Odell 1991; Seagars and Jozwiak 1991; Scordino

1991; Zimmerman 1991; and Nitta 1991; also see Anderson 1982; Easton et al. 1982; Hansen 1983; Seagars et al.

1986; Sheldrick 1976; and Smeenk 1986). Responses vary,

depending upon variables such as the nature and location

of the stranding, the species and number of animals involved, the interest and capabilities of the scientists and

institutions present in the vicinity of the stranding location, and the availability of funding, equipment, and

logistic support.

In 1977, following a mass stranding of pilot whales

(Globicephala macrorhynchus) near Mayport, Florida, the

Marine Mammal Commission received several phone calls

and letters expressing concern that qualified scientists had
8 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

been denied access to the carcasses and that a valuable opportunity to collect certain types of useful data consequently

had been lost. Several persons involved in this and previous

stranding investigations noted that a workshop was needed

to identify and determine how to avoid such problems in

the future. The Commission subsequently provided funds

to organize and convene the workshop, which was held at

the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, in August

1977.

The workshop objectives were to 1) provide a general

review and analysis of available data concerning the nature

and occurrence of marine mammal strandings, and of

stranding theories; 2) identify the kinds of data that could

be obtained from studies of stranded animals and how

those data might contribute to the conservation and protection of marine mammals; 3) identify Federal and state

agencies whose missions were such that they would have

a use for data derived from stranding studies; 4) provide

recommendations regarding the handling, care, and disposition of live-stranded animals; and 5) provide a rationale and plan for a coordinated, nationwide salvagenecropsy program. The principal workshop findings and

conclusions (Geraci and St. Aubin 1979) can be summarized as follows:

• the causes of many strandings, particularly mass strandings of live cetaceans, are not clear and merit further

investigation;

• strandings sometimes provide valuable and unique

sources of information concerning the distribution,

relative abundance, morphology, diseases, and natural

history of marine mammals, and, in some cases, may

be indicators of the status of marine mammal populations and the ecosystems of which they are a part;

• stranded animals provide a relatively inexpensive and

unexploited source of specimens and biological material

for teaching purposes;

• rehabilitated strandlings provide a valuable source oflive

animals for public display and scientific research and

sometimes can be used in place of taking wild specimens;

• the first consideration at any stranding event should be

the care and well-being of live animals;

• means for accomplishing the care and well-being oflive

animals may vary with circumstances and includ~ returning animals to the sea, transferring animals to holding facilities for care and rehabilitation, and euthanizing animals that likely would die or suffer if returned

to the sea and that could not be removed to a suitable

holding facility for care and rehabilitation;

• if live-stranded animals are rescued and rehabilitated,

decisions whether these animals should be released or

maintained in captivity must take into account the

possibility that the animals may have lost their natural

capacity to locate and capture appropriate prey species,

avoid predators, and interact normally with other

members of the species;

• certain types of data-termed" Level A Data" -should

be collected from all stranding events. Additional supplementary information, specimen material, and tissue

samples-termed "Level B and Level C Data"-should

be collected, if and when possible, from all stranding

events (Level A, B, and C Data are described in Appendices 1-3);

• regional stranding networks should be organized and

operated to facilitate acquisition of data from strandings;

provide an efficient means for disseminating data; ease

the efforts of law enforcement agencies; encourage close

cooperation among enforcement agencies, investigators

and institutions; and eliminate conflicts and duplication

of effort among those investigating strandings. The

regional networks should be organized along the lines

of the existing regional organization of the National

Marine Fisheries Service-i.e., northeast, southeast,

southwest, northwest, and Alaska-with separate networks in Hawaii and possibly in Puerto Rico and the

U.S. Virgin Islands; and

• a small, national office should be established to provide

a mechanism for archiving and verifying Level A Data,

and to facilitate communications among the regional

networks.

In response to the workshop recommendations, six

regional stranding networks subsequently were organized.

The regions covered by the networks are the northeast

(New England, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and

Virginia); the southeast (North Carolina, South Carolina,

Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Puerto Rico, and the

U.S. Virgin Islands); the southwest (California); the northwest (Oregon and Washington); Alaska; and Hawaii. In

addition, Dr. Mead, at the Smithsonian Institution, has

continued archiving stranding records, begun in 1973,

although funding constraints have permitted recording only

cetacean stranding data since 1983.

Each ofthe regional networks has a designated individual

or organization that functions as the network coordinator.

Some coordinators receive and archive data, and coordinate responses to reported strandings, while others do

little more than advise members when strandings occur.

Most of the network coordinators have developed directories listing the names and telephone numbers of relevant

Federal and state law enforcement officers, public display

and academic institutions, and individuals who have indicated an interest and willingness to assist in rescuing and

investigating beached and stranded animals. Members of

the networks are authorized to collect specimens and parts

thereof either by scientific research permits or by letters

of authorization issued by the National Marine Fisheries

Service (for cetaceans and most pinnipeds), or by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (for manatees, sea otters, walrus,

and polar bears).
____________ Hofman: History, Goals, and Achievements of Marine Mammal Stranding Networks 9

Stranding Network Goals

Although the report from the 1977 workshop (Geraci and

St. Aubin 1979) indicates what the responsibilities of the

regional stranding networks should be, it does not indicate

or suggest their goals or objectives. Likewise, while some

of the network directories provide general statements of

purpose, none pr0vide clear descriptions of goals or objectives. Therefore, there are no established criteria for

judging network performance.

One of the things that this second workshop could do

is establish goals or objectives and then use these, in conjunction with the information provided in the presented

workshop papers, to judge the effectiveness of the existing

networks and what might usefully be done to improve

them. For purposes of discussion, the stranding networks

should have four general, long-term goals, namely,

• to minimize the possible threats of beached and stranded

marine mammals to human health and safety;

• to minimize the pain and suffering of live-stranded

animals;

• to derive maximum possible scientific and educational

benefits from both live- and dead-stranded marine mammals; and

• to establish long-time series of data which may help to

determine natural variation and detect changes in mortality levels and patterns, contaminant loads, and other

variables that may be indicators of the status of coastal

marine mammal populations and the ecosystems of

which they are a part.

Threats to Human Health and Safety

Beach-cast marine mammal carcasses may contain and/or

provide media for the growth of pathogens that can infect

and kill humans. Similarly, live-stranded marine mammals

may thrash about, or be moved by wave action, and consequently kill or injure humans who come near them.

Therefore, one of the goals ofthe stranding networks should

be to minimize such threats. To accomplish this goal, the

networks, in cooperation with appropriate Federal, state

and local law enforcement agencies, should establish protocols and/or guidelines for recovering, handling, and

disposing of both live and dead animals, and for restricting public access to stranded animals and stranding sites

as and when necessary.

Pain and Suffering of Live-stranded Animals

Live-stranded animals may be subject to much pain and

suffering due to disease, sunburn, dehydration, overheating, suffocation, and/or injury from thrashing and wave

action. Such pain and suffering sometimes can be avoided

or alleviated by shading and keeping the animals wet, by

pushing or towing the animals back into the sea, by transporting animals to holding facilities for treatment, or by

euthanizing animals which cannot or should not be returned to the sea or be transported to suitable holding

facilities for treatment. To help meet the goal of minimizing pain and suffering, stranding networks should 1)

develop and publish protocols or contingency plans for

dealing with live strandings; 2) stockpile essential rescue/

rehabilitation/euthanasia equipment and supplies in strategic locations, and/or publish a directory indicating where

and how such equipment and supplies can be obtained in

time of need; 3) establish guidelines and procedures for

deciding when and what animals should be returned to the

sea, moved to holding facilities, euthanized, etc.; and 4)

maintain an up-to-date list of facilities suitable and willing to hold and care for live stranded animals. Also, network members should include one or more veterinarians

experienced in marine mammal medicine and husbandry.

Possible Scientific and Educational Benefits

Several things must be done routinely if this objective is

to be met. As examples, there must be an effective system

for obtaining reports of beached and stranded animals and

for notifying appropriate network participants of the nature

and location ofstrandings; the Basic Minimum (Level A)

Data and, when appropriate, Level Band C Data must

be collected from all strandings; data must be recorded and

reported accurately, verified, and archived (preferably in

a digital, electronic form); an up-to-date inventory (indicating what, where, and in what format data are archived)

must be maintained; and both the inventory and the data

must be readily accessible, while at the same time the

proprietary rights of the persons who collected the data

are recognized and protected. Interest, capabilities, and

problems will vary from region to region and the regional

coordinators should convene meetings of key network

participants from time to time to review and agree upon

protocols and priorities for collecting and distributing

various types of data and specimen material, and other actions that may help to improve the effectiveness of the network and the utility of the data and specimen material.

Possible Causes of Population

and Habitat Changes

Long-time series of Levels A, B, and C Data can be useful

for detecting and, in some cases, determining the probable

cause or causes of changes in age-specific mortality patterns and the general status of some marine mammal

populations and the ecosystems of which they are a part.

For example, long-time series of Level A Data could provide the basis for detecting both gradual and rapid (acute)

changes in general or age-specific mortality patterns (as

illustrated by the early detection of the 1987-1988 bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) die-off along the mid-
-

10 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Atlantic' coast), while Levels B and C Data may indicate

corresponding changes in,and suggest possible cause-effect

relationships with, variables such as stomach contents,

parasite loads, and contaminant loads.

The utility of long-time series data will depend upon a

number of variables, including their reliability and comparability over time. For example, changes in reporting

or notification procedures, response team interest and

capability, methods of recording and reporting data, etc.

could cause or contribute: to misinterpretation of the data.

Thus, quality control and maintenance of an accurate

record of changes in reporting and response practices are

essential ifstranding data are to be of any value for detecting and monitoring population or habitat changes. If

systems for reporting and responding to strandings, and

the quality of data collection/recording/archiving are

variable over time, the resulting data may have little or

no value for detecting and monitoring population and

habitat change and the time, money, and effort used to

collect such data could therefore be wasted.

Ifstranding data are to be of any value for population

or ecosystem monitoring, two of the principal tasks of the

network coordinators must be to 1) insure standard and

accurate collection of Level A and, as possible, Levels B

and C Data; and 2) maintain an accurate record of any

changes in systems or procedures for reporting strandings,

and the means and frequency ofresponding to such reports.

Summary and Conclusions _

The stranding workshop held in Athens, Georgia, in 1977

called attention, among other things, to the value of data

that can be derived from investigation of both dead and

live-stranded marine mammals and led to the establishment of four regional stranding networks in the continental United States, as well as subsidiary networks in Alaska,

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As

illustrated by the papers presented during this second

workshop, the networks have demonstrated their value,

and have contributed substantially to meeting the four longterm program goals suggested earlier. It also is clear that

some networks are operating more effectively than others

and that a number of things could be done to improve the

effectiveness of each. In particular, if it has not already been

done, each network or network coordinator should

• develop, distribute, and periodically up-date a directory

listing network participants, their affiliations, addresses,

phone numhers, responsibilities, and research interests;

• periodically evaluate the effectiveness of systems for obtaining (reporting) information on the nature and location of strandings, for notifying appropriate network

members when strandings occur, and for determining

when and how to respond to stranding reports;

• establish protocols or guidelines for a) determining

whether and how live-stranded. animals should be

marked and returned to the sea, transported to a holding

facility, rehabilitated, and subsequently released or

maintained in captivity, or euthanized to avoid further

pain and suffering; b) receiving and responding to requests for data and specimen material; and c) disposing

of dead animals;

• clearly describe and develop standard formats and protocols or guidelines for recording, reporting, verifying,

arid archiving Level A, B, and C Data; .

• develop, distribute and maintain up~to-date inventories

listing what and where various types ofdata are archived

and how they can be accessed;

• develop and maintain an up-to-date list of institutions

authorized and willing to care for live-stranded animals;

• maintain an accurate up-to-date record of any changes

in systems or procedures for reporting and responding

to reports of strandings;

• periodically evaluate at least Level A Data to detect

natural variation and possible changes in stranding patterns and other variables; and

• establish mechanisms for keeping network participants

interested and informed, and for periodically assessing

and determining how to improve network operations.

Finally, it is important to recognize that the data collected by the networks are of no value unless' they are

regularly assessed and published. That is, analysis and

publication ofdata collected by the networks is the ultimate

standard against which the value of the networks will be

judged.

Acknowledgments _

The views and ideas expressed in this paper are the product

of discussions over many years with a broad range of

people, including Robert L. Brownell Jr.; Douglas P.

DeMaster;Joseph R. Geraci; Murray L.Johnson; Thomas

J. Mcintyre; James G. Mead; William Medway; William

F. Perrin; and Clayton E. Ray. I also am grateful to

Thomas J. Mcintyre; Daniel K. Odell; and John E.

Reynolds III, who reviewed and provided useful comments

on the initial draft of this paper.

Citations _

Anderson, C.R.B. (ed.)

1982. National contingency plan for cetacean strandings. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, occasional paper

no. 6, 9 p.

Easton, D.F., M. Klinowska, and M.C. Sheldrick.

1982. A preliminary analysis of the British stranding records of the

harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Rep. Inc Whal. Comm.

32:423-427.
_____________ Hofman: History, Goals, and Achievements of Marine Mammal Stranding Networks 11

Geraci, j.R., and DJ. SI. Aubin (eds.)

1979. Biology of marine mammals: insights through strandings.

Marine Mammal Comm. Rep. No. MMC-77/13. U.S. Dep.

Commer. , NTIS Doc. PB 293 890, 343 p. (Available from the

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.)

Hansen, L.

1983. The cooperative marine mammal salvage program: report

on strandings of dead animals in 1981. Southwest Fish. Ctr.

Admin_ Report No. Lj-83-03, 20 p.

Nitta, E.T.

1991. The marine mammal stranding network for Hawaii, an overview. In Marine mammal strandings in the United States: proceedings of the second marine mammal stranding workshop; 3-5

December 1987, Miami, FL a.E. Reynolds and D.K. Odell, eds.),

p. 55-62. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 98.

Odell, D.K.

1991. A review of the southeastern United States marine mammal

stranding network; 1978-/.987. In Marine mammal strandings

in the United States: proceedings of the second marine mammal

stranding workshop; 3-5 December 1987, Miami, FL a.E.

Reynolds and D.K. Odell, eds.), p. 19-23. Dep. Commer.,

NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 98.

Scordino, j.

1991. Overview of the northwest region marine mammal stranding

network, 1977-1987. In Marine mammal strandings in the

United States: proceedings of the second marine mammal stranding workshop; 3-5 December 1987, Miami, FL O.E. Reynolds

and D.K. Odell, eds.), p. 35-42. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech.

Rep. NMFS 98.

Seagars, DJ., and E.A. Jozwiak.

1991. The California marine mammal stranding network,

1972-1987: implementation, status, recent events, and future

goals. In Marine mammal strandings in the United States: proceedings of the second marine mammal stranding workshop; 3-5

December 1987, Miami, FL a.E. Reynolds and D.K. Odell, eds.),

p. 25-33. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 98.

Seagars, DJ., j.H. Lecky, jJ. Slawson, and H.S. Stone.

1986. Evaluation of the California marine mammal stranding network as a management lool based on records for 1983 and 1984.

Natl. Marine Fish. Servo Adm. Rep. SWR-86-5, 34 p.

Sheldrick, M.C.

1976. Trends in the strandings of cetacea on the British coast;

1913-72. Mammal Review 6(1) 15-23.

Smeenk, C.

1986. Cetaceans stranded on the Dutch coast in 1981, 1982, and

1983. Lutra 29(2):268-281. (In Dutch with English summ.)

Zimmerman, S.T.

1991. A history of marine mammal stranding networks in Alaska

with notes on the distribution of the most commonly stranded cetacean species, 1975-1987. In Marine mammal strandings in the

United States: proceedings of the second marine mammal stranding workshop; 3-5 December 1987, Miami, FL a.E. Reynolds

and D.K. Odell, eds.), p. 43-53. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech.

Rep. NMFS 98.
12 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Appendix 1 _

Level A Data: Basic minimum data from all stranding events

(to be submitted to the National Office)

1. Investigator

- name

- address (institution)

2. Reporting source

3. Species

- preliminary identification (by qualified personnel)

- voucher (supporting material)

a) photograph-full lateral view (cetaceans); dorsal view (pinnipeds); dorsal, lateral, ventral views of whole

carcass, with close-up of head (when possible). Include a card with field number in each photo.

b) specimens-canine tooth or entire mandible (pinnipeds); 2 pieces of midrow baleen, or bulla if baleen

missing (mysticetes), tooth counts and samples, or entire skull for difficult species (odontocetes).

4. Field number

5. Number of Animals

- total

- sub-groups (fragmented mass stranding)

6. Location

- preliminary description (local designation)

- latitude and longitude (to 0.1 minute, if possible) with closest named cartographical feature (USGS 1: 250,000

series) as determined subsequently in the lab.

7. Date, time

- first discovery

- of data and specimen recovery

8. Length (Girth and Weight, when possible)

a) cetaceans and sirenians-tip of rostrum to fluke notch

b) pinnipeds-tip of rostrum to tip of tail, lying on back.

9. Condition-recorded for both discovery and recovery times. Categories as follows:

1) alive

2) freshly dead (i.e. edible)

3) decomposed, but organs basically intact

4) advanced decomposition (i.e. organs not recognizable, carcass intact)

5) mummified or skeletal remains only

10. Sex

a) cetaceans-probe genital slit (anteriorly directed are female, posteriorly directed are male)

b) pinnipeds-position of apertures

c) Slrenlans
___________ Hofman: History, Goals, and Achievements of Marine Mammal Stranding Networks 13

Appendix 2 ~__=

(p. 27 in Geraci and St. Aubin 1978)

Level B Data: Supplementary onsite information

(Augments data on life history and the stranding event)

1. Weather and tide conditions

2. Orientation of carcasses

3. Offshore human/predator activity

4. Presence of prey species

5. Behavior

pre-stranding

stranding (on beach)

after return to sea

6. Samples collected for subsequent analysis

A. Age Determination

a) odontocetes-4-5 adjacent teeth from the middle of the left lower tooth row.

b) mysticetes-minimum of one ear/plug, preferably in situ in a sample of externalauditory meatus, or

in a glove finger.

c) pinnipeds-minimum of 1 canine tooth - claw

d) sirenians-tusk, where present

B. Reproductive Tracts

a) females-both ovaries, uterus, fetus (if any) and measurements···and samples of mammary glands.

b) males-one testicle with epididymis, or samples with weights and measurements, baculum (when present), vas deferens.

C. Stomach Contents

- weigh contents, if possible

- preserve in alcohol (never in formalin)

- freeze whole, if possible

7. Disposition of carcass
14 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Appendix 3 _

(pp. 28-31 in Geraci and St. Aubin 1978)

Level C Data: Necropsy Examination and Parasite Collection

I. Necropsy

Precise recording of findings and appropriate preservation of tissue are of great importance to an understanding

of disease conditions. The most important characteristics of an abnormality are its SIZE and LOCATION. Also

important are features such as COLOR, TEXTURE, and SHAPE, as well as the nature of the transition from

normal to abnormal tissue, that is, whether the boundaries are sharp or vague. All findings are described in

STANDARD ENGLISH using NON-TECHNICAL TERMS. Lesions are described using terms such as raised,

flat, depressed, rough, smooth, velvety, warty, yellowish, round, irregular, etc. Photographs should be made

whenever possible, and should include a ruler or some other non-ambiguous reference object.

External ExaminationDescribe all unusual features such as marks, abrasions, parasites; examine mouth and teeth, etc.

Internal ExaminationSamples are to be taken routinely from all organs including brain, muscle, endocrine glands and viscera.

When an organ is normal, a random section should be preserved in formalin. Any abnormality should

be sampled with an adjacent piece of normal tissue. If an organ is studded with many discrete lesions,

all apparently identical, sample only two or three. Describe organs as normal appearing, if that is the

case. Vessels and ducts are normally opened throughout their length. While this is in theory desirable

for the intestine, sampling of two or three tubular sections may be adequate. All major organs are

weighed after cleaning of excess fat and extraneous tissue. Large organs are weighed in pieces, and

the partial weights added. Hearts are normally weighed with a short cuff of aorta.

Preservation of Tissue

Formalin (10% neutral buffered) is the standard fixative. Tissue taken for histology should be fixed in formalin of a volume 20 times the volume of tissue. Tissues should be sliced thin-about 3 mm. Other dimensions are not critical; 3 x 3 cm is a convenient size. Larger pieces of tissue do not fix well.

Whole lesions, e.g., stomach ulcer, may be taken and fixed with good results as the wall of the organ

is thin. When possible cysts and cavities in tissue, pus-filled lesions and fluid found in body cavity should

be cultured for bacteria. Commercial holding media are excellent for the purpose, and their use is recommended. Special requests for research material such as whole organ preparations should only be honored

if accompanied by detailed protocols.

Collection of Toxicology Specimens

Tissue samples collected for pesticide and heavy metal analyses may be wrapped in aluminum foil or placed

in plastic bags. For prolonged storage, glass containers with teflon-lined lids are recommended. The samples

should be frozen as soon as possible, but may be transported on ice without significant loss of residues.

Samples of blubber, brain, liver, kidney and muscle should be collected routinely. Single assays may

be performed with as little as 10-20 g of tissue, but samples weighing 200 g or more are necessary for a

complete spectrum of analyses.
___________ Hofman: History, Goals, and Achievements of Marine Mammal Stranding Networks " 15

2. Parasite Collection

Parasites may be found anywhere within the body, but problem areas are identified as follows:

Head

sinuses

ears

brain

Skin, Blubber

Muscle, Fascia

G. I. Tract

including fecal sample

- liver, gallbladder, duct

- pancreas, duct

Respiratory

- major airways (opened)

- lungs

U ro-genital

kidneys

genital organs

ureters, bladder

Blood

sample or smear

Fixatives

A) Alcohol-Formalin Acetic Acid (AFA)-40 mL of 70% alcohol, 10 mL of 5% formalin, 2 mL of acetic

acid, 48 mL of distilled water

B) Glycerin-Alcohol-5 mL of glycerin in 95 mL of 70% alcohol

C) Potassium Dichromate-2 % aqueous

D) Formalin-5% solution

E) Ethanol-70% solution

Sampling Procedures

subsample when large numbers are present

do not distort

ensure collection of head and tail

sample portion of infected tissue when a parasite reaction is observed, Fix in A if possible

measure and photograph, when possible

I) Nematodes

- fix in hot (16°C, 60°F) fixative B or

- place in tap water in cooler for 12 hours, then fix In solution A

2) Trematodes, Cestodes, Acanthacephalans

- place in tap water in cooler for 12 hours, then fix in solution A

3) Lice, Mites, Copepods, Barnacles

- fix in either D or E

4) Stool Sample

- preserve in fixative C

Legal Framework for Collection of Specimens and Data from

Beached and Stranded Marine Mammals *

GENE S. MARTIN Jr.

Office of General Counsel, Northeast

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

1 Blackburn Drive

Gloucester, MA 01930

ABSTRACT

The Marine Mammal Protection Act generally prohibits the collection of specimens and data

from marine mammals unless a scientific research permit is obtained. Data and specimens can

be collected from beached and stranded marine mammals without a permit, however, under policies

and procedures of the Marine Mammal Stranding Network established by the National Marine

Fisheries Service over ten years ago. But, collection of data and specimens is authorized only

if it does not interfere with the protection of the marine mammal or public welfare. This paper

provides a brief overview of the nature and scope of this collection authority and identifies certain areas of concern that are being examined by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Introduction _

Beached and stranded marine mammals have proven to

be an invaluable source of specimens and data for marine

mammalogists and other scientists. But access to these

marine mammals is not an unconditional right granted to

all. Rather it is a restricted privilege exercisable only to

the extent permitted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). It is, therefore, essential for scientists

dependent upon this source of specimens and data to

understand the legal framework from which their source

sprIngs.

Discussion _

The MMPA establishes a general moratorium on the take

of all marine mammals and marine mammal products in

U.S. waters and lands adjoining those waters. "Take" is

statutorily defined as "harass, hunt, capture or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill" (16 U.S.C. §1362

[12]). This definition of take has been interpreted in reg-

• The views and opinions expressed in this paper are the author's own

at the time the final draft of the paper wa, submitted (February 1990)

.1Od do not necessarily represent the views, opinions, or policies of the

:\atiunal Oceanic and Almosphenc Administration or the lJ niled S,ales

(;overnrnent.

ulations to include the collection of any marine mammal

or marine mammal part, alive or dead, as well as the

restraining of a marine mammal, no matter how temporary

(50 C.F.R. §216.3). In addition, the MMPA prohibits any

person from transporting, purchasing, or selling any

marine mammal or marine mammal product unless expressly provided for in the MMPA (16 U.S.C. §1372).

On its face, then, the MMPA precludes, without other

authority, the collection of any beached/stranded marine

mammal, marine mammal part or specimen.

There are two important exceptions to the MMPA

moratorium relevant to the interest of marine mammalogists and other scientists. One exception authorizes the

take of marine mammals for purposes ofscientific research

if the appropriate permit is applied for and granted (16

US.C. §1371 [a][l)). Theoretically, such a permit would

authorize a scientist to take and collect any marine mammal or parts thereof including beached/stranded mammals.

But the permit process is time consuming, requiring at the

very least 3-4 months to complete. In light of the unpredictable and ephemeral nature of a beaching or stranding, the

scientist would usually not have time to obtain the proper

permit in order to collect a particular beached/stranded

marine mammal or its parts. Therefore, the scientific research permit is generally not appropriate for collecting

beached/stranded marine mammal specimens or data .

A second exception has been construed to create the right

of access to a beached/stranded marine mammal without

17
18 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marin,~ Mammal Strandings _

first obtaining a permit. Section 109(h) of the MMPA

provides in pertinent part as follows:

Nothing in this title shall prevent a Federal, State, or

local government official or employee or person designated under Section 112(c) from taking, in the course

of his duties as an official, employee, or designee, a

marin" mammal in a humane manner (including euthanasia) if such taking is for

(I) the protection or welfare of the mammal,

(2) the protection of the public health and welfare ..

(16 U.S.C. §1379[h]).

This provision serves as the authority for the national

Marine Mammal Stranding Network which was established over 10 years ago and is the primary organization

involved in responding to the beaching and stranding of

marine mammals. The stranding network consists of

volunteers throughout the United States who have been

designated to "take" beached/stranded marine mammals

when the occasion requires. Such a designation has come

from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the

Federal agency charged with administering and enforcing

the MMPA for cetaceans and most pinnipeds, pursuant

to Section 112(c) (16 U.S.C. §1382[c]) of the MMPA,

which grants authority to NMFS to enter into agreements

necessary to carry out the purposes of the MMPA.

In practice, NMFS, through its regional offices, has

designated persons and organizations to participate in the

stranding network through letters of agreement, or other

forms of authorization, which specify the nature and scope

of authority such designees have as stranding network

volunteers. The stranding network is then coordinated by

designated coordinators and/or NMFS regional offices.

Although there is no specific statutory or regulatory

authority under 109(h) to allow the collection of specimens

or data from a beached/stranded animal without a permit,

NMFS allows collection of specimens and data from

beached/stranded marine mammals if the collection does

not interfere with the protection of the marine mammal

or the public. The NMFS considers such collection activities as necessary to the overall understanding of

beached/stranded marine mammals and helpful for both

enhancing their rehabilitation and survival and for promoting important policy objectives of the MMPA. Moreover, NMFS recognizes that collection of data and specimens from beached/stranded animals reduces the need to

collect other animals in the wild and thus serves an important conservation function.

The collection activities are subject to the terms and conditions ofstranding network agreements and NMFS policy.

For a live beached/stranded, animal the first priority is to

return it to the wild if it is deemed able to survive. If the

animal needs to be rehabilitated first and is unable to be

returned to wild, it can be transferred to a facility that has

been duly authorized by NMFS. For a dead beached/

stranded marine mammal, the first priority is to protect

the public health and welfare through appropriate disposition. If these priorities can be achieved, specimens from

marine mammals can be taken without a permit under the

direction of the stranding network designee or appropriate

government employee, who according to 109(h) may be

a Federal, state, or local official.

The stranding network as a primary source of beached/

stranded specimens and data has worked relatively well for

the last 10 years. There are policies and procedures, however, that need to be reviewed and questioned. Some issues

and concerns that NMFS is currently reviewing include

the need for regulations; standardization of letters of

authorization; criteria to qualify as a volunteer; regional

vs. national coordination of the stranding network; emergency response systems; mass stranding policies; funding

and expenses; clarification of state and local participation;

liability policies of/to volunteers and government; and

policies regarding the extent of collateral scientific research

to be allowed. Based on this review, NMFS hopes to improve the efficacy of dealing with beached and stranded

marine mammals as well as the disposition of specimens

and data from such animals.

Conclusion _

This brief overview of the legal framework for the collection of specimens and data from beached and stranded

marine mammals is designed to instill a better understanding of conditions and limitations regarding such collection

practices. Such an understanding will hopefully lead to

more orderly and efficient collection of specimens and data

from beached and stranded marine mammals.
A Review of the Southeastern United States Marine

Mammal Stranding Network: 1978-1987

DANIEL K. ODELL

Sea World of Florida

7007 Sea World Drive

Orlando, FL 32821-8097

ABSTRACT

The Southeastern United States Marine Mammal Stranding Network was formally organized

late in 1977. In the decade from 1978 to 1987, network volunteers reported 2381 cetaceans, including 74 sightings of live whales, and 3 stranded hooded seals (Cystophora cristata). Cetaceans

included 5 species of mysticetes and 23 species of odontocetes. Florida and Texas had the most

reports with 1081 and 567, respectively. The bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), and the pygmy

sperm whale (Kogia breviceps), were the most common singly stranded animals with 1472 and 224

reports, respectively. Twenty-one mass strandings of9 species of odontocetes were reported. Seventeen ofthe mass strandings were in Florida, 2 in Louisiana and I each in Texas and North Carolina.

Although the number of network vol'unteers has increased over the decade and record keeping

has changed from manual to electronic, more attention must be given to the quality and quantity

of data gathered, including species verification. Uniform improvement will require resources that

go beyond the limits of volunteerism. Stranding networks are an almost untapped resource for

gathering basic data on marine mammals.

Introduction _

The collection of biological data from stranded marine

mammals has long been an important source of natural

history information around the world. Biologists have

gathered and published information on a wide variety of

species of marine mammals. These data are often the only

data available on some rare species. In most cases, the

gathering of this information has not been done in a coordinated fashion, but has relied on the interest and persistence of a few individuals. For example, Caldwell and

Golley (1965), Moore (1953), Layne (1965), Caldwell and

Caldwell (1973, 1974), Lowery (1974), Schmidly and

Melcher (1974) and Schmidly (1981) have gathered and

tabulated much of the historical stranding data in the

southeastern United States. In 1974 the U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service and the University of Miami cofounded

a separate stranding network to gather data on the endangered West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) in

Florida and the southeast (see O'Shea et a1. 1985). The

manatee carcass salvage network was relatively easy to

organize and coordinate because of the limited number of

people involved and the limited distribution ofthe manatee.

The U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, created by the

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, recognized the

importance of stranded marine mammals and organized

the first marine mammal stranding workshop which was

held in Athens, Georgia, in 1977 (Geraci and St. Aubin

1979). This workshop resulted in the creation of regional

stranding networks organized within the boundaries of the

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regions (i.e.,

NE, SE, NW, SW). The southeastern network extends

from North Carolina to Texas and includes Puerto Rico

and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Methods _

The Southeastern U.S. Stranding Network (SEUS) was

formed around a core of individuals and organizations that

had been active in marine mammal (primarily cetacean)

stranding work. Each qualified individual/organization

received a Letter of Authorization from the National

Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Office in St.

Petersburg, FL. The letter bypassed the time consuming

permit requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection

Act for stranding work. The NMFS maintains and

distributes a directory of authorized SEUS participants.

Stranding operations and responses are divided into two

categories: dead stranded animals and live strandings. Live

19
20 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings

Table 1

Summary of cetacean strandings and sightings reported to the Southeastern U.S. Marine Mammal Stranding Network from

1978 through 1987 by species and by year. Each animal in a mass stranding or herd sighting is totaled separately.

Species 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Total

BallU1loplera aculOToslTata 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3

BallU1loptera edroi 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 6

BallU1loptera physalus 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 5

BallU1loptera sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

Megaptera nooaeangliae (sightings) 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 2 3 0 10

Unknown balaenopterid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Eubalaena glacialis (sightings) 0 1 0 3 7 6 11 3 3 6 40

Feresa attenuata 1 0 1 3 4 7 O· 0 0 0 16

Grampus gTiseus 0 0 3 3 6 3 7 4 2 2 30

Globicephala macroThynchus 3 7 4 2 1 2 0 11 32 30 92

Globicephala melaena 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Kogia bT<oiceps 18 20 10 25 23 38 24 27 23 16 224

Kogia simus 4 2 5 4 4 3 11 10 4 3 50

Kogia? 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 4

Physeter catodon 2 0 12 0 4 5 1 7 4 4 39

Physeter? 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Lagroodelphis hosti 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 17

Mesoplodon bidens 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Mesoplodon densiTostTis 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 5

Mesoplodon eUTopaeus 4 1 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 24

Mesoplodon miTus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Mesoplodon sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3

Ziphius caoiTostTis 2 1 2 3 2 I 2 1 5 2 21

Unknown ziphiid 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

OrcinUS orca (sightings) 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 16 0 3 24

Phocoroa phocoena 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 7 12

Pseudorca crassidens 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 28 8 38

Stroella attrouata 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 2 9

Stroelfa clymene 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 50 3 3 69

Siroella coeruleoalba 2 1 1 2 1 1 0 7 1 1 17

Slenelfa frontalis 5 1 2 5 2 10 1 1 4 4 35

Stroella longiTostTis 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 7

Stroella? 0 0 0 0 2 6 3 2 2 4 19

Steno bT<danensis 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 12

Sleno? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

TUTSiops tTuncalus 51 32 56 79 117 120 171 144 247 455 1472

Tursiops? 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 1 9 16 35

Unknown delphinid 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 6 1 8 22

Unknown odontocete 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

Unknown cetacean 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 1 0 9

Totals 97 70 104 155 194 228 259 304 383 587 2381

strandings are handled by the several marine zoological

parks in the southeast because of the specialized equipment,

training, and facilities required.

Network participants are provided with standard cetacean stranding report forms (Level A data; see Hofman

1991) and necropsy sheets (a subset of Level Band C data

as reported by Hofman 1991). The Letter of Authorization requires that the Level A data sheet be completed for

each stranded animal examined and returned to the SEUS

scientific coordinator (DKO). Records are tabulated electronically and forwarded to the Smithsonian Institution's

Marine Mammal Events Program for entry into the nationwide stranding database. Participation in the network

is voluntary and the nature and extent of the examination

of stranded animals depends to a large extent on the

resources available to the individual participants. Subregional stranding networks (e.g., Texas) have been established in states that have a large number of strandings.

Each participant is encouraged to work with local law enforcement agencies to respond quickly to strandings in

order to maximize the amount of data gathered. While

some participants have, from time to time, obtained shortterm funding for stranding operations, SEUS operations

as a whole have not received any long-term funding.
Odell: Review of the Southeastern United States Marine Mammal Stranding Network 21

Table 2

Summary of cetacean strandings and sightings reported to the Southeastern U.S. Marine

Mammal Stranding Network from 1978 through 1987, including Puerto Rico (PR) and

the U.S. Virgin Islands (VI).

State

AL FL GA LA MS NC PR SC TX VI Totals

1987 7 210 21 23 18 100 2 47 157 2 587

1986 0 162 11 11 24 39 3 3 130 0 383

1985 2 109 6 49 17 42 1 3 76 0 305

1984 5 78 19 7 6 44 0 3 95 0 257

1983 0 109 19 0 14 27 0 7 51 0 227

1982 1 120 16 0 1 15 0 6 36 0 195

1981 1 88 20 0 6 13 1 6 19 1 155

1980 0 86 7 0 2 2 0 1 6 0 104

1979 0 52 7 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 71

1978 0 67 17 2 9 0 0 2 0 0 97

Totals 16 1081 143 92 103 282 7 84 570 3 2381

It is important to remember that the data presented

herein are based on reports submitted to the network scientific coordinator and that species identifications were not

always verified from photos, morphometries, or meristics.

The vast majority of the identifications are probably correct bue the data should be viewed with some caution.

Results and Discussion _

During ten years of operation the SEUS Stranding Network logged 2381' records, including sightings of 40 right

whales (Balaena mysticetus), 10 humpback whales (Megaptera

novaeangliae) and 24 killer whales (Orcinus orca). There were

21 mass strandings, and each individual animal was

counted separately in reaching the above total. These 2381

events included 5 species of baleen whales and at least 23

species of odontocetes (Table 1). Three stranded hooded

seals (Cystophora cristata) were also reported. The most common singly-stranded species was the bottlenose dolphin

(Tursiops truncatus) with 1472 records, followed by the

pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) with 224 records

(Table 1). The high number of Tursiops strandings in 1987

(455, Table 1) reflects the dieoff that started in NewJersey

inJune 1987 (see U.S. Marine Mammal Commission 1988)

and reached Florida in late November.

Mass strandings included short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) (4 stranding events); short-snouted

spinner dolphin (Stenella clymene) (3); Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) (3); pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata) (3); false

killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) (2); rough-toothed dolphin

(Steno bredanensis) (2); spotted dolphin (Stene/la attenuata) (1);

striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) (1); sperm whale

(Physeter catodon) (1); and Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis

hose!) (3) (Hersh and Odell 1986). Ofthese 21 mass strandings, 17 occurred in Florida, 2 in Louisiana, 1 in Texas,

and 1 in North Carolina.

Florida had 1081 events followed by Texas with 570

(Table 2). The number of events recorded in a particular

state is related both to the amount of coastline and the level

of effort which, unfortunately, cannot be measured. Over

the decade covered in this review, the Florida component

of the stranding network has probably been the most active, based on the number of strandings reported (Tables

2 and 3). Florida records are detailed in Table 3 to give

some idea of the wealth of biological information that can

be gathered. With few exceptions (e.g., Hersh and Odell

1986; Hersh 1987; Hersh et al. 1990; Barros 1987; Barros

and Odell 1990; King 1987; Carvan 1987, 1988; Credle

1987, 1988; Bossart et al. 1985; Carballeira et al. 1987,

a and b), the bulk of the information gathered in Florida

from 1978-1987 is not available in any published format

and the few publications are very recent. While a number

of papers are "in prep.," it will be some time before all

of the data have been properly analyzed.

We do not have an assessment of the actual cost of

operating the stranding network. However, during a census of captive marine mammals in North America (Asper

et al. 1988), those aquaria and marine zoological parks active in marine mammal stranding programs estimated that

they responded to about 850 live strandings/year at an

estimated cost of one million dollars per year (D. Duffield,

Portland State Univ., Portland, OR 97207, pers. commun.

1988). Most of these strandings were pinnipeds (about

700/yr). Many ofthese institutions also respond to and examine dead beached animals. It is clear that the oceanarium community is a significant component in the nationwide stranding program.
22 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings

Table :3

Summary of cetacean strandings and sightings reported in Florida from 1978 through 1987 by species by year.

Species 1978 1979 198C 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Total

Balaenoptera acutorostrata 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Balaenoptera edeni 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

Balaenoptera physalus 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Balaenoptera sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Megaptera novaeangliae (sightings) 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3

Unknown balaenopterid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Eubalaena glacialis (sightings) 0 1 0 0 3 4 3 3 3 6 23

Feresa attenuata 1 0 1 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 10

Grampus griseus 0 0 3 1 6 1 4 3 1 2 21

Globicephala macrorhynchus 0 7 4 2 1 0 0 7 32 30 83

Kogia breviceps 13 14 8 13 16 24 13 19 18 13 151

Kogia simus 2 2 5 3 2 3 10 5 3 3 38

Physeter catodon 2 0 12 0 2 2 0 4 2 0 24

Lagenodelphis hosei 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 17

M esoplodon bidens 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Mesoplodon densirostris 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Mesoplodon europaeus 4 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 1 1 14

Mesoplodon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Ziphius cavirostis 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 3 2 15

Orcinus orca (sightings) 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5

Phocoena phocoena 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

Pseudorca crassidens 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 28 0 30

Stenella attenuata 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 2 9

Stenella clymene 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 2 12

Stenella coeruleoalba 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 7 0 1 14

Stenella frontalis 4 1 2 0 2 6 0 0 1 4 20

Stenella longirostris I 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 4

Steno bredanensis 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10

Tursiops truncatus 35 20 41 43 73 44 40 45 63 127 531

Tursiops? 0 0 0 0 6 0 4 2 5 5 22

Unknown delphinid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 5 9

Unknown odontocete 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

Unknown cetacean 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

Totals 67 52 86 88 120 109 78 109 162 210 1081

The potential of stranding networks for gathering vast

amounts of data on cetaceans is clear. There is, however, considerable room for improvement. Record keeping has progressed from file cards to computer databases

but these records are only as good as the data reported

to the network. Some areas of the southeast are incompletely covered (Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida panhandle, the Carolinas), reflecting the lack of volunteers in

these areas and, more often, the limitations of volunteerism. While improvements can and will be made with

electronic data transfer, the key to improving data collection begins on the beach. More emphasis must be placed

on confirmation of species identification through photographs, tooth counts, etc., and the collection of minimal

data and samples from each specimen (e.g. teeth, stomach

contents, gonads, length, sex). This can often be accomplished with minimal training but, in the end, requires

dedication on the part of the volunteer.

Acknowledgments _

The SEUS Stranding Network has received financial support from The Cousteau Society and the U.S. National

Marine Fisheries Service contract NA81-GA-C-00026 and

cooperative agreement NA80-RAH-00001. I thank all of

the network participants for allowing me to summarize

their data. T. Odell prepared the tables. This is Sea World

of Florida technical contribution 8804-F.

Citations _

Asper, E.D., L.H. Cornell, D.A. Duffield, and N. Dimeo-Ediger.

1988 Marine mammals in zoos, aquaria and marine zoological parks

in the United States and Canada: 1983 census report. Int. Zoo

Yearbook. 27:287-294.

Barros, N.B.

1987. Food habits of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the
____________ Odell: Review of the Southeastern United States Marine Mammal Stranding Network 23

southeastern United States, with special reference to Florida

waters. M.S. thesis, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL,

x + 139 p.

Barros, N.B., and O.K. Odell.

1990. Food habits of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the

southeastern United States. In The bottlenose dolphin; recent

progress in research (S. Leatherwood and R. Reeves, eds.), p.

309-328. Acad. Press, San Diego, CA.

Bossart, G.D., O.K. Odell, and N.H. Altman.

1985. Cardiomyopathy in stranded pygmy and dwarfsperm whales.

J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 187(11):1137-1140.

Caldwell, O.K., and M.C. Caldwell.

1973. Marine mammals of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. In A summary of knowledge of the eastern Gulf of Mexico 0.1. Jones, R.E.

Ring, M.O. Rinkel, and R.E. Smith, eds.), p. 1-23. The State

University System of Florida, Institute of Oceanography, St.

Petersburg, FL.

1974. Marine mammals from the southeastern United States: Cape

Hatteras to Cape Canaveral. In A socioeconomic environmental baseline summary for the south Atlantic region between Cape

Hatteras, NC and Cape Canaveral, FL, Vol. 3, p. 704-722.

Virginia Inst. Mar. Sci., Gloucester Point, VA.

Caldwell, D.K, and F.B. Golley.

1965. Marine mammals from the coasts of Georgia to Cape Hatteras. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 81:24-32.

Carballeira, A., J.W. Brown, L.M. Fishman, D. Trujillo, and

O.K. Odell.

1987a. The adrenal gland of stranded whales (Kagia hreviceps

and Mesoplodon europaeus): morphology, hormonal contents and

biosynthesis of corticosteroids. Gen. Compo Endocrinol. 68:

293-303.

Carballeira, A., J.W. Brown, L.M. Fishman, C. Bertetta, and

G. D. Bossart.

1987b. The adrenal gland of stranded whales (Kogia hreviceps

and Mesoplodon europaeus): In vitro modulation of mitochondrial

steroid enzyme activities. Gen. Compo Endocrinol. 68:

304-312.

Carvan, M.J. III.

1987. Comparison of magnetic resonance and computed tomography imaging for use in the descriptive anatomy of sound production of Kogia spp. Abstracts, seventh biennial conference on

the biology of marine mammals; 5-9 December 1987, Miami, FL,

p. 10.

1988. The descriptive anatomy ofsound production and propagation tissues in Kogia spp. using magnetic resonance and computed

tomography imaging. M.S. thesis, Univ. Miami, Coral Gables,

FL, viii + 72 p.

Credle, V.R.

1987. Biogenic magnetite isolated from the dura of pygmy sperm

whales. Abstracts, seventh biennial conference on the biology of

marine mammals; 5-9 December 1987, Miami, FL, p. 14.

1988. Magnetite and magnetoreception in stranded dwarf and

pygmy sperm whales, Kogia simus and Kogia breoiaps. M.S. thesis,

Univ. Miami, Coral Gables, FL, viii + 68 p.

Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin.

1979. Biology of marine mammals: insights through strandings.

Marine Mammal Comm. Rep. No. MMC-77/13. U.S. Dep.

Commer., NTIS Doc. PB 293890,343 p. (Available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161).

Hersh, S.L.

1987. Characterization and differentiation of bottlenose dolphin

populations (genus Tursiops) in the southeastern U.S. based on

mortality patterns and morphometries. Ph.D. diss., Univ.

Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 213 p.

Hersh, S.L., and O.K. Odell.

1986. Mass stranding of Fraser's dolphin, Lagenodelphis hosei, in the

western North Atlantic. Marine Mammal Sci. 2(1):73-76.

Hersh, S.L., O.K. Odell, and E.D. Asper.

1990. Bottlenose dolphin (genus Tursiops) mortality patterns in the

Indian/Banana river system of Florida. In The bottlenose dolphin

(S. Leatherwood and R. Reeves, eds.), p. 155-164. Acad. Press,

San Diego, CA.

Hofman, R.J.

1991. History, goals, and achievements of the regional marIne

mammal stranding networks in the United States. In Marine

mammal strandings in the United States: proceedings of the second marine mammal stranding workshop; 3-5 December 1987,

Miami, FL O.E. Reynolds and D.K. Odell, eds.), p. 7-15. Dep.

Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 98.

King, C.A.

1987. Organochlorines in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)

and pygmy sperm whales (Kogia hreviceps) from southeastern

Florida. M.S. thesis, Univ. Miami, Coral Gables, FL, viii +

92 p.

Layne,J.N.

1965. Observations on marine mammals in Florida waters. Bull.

Florida St. Mus. 9:131-181.

Lowery, G.H.

1974. The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters. Louisiana State Univ. Press, Baton Rouge, 565 p.

Moore, J.C.

1953. Distribution and abundance of marine mammals to Florida

waters. Am. MidI. Natur. 49(1):117-158.

O'Shea, T.J., C.A. Beck, R.K. Bonde, H.I. Kochman, and

O.K. ODELL.

1985. An analysis of manatee mortality patterns in Florida,

1976-81. J. Wildl. Manage. 49(1):1-11.

Schmidly, D.J.

1981 . Marine mammals of the southeastern United States coast and

the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of

Biological Services, Washington, D.C., FWS/OBS-80-41 163 p.

Schmidly, D.J., and B.A. Melcher.

1974. Annotated checklist and key to cetaceans of Texas waters.

Southwest. Nat. 18(4):453-464.

U.S. Marine Mammal Commission.

1988. Annual report of the Marine Mammal Commission, calendar year 1987. U.S. Marine Mammal Commission , Washington,

DC, 209 p.

The California Marine Mammal Stranding Network, 1972-1987:

Implementation, Status, Recent Events, and Goals

DANA J. SEAGARS* and ELIZABETH A. JOZWIAK**

Southwest Region

National Marine Fisheries Service

300 South Ferry Street

Terminal Island, CA 90731

ABSTRACT

Animals found stranded on California beaches have been of interest to scientists and the general

public for many years. In 1980, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) took a lead role

to organize a state-wide network designed to coordinate the response to cetacean, pinniped, and

sea turtle stranding events. Response typically flows through 3 tiers: 1) the public report strandings to 2) cooperators (state or local officials) who contact 3) participants (museum affiliates or

rehabilitation centers) who examine or otherwise handle the stranded animal. Reports of strandings are submitted to the NMFS on a monthly basis. From 1982 to 1987, 483 cetacean strandings were reported (annual x = 80); species reported most frequently include harbor porpoise

Phocoena phocoena); common dolphin (Delphinus delphis); gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus); Pacific

white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens); and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Between 346 and 2286 pinnipeds were reported annually from 1983 to 1987 (annual x = 883).

While there are limitations on their uses, these data are useful to managers as an early warning

system for anomalous events in the wild (e. g., fishery related mortality and epizootics). Pinniped

rehabilitation centers authorized by the NMFS provide care to hundreds of sick or injured animals

each year. A preliminary analysis of the fate of released pinnipeds indicates they are being assimilated into wild populations and are not contributing to marine mammal-human interactions.

Introduction _

Stranded marine mammals have been of public and scientific interest for many years in California (Cope 1869; Dall

1873). Many universities, museums, and other institutions

have collected and studied stranded animals largely on a

local basis since the late 1940's and early 1950's (Hubbs

1946; Orr 1953). Of the U. S. institutions that house large

marine mammal collections (> 150 specimens), 8 of20 are

located in California (Hansen et al. 1979) and much of their

material was obtained from strandings. Despite this interest, it was not until early 1973, following passage of the

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), that

a statewide approach was implemented to coordinate

'Present address: Marine Mammal Field Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, AK 99503.

"Present address: Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, 2139 Ski Hill Road,

Soldotna, AK 99669.

responses to, and the collection of data from, marine mammal stranding events on the California coast. This paper

reviews the evolution, organization, and information flow

of the California Marine Mammal Stranding Network

(CMMSN). This review summarizes information reported

by the CMMSN, discusses the value of such a program,

and identifies mechanisms which may facilitate achieving

CMMSN goals. While this paper focuses on marine mammal stranding events, it also applies to the relatively rare

occurrence of sea turtle strandings. Because there are no

sea turtle breeding beaches located in California, sea turtle strandings are viewed as events of interest and have been

incorporated within network consideration.

Evolution of the CMMSN _

Prior to 1973, regionally focused scientific institutions,

educational units, and public aquaria investigated and

responded to marine mammal stranding events in Califor25
26 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Current Network Organization _

Figure 1

Schematic of the CMMSN response process for a stranded marine

animal. Inset shows organizational designations used in text.

THE PUBLlC~ ,

UNCOMMON

TYPE

OF

SPECIES

COOPERATORS

IPARTICIPANTSI

MJSELt.1 OR

~IVERSITY

S1U>Y COlLECTION

NMFS

SOUTHWEST

REGION & CENTER

DEAD

BEACH BURIAl,

LANDFU,OR

RENDERING PLANT

COMMON

ANIMAL

CONDITION

LOCAL ANIMAL

CONTROL POUCE.

LFEGUARDS. ETC.

PLACEMENT N PERMTTED

PlElIC DlSPLAY OR

SCENTFIC FACUTES

DIES

I

ANIMAL

STATUS

ALIVE

REHABLITATION

CENTERS

.. WHO YA ? ?

GONNA ., '? CALL "

CALF. DEPT. OF

FISH & GAME

MARINE WARDENS

Any dead marine mammal on a beach or floating nearshore is considered to be "stranded." A live marine

mammal out of its element is considered to be

"stranded." Therefore, any live cetacean on the beach

is considered to be "stranded." Aside from regular

haulout or breeding sites, live pinnipeds that haulout on

mainland California beaches subject to frequent or

habitual human use are considered to be "stranded."

Pinnipeds hauled out in more remote areas require a

24-48 hour observation period before they are considered to be "stranded." This allows an animal time

to rest and to return to the sea on its own. Pinnipeds

on offshore islands are considered to be in their element

and despite any obvious physical disability and are not

considered to be "stranded."

RELEASE BACK

INTOTf£ WLD

(WITH TAGS)

RECOVERY~ UNFIT FOR RELEASE

The CMMSN is organized along a three-tiered system consisting of the public, cooperators, and participants (Fig.

1, inset). A member of the public encountering a stranded animal on the beach would likely contact a "cooperator"

in the CMMSN. This category encompasses over 150 local,

• to establish a mechanism ensuring that a legal, coordinated, and appropriate response is made to stranding

events;

• to coordinate mechanisms for the treatment of live

stranded animals and to monitor their ultimate disposition;

• to collect basic scientific information from stranded

animals;

• to analyze these data and to use them to monitor the

frequency of stranding events; and

• to disseminate this information for scientific and public

purposes so that marine mammal populations may be

better understood and managed.

For the purposes of this regional network the following

definition was developed to identify a "stranding event":

nia. Some organizations had acquired written autl:orization from, or cooperated with, the California Department

of Fish and Game (CDFG). The degree to which an organization coordinated response activities with other institutions varied with curatorial interest and availability;

it generally was provincial in nature. Record keeping and

quality varied over time within many institutions. Data

collected were neither standardized among organizations

nor collected on a statewide basis.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) became

involved with management of California marine mammal

stranding events shortly after the passage of the MMPA

in late 1972. In March, 1973, the NMFS contracted with

the CDFG to assist in the enforcement of MMPA regulations. This included investigation of marine mammal

stranding events and the collection of data through the existing framework of CDFG marine wardens.

At the first marine mammal stranding workshop held

in Athens, Georgia, in 1977, Nitta (1979) proposed that

a more formalized California network be established to

coordinate stranding responses better and to facilitate data

collection and analysis. Owing to an increasing frequency

of stranding related inquiries, the NMFS, Southwest

Regional office (SWR) conducted an informal review of

the stranding program in 1981. This review found that

many stranded animals were not examined, report~ were

not being filed with the CDFG or the NMFS, some institutions were operating without written authority, and

that many organizations were not coordinating or cooperating with similar groups within close geographic areas.

In order to rectify these problems and to ensure valuable

data were not lost, the SWR began a program to reorganize

the network. Letters of Authorization were issued, the

Marine Mammal and Marine Turtle Data Record was

revised, and the existence of federally authorized institutions that were available to respond to stranding events was

publicized. We began by developing the following network

goals:
________________ Seagars and Jozwiak: The California Marine Mammal Stranding Network 27

\

\

\

\

\

\

/

/

l

./

/

./

i

i

\

Figure 2

Geographic subdivisions of the

CMMSN and the distribution of

strandings during 1983 and 1984.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

SANTA

1984 .I-··~-~~

II: 1983 1-----..;.;.;.;;;.;.;;;;;........

oC

w

>-

1983 t SAN FRANCISCO

1984~

NUMBER

o 100 200 300 400 1,095

r----..--.------~..,.---------r-i \~

1983F NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

1984P

19841i1r-~

1,095

1983 r77'.,....,-.,....,-:....~:::~:::::~:::-:.~:::~:::-:~>~::""::-:"">:,,,,::,,,,::~:.:~::~:::::::::~

LOS ANGELES/ORANGE COUNTY

1983 ~====Z=J

o PINNIPEDS

• CETACEANS

1984

state, and Federal units responsible for beach front management, including: life guards, city animal control, county

beach maintenance, police, state marine wardens, park

rangers, and harbor patrol units. Authorization for cooperators to do something with the animal (e.g., burial of

dead pinnipeds, or transport of live animals requiring treatment) is granted by 50 CFR 216.22, a regulation that has

been interpreted to allow state and local officials to take

a "stranded" marine mammal humanely in the course of

their normal duties for the welfare of either the marine

mammal or the public. In cases where some additional

response is indicated, or long-term animal care is desirable,

the cooperator contacts a "participant." Participants include both scientific and educational imtitutions responding to dead animals and rehabilitation centers responding

to live animals. Participants are delegated under NMFS

authority to "take" a stranded animal via a Letter of

Authorization (LOA) issued by the Regional Director,

SWR. These LOA's have terms and conditions that are

consistent with Federal regulations. Currently there are

seven rehabilitation centers (with one more anticipated)

and 15 scientific institutions covered by LOA's.

The response to an event can be complicated, especially

when it involves transfers between various types of organizations. The path leading to a response often is viewed

as particularly confusing by observers responding to a

stranding event for the first time (Fig. 1). In order to clarify

network organization and to facilitate responses, the

CMMSN is divided into six geographic sections (Fig. 2).

Meetings were held initially from 1981 to 1982 in each
28 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

section by the NMFS Coordinator to discuss network

organization and the responsibilities and roles of members.

Additional workshops were held in some sections in 1986

and 1987. A Network Directory was prepared in 1982 and

was updated in 1987. It outlines appropriate responses by

listing instructions, responsibilities, and the names and addresses of network members by each section and by species

of interest.

Responsibilities of CMMSN members include an agreement to operate within stated geographic areas, to cooperate with agencies having ownership or jurisdiction for

beach-front property, to submit reports concerning stranding events to the NMFS Regional Coordinator on a

monthly basis, and for rehabilitation centers to tag rehabilitated animals prior to their release back into the wild.

Stranding Reports

Historically, records of strandings have been maintained

by a number of active scientists. A number of papers discussing California stranding events or considering important biological aspects of a stranded animal have been published in scientific journals. Despite the high level and value

of marine mammal research on stranded animals in California (relative to many other coastal regions in the United

States), the scope of many publications has been narrow

and has not described trends in strandings for any sizable

stretch of the coast. Nonetheless, the stranding reports submitted by scientists provide an excellent marine mammal

data base for many species found in California waters.

Beginning in 1973, James Mead of the Smithsonian Institution began to collect and organize stranding data for

the east coast of the United States. Dr. Mead melded this

work into the Smithsonian Institution's Scientific Event

Alert Network (SEAN) in 1975. This program strived to

collect reports ofstranded cetaceans throughout the world

using a standardized monthly report system. A few California institutions sent reports of cetacean strandings to SEAN

during these early years.

The submission of stranding reports to the NMFS

evolved out of our first attempt to use stranding data for

agency management purposes. A Marine Mammal Data

Record was developed in 1973 by the CDFG with input

from SWR management. Data were collected on the

CDFG form through the end of 1981. This information

remains archived in SWR files but has not been entered

into a computer managed database (automated) or analyzed. The NMFS issued a new report form in 1981 to

reflect the change in network organization, the need for

additional information, and the goal to move toward a nationally consistent database by incorporating many of the

attributes of the SEAN program and the recommendations

of the first Stranding Workshop. This form was simplified

in 1987 to facilitate use by a diverse group of reporters having a wide degree of biological training and entry into a

automated database for analysis. Some basic information

is required ("Level A" data; see Geraci and St. Aubin 1979;

Hofman 1991); space also is provided for "requested"

("Level B") data and investigators are encouraged to

attach additional data sheets (for" Level C " data) if they

so desire. Levels Band C data are considered proprietary;

they are not distributed or used in publications without consent of the reporting source.

Reports are required whenever a cooperator or participant does anything with a stranded animal (e.g. buries,

relocates, disposes, or collects) and are submitted to the

Coordinator by the tenth of the month following the

event. ••• Amendments to reports, such as releases of

rehabilitated animals or changes in the ultimate disposition ofspecimens, are reported in subsequent months. The

database comprised ofthese reports includes cetaceans, pinnipeds, and sea turtles; sea otter reports go directly to the

CDFG. Cetacean records are forwarded to the Marine

Mammal Events Program at the Smithsonian Institution

(this program superseded the SEAN program in 1982) for

dissemination to the interested scientific community. Information on sea turtle strandings is collected also, but since

sea turtles are infrequent visitors to the California coast

(about 6 strand/yr), these data are not routinely automated

or analyzed.

California Stranding Events

Overview of Results and Analyses

A diversity of marine animals strand on California's coast

and there is wide variation in annual frequency by species.

For example, between 346 and 2286 pinnipeds (annual

x = 883, S.D. = 721), 54 and 117 cetaceans (annual

x = 80, S.D. = 26), and 3 and 8 sea turtles were reported

by the CMMSN in anyone year. Since 1982, at least

23 species of cetaceans have been reported to strand (Table

1). The most frequently reported stranded cetaceans

include harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); common dolphin (Delphinus delphis); gray whale (EschTichtius Tobustus);

Pacific white-sided dolphin (LagenoThynchus obliquidens); and

bottlenose dolphin (TUTSiops truncatus). All six species of pinnipeds occurring off the California coast have been reported

to strand (Table 2). California sea lions (Zalophus californianus); harbor seals (Phoca vitulina); and northern elephant

seals (MiTounga angustiTostris) are reported most frequently;

also of note are two strandings of the Guadalupe fur seal

(Arctocephalus townsendl) constituting the northernmost

••• This requirement has been difficult to enforce in a few areas. For ex·

ample, some life guards and beach maintenance crews within areas

of Los Angeles and San Diego counties that experience frequent pin·

niped strandings routinely bury carcasses without submitting stranding reports. Thus we discuss reported numbers and indices of events

and not absolute stranding rates or cycles.
_________________ Seagars and Jozwiak: The California Marine Mammal Stranding Network 29

Table 1

Cetaceans stranded In California as reported to the NMFS by the CMMSN, 1982-1987, In order of overall frequency of

occurrence.

Common names

Harbor porpoise

Common dolphin

Gray whale

Pacific white-sided dolphin

Bottlenose dolphin

Dall's porpoise

Cuvier's beaked whale

Pygmy sperm whale

Sperm whale

Striped dolphin

Blue whale

Hubbs beaked whale

Minke whale

Rough toothed dolphin

Blainville's beaked whale

Fin whale

Short-finned pilot whale

Humpback whale

Bryde's whale

Dwarf sperm whale

Killer whale

Risso's dolphin

Spinner dolphin

Unidentified balaenopterid

Unidentified dolphin

Unidentified small whale

Unidentified beaked whale

Unidentified cetaceans

Year total

Scientific names

Phocoena phocoena

Delphinus delphis

Eschrichtius robustus

Lagenorhynchus obliquidens

Tursiops truncatus

Phocoenoides dalli

Ziphius cavirostris

Kogia breviceps

Physeter catodon

Stenella coeruleoalba

Balaenoptera musculus

Mesoplodon carlhubbsi

Balaenoptera acutorostrata

Steno bredanensis

Mesoplodon densirostris

Balaenoptera physalus

Globicephala macrorhynchus

Megaptera novaeangliae

Balaenoptera edeni

Kogia simus

Orcinus orca

Grampus griseus

Stenella longirostris

54

12

117

1

3

108 77

2

3

58 69

'Reports in NMFS, Southwest Region files.

bSeagars et al. 1986.

Table 2

Pinnipeds stranded in California and reported to the NMFS

b.y the CMMSN (Sources: 1983-84 data-Seagars et al.

1986; 1985-87 data-NMFS, Southwest Region, Terminal

Island, CA files).

Year

Species 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

Z. californianus 1750 624 260 191 211

M. angustirostris 241 99 94 201 79

P vitulina 232 103 64 90 47

C. ursinus 19 2 6 1 3

E. jubatus 10 8 8 3 5

A. townsendi 0 I 0 0 0

Unidentified 34 13 12 7 1

Total 2286 850 444 493 346

records for the species (Webber and Roletto 1987). From

1983 to 1987, sea turtle strandings included twelve leatherback (Dermochelys coracea), eight green (Chelonia mydas), three

Pacific ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), one loggerhead (Caretta

caretta), and 3 unidentified sea turtles. Records of unidentified animals from all three groups are not uncommon

because of carcass condition or observer unfamiliarity.

In 1985, CMMSN data were examined in an assessment

of their utility for NMFS management purposes. This

assessment considered all stranding records for the 1983-84

two year period (Seagars et al. 1986) and concluded that

CMMSN data can be used as an index of anomalous events

(such as fishery related mortality) useful to management

as an early warning system. For example, commercial

fishermen may be authorized to "take" marine mammals

under certain conditions and this take may lead to some

of the observed strandings. In 1983 and 1984, significantly

higher numbers of harbor porpoises were reported to strand

than in previous years (Table 1). These strandings occurred

in months and locations where a considerable expansion

in the gill net fishery was in progress (Table 3). Although
30 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Table 3

Strandings of Phocoena phocoena reported by the CMMSN during 1983 and 1984 (Source: Seagars et al. 1986).

A. Division by county

County of Stranding 1983 1984 Tutal

Del Norte 0 '2 2

Humboldt 2 4 6

Mendocino 0 0 0

Sonoma 0 1 1

Marin 13 12 25

Solano 0 0 0

San Francisco 2 10 12

Contra Costa 0 0 0

San Joaquin 0 0 0

Alameda 0 0 0

Santa Clara 0 0 0

San Mateo 30 8 38

Santa Cruz 1 4 4

Monterey 0 0 0

San Luis Obispo 1 1 2

Santa Barbara 1 0 I

Ventura 0 0 0

Los Angeles 0 0 0

Orange 0 0 0

San Diego 0 0 0

Total 50 42 92

-----

B. Division by month

Month of Stranding 1983 1984 Total

January 0 0 0

February 0 1 1

March I 1 2

April I 1 2

May (J 1 1

June 0 1 1

July 8 8 16

August 11 24 35

September 21 I 22

October t! 3 9

November 1 2

December 0 1

Total 50 42 92

C. Type of stranding occurrence

Category

Stranding cause unknown

Human related

Human related-shot

Human related-shot?

Incidental catch-gillnet

Inctdental c.atch-gillnet?

Total

the specific cause of a stranding frequently was not, or

could not, be determined, both direct evidence (net

material present, well defined net marks, etc.) or indirect

evidence (cleanly severed flukes, presumed "drowning"

or, more accurately, suffocation of an otherwise healthy

individual) pointed to a strong correlation between the

reported increase of harbor porpoise strandings and inci·

dental mortality in this fishery. The agencies responsible

for marine mammal (NMFS) and fisheries (CDFG) management responded to the stranding data by initiating

surveys of the harbor porpoise population (Dohl 1984;

Barlow 1987, a and b; Oliver and Jackson 1987), more

closely monitoring levels of incidental take (Diamond and

Hanan 1986; Hanan et al. 1986, 1987), and implementing changes in fishery management designed to reduce the

mortality through seasonal and area closures.

1983 1984

N % N %

34 68.0 19 45.2

0 0.0 1 2.4

2 4.0 0 00

0 0.0 1 2 4

4 8.0 19 45.2

10 20.0 2 -1.8

50 100.0 42 100.0

There are limitations to the use of CMMSN stranding

data for management purposes. It is not possible to use

these data to estimate total mortality of marine mammals

in a coastal fishery, or to assess the effect of such mortality

on a population, because reporting of events is incomplete

and the proportion of the deceased animals that strand is

affected by a variety of environmental and anthropogenic

factors that may never be known with certainty. Furthermore, data from the stranding records of the CMMSN are

insufficient to characterize the structure of fishery related

mortality because 1) the sample size is typically small; 2)

age and sex descriptions are often listed as "unknown";

and 3) reported ages are assigned to a rather arbitrary set

of classes which are based on a subjective determination

made by observers having diverse backgrounds in marine

mammal biology.
________________ Seagars and Jozwiaki The California Marine Mammal Stranding Network 31

450 -,-------------------...., !:[iJ1983

.1984

M M A SON

120 I/)

:::J

J:

a. '00 0

-'

<

N 80 W

-'

< 60

U.

0

a:: 40 w

III

:::J 20 Z

0

'20 I/)

:::J

J:

g, 100

-'

<

N 80

W

-'

< 60 /.

W

U.

U. 40 0

a::

w

III 20

:::J

Z

0

1983

_ Z.e.

c:J All.OTl£R

I't-N'EDS

MONTH

50

o

::~ 4::' .... ,.1984

50 'A' ~~;*:,~ ~.t;

o

150

100

200

250

300

400

350

@

a:

o

0-

W

a:

en

CJ

z

15

z

«

a:

.....

en

u..

o

a:

::)

Z

MONTH

Figure 3

Frequency of pinniped strandings reported by the CMMSN for

the years 1983-1986 (Data for 1983-84 from Seagars et a!' 1986;

for 1985-86 from NMFS, SWR, Terminal Island, CA files).

Figure 4

Frequency of male and female Z. calijornianus strandings for the

years 1983 and 1984 (Source: Seagars et a!' 1986).

Seagars et al. (1986) also found that CMMSN data

reflect trends in stranding events that can be related to environmental conditions and are sufficiently detailed to

relate to regional occurrences of disease. For example,

seasonal peaks in pinniped strandings coincide with periods

of winter storms and spring winds when large numbers of

young pinnipeds are overwintering pelagically (seasonal

peaks, Fig. 3). Annual variations in the magnitude of

strandings can be related to annual climatological differences; stranding rates during the severe "El Nino"

winter of 1982-83 were an order of magnitude higher than

in the successively milder winters of following years (compare magnitude between years, Fig. 3). By examining the

records closely for detailed information, such as veterinary

findings, the late 1984 peak in Z. calijornianus strandings

(Fig. 3B) can be related to an increase in male sea lions

stranding in northern California with leptospirosis (Fig.

4, Dierauf et al. 1985).

Each spring numerous harbor seal pups are picked up

by well-meaning, but uninformed, citizens from semiisolated beaches used as rookeries; these animals often are

taken to animal shelters for treatment. While perinatal

complications are one of the more common natural causes

of neonate harbor seal strandings during this period

(Dierauf and Dougherty 1983), many of!hese "stranding"

events are of healthy newborn animals. The SWR now

issues an annual press release prior to harbor seal pupping

season to alert the public and animal control agencies of

the need to stay away from newborn pups. Many network

members distribute this release within their sections. This

is a prime example of how the Network can play an educational role to increase public awareness and protect marine

mammals.

Live Stranded Pinnipeds and

Rehabilitation Programs

The rehabilitation of live stranded animals occurs through

volunteer efTorts of private rehabilitation centers authorized

by the NMFS. Under veterinary guidance, these centers

treat stranded animals and arrange for their release back

to the sea when determined appropriate. All rehabilitated
32 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

animals are required to be tagged prior to release with tags

provided by the NMFS. Individuals that have been stabilized but are determined by a veterinarian to be unreleasable because of continuing medical or behavioral problems,

become candidates for permanent placement at public

display or research facilities. All such requests under the

MMPA for California pinniped species have been fulfilled

with rehabilitation center animals since 1980. The Network

Coordinator may help to locate placement for these dependent animals, initiate correspondence necessary to authorize transfer for research or display, or otherwise facilitate

the placement or use of these individuals.

The fate of rehabilitated and released pinnipeds recently

has been assessed by examining resight records of the

tagged and released animals (Seagars 1988). This analysis was considered to be preliminary because the rate of

tag loss was unknown, resight effort was uneven throughout the study area, and most released animals were from

younger age classes which reduce the resight probability

because higher mortality rates occur in these classes and

because most field work emphasizes counts during breeding seasons on rookeries where younger animals may not

be present. Given these limitations, the analysis concluded that 1) most released rehabilitated pinnipeds are

not restranding (dead or alive) and appear to be returning

to wild populations; 2) pinniped rehabilitation programs

are not contributing to detectable increases in marine

mammal-fishery interactions; 3) animals from rehabilitation center programs are not contributing significantly to

population growth since they comprise <0.1 % of any

species' population. The tagging program is likely to continue for the foreseeable future to address these identified

limitations and to continue monitoring the fate of released

animals.

Summary and Future Goals _

By establishing this network and coordinating the activities

of many largely volunteer individuals and organizations,

additional understanding of the biology of these animals

has been possible, both at the individual and population

level. This expansion has benefited scientific knowledge

and management programs. Our review of the C~:~:MSN

data found that these records can be viewed as an index of

events in the wild and that management can use them as

an early warning system for developing timely responses

where appropriate. While most of the issues of concern to

the NMFS revolve around the population levels of pinnipeds and cetaceans, aspects ofthe biology of these species

are so poorly known that any single stranding may be an

event of significant zoological interest. Many of the details

of anatomy, physiology, and life history of marine mammals have been determined by careful, detailed study of

a very few stranded animals.

Because ofthese benefits, the NMFS expects to continue

coordination ofthe CMMSN and the collection, analysis,

and dissemination of stranding data. It may be possible

to improve the quantity and quality of the data submitted

by increasing contact with CMMSN cooperators and participants. We propose this be accomplished by increasing

"feedback" through circulation of informational materials,

more frequent and wider dissemination of data analyses

and reports, and publication ofthe existence and purposes

of the CMMSN through the media and other channels as

appropriate. Requests for CMMSN data summaries

should be made in writing to Stranding Coordinator,

Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 300

S. Ferry St., Terminal Island, CA, 97031. The CMMSN

Directory will be periodically revised and redistributed.

Development of educational materials may assist species

identification. Future analyses will be facilitated by automating both archived and incoming data. Many of these

proposals are in the preliminary stages of implementation.

Acknowledgments _

Data considered in this review were collected by the over

200 organizations that comprise the California Marine

Mammal Stranding Network. Most of these personnel

volunteer their time to aid and study stranded marine

mammals. The NMFS appreciates the dedication and the

long hours donated. The senior author especially notes

assistance provided by T. McIntyre, NMFS, Washington,

D.C.; and M. Hochman, NOAA, General Counsel, in the

organizational phases; and J. Heyning, Los Angeles

County Museum of Natural History; C. Woodhouse,

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History; J. Roletto,

California Marine Mammal Center; P. Howorth, Santa

Barbara Marine Mammal Center; B. Andrews and S.

Rutherford, Marineland; andJ. Antrim and T. Goff, Sea

World, in the operational phase. The Cousteau Foundation has assisted the CMMSN with grants to participants

and positive publicity.

Data analysis was facilitated by J. Hornof, SWFC, and

by H. S. Stone, SWR. Graphics were enhanced by H. Orr,

SWFC. J. Lecky, SWR, J. Heyning, C. Woodhouse,

and two anonymous reviewers provided comments helping to improve the manuscript.

Citations _

Barlow, J.

1987a. Abundance estimation for harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoma) based on ship surveys along the coasts ofCalifomi a, Oregon,

and Washington. Southwest Fish. Cent. Adm. Rep. No.

LJ-87-05, 36 p. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, P.O.

Box 271, La Jolla, CA 92038.

1987b. An assessment of the status of harbor porpoise populations

in central California. Southwest Fish. Cent. Adm. Rep. No.
_________________ Seagars and Jozwiak: The Calaornia Marine Mammal Stranding Network 33

LJ-87-06, 35 p. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, P.O.

Box 271, La Jolla, CA 92038.

Cope, E.D.

1869. Systematic synopsis. In On the cetaceans of the western

coast of North America (C.M. Scammon, ed.), p. 13-63 + 8

plates. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia.

Dall, W.H.

1873. Description of three new species of Cetacea, from the coast

of California. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 5; 12-14.

Diamond, S.L., and D.A. Hanan.

1986. An estimate of harbor porpoise mortality In California

set net fisheries April I, 1983 through March 31, 1984. Southwest Region Adm. Rep. No. 86-15, 40 p. National Marine

Fisheries Service, NOAA, 300 S. Ferry St., Terminal Island, CA

90731

Dierauf, L.A., and S.A. Dougherty.

1983. Early evaluation of neonatal harbor seal (Phoca vitufina n·clUlrdsl)

health status. I: preliminary report. J. ZOO Anim. Med. 14;

138-144.

Dierauf, L.A., D. Vandenbroek,J. Roletto, M. Koski, L. Amaya, and

L. Gage.

1985. An epizootic ofleptospirosis in California sea lions. J. Am.

Vet. Med. Assoc. 187;1145.

Dohl, T.B.

1984. Harbor porpoises and other cetaceans of the Farallon Basin.

Southwest Fish. Cent. Adm. Rep. LJ-84-16C, 26 p. National

Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, P.O. Box 271, La Jolla, CA

92038 .

. Geraci, J.R., and DJ. St. Aubin.

1979. Stranding workshop summary report. In Biology of marine

mammals; insights through strandings. Marine Mammal Comm.

Rep. No. MMC-77/13. U.S. Dep. Commer., NTIS PB 293890,

343 p. (Available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.)

Hanan, D.A., S.L. Diamond, and J.P. Scholl.

1986. An estimate of harbor porpoise mortality in California set

net fisheries April I, 1984 through March 31,1985. Southwest

Region Adm. Rep. No. 86-16, 38 p. National Marine Fisheries

Service, NOAA, 300 S. Ferry St., Terminal Island, CA 90731.

1987. An estimate of harbor porpoise mortality in California set

net fisheries April I, 1985 through March 31, 1986. Southwest

Region Adm. Rep. No. 87-5, 9 p. National Marine Fisheries

Service, NOAA, 300 S. Ferry St., Terminal Island, CA 90731.

Hansen, L.j., W.F. Perrin, and J.G. Mead.

1979. A list of American institutions possessing collections of marine

mammal osteological specimens. Southwest Fish. Cent. Adm.

Rep. No. LJ-79-10, 13 p. National Marine Fisheries Service,

NOAA, P.O. 271, La Jolla, CA 90238.

Hofman, RJ.

1991. History, goals, and achievements of the regional marine

mammal stranding networks in the United States. In Marine

mammal strandings in the United States; proceedings of the second

marine mammal stranding workshop; 3-5 December 1987, Miami,

FL U.E. Reynolds and D.K. Odell, eds.), 1'.7-15. Dep. Commer., ",OAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 98.

Hubbs, C.L.

1946. First records of two beaked whales, Mesoplodon bowdoini and

Ziphi,,. rocirostris. frnm tht- Pacilic coast of the United States. J.

:-"1alllmal. 27(5);242-249.

:'o:itta, E.T.

1979. Proposal for a California network. In Biology of marine

IIldlnm<-t1s: insight:- lhr()u~h str<llldings (J R C('raci and DJ St.

Aubin. cds.). p. 316-317. Marine Mammal Comm. Rep. No.

Ml\IC77/13. L·S Dep. Commer., NTIS Doc. PB 293890.

343 p. (:hailable from Natl. Tech. Info Serv., Springfield, VA,

22161 )

Oliver, C.\\· and T.D. Jackson.

1987. Oecurrencc and distribution of marine mammals at sea from

aerial surveys conducted along the U.S. West Coast between

December 15, 1980 and December 17, 1985. Southwest Fish.

Cent. .-\dm. Rep. "'0. LJ-87-19, 189 p. National Marine

Fisheries Service. f\OAA, P.O. Box 271, La Jolla, CA 92038.

Orr, R.T.

1953. Beaked whale (Mrsoplodon), from California with comments

on taxonomy. J. \1ammal. 34(2);239-249.

Seagars, DJ.

1988. The fate of released rehabilitated pinnipeds based on tagresight information. Southwest Region Adm. Rep. No. 88-1,

31 p. :'-:ational Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 300 S. Ferry

St., Terminal Island, CA 90731

Seagars, O.J., J.H. Leek)", J.J. Slawson, and H.S. Stone.

1986. Evaluation of the California Marine Mammal Stranding Network as a management tool based on records for 1983 and 1984.

Southwest Region Adm. Rep. No. 86-5, 34 p. National Marine

Fisheries Service, NOAA, 300 S. Ferry St., Terminal Island, CA

90371

Webber, :-"1..-\ .. and J. Rolctto

1987. 1'''·0 recent occurrences of the Guadalupe fur seal, Arctocepholus townsendi, in central California. Bull. So. Calif. Acad.

Sci 86(3); 159-163.

Overview of the Northwest Region

Marine Mammal Stranding Network, 1977-1987

JOE SCaRDINO

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northwest Regional Office

Seattle, WA 98115

ABSTRACT

The Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network was developed to investigate and respond

to reports of beached and stranded marine mammals on the coastal and inland waters of

Washington and Oregon. The Northwest Network is composed of scientific investigators and

resource management agencies that cooperate with the National Marine Fisheries Service,

Northwest Regional Office. Over 3000 stranded marine mammals representing 25 species have

been reported in Washington and Oregon from 1977-1987. Noteworthy events handled by Network personnel include the mass stranding of 41 sperm whales (Physeter catodon) near Florence,

Oregon in 1979; a stranding episode involving over 40 northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) along

the Northwest coast over a three-week period in the spring of 1980; an outbreak of leptospirosis

in California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) in 1984; and the rare appearance of a pod of false

killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) in Puget Sound in 1987. The establishment of the Northwest

Marine Mammal Stranding Network has enhanced coordinated, systematic responses on marine

mammal strandings and provides an early alert system on problems that may be affecting marine

mammals and other species whether they be naturally occurring or manmade.

Introduction _

The Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network was

developed to investigate reports of beached and stranded

marine mammals on the coastal and inland waters of

Washington and Oregon. The Stranding Network is composed of cooperating scientific investigators and academic

institutions, volunteer individuals and organizations,

veterinarians, resource and land management agencies,

and enforcement agencies. Network participants, who are

experienced and knowledgeable in the methods of handling

beached and stranded marine mammals, volunteer either

to respond directly or to provide expert advice on handling a stranding incident. Network participants are authorized by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to

investigate strandings of live or dead marine mammals,

collect biological information and research material from

these animals, assist in the disposal of carcasses or deposition of skeletons and other specimen material into bonafide scientific collections, and aid in the humane care and

treatment of live or sick animals. Investigations un so-anded

marine mammals provide information on food habit~, in..

cidence of disease, and reproductive biology in many

coastal species. Data collected contribute to baseline ecological information that can be used to monitor changes

in coastal marine ecosystems.

Background _

Marine mammal strandings have been investigated in the

Northwest on an opportunistic basis for many years. Prior

to the first marine mammal stranding workshop in 1977

in Athens, Georgia (Geraci and St. Aubin 1979), institutions such as Oregon State University Marine Science

Center in Newport, Oregon, the University ofPuget Sound

in Tacoma, Washington, and the NMFS Science Center

in Seattle, Washington, were involved with recovering

marine mammal specimens for biological investigations and

museum accessions. Tag Gornall of the Marine Animal

Resource Center (a nonprofit volunteer organization), the

Seattle Aquarium, and other coastal aquariums and

veterinarians recovered and attempted to rehabilitate

distressed marine mammals, especially harbor seal pups.

As a result of the 1977 workshop, an informal" Marine

Mammal Alert Network" was formed, Bruce Mate of

35
36 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

,-------------------_.._------------_._-----------------,

Network

Participant ! ..L--- ....

ReilY Informilion on Itrendlng Ind

their potentlllinvolvement ..........................................

.....................................................111 ....

General

Public

PRIMARY

RESPONSE

CENTER

ACTIONS

1. Collect

Information

2. Coordinate

Response

Washington State Patrol

Oregon State Police

ReilY Informetion on Itrending Ind their

State, Federal, or potentill involvement

Local Authority

.._.__._-------------------------'

Figure 1

Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network Notification Procedure.

Oregon State University taking the lead in Oregon and

Tag Gornall taking the lead in Washington. This informal network operated on an ad-hoc basis in consultation

with law enforcement agents from the Oregon Department

ofFish and Wildlife (ODFW), the Washington Department

of Game (renamed Department of Wildlife in 1987) and

the NMFS. This "informal" arrangement continued until

1982 when the NMFS-Northwest Regional Office established the current Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding

Network.

The NMFS effort to formalize the "Alert Network" was

initiated in 1981 to ensure that marine mammal stranding

responses were coordinated coastwide and that a coastwide

standardized protocol was established for investigations and

disposition of animals and specimen material. Although

the informal organization of interested network volunteers

in Washington and Oregon was functioning relatively well,

there was a need to establish a regional focal point for network communications and to develop a regional data file

on both the stranded animals and the specimen material

collected from those animals. In addition, 1981 marked the

end of NMFS marine mammal enforcement contracts with

the States of Washington and Oregon which included

responsibility for stranded animals, thereby leaving a void

in direct state involvement in strandings.

The NMFS-Northwest Regional Office established the

Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network in early

1982 after convening a meeting of Northwest entities that

had previously been involved with stranded marine mammals. State wildlife and land management agencies, law

enforcement entities, major academic institutions, and

other volunteer researchers and veterinarians were represented at the meeting. The Oregon State Parks, which is

responsible for most of the beaches of Oregon, was in the

process of developing a statewide disposal policy for dead

marine mammals and the network meeting ensured acknowledgment of the scientific interest in strandings and

the need for a policy to provide for scientific investigations

prior to disposal of carcasses. The meeting resulted in

development of a coastwide notification procedure whereby

all strandings would be reported to the respective state enforcement agency (Washington State Patrol or Oregon

State Police), who would then relay the stranding information to the appropriate network response center (Fig.

1). All entities agreed that NMFS should take the lead in

overall network coordination and that the Northwest region

should be divided into major geographic areas, each having a primary response center. Each primary response

center would receive all reports on strandings in a designated geographic area and would be responsible for determining the appropriate stranding response in coordination

with other network participants.

The Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network

operates under the authority of Section 109 of the Marine

Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) which provides

for 1) the protection and welfare of marine mammals;
________________ Scordino: Overview of the Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network 37

2) the protection of public health and welfare (in regard

to marine mammals); and 3) the return ofthe marine mammal to its natural environment. The Northwest Marine

Mammal Stranding Network does not just operate under

this legal authority but actually enhances administration

of the MMPA and thus benefits the marine mammals

under each of the three aspects of this legal authority as

follows:

1. Provides for the protection and welfare of marine mammals by

a. assisting Federal agencies in enforcement of laws

which contribute to the protection and perpetuation of marine mammals;

b. collecting biological information to better understand and thereby protect and manage manne

mammals more effectively;

c. informing and educating the public on manne

mammals to promote a better understanding that

will minimize potentially detrimental human interactions; and

d. removing disabled marine mammals from areas

where people may harm or harass the animals.

2. Provides for the protection of the public health and

welfare by

a. removing dead or diseased animals from public

areas;

b. preventing the transmission of disease from sick or

dead marine mammals to people or domestic

animals;

c. removing live marine mammals from public areas

where the animals could injure people who approach them; and

d. investigating the stranding of marine mammals as

they may be an indicator of circumstances (such

as pollution, ocean dumping, or natural phenomena [e.g., dinoflagellate blooms]) that also may be

detrimental to humans or their food resources, including fish.

3. Provides for the return of the marine mammal to its

natural habitat when feasible by

a. ensuring that the animals are handled only by experienced people;

b. ensuring that the animal is given appropriate care

and, if moved to a holding facility, that such facility is operated solely for the animal's well-being and

ultimate return to the wild;

c. collecting biological information on the animals to

develop better methods and procedures for providing adequate care and rehabilitation; and

d. educating the public on marine mammals so that

human activities will not preclude live animals from

being returned to their natural habitat.

Current Network Protocol

The National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Regional Office is the overall network coordinator. The

NMFS Regional Marine Mammal Coordinator maintains

the Network Directory and Handbook (National Marine

Fisheries Service/Northwest Region 1984), maintains lists

of authorized network participants, registers specimen

materials, receives stranding reports, maintains the regional data file, submits summarized stranding information to the Smithsonian Institution and other requesting

entities, convenes periodic meetings of network participants, and acts as a clearinghouse for network communications, specimen requests, etc.

The Network is currently divided into five geographic

areas, each having a primary response center and backup response groups that are authorized to take the lead in

coordinating an appropriate response to each stranded

animal report in their area. Table 1 shows the primary

response centers and the area coordinators for each of the

five areas as of 1 December 1987. The area coordinators

are responsible for ensuring that the procedures set forth

in the Network Handbook and Directory (National Marine

Fisheries Service/Northwest Region 1984) are followed by

network participants. Network participants are required

to submit a written report to NMFS-Northwest Regional

Office within 30 days of each stranding investigation.

Each primary response center, upon receiving a report

of a stranded animal from the state patrol/police, contacts

the initial reporting party and obtains all information on

the stranding. This information is maintained in a permanent record and copies ofthis information are periodically

submitted to the NMFS regional data file. The area coordinator for the response center determines the appropriate

course of action for each reported stranding. Response

choices consist of 1) a direct response, 2) an indirect

response, or 3) no response.

A direct response occurs when the area coordinator

determines that a scientific investigation of the reported

stranding is warranted. The area coordinator takes the

lead in arranging an on-site investigation. This includes

notifying appropriate authorities, such as law enforcement

entities and other network personnel who may want to participate in the investigation or who are interested in collecting specimen material.

An indirect response occurs when the primary response

center relays the stranding information and responsibility

for response coordination to another stranding network

entity. One very common situation occurs when the area

coordinator relays information on the stranding to other

network participants who may be in closer proximity to

the stranding location or who have expressed a specific interest in conducting an on-site investigation or recovery

of the involved species. If a live, but distressed animal

is involved, the area coordinator may notify network
38 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Table 1

Primary response centers for each 0:: the five geographic areas in the Northwest Region.

Geographic area

Washington

Inland waters; Puget Sound and

Straints ofJuan de Fuca

Coastal waters north of Willipa Bay

Washington/Oregon

Willipa Bay, WA to Tillamook Bay, OR

Oregon

Central Coast

Southern Coast

Primary response center

Marine Animal Resource Center (MARC),

Seattle, WA

Washington State Department of Wildlife (WDW),

Tacoma, WA

Portland State University (PSU)

Portland, OR

Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)

Newport, OR

University of Oregon, Institute of Marine Biology (OIMB)

Charleston, OR

Area coordinator

Tag Gornall, MARC

Steve Jeffries, WDW

Debbie Duffield, PSU

Robin Brown, ODFW

Jan Hodder, OIMB

entities that can assist in retrieving the animal and request

they transport it to a scientific investigator or to a veterinarian or rehabilitation center. If the stranding is in a

remote area, the coordinator may request assistance from

the reporting party or others in obtaining basic morphological information on the stranding (in these cases the carcass is left on the beach). Ifthe stranding reported is a live

animal of questionable status, the response center may advise that the animal be left on the beach and observed for

at least 24-48 hours. Subsequent notification would be requested from the reporting party if the animal shows obvious signs of distress or if it remains on the beach after

24-48 hours.

In some situations, the area coordinator may be unable

to dispatch a response team or may determine that a

response is not necessary. In these "no response" situations, the coordinator advises the initial reporting party

of the decision not to respond and advises on disposal of

the stranding (if dead) or advises people to stay away from

the animal (if alive). The decision not to respond is umally

due to the remote or inaccessible location of the stranding,

a badly decomposed carcass in a distant location, or the

determination that a live-stranded animal that is perceived

to be sick or injured, is actually likely to be healthy. Ifthere

are potential enforcement problems such as harassment of

live animals or unauthorized removal of parts from a carcass, the area coordinator also will notify appropriate enforcement entities.

Network participants routinely collect specimen material

from stranded marine mammals. This specimen material

is subsequently registered to the network participa::lt by

NMFS. Most material is tissue samples collected for research purposes, although a number of entire skeletons

(especially cetaceans) are collected and catalogued into

museum collections each year. MMPA research permits

are not required for network participants to collect specimen material from stranded marine mammals. However,

in order to authorize the possession of such material under

the MMPA and enhance the exchange and transfer ofsuch

material for research, the NMFS-Northwest Region has

registered all specimen material collected by network

participants.

Network Accomplishments

Over 3000 stranded marine mammals representing 25

species have been reported in Washington and Oregon

from 1977 through 1987 (Table 2). These reports represent almost all of the marine mammal species recorded for

Northwest waters. The only species previously recorded

in Northwest waters that were not reported as strandings

during this period are the right whale (Balaena glacialis)

(Scammon 1874); the sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) (Scheffer and Slipp 1948); the Baird's beaked whale (Berardius

bairdil) (Everitt et al. 1980); the beluga whale (Delphinapterus

lezuas) (Scheffer and Slipp 1948); the rough-toothed dolphin

(Steno bredanensis) (a 1972 stranding in Washington examined by Ken Balcomb); and the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) (Ferrero and Tsunoda 1989).

Pinnipeds have accounted for almost ninety percent of

the reported strandings in each of the past years. This occurrence is not surprising because pinnipeds are commonly

encountered in the Northwest and frequently interact with

human activities, such as fishing. The principal marine

mammal species found stranded on the beaches of the

Northwest is the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). This is to be

expected since P. vitulina is the most frequently encountered

marine mammal in the Northwest. Also, because harbor
Scordino: Overview of the Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network 39

Table 2

Marine mammal strandings reported in the Northwest Region, 1977-1987.

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Total

Harbor seal, Phoca vitulina 92 99 48 88 95 68 114 310 230 207 147 1498

California sea lion, Zalophus californianus 19 10 6 27 34 7 33 170 48 28 45 427

Northern sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus 10 7 5 15 16 5 16 16 11 5 8 114

Northern elephant seal, Mirounga angustirostris 2 4 4 7 1 5 11 8 12 12 9 75

Northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursinus 4 6 0 53 4 2 7 4 4 1 2 87

Harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena 3 1 7 9 13 14 8 16 22 15 33 141

Dall's porpoise, Phocoenoides dalli 0 2 2 3 5 4 4 4 2 5 1 32

Pacific whitesided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obliquidens 1 2 0 2 1 5 5 4 0 2 0 22

Common dolphin, Delphinus delphis 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2

Striped dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3

Northern right whale dolphin, Lissodelphis borealis 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Pygmy sperm whale, Kogia breuiceps 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4

Risso's dolphin, Grampus griseus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2

Pilot whale, Globicephala macrorhynchus 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

False killer whale, Pseudorca crassidens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2

Killer whale, Orcinus orca 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3

Cuvier's beaked whale, Ziphius cauirostris 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 2 2 11

Bering Sea beaked whale, Mesoplodon stejnegeri 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 7

Arch-beaked whale, Mesoplodon car/hubbsi 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus 6 3 3 8 11 2 14 16 2 4 12 81

Humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Sperm whale, Physeter catodon 1 0 43 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 48

Minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 13

Fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Blue whale, Balaenoptera musculus 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Unidentified sea lion 57 42 17 4 0 6 11 311 67 38 74 627

Unidentified pinniped 22 0 0 3 7 4 0 29 75 48 63 251

Unidentified small cetacean 4 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 3 15

Unidentified large cetacean 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 6

Total 226 179 140 233 192 128 227 893 481 377 405 3481

Note: Data for /983-1987 was obtained from the NMFS Regional Stranding Network files. The pre-1983 data were obtained from the Smithsonian Institution's Scientific Event Alert Network data file, published reports (Beach et al. 1985; Calambokidis et al. 1984; Everitt et

al. 1980; Calambokidis et al. 1978), museum marine mammal catalogs from Oregon Institute of Marine Biology and University of Puget

Sound, and data files from Steve Jeffries, WDW; Tag Gornall, MARC; Robin Brown, ODFW; Larry Tsunoda, NMML; and John

Rozdilsky, University of Washington-Burke Museum.

seals breed in both inland and coastal areas of the Northwest, some of the natural juvenile mortality of this species

is included in the reported strandings. The next most frequently reported stranded animals are sea lions. Although

there are two species of sea lions that occur in the Northwest, many of the strandings reported by the public or local

enforcement entities do not specify which species. However, the California sea lion (Zalophus calijornianus) is

reported more frequently than the northern sea lion

(Eumelopiasjubalus), and it is likely that Z. calijornianus may

account for the majority of the "unidentified sea lions"

shown in Table 2. The third most frequently occurring

stranded species is the harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena).

As this species is neither frequently sighted at sea nor commonly involved in human/fisheries interactions, the high

incidence of strandings cannot be explained. As little is

known about this species in the Northwest, the long-term

data base from stranding incidences is beneficial in better

understanding the life history of this species.

The incidence of strandings of other species has varied

considerably among years. Natural phenomena such as the

1983/84 El Nino phenomena may have influenced the

distribution of stranded animals as well as the "deposit"

of carcasses on the beaches owing to changes in currents.

The increased number of stranded gray whales in the

Northwest in 1983 and 1984 (Table 2) may have been

related to the El Nino phenomena rather than to biological

or environmental conditions such as increased pollutants.

Vessel collisions with marine mammals also have contributed to the stranded animal data base. The single

strandings recorded since 1977 of a blue whale (BalaenopleTa musculus) in October 1980 and a fin whale (Balaenoplera

physalus) in April 1986 were a result of large vessels

"delivering" the carcasses to docks in Seattle and Tacoma
40 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

respectively. Otherwise, there are no recent records of these

species stranded on the beaches of the Northwest. Some

ofthe more noteworthy marine mammal stranding episodes

that have occurred since 1977 in the Northwest are summarized below.

Mass Stranding of Sperm Whales (1979)-The only mass

stranding of cetaceans in recent years in the Northwest was

the stranding of forty-one live sperm whales (Physeter catodon)

near Florence, Oregon on 16 June 1979. The stranding

attracted so much public attention that the Oregon State

Police were forced to close access roads, yet hundreds of

people still hiked to the site. Efforts by some to push or

tow the whales back to sea proved futile. By 17 June, all

of the whales had died. The stranded school consisl:ed of

28 females, ranging in size from 9.3 to 11.4 m, and 13

males, ranging in size from 9.3 to 11.5 m (Rice et al. 1986).

Bruce Mate of Oregon State University coordinated and

organized the "Alert Network" response by various

research teams. Numerous state, federal, and local governmental agencies were instrumental in providing security,

crowd control, and disposal of the carcasses.

Northern Fur Seal Stranding Episode (1980)-Over 40

northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) were stranded on the

northern Oregon and southern/central Washington coast

over a three-week period in spring 1980. Most of the seals

were females that came ashore exhibiting symptoms of

respiratory and central nervous system disorders. In addition, there were two male C. ursinus and one male California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) that stranded under

similar circumstances during this period. A total of 35 live

pinnipeds exhibiting these symptoms were recovered and

treated primarily by Tag Gornall and volunteers in the

Marine Animal Resource Center. Eight female C. ursinus

survived and six of them were tagged and released back

to sea. One of the females, released on 18 May on the

Washington coast, was sighted in a breeding colony on the

Pribilof Islands on 5 August 1980 (Keyes and Scordino

1981). An exact cause for this stranding episode was not

conclusively determined.

California Sea Lion - Leptospirosis (1984)-A dramatic

increase in strandings of California sea lions (Zalophus

wlifornianus), noted by Northwest network participants

commencing in August 1984, was attributed to an outbreak

of leptospirosis. Network participants received a number

of reports ofsick, lethargic sea lions on the outer coast from

August through December 1984. Researchers examined

over 100 California sea lions during this period; however

many others were not examined and were recorded as unidentified sea lions (Table 2). Leptospirosis was diagnosed

in a number of freshly dead animals both in the Northwest and in California. A joint meeting of the Northwest

and California stranding network participants was convened in October 1984 to discuss the outbreak of leptospirosis and to coordinate further research efforts coastwide.

Owing to public safety concerns for people approaching

these sick animals and possibly contracting the disease,

state and local agencies were alerted to the problem by network participants and NMFS distributed press releases

coastwide.

Pseudorca In Puget Sound (1987)-A reported live

stranding of a pilot whale in southern Puget Sound on 5

May 1987 turned out to be a false killer whale (Pseudorca

crassidens), an extremely rare visitor to Washington inland

waters. The only other known occurrence of this species

in Puget Sound was on 15 May 1937 (Scheffer and Slipp

1948). The single stranding was from a pod of 18 to 20

false killer whales that was first sighted in April but not

identified as P. crassidens until 4 May. Because this species

has been reported in mass live stranding episodes in other

areas, there was concern for a mass stranding especially

since the animals were in the confined inland waters. Contingency plans for a mass stranding were developed and

a communication network on the location of the pod was

established using participants in the Northwest stranding

network. The pod was last sighted in Puget Sound in early

July 1987. No further strandings of this species occurred

in Puget Sound; however, a live P. crassidens was reported

beached and released at Ucluelet on Vancouver Island,

B.C. on 28 July 1987 (Baird et al. 1988).

Pollutant Research (1984)-The Cascadia Research Collective (CRC), Olympia, W A, actively collected tissue

samples from dead marine mammals in Puget Sound from

October 1983 to January 1985 during a study to determine

if detrimental effects of pollutants could be detected in

marine mammals. The target species was harbor seals

(Phoca vitulina). CRC researchers regularly searched harbor seal haul-out areas for carcasses, as well as responded

to stranded animals reported to the Northwest Stranding

Network. During the study period, the CRC researchers

recovered 150 marine mammals, of which 139 were harbor seals (Calambokidis et al. 1985). The majority of the

specimens were recovered during haul-out searches, and

consisted primarily of dead seal pups. One interesting

aspect of the results is that the researchers did not find a

high incidence of biological disorders at those sites with

suspected high contaminant levels, but surprisingly, found

a higher incidence of disorders at sites with lower contaminant levels (Calambokidis et al. 1985).

Incidental Takes in Fisheries (1980-1982)-The Washington Department of Game (currently Department of

Wildlife) undertook an intensive stranded marine mammal

recovery program in the Columbia River and adjacent

areas as part of a marine mammal/fisheries interaction

study. The purpose of the study was to assess the nature
_______________ Scordino: Overview of the Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network 41

and extent ofseal/sea lion conflicts with the salmon gillnet

fisheries in the Columbia River, Willipa Bay, and Grays

Harbor. The stranded animal investigations provided food

habit information, baseline data on natural mortality, and

information on the marine mammals taken incidentally in

the fisheries. The researchers performed gross necropsies

on 101 of the 238 specimens recovered from March 1980

to August 1982. Over 85 of the recovered animals were

pinnipeds, mostly harbor seals, whose primary cause of

mortality was attributed to interactions with the salmon

gillnet fishery (Beach et aI. 1985). The numbers ofstranded

marine mammals reported in this area declined dramatically when the active recovery efforts terminated at the

end of the study.

Live Cetaceans Taken Into Captivity (1977-1987)-

Only a few stranded cetaceans have been recovered and

taken live to captivity for rehabilitation. Very few of these

survived more than a few days in captivity. One such example is a baby sperm whale (Physeter catodon) that was

recovered in northern Oregon in September 1979 and was

transferred to the Seattle Aquarium under the care ofTag

Cornall. This animal died a few days later from congenital

defects.

Two porpoises that did survive for extended periods of

time are worth mentioning. One was a Pacific white-sided

dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) that was rescued from

southern Puget Sound in 1983 and taken to Point Defiance

Zoo and Aquarium. This dolphin lived in captivity for

almost three years before it died. The other was a newborn

harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) from Seaside, Oregon,

that was taken to Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium in

1987 where it survived for over three months.

Seal Pups (1977-1987)-Harbor seal pups are the source

of an unending problem in the Northwest because people

perceive that solitary seal pups must be "abandoned" and

must be rescued. Network participants are very active every

year from March through September responding to

telephone calls and advising people not to touch or disturb

these pups that may appear to be abandoned. In many

cases, if left alone, the pup may reunite with its mother.

However, pups appearing in high public use areas may

need to be picked up by Network personnel to prevent them

from being handled and harassed by the public. The Northwest Stranding Network policy is to leave seal pups undisturbed for a minimum of 24-48 hours before any action

is taken unless there are extenuating circumstances such

as repeated handling.

Twenty-five to forty seal pups were delivered to network

veterinarians and rehabilitation centers each year from

1983 to 1986. Rehabilitation efforts have ranged from a

high of 52 % released alive in 1983 to a low of 29 % in 1986.

Resights of rehabilitated seals are uncommon although a

few are reported (Harvey et aI. 1983). Network participants

are continuously involved in an effort to educate the public

on the seal pup issue. The NMFS distributes press releases

on this issue every year. The NMFS also has attempted

to bring this problem to the public's attention in other

publications such as the annual reports to Congress on the

Marine Mammal Protection Act (U.S. Dep. Commerce

1984).

Discussion _

Investigations of reported marine mammal strandings have

increased since the late 1970's primarily because ofthe existence of the Regional Stranding Network. The Network

not only has provided a mechanism for reporting strandings but also has increased public awareness on the need

to report such incidences. Such increased reporting has

enhanced development of an all-inclusive regional data base

on strandings. It should be noted that the numbers of

marine mammal strandings reported in the years prior to

1983 may be underrepresented in Table 2 because data

records on uninvestigated strandings were not routinely

kept. In 1983, NMFS began maintaining a regional data

record and requested that network participants submit

records of all reported marine mammal strandings, including those not investigated. However there have been

instances where such records were not kept routinely in

recent years, so there are additional uninvestigated strandings'(especially pinnipeds) that are not reflected in Table 2.

Although the existence of the stranding network has

enhanced reporting of beached and stranded marine mammals, there is still a need to enhance onsite scientific investigations. Many of the reported strandings are not

investigated because of lack of resources for network participants. Most cetacean strandings are investigated whereas the majority of the pinniped strandings are not investigated unless a specific research program is underway that

emphasizes recovery ofstranded animals. Examples ofsuch

programs include the fishery interaction studies in 1980-

1982 and the pollutant studies in 1984. Uninvestigated

strandings usually involve reports of harbor seals or "seals"

(recorded as unidentified pinnipeds in Table 2) that are

not examined because of the lack of network resources in

personnel, logistical support, and funds necessary for travel

expenses. Unfortunately, this creates gaps in the data base

as well as compromises the rapport that network participants have developed with locals and entities who routinely

report strandings fully expecting network participants to

conduct an onsite investigation.

Baseline data collected by network participants are maintained at the NMFS Regional Office in Seattle and copies

are routinely provided to other entities requesting such information. For example, cetacean records are provided

quarterly to the Smithsonian Institution and annually to

the International Whaling Commission. The inclusion of
42 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

regional cetacean stranding data in the Smithsonian's data

base allows for coastwide analysis of stranding incidences

and provides indicators to potential trends or developing

problems. One of the principal benefits of maintaining

long-term data files on strandings is the ability to determine changing trends or "abnormal" situations thai: may

indicate the potential occurrence of problems for certain

species. For example, the increase in California sea lion

strandings due to leptospirosis in 1984 would not have been

easily detected had there not been a long term data file on

strandings.

Conclusion _

The establishment of the Northwest Marine Mammal

Stranding Network has enhanced coordinated, systematic

responses to marine mammal strandings coastwide, The

Stranding Network has benefitted researchers by enhancing exchange of specimen material, expertise, supplies, and

information. It has benefitted the animals by promoting

public awareness and providing a mechanism for obtaining life-history information to understand and protect the

species better. The network also provides an early alert

system on problems that may be affecting a species, including both naturally occurring (such as the leptospirosis

outbreak) and human related (such as fisheries or pollutant mortality) factors.

Acknowledgments

All of the Northwest Region stranding network participants

are acknowledged for their volunteer, sometimes odd·hour

efforts in responding to stranded marine mammals, sharing their expertise with state, Federal, and local autho::ities,

and submitting information on stranded animals. The et~

forts of network participants to obtain information on these

species has enhanced the understanding of the many

marine mammal species as well as the ecosystem. I wish

to express my gratitude to Steve Jeffries, Robin Brown,

Larry Tsunoda, Tag Gornall, andJohn Rozdilsky for their

assistance in providing pre-1983 stranding information for

inclusion in this report. Also, special thanks are extended

to Janine Jijina for her assistance in typing and proof

reading long lists of stranded species records as well as her

assistance in preparing this paper.

Citations _

Baird, R.W., K.M. Langelier, and P.J. Stacey.

1988. Stranded whale and dolphin program of British Columbia

- 1987 report. British Columbia Vet. Med. Assoc. Wildl. Vet.

Rep. 1(1) 1988.

Beach, R.J., A.C. Geiger, S.J.jeffries, S.D. Treacy, and B.L. Troutman.

1985. Marine mammals and their interactions with fisheries of the

Columbia River and adjacent waters, 1980-1982. NMFSNWAFC Processed Rep. 85-04. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, 316 p.

Calambokidis, j., K. Bowman, S. Carter, j. Cubbage, P. Dawson,

T. Fleishner, j. Schuett-Hames, j. Skidmore, and B. Taylor.

1978. CWorinated hydrocarbon concentrations and the ecology and

behavior of harbor seals in Washington state waters. Final report

to the National Science Foundation. The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA, 121 p.

Calambokidis, J., j. Peard, C.H. Steiger, j.C. Cubbage, and

R. L. Delong.

1984. Chemical contaminants in marine mammals from Washington state. NDAA Tech. Memo. NOS-OMS-6. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Rockville, MD, 167 p.

Calambokidis,j., S.M. Speich,j. Peard, G.H. Steiger,j.C. Cubbage,

D.M. Fry, and L.J. Lowenstine.

1985. Biology ofPuget Sound marine mammals and marine birds:

population health and evidence of pollution effects. NOAA Tech.

Memo. NOS-OMA-18. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Rockville. MD, 160 p.

Everitt, R.D., C.H. Fiscus, and R.L. Delong.

1980. Northern Puget Sound marine mammals. DOC/EPA Interagency R&D Program Report EPA-60017-80-139. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C., 134 p.

Ferrero, R.C., and L.M. Tsunoda.

1989. First record of a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in

Washington State. Marine Mammal Sci., 5(3):302-305.

Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin.

1979. Biology of marine mammals: insights through strandings.

Marine Mammal Comm. Rep. No. MMC-77/13. U.S. Dep.

NTIS Doc. PF 293890, 343 p. (Available crom the National

Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.)

Harvey, j., R. Brown, and B. Mate.

1983. Two sightings following release of rehabilitated harbor seals.

Murrelet 64: 1.

Keyes, M.C., and j. Scordino.

1Cl81. Epizootic of apparent nervous toxicosis in adult female fur

seals off the Oregon and Washington coast in the spring of 1980.

Background paper submitted to the 24th Annual Meeting of the

Standing Scientific Committee, North Pacific Fur Seal Commission, 5 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service-Northwest Region.

1984. Northwest marine mammal stranding network handbook and

directory. NMFS-Northwest Regional Office, Seattle, WA, 17

p. and appendices.

Rice, D.W., A.A. Wolman, B.R. Mate, and j.T. Harvey.

1Cl86. A mass stranding of sperm whales in Oregon: sex and age

composition of the school. Marine Mammal Sci., 2(1):64-69.

Scammon, C.M.

1874. The marine mammals of the northwestern coast of North

America. j.H. Carmany Co., San Francisco, CA. Reprint

1968, Dover Publishing, New York, NY, 319 p.

Scheffer, V.B., and j.W. Slipp.

1948. The whales and dolphins of Washington state, with a key

to the cetaceans of the west coast of North America. Am. MidI.

Nat., 39:257-337.

U.S. Dep. Of Commerce.

1984. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972: Annual Report

1983/84. Annual report of the Department of Commerce on the

administration of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.

NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.,

146 p.
A History of Marine Mammal Stranding Networks in Alaska,

with Notes on the Distribution of the Most Commonly

Stranded Cetacean Species, 1975-1987

STEVEN T. ZIMMERMAN

Alaska Regional Office

National Marine Fisheries Service

P. O. Box 021668

Juneau, AK 99802

ABSTRACT

Since the mid-1950s there have been several attempts to establish marine mammal stranding

networks in Alaska, or to systematically survey large areas of the coastline for stranded animals.

It was not until 1985, however, that a centralized Federal stranding network, similar to those

established throughout the rest of the United States, was created in Alaska. In the three years

of its existence, this network has more than doubled the number of cetacean strandings reported

to the Smithsonian Institution. Additional effort is planned to make Alaska residents more familiar

with the network.

Since the Smithsonian Institution began compiling reports on stranded cetaceans in 1975, eleven

species of cetaceans have bee-n lound in Alaska seven or more times. Stranded gray whales

(Eschrichtius robustus) have been reported most comlllonly (127 reports). Other frequently reported

species include beluga whales (Delphinapteruj' leuc:as) (56 reports); Stejneger's beaked whales

(Mesoplodoli stl!jnegen) (29 reports); killer whales (Orcinus on.a) (20 reports); Cuvier's beaked whales

(Ziphius cavirostris) (19 reports); minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) (19 reports); bowhead whales

(Balaena mysticetus) (11 reports); humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) (9 reports); sperm whales

(Physeter macrocephalw') (9 reports); Baird's beaked whales (Berardius bairdil) (8 reports); and fin

whales (Balaenoptaa physalus) (7 reports).

Introduction _

There have been several attempts to establish stranding

networks or to systematically survey large coastal areas of

Alaska for stranded marine mammals. During the 1950's,

the Marine Mammal Committee of the American Society

of Mammalogists established a national stranding program

directed principally at cetaceans. That program was initiated in Alaska by Francis H. Fay, and his work represents the earliest attempt to coordinate a stranding network

for that state. On an opportunistic basis, and without funding, Fay investigated ~tranded marine mammals from the

mid 1950's through the early 1960's, at which time other

responsibilities made it impossible for him to continue. In

1975, funding from the Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program (OCSEAP) provided Fay an

opportunity to reinitiate his work at sites adjacent to areas

proposed for offshore oil exploration. From 1975 to 1978,

he and his associates surveyed large areas of the Gulf of

Alaska and Bering Sea coastlines to locate strandings and

determine causes of death (Fay 1976; Fayetal. 1976, 1977,

1978, 1979b). During the late 1970's, National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS) special agents in Alaska began

investigating marine mammal strandings, especially those

encountered while monitoring the Eskimo bowhead whale

harvest. In Homer, the Homer Natural History Society

(now the Pratt Museum) began to collect information on

strandings in lower Cook Inlet. Throughout these years

the Alaska Department ofFish and Game (ADF&G) continued, as they had for several years, to collect stranding

information through an informal network of coastal inhabitants of the eastern Bering and Chukchi seas (Lowry

et al. 1986). Handbooks (Schad 1978; Fay et al. 1979c)

were printed and widely distributed in an attempt to raise

public awareness of the need to identify and report stranded

marine mammals.

In 1977 a workshop was held at the University of Georgia

to consider how best to coordinate collection of informa43
44 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

tion on strandings of marine mammals (Geraci and St.

Aubin 1979). As a result of that workshop, it was anticipated that the NMFS would be "instrumental in coordinating regional efforts" to gather information on

stranded marine mammals (Geraci and St. Aubin 1979).

Indeed, soon after the workshop was completed, stranding

networks were established in four of the five NMFS

regions. A plan to establish a stranding network that would

encompass the fifth region (Alaska) had been proposed at

the workshop (Fay et al. 1979a). However, a lack offunding to implement that plan, and an expectation that the

State of Alaska would soon request return of management

authority for marine mammals, delayed progress toward

establishment of a centralized State-wide network in Alaska

for several years.

Funding for stranding studies was no longer available

by the early 1980's.' Thus, there was little subsequent effort devoted to investigating stranded marine mammals

until the NMFS established an Office of Marine Mammals

and Endangered Species within its Alaska Region in 1984.

This provided a new opportunity to create a centralized

Federal stranding network for Alaska. Such a network was

initiated early in 1985.

Methods _

Successful operation of a stranding network in Alaska

required solutions to several major problems. Foremost

among these problems were the length of the Alaska

coastline (54560 km) and its remoteness from most human

settlements or road systems. Fay, Dieterich, and Shults

(1979) had recommended using resident State biologists

who were already located in 18 coastal game management

units. These biologists would become the primary source

of stranding reports, gained both from their own obs<:rvations and from those of other local residents. Compilation

of information would be done at the University of Alaska

branches in Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau. By 1984

however, Fay, Dieterich, and Shults' plan had become

untenable for political and financial reasons: The State had

withdrawn from taking an active role in managing marine

mammals, and the interested University of Alaska personnel had no internal support for a stranding program.

Hence, NMFS managers were reluctant to ask State and

University biologists to undertake major voluntary responsibilities for a system that probably would remain under

Federal jurisdiction. Consequently, an alternative plan

• In 1980 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) surveyed

the Alaskan coastline from Izembek Lagoon to Barrow looking for walrus

carcasses. Only five stranded cetaceans were seen during this survey

and none were identified to species. During the late 1970's the FWS

carried out yearly surveys for stranded marine birds along the Gulf of

Alaska and Bering Sea coastlines. Stranded marine mammals fou"d during these surveys were reported to Francis Fay.

was developed for creating an Alaskan Marine Mammal

Stranding Network that would be similar to those in the

other two NMFS west coast regions.

The NMFS Southwest Region (California-see Seagars

and Jozwiak 1991) and the NMFS Northwest Region

(Oregon and Washington-see Scordino 1991) each have

a designated Regional Network Coordinator who is responsible for overall administration of that region's network.

Each region has been divided into several sections, and in

some cases, a Primary Response Center (PRC) has been

designated within each section. These PRC's are responsible for coordinating all network activity within their

geographic area and for sending stranding data to the

Regional Network Coordinator. Data on stranded marine

mammals are compiled by the Regional Network Coordinator, computerized, and sent to the Marine Mammal

Events Program at the Smithsonian Institution.

In Alaska the Chief of the Office of Marine Mammals

and Endangered Species was designated to be the Regional

Network Coordinator. The State was then divided into ten

coastal areas with a PRC in each area. Responsibility for

the 10 centers was divided among six agencies (NMFS;

ADF&G; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); University ofAlaska-Juneau; Alaska Department of Public Safety;

and the North Slope Borough; Fig. 1). The Regional Coordinator supplied each center with an explanation of procedures to follow when investigating a stranding, and a set

of reporting forms which had been printed by the Smithsonian Institution's Marine Mammal Events Program.

The Regional Coordinator encouraged the PRC Coordinators to branch out into other villages and involve additional agencies and qualified individuals within their

areas. In order to publicize the network, a press release

describing the development and purpose of the network

was sent to most of the larger newspapers, and to radio

and television stations in the State. Eighty letters were sent

to mayors, city managers, harbor masters, and flying

services throughout coastal Alaska. The press releases and

letters were individualized to identify which PRC should

be contacted in each area.

The Smithsonian Institution's Marine Mammal Events

Program focuses its interest on cetaceans rather than pinnipeds. Therefore, the Alaska network was publicized as

a cetacean stranding network only. As in other NMFS

regions however, participants in the Alaska stranding network were encouraged to investigate unusual strandings

of pinnipeds.

Results _

Stranded Cetaceans

Since 1975 the Smithsonian Institution has kept a computerized data base of cetacean strandings which have occurred in the United States. Of the 145 Alaskan cetacean
________________ Zimmerman: History of the Alaskan Marine Mammal Stranding Network 45

I

PRIM

r----I-------,

Southeast

Alaska

UAJ

Juneau

I

Southcentral

Alaska

NMFS

Anchorage

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

MARINE MAMMAL EVENTS PROGRAM

I

ALASKA NETWORK COORDINATOR

(NMFS, Juneau)

._. I

I

ARY , RESPONSE CENTERS

Kodiak- E. Aleutian N. Bristol NortonShelikof Strait Islands Bay Kotzebue

NMFS Public Safety ADF&G ADF&G f---

Kodiak Dutch Harbor Dillingham Nome

Peninsula

Alaska W.

Islands

Aleutian

Kuskokwim

Yukon- M"orth Slope -llUSF&WS USF&WS ADF&G N. S. Borough I

Cold Bay Adak Bethel Barrow

Figure 1

Flow chart for Marine Mammal Stranding data in Alaska.

sightings or strandings reported to the Smithsonian Institution from 1975 through 1987, 58 (40 %) were submitted

since the establishment of the NMFS Alaska network in

1985. This doubles the annual average number of cetaceans

reported over the previous 10-year period when no network was in existence. Numbers and distributions of the

most commonly reported stranded cetaceans found III

Alaska since 1975 are discussed in the Appendix.

Entangled Cetaceans

Although cetaceans, most notably humpback whales

(Megaptera novaeangliae), frequently entangle themselves in

fishing gear in the western North Atlantic (Lien et al.

1987), such occurrences have been infrequently recorded

in Alaska. Until the NMFS stranding network was established in 1985, no live entangled cetaceans had been

reported to the Smithsonian Institution from Alaska,

although conversations with fishermen indicated that cetacean entanglements do occasionally occur. Since establishment ofthe network, 15 entangled cetaceans in Alaska have

been reported to the Smithsonian Institution. Of these, six

(two humpback whales, two sperm whales (Physeter catodon),

a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and an unidentified

porpoise) were found dead. The dead entangled sperm

whales were found near Sitka in southeast Alaska and on

Shemya Island in the western Aleutians. One of the dead

entangled humpback whales was found near Perryville on

the southern coast of the Alaska Peninsula; the other was

killed in the salmon gilinet fishery near Haines in southeast

Alaska. The dead entangled harbor porpoise was found in

Cook Inlet and the unidentified entangled porpoise was

found near the mouth ofthe Copper River. The other nine

entangled animals (eight humpback whales and a gray

whale [Eschrichtius robustus]) were alive when last observed.

Seven ofthe live humpback whales and the gray whale were

released from nets or other entangling debris by a variety

of rescue efforts. The remaining humpback whale appeared

to have freed itself. All of the live humpback entanglements

occurred in southeastern Alaska. The entangled gray whale

was found and freed by a fisherman in Chignik Lagoon

on the western Alaska Peninsula.

Rehabilitation of Marine Mammals

Permits to rehabilitate seals have been given to the Alaska

Zoo and to a private facility in Halibut Cove near Homer.

From 1985 through 1987, 14 seals were sent to the Alaska

Zoo, and 6 were sent to the Halibut Cove facility for

rehabilitation. The animals required treatment for a variety

of problems including disease, gunshot wounds, and loss

of parental care. After stabilizing or rehabilitating the
46 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

seals, the Alaska Zoo retained several for public display,

sent some to aquaria elsewhere in the United States, and

returned the rest to the wild. All animals treated at the

facility in Halibut Cove were returned to the wild.

Permits

Establishment ofthe stranding network in Alaska also provided an opportunity to standardize the system under

which permits or loan agreements are given to individuals

or agencies who wish to keep marine mammal parts, Permits to keep the hard parts from dead, non-endangered

species of marine mammals that are found within onequarter mile of the ocean are issued under authority

described in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR

216.26). From 1985 through 1987, 57 such permits were

issued by the Alaska stranding network.

Except for research activities, there is no authority under

the law which allows individuals or institutions to collect

any parts from an endangered species or any but the hard

parts from a non-endangered species of marine mammal.

Therefore, parts from endangered animals, or "soft" parts

from non-endangered animals, can only be loaned to institutions or individuals, and title to the animals remains

with the NMFS. From 1985 through 1987, eight loan

agreements were written to allow collection of the skeletons

of stranded whales or porpoises to preserve them for research or public display.

Discussion _

Although the average number of stranded animals reported

to the Smithsonian Institution each year has doubled since

the establishment of the stranding network in Alaska in

1985, it is apparent that the network is not yet a familiar

entity to most people in the State. Persons finding stranded

animals still tend to call local biologists or public safety

officials rather than the PRC Coordinators. Such [{:ports

may take months to reach the NMFS, if they are ever

received. This lack of an organized response may be due

to the fact that the PRC's have generally not involved other

agencies and biologists within their geographic regions, and

it is possible that this concept will not work in Alaska. During 1988, NMFS Alaska Regional Office staff planned to

contact all coastal offices of the ADF&G, F&WS, Na:ional

Park Service, University of Alaska, and State Department

of Public Safety within Alaska and request their help in

responding to marine mammal strandings. Participating

agencies or individuals were asked to investigate marine

mammal strandings and send reports to Juneau for

cataloging. The data were then sent to the Smithsonian

Institution.

Because of the large number (7) of humpback whales

that became entangled in nets in southeast Alaska in 1987,

the NMFS has begun developing plans to initiate a "whale

hotline" similar to the one established in Newfoundland

(Lien et al. 1987). The purpose of the hotline will be to

provide a quick rescue response to reports of entangled

whales in southeast Alaska.

To date, the Federal stranding network established in

Alaska in 1985 has had limited success. By involving a

greater number of agencies and individuals in the investigation of strandings, and by initiation of the whale rescue

hotline, along with frequent feedback to the people and

agencies involved, it is hoped that the Alaska stranding network will become a more active and better known entity

within the State.

Acknowledgments _

The assistance of Dr. J ames Mead in providing all of

the stranding reports from the Smithsonian Institution's

Marine Mammal Events Program data base is gratefully

acknowledged. Without his help this manuscript could not

have been prepared.

Dr. Francis Fay and Mr. John Sease each carefully

reviewed the early drafts of this paper and provided many

thoughtful and valuable suggestions. I am especially grateful to Dr. Fay for providing his perspective on the years

1955-1975. Invaluable editorial assistance was provided

by Ms. Cheryl Funaro through the courtesy of Dr. George

Snyder, Director, NMFS Auke Bay Laboratory. The

figures were drafted under contract with Point Stephens

Press.

Citations _

Fay, F.H.

1976. Morbidity and mortality of marine mammals-Bering Sea.

U.S. Dep. Commer. , NOAA, OCSEAP Ann. Rep. 1(1976):

183-246.

Fay F.H., R.A. Dieterich, and L.M. Shults.

1976. R.U. #194, morbidity and mortality of marine mammals

(Bering Sea). U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, OCSEAP Quart.

Rep., Oct.-Dec. 1(1976):276-324.

1977. Morbidity and mortality of marine mammals-Bering Sea.

U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, OCSEAP Ann. Rep. 1(1977):

161-188.

1979a. Proposal for development of a stranding alert network in

Alaska. In Biology of marine mammals: insight through strandings (j .R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin, eds.), p. 326-332. Marine

Mammal Comm. Rep. No. MMC-77/13. U.S. Dep. Commer.,

NTIS Doc. PB 293890. (Available from the National Technical

Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.)

Fay, F.H., R.A. Dieterich, L.M. Shults, and B.P. Kelly.

1978. Morbidity and mortality of marine mammals (Bering Sea).

U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, OCSEAP Ann. Rep. 1(1978):

39-79.

Fay, F.H., R.A. Dieterich, L.M. Shults, N.K. Murray, A. Hoover, and

B.P. Kelly.

1979b. Morbidity and mortality of marine mammals. U.S. Dep.

Commer., NOAA, OCSEAP Ann. Rep. 1(1979):1-34.
_________________ Zimmerman: History of the Alaskan Marine Mammal Stranding Network 47

Fay, F.H., L.M. Shults, and R.A. Dieterich.

1979c. A field manual of procedures for postmortem examination

of Alaskan marine mammals. IMS Report No. 79-1 and lAB

Occasional Publication on Northern Life No.3. Univ. Alaska,

Fairbanks, 51 p.

Frost, KJ., L.F. Lowry, and R.R. Nelson.

1984-. Belukha whale studies in Bristol Bay, Alaska. In Proceedings of the workshop on biological interactions among marine

mammals and commercial fisheries in the southeastern Bering

Sea (B.R. Metleff and D.H. Rosenberg, eds.), p.

187-200. Alaska Sea Grant Report 84--1, Univ. of Alaska,

Fairbanks.

Frost, KJ., L.F. Lowry, andJJ. Burns.

1986. Distribution of marine mammals in the coastal zone of the

eastern Chukchi Sea during summer and autumn. U.S. Dep.

Commer., NOAA, OCSEAP Final Rep. 37:377-4-70.

Geraci,J.R., and DJ. St. Aubin.

1979. Biology of marine mammals: insights through strandings. Marine Mammal Comm. Rep. No. MMC~77/13. U.S.

Dep. Commer., NTIS Doc. PB 293890, 34-3 p. (Available from

the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA

22161.)

Gosho, M.E., D.W. Rice, and J.M. Breiwick.

1984-. The sperm whale, Physeter macrocephalus. In The status of

endandered whales a.M. Breiwick and H.W. Braham, eds.), p.

54--64-. Mar. Fish. Rev. 4-6(4-).

Heyning, J.E., and M.E. Dahlheim.

1988. Orcinus orca. Am. Soc. Mammalogists, Mammalian Species

No. 304-, 6 p.

Johnson, J.H., and A.A. Wolman.

1984-. The humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae. In The status

of endangered whales a.M. Breiwick and H.W. Braham, eds.),

p. 30-27. Mar. Fish. Rev. 4-6(4-).

Leatherwood, S., R.R. Reeves, W.F. Perrin, and W.E. Evans.

1982. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises ofthe eastern North Pacific

and adjacent Arctic waters. A guide to their identification. NOAA

Tech. Rep. NMFS Circular 4-H, 24-5 p.

Leatherwood, S., R.R. Reeves, and L. Foster.

1983. The Sierra Club Handbook of Whales and Dolphins. Sierra

Club Books, San Francisco., 302 p.

Lien, J.H., J. Papineau, and L. Dugan.

1987. Incidental entrapments of cetaceans, sharks and marine turtles

in inshore fishing gear reported during 1987 in Newfoundland and

Labrador. A preliminary report to the Department of Fisheries

and Oceans and Labrador Department of Fisheries. Whale

Research Group, Newfoundland Institute for Cold Ocean Science

and Department of Psychology, Memorial University of Newfoundland. St. John's Newfoundland, 22 p.

Lowry, L.F., R.R. Nelson, and KJ. Frost.

1986. Observations of killer whales, Orcinus orca, in western Alaska:

sightings, strandings, and predation on other marine mammals.

Can. Field-Nat. 101:6-12.

Loughlin, T.R., and M.A. Perez.

1985. Mesoplodon stdnegeri. Am. Soc. Mammalogists, Mammalian

Species No. 250, 6 p.

Loughlin, T.R., C.H. Fiscus, A.M. Johnson, and DJ. Rugh.

1982. Observations of Mesoplodon sUjnegeri (Ziphiidae) in the central Aleutian Islands, Alaska. J. Mammal. 63(4-):697-700.

Schad, M.C.

1978. A field guide to the marine mammals of Alaska. U.S. Dep.

Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, Alaska Region, Juneau, 33 p.

Scordino, J.

1991. Overview of the northwest region marine mammal stranding

network, 1977-1987. In Marine mammal strandings in the

United States: proceedings of the second marine mammal stranding workshop; 3-5 December 1987, Miami, FL a.E. Reynolds

and D.K. Odell, eds.), p. 35-4-2. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech.

Rep. NMFS 98.

Seagars, DJ., and E.A. Jozwiak.

1991. The California marine mammal stranding network,

1972-1987; implementation, status, recent events, and future

goals. In Marine mammal strandings in the United States: proceedings of the second marine mammal stranding workshop; 3-5

December 1987, Miami, FL a.E. Reynolds and D.K. Odell, eds.),

p. 25-33. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 98.

Stewart, B.S., and S. Leatherwood.

1985. Minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata. In Handbook of

marine mammals, Vol. 3: The sirenians and baleen whales (S. H.

Ridgeway and R. Harrison, eds.), p. 91-136. Acad. Press,

London.

Appendix _

Notes on the Most Commonly Reported Species

of Cetaceans Found Stranded in Alaska

1975-1987

In addition to the Smithsonian Institution's Alaskan

stranding reports, and those found in published sources

(Fay 1976; Fay et al. 1977, 1978, 1979 [a, b, and cJ; Frost

et al. 1984:, 1986; Lowry et al. 1986), several unpublished

reports of Alaskan strandings are also available. These include the 1984: annual report of strandings in the lower

Cook Inlet region by the Pratt Museum (strandings investigated by the Pratt Museum since 1984: have been included in the Smithsonian Institution's data base), a file

ofstrandings that were compiled by NMFS special agents

in Alaska during the years 1979-1983, and a 1987 stranding survey (Nome to Shishmaref) by the ADF&G.

Three hundred and twenty-five stranded cetaceans are

identified to species in these reports. Distributions of the

most commonly found animals are shown in Figures 2-12.

In some cases (e.g. the Smithsonian data base) geographic

coordinates for each stranding were recorded. In other

cases (e.g. Fay 1976; Fay et al. 1977, 1978, 1979 [a, b,

and cJ; Frost et al. 1984:) strandings were recorded as the

number of animals seen over an entire survey and are so

indicated on Figures 2-12.

The gray whale has been the most frequently found

stranded cetacean in Alaska since 1975 (Table 1). Approximately 18000 gray whales reside in the Bering and

Chukchi seas during the summer and pass through the Gulf

of Alaska during fall and spring migrations to and from

wintering grounds in Mexico. Gray whales have been

found stranded throughout much ofthis area, from Yakutat

on the eastern Gulf of Alaska to Barrow on the Chukchi

Sea (Fig. 2). Of 127 reported strandings, 96 were from the

Bering Sea, 24: were from the Chukchi Sea and 7 were from
48 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Figure 2

Distribution ofstranded gray whales in Alaska,

1975-1987.

Barrow area (4)

.fl' " P'

7

o

96

, 24

\

Stranded

Gray Whales

Gulf of Alaska,

Aleutian Islands

Bering Sea

Chukchi/Beaufort Seas

S>O"?~~"

No"" ~,"l Hope 171 '-'~--, Seward

pen~nSUla"Cape Lillie (13) Espenoerg '---- -J Olomede_

I. (11 Wales/" fSOU'h 01 Wales (1)

-~.~:'~ ( "-~~-1SQ .

",~~:~:,~ :::A :,::1:, /.,.~;"~"g,ue Mlonl' &,' " Cape Newenham (1) -M.,f I (1) Bay (1) "'~J)'~ • Naknek.... ~<t -\ ~-KOdlak I. (1) .:t Peninsula (18) ~I"" q.,:

Bechevm Bay" '\ ". I=- Tugidak I. (1)

r¥1~ \ Chignik (1)

Perryville (1)

Figure 3

Distribution of stranded beluga whales 10

Alaska, 1975-1987.

Stranded

Beluga Whales

Gulf of Alaska, , , , , , 20

Aleutian Islands, ' 0

Bering Sea, , , , , , , , , , , , , , 37

Chukchi/Beaufort Seas, 1

the Gulf of Alaska, Fay (1976) found 24 stranded gray

whales in a survey which covered less than 20 % of the Bering and Chukchi coastlines, and estimated that at least 100

stranded gray whales, or approximately 1% of the estimated population at that time (about 11000 animals),

might be found if all beaches were surveyed. Several of

the whales investigated by Fay appeared to have been attacked by killer whales (Orcinus orca). Reports compiled by

NMFS Special Agents indicated that at least two of the

whales investigated in the Shishmaref area had been killed

by Soviet whalers.

The beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) has been the most

commonly stranded toothed whale found in Alaska since

1975. Geographically separated populations of beluga

whales are found in Cook Inlet and in the Bering Sea

(Leatherwood et al. 1983), and Alaskan strandings of this

species tend to reflect that distribution (Fig. 3). Nearly onethird of the strandings (20 of 58) were from the Cook Inlet.

The other 38 strandings were reported from Bristol Bay

to Kotzebue Sound. Most of these animals (37 of38) were

found in Bristol Bay.

Stejneger's beaked whale (Mesoplodon stejnegerz) inhabits

the cold temperate and subarctic waters of the North

Pacific, and strandings of this species have been reported

to be fairly common in the Aleutian Islands (Loughlin et

al. 1982; Loughlin and Perez 1985). Of the 29 Stejneger's

beaked whales reported to the Smithsonian Institution, 21

were found in the Aleutian Islands, 5 were found near the

north or south side of the western Alaska Peninsula in the

vicinity of Cold Bay, and 3 have been found on the

southern Kenai Peninsula.

Killer whales are found in all oceans of the world and

the distribution of Alaskan strandings reflects this wide

distribution (Heyning and Dahlheim 1988). Of the total

20 strandings reported from Alaska since 1975, 1 was

reported from the Chukchi Sea, 13 from the Bering Sea,
________________ Zimmerman: History of the Alaskan Marine Mammal Stranding Network 49

Figure 4

Distribution of stranded Stejneger's beaked

whales in Alaska, 1975-1987.

Mollet

Point (1)

Oped I. (21'-\ c:J! IlI"A Sand Point (1)

.pc .\ . . P Cold Bay 111

.....-- Shemya I. ( 1)

/\ , / Tanaga I (21

Amchilka I. (1) .," 1>..,t3. <:?",,- co

Adak I. (17)/

Stranded

Stejneger's Beaked Whales

Gulf of Alaska. 5

Aleutian Islands. . . 21

Bering Sea 3

Chukchi/Beaufort Seas. 0

St. Paull. (1)-'

Figure 5

Distribution ofstranded killer whales in Alaska,

1975-1987.

Stranded

Killer Whales

Gulf of Alaska'. 6

Aleutian Islands. 0

Bering Sea. . .. 13

Chukchi/Beaufort Seas. 1

and 6 from the Gulf of Alaska (Fig. 5). Five of the Bering

Sea animals stranded together near the north end of

Nunivak Island in May 1984 (Lowry et al. 1986)-this

event represents the only recorded "mass stranding" of

cetaceans in Alaskan waters. Reports of stranded killer

whales extend from Lincoln Island near Juneau in

southeastern Alaska, to Kividlo (near Shishmaref) on the

Chukchi Sea.

Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) is widely distributed in all oceans between the Arctic and Antarctic,

and it is believed to be the most abundant beaked whale

along the west coast of North America from the Bering Sea

to the Equator (Leatherwood et al. 1983). Strandings of

this species are commonly reported (Leatherwood et al.

1982). In Alaska, Cuvier's beaked whales have been found

stranded from Sitka, on the eastern Gulf of Alaska, to

Agattu Island in the western Aleutians. They have been

found most commonly in the Aleutian Islands (12 of 19

reports). Single stranded animals were found near Black

Hills Beach and Bechevin Bay on the north side of the

Alaska Peninsula. The remaining 5 strandings were found

across the central and eastern coastal regions of the Gulf

of Alaska (Fig. 6).

Minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) are found

throughout the world's oceans and they are abundant in

the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska (Stewart and Leatherwood 1985). In Alaska stranded minke whales have been

found from Betton Island near Ketchikan in southeastern

Alaska, to Eschscholtz Bay in Kotzebue Sound (Fig. 7).

Another animal, believed to have been a minke whale was

tentatively identified, but not confirmed, from near Point

Hope by NMFS Special Agents. Several of the strandings

were from the Cook Inlet area (5 of 19 reports) or from

St. Lawrence Island (4 of 19 reports).

Bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) occur only in Arctic

and subarctic waters. The Bering Sea stock of this species
50 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Figure 6

Distribution of stranded Cuvier's whales In

Alaska, 1975-1987.

~;,

pZ.£1°·'Tig~lda I. ',,)

Umnak I. (1 I

~.

. Amchilka I. (1) . l">-c. c:!?

Ada' I. 15)/ / ..... Atka I. (1)

Stranded

Cuvier's Beaked Whales

Gulf of Alaska. 5

Aleutian Islands . 12

Bering Sea 2

Chukchi! Beaufort Seas 0

Nizki I. (2) ..• /

'G"_Agattu I. (1)

Gambell,

Powooihak PI -~

Stranded

Minke Whales

Gulf of Alaska. . 10

Aleutian Islands. . 0

Bering Sea. 7

Chukchi/Beaufort Seas. 2

\e .• ,~. \}-c. ..f)0 ._ P'

...... Eschscholtz Bay (2)

, Betton

1.(1)

Figure 7

Distribution of stranded minke whales In

Alaska, 1975-1987.

makes annual migrations between the central Bering Sea,

where they winter, and the eastern Beaufort Sea where they

feed during the summer. They are hunted by Eskimos from

St. Lawrence Island in the northern Bering Sea to Kaktovik

(Barter Island) in the central Beaufort Sea. Although

several animals are struck with explosive harpoons and lost

each year, there is only one confirmed bowhead stranding

in the Smithsonian data base (Table 1). Fay (1976) reported

an additional four animals, Fay et al. (1978) reported two,

the ADF&G survey in 1987 reported two, and NMFS

special agents reported two more. All of the reports are

from St. Lawrence Island or northwestern Alaska (Fig. 8.)

Humpback whales are found in all seas lying between

the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans (Johnson and Wolman

1984). Although large numbers of humpback whales were

taken by Soviet and Japanese whalers in the eastern Aleutian Islands through 1965, the westernmost stranding of

this species since 1975 was reported from Kodiak Island

(Fig. 9). Since 1975, most of the strandings (8 of9) have

been reported from southeastern Alaska.

Sperm whales are found in all the world's oceans. Although they are widely distributed in the North Pacific

(Gosho et al. 1984) the majority of Alaskan strandings (5)

have been reported from the western Aleutian Islands (Fig.

10). One each was found on Kodiak Island, in Prince

William Sound, on Cape St. Elias, and near Sitka.

Baird's beaked whale (Berardius bairdit) is native to the

North Pacific and has been found stranded as far north

as St. Lawrence Island (Leatherwood et al. 1982). Since

1975 seven strandings of this whale in Alaska have been

reported to the Smithsonian Institution, and Fay (1976)

described an additional stranding. The northernmost

stranding since 1975 has been from the area between Cape

Pierce and Cape Newenham (Fay 1976) (Fig. 11). One

animal was reported from Bogoslof Island in the southern

Bering Sea, and one from Sitkalidak Island near Kodiak.
_________________ Zimmerman: History of the Alaskan Marine Mammal Stranding Network 51

o

o

8

3

Stranded

Bowhead Whales

Gulf of Alaska.

Aleutian Islands.

Bering Sea.

Chukchi/Beaufort Seas.

Point Barrow (1)

Ne.,~.~~\arrOW(11

Arctic

Lagoon

(1) \

-;.;C. Woolley to C. Douglas (1)

Gambell....... ..... Nome to C. Woolley (1)

Powooitiak Pt./~ SI. Lawrence l. (6)

Figure 8

Distribution of stranded bowhead whales In

Alaska, 1975-1987.

Figure 9

Distribution of stranded humpback whales in

Alaska, 1975-1987.

Stranded

Humpback Whales

Gulf of Alaska. 9

Aleutian Islands. 0

Bering Sea. 0

Chukchi/Beaufort Seas. 0

The remaining five strandings occurred in the Aleutian

Islands.

The fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) is found in all the

major oceans of the world, with Alaskan concentrations

occurring in the Gulf of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands

(Leatherwood et al. 1983). Five fin whale strandings have

been reported to the Smithsonian Institution. Fay (1976)

and Fay et al. (1979) each contain an additional report.

Stranded fin whales have been found from St. Lawrence

Island in the Bering Sea to Tatitlek in eastern Prince

William Sound (Fig. 12). Two of the strandings of this

species occurred on St. Paul Island in 1981.

In addition to these animals, the following cetacean

species have also been reported stranded since 1975: four

harbor porpoises; two Dall's porpoises (Phocoenoides dallz);

one spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata); one Pacific whitesided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens); and one Risso's

dolphin (Grampus griseus).
52 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Stranded

Sperm Whales

Gulf of Alaska. 4

Aleutian Islands. 5

Bering Sea. a Chukchi/Beaufort Seas. . a

">. ./Shemya I. (3)

..,

Kiska I.{,) \. e

.•.. "~\ 6'",.

Adak I. (1)

Figure 10

Distribution of stranded sperm beaked whales

in Alaska, 1975-1987.

Stranded

Baird's Beaked Whales

Gulf of Alaska. 1

Aleutian Islands. 5

Bering Sea 2

Chukchi/Beaufort Seas. . a

~- Buldir I. (1) .., \0 Amchilka I. (1), ,). ~-#c.

Adak 1.(1)/

80g0510f I. (') "

. p"..B\0 ~ni~ak I. (1)

Dutch

Harbor (1)

\

\

Figure 11

Distribution of stranded Baird's beaked whales

in Alaska, 1975-1987.

Stranded

Fin Whales

Gulf of Alaska ..

Aleutian Islands.

Bering Sea.

Chukchi/Beaufort Seas.

3

1

3

a

St. Lawrence 1. (1) ~~

51. Paul 1.(2)-'

Figure 12

Distribution of stranded fin whales in Alaska,

1975-1987.
_________________ Zimmerman: History of the Alaskan Marine Mammal Stranding Network 53

Table 1

Numbers of the most commonly stranded cetacean species found on Alaskan beaches during the years 1975-1987.

Source of stranding reports

Species

Gray whale

(Eschrichtius robustus)

Beluga whale

(Delphinapterus leucas)

Stejneger's beaked whale

(Mesoplodon stejnegm)

Killer whale

(Orcinus orca)

Cuvier's beaked whale

(Ziphius cavirostris)

Minke whale

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata)

Bowhead whale

(Bacaena mysticetus)

Humpback whale

(Megaptera novaeangliae)

Sperm whale

(Physeter catadon)

Baird's beaked whale

(Berardius bairdil)

Fin whale

(Balaenoptera physalus)

Smithsonian

Institution

10

8

29

8

19

7

9

8

5

Fay 1976

Fay et al. 1977

Fay et al. 1978

Fay et al. 1979

103

11'

10

6

2

NMFS special

agent files

9

2

Pratt

Museum

2

Frost et al. 1984

Frost et al. 1986

Lowry et al. 1986

36

10

2

ADF&G

1987 survey

4

2

Total

127

58

29

20

19

19

11

9

9

8

7

'Fay et al. (1979) described 19 beluga whale strandings from Cook Inlet. Only those which were found since 1975 are reported here.

bFay and his associates found two Stejneger's beaked whales. Both of these were reported to the Smithsonian Institution and are listed here

as part of that data set.

The Marine Mammal Stranding Network for Hawaii,

An Overview

EUGENE T. NITTA

Pacific Area Office, Southwest Region

National Marine Fisheries Service

2570 Dole Street

Honolulu, HI 96822-2396

ABSTRACT

A marine mammal stranding network for the State of Hawaii was formalized and implemented

by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Southwest Region, Pacific Area Office (PAO),

Protected Species Program in 1984:. There are records for approximately 100 cetacean stranding

incidents for the main Hawaiian Islands dating from 1936. Forty-eight of the stranding records

are on file at the PAO. The most frequently reported species were striped dolphins (Stenella

coeruleoalba); short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus); melon-headed whales

(Peponocephala electra); humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae); and pygmy sperm whales (Kogia

breviceps).

Introduction _

The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 placed federal legal constraints on the treatment and removal of stranded marine

mammals. In the absence of specific regulations dealing

with strandings beyond authorizing state and local agencies to "take" marine mammals, it became necessary to

develop policies, procedures, and programs to deal with

strandings. In response to these legal requirements and increasing public interest, regional stranding networks have

been developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS).

Background _

The early Hawaiians referred to dolphins as "nai'a" and

large whales as "kohola" (Pukui and Elbert 1965; Titcomb

1972). Doubtless numerous stranded dolphins and porpoises, as well as large whales, were either consumed,

disposed of, or otherwise dealt with by the Hawaiians prior

to the arrival of western cultures and their written records

in Hawaii. Whale parts, particularly sperm whale (Physeter

macrocephalus) teeth were used for ornaments (Titcomb

1972), tools, and weapons. The paucity of reference to cetaceans in Hawaiian language, ceremonies, myths, rituals,

petroglyphs, and 19th century writings suggests that cetaceans were perhaps not used as extensively as in other

western and South Pacific island cultures such as Fiji,

Tonga, Samoa, New Zealand, and the Marquesas (Shallenberger 1981).

Although stranded whales were considered a good omen

and property of the" ali'i" (royalty), it is not known if cetaceans were eaten on a regular basis. Conflicting accounts

indicate that whales were not eaten but dolphins were (Titcomb 1972), or that whales were eaten only by men (Malo

1951). Shallenberger (1981; p. 22) citing Peale (1848) noted

that 60 melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra) "were

driven ashore by the natives of Hilo Bay and were considered a dainty food and yielded valuable oil. " Even after

the arrival of the "haoles" (foreigners), such incidents apparently did not merit much scientific interest or attention

in the press because the written record as such is sparse,

at least until the 1950s. The earliest available record of a

cetacean stranding in Hawaii consists of a newspaper report

(Anonymous 1936a) and a photograph (Tinker 1988) of

a stranded humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in

Waikiki on 14 March 1936.

During the 1960s and 1970s, Norris and Shallenberger

reported or responded to over 80% ofthe recorded strandings in Hawaii (Shallenberger 1981). Beginning in the late

1960s, stranding incident reports were forwarded to the

local National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) office, and as

circumstances allowed, there were also direct responses

55
56 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

to stranding incidents. In addition to Norris and Shallenberger, other reporting sources included the Waikiki

Aquarium, Honolulu Zoo, State Fish and Game wardens,

and Coast Guard and Navy personnel with an interest in

or responsibility for wildlife management. County police

also reported strandings on occasion. The extent of these

early records is unknown; much of the data still remains

untranscribed in individual log books or memoranda.

A Marine Mammal Stranding Network in Hawaii _

Beginning in 1976, the NMFS and the State of Hawaii

attempted several times to develop a statelfederal agreement to deal with marine mammal strandings in the State.

While there is still no formal agreement, biologists from

the State's Division of Aquatic Resources continue to

respond to strandings on the islands of Kauai, Molokai,

and Maui. Officers from the Division ofConservation and

Resources Enforcement' report strandings to the network

in the normal course of their duties. Integration ofstranding data from Hawaii into the Smithsonian Institution

Scientific Event Alert Network (SEAN) in 1976 and later

the Marine Mammal Events Program (MMEP) helped

standardize data formats and the types of information to

be collected.

Since the 1977 U.S. Marine Mammal Commissionsponsored national Stranding Workshop at Athens,

Georgia (Geraci and St. Aubin 1979), regional networks

have been developed for all of the NMFS Regions. Although the networks are similar in many respects, by

necessity they vary in design and operation from region

to region. Because of the isolated nature of Hawaii and

the western Pacific, and the great distances between islands,

communications and control are often quite difficult, if

not impossible. Compounding these issues are the problems of lack of trained personnel, questions of statutory

authority, and at times, reluctance of local government

involvement.

The Southwest Region of NMFS is responsible for

marine mammal and endangered species management

activities in California, Hawaii, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa,

and the U.S. flag territories of the Pacific, which, until

recently, also included the Trust Territory of the Pacific

Islands. Cetacean strandings on Guam, the Commonwealth ofthe Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa,

and other U.S. Pacific possessions are so infrequent that

incidents are treated on a case by case basis, usually by

the local fish and game or marine resource authority in

consultation with NMFS. A Federally coordinated network

for California has been in operation since the mid-1970s.

Organizational efforts in Hawaii did not begin until

1979-80 when the Southwest Region established a Protected Species Program for the western Pacific. Workshops

were held on the major islands in Hawaii and informal

working arrangements were developed with state, local and

other federal agencies.

By 1984 it was determined that a more structured

organization was required for reporting and responding

to strandings in Hawaii. Subsequently, in September and

November 1984, NMFS representatives met with federal,

state and county officials on the islands of Oahu, Kauai,

Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii. Attendees at each meeting

included personnel from the Hawaii State Department of

Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) [Division of Aquatic

Resources (DAR) and Division of Conservation and

Resources Enforcement (DOCARE)], Hawaii State

Department of Health, County Police, and County Department of Public Works. Additional participants at the Oahu

meeting included NMFS Enforcement, the University of

Hawaii, Sea Life Park, and the Waikiki Aquarium. Stranding procedures were discussed, roles defined, posters provided, and telephone numbers exchanged. Stranding plans

for each of the major islands were developed from input

obtained at these meetings and sent to all participants.

The problems of limited available resources and the

distances between islands were becoming increasingly

exacerbated by intervention of well-intentioned, but inexperienced, volunteers in live strandings. In order to provide a higher level of professional expertise and concurrently provide faster responses to live-strandings on the

outer islands, veterinarians with experience in marine

mammal medicine or those with a particular interest in

marine mammals were sought for inclusion in the network.

A statewide workshop for veterinarians agreeing to participate in the network was held on Oahu in May 1988 to

familiarize them with ongoing practices and recent advances in marine mammal medicine. Veterinarians are

now available to respond to strandings on Oahu, Maui,

Kauai, and Hawaii.

The working arrangements with the agencies and individuals in the network consist of an agreed-upon and

acknowledged level of participation, the acceptance of the

stranding protocols developed by NMFS, and an understanding of specific authorities for participation under

federal, state, and local statutes. At present, the network

consists of well trained professionals, although one or more

volunteer organizations have expressed an interest in participating. However, because of the high turnover rate in

personnel in volunteer organizations and the infrequent

nature of strandings in Hawaii, their participation has not

been actively sought. In Hawaii all strandings are coordinated by NMFS either by direct on-scene intervention

or by delegation to appropriate federal, state, local agency

officials, or an authorized veterinarian.

The primary reporting sources are the county police

departments by virtue of their greater numbers of personnel in the field, high visibility, and excellent communica-
__________________ Nitta: Overview of the Hawaiian Marine Mammal Stranding Network 57

tion facilities. Other sources include pilots, lifeguards,

fishermen, vessel operators, the public, and ocean users

in general. Reports are also forwarded to NMFS through

the biologists and enforcement officers of the Hawaii

Department of Land and Natural Resources, Sea Life

Park, the Waikiki Aquarium, and conservation groups.

County or separate sub-networks have been organized to

report and deal with strandings on the islands of Kauai,

Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Hawaii. All of these subnetworks, including Oahu, are centrally coordinated by the

NMFS Protected Species Program in Honolulu. For illustrative purposes, the network for Oahu is described

below.

The Honolulu Police Department (HPD), Sea Life Park,

or the Waikiki Aquarium are the most likely organizations

to receive initial notification of strandings. The HPD conducts the initial investigation and obtains the following information: 1) number and description of the animals, 2)

their exact location, and 3) their condition. The HPD

secures the scene if necessary, ensuring that unauthorized

persons do not interfere. The HPD then notifies NMFS

and awaits the arrival of personnel authorized to take

action. This is intended to prevent well-intentioned but

untrained persons from injuring themselves or possibly

causing harm to live, stranded animals, and to ensure an

accounting for all parts from dead animals.

Generally, NMFS is the first agency contacted for live

strandings and is responsible for making follow-up calls as

well as providing on-scene coordination for live strandings.

Sea Life Park has made its facilities and personnel available

for rehabilitation of live stranded animals.

The public, including interested bystanders and the

media, is given, upon request, a briefstatement about the

species involved, its present status, the fact that stranded

animals most often die, that trained personnel are doing

everything possible for the animal(s), and, finally, a brief

summary about the stranding network. The on-scene coordinator determines whether to deal with questions directly

or to designate one person to respond so that work continues uninterrupted.

Animals that strand alive often expire before any

action can be taken. Those that die and the ones that

wash up dead and are recoverable are collected and

necropsied by the State Department of Agriculture, Division of Animal Industry, or NMFS. Basic morphometric

data are taken, and stomach contents, parasites, samples

for histopathology, and other appropriate tissue and fluid

samples are collected for later analysis or for use by other

researchers according to need and requests on file. Skulls

and complete skeletons are loaned to appropriate institutions for research or educational purposes under

agreements where title to the specimens remains with

the NMFS. Ifthe animal is too decomposed or mutilated

to provide information, County Public Works or City

Maintenance is contacted for disposal at a landfill or

burial as appropriate. Evidence of human-related injury

is reported to NMFS and/or state enforcement where

appropriate.

Data recording forms are those used by the Smithsonian

Institution. The field number consists of the collector's

initials and four digits (e.g., LDC 87-01) signifying year

and number for that year. The MMEP at the Smithsonian Institution is also notified after all the reports are

completed.

Strandings _

Between 1936 and December 1988, 98 cetacean stranding

incidents were reported for the Hawaiian Islands (Table

1). The primary source of these reports is Shallenberger

(1981; p. 37a) and the remainder from the 1980s are

Table 1

Cetacean strandings in the Hawaiian Islands. An asterisk C*) indicates that a stranding record is on file with the Pacific Area

Office, NOAA Fisheries, Honolulu. All other sources are as cited or are unpublished records.

Date Species Location Investigator/source

14 Mar 1936 Megaptera novaeangliae Waikiki, Oahu Anon. (1936a, b); Tinker (1988)

3 Apr 1937 75 [t. whale Kilauea, Kauai Anon. (1937)

Jan 1950 Ziphius cavirostris South Point, Hawaii Richards (1952)

Jan 1950 Orcinus orca South Point, Hawaii Richards (1952)

Sep 1954 Physeter macrocephalus Kahuku, Oahu Anon. (1954a, b)

(?) Balaenoptera physalus Kohakuloa, Maui Breese

18 Jun 1957 Globicephala macrorhynchus (2) Oahu Scott (1957); Anon. (1957)

18Jun 1957 Globicephala macrorhynchus (1) Punaluu, Oahu Williams (1957)

2 Mar 1958 Stenella coeruleoalba Ala Wai, Oahu Hubbs et aI. (1973)

12 May 1958 Globicephala macrorhynchus (16) Waikiki, Oahu Anon. (1958a, b)

3 Oct 1958 Globicephala macrorhynchus (24) Keomuku Beach, Lanai Brady (1958)

3 Oct 1958 Globicephala macrorhynchus (24) Poaiwa Bay, Lanai Anon. (1958c, d)
58 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Table 1 (Continued)

Date

28 Oct 1958

10 May 1959

14 May 1959

Apr 1961

Apr 1961

24 Oct 1963

27 Jun 1964

15 Jun 1965

1 Mar 1969

27 Jul 1969

Jul 1970

17Jun 1971

27 Aug 1971

Jun 1972

26 Jun 1972

18 Feb 1973

30Jan 1974

30Jan 1974

Feb 1975

6 Jun 1975

10 Mar 1976

27 Jun 1976

3 Jul 1976

14 Jul 1976

29 Jul 1976

16 Feb 1977

14 Jul 1977

12 Sep 1977

5 Oct 1977

5 Jan 1978

11 Feb 1978

7 May 1978

17 Sep 1978

17 Nov 1978

14 Feb 1979

23 Feb 1979

13 Apr 1979

21 Oct 1979

24 Dec 1979

26 Apr 1980

10 May 1980

31 May 1980

21 Oct 1980

6 Jan 1981

22 Feb 1981

13 Jun 1981

29Jul 1981

12 Aug 1982

17 Aug 1982

16 Feb 1983

22 Mar 1983

Apr 1983

27 Apr 1983

15 Jun 1983

30 Aug 1983

21 Dec 1983

17 Jan 1984

25 Apr 1984

10 Jul 1985

27 Aug 1985

Species

Glohicephala macrorhynchus (12)

Glohicephala macrorhynchus (28)

Glohicephala macrorhynchus

Ziphius cauirostris

Mesoplodon densirostris

Kogia hreuiceps

Peponocephala electra

Peponocephala electra

Stenella longirostris

Steno hredanensis

Ziphius cauirostris

Peponocephala electra

Peponocephala electra

Kogia breuiceps

Stenella longirostris

Megaptera nouaeangliae (call)

Kogia hreuiceps

Pseudorca crassidens

Feresa allenuata

Stenella allenuata

Steno hredanensis (18)

Steno hredanensis

Steno hredanensis

Peponocephala electra

Kogia breuiceps (1 female, 1 call)

Grampus griseus

Kogia hreuiceps (?)

Stenella cocruleoalha

Stenella longirostris

Stenella cocruleoalha

Megaptera nouaeangliae

Stenella cocruleoalba

Stenella coeruleoalba

Grampus griseus

Physeter macrocephalus

Stenella cocruleoalba

Megaptera nouaeangliae (call)

Pseudorca crassidens

Kogia hreuiceps

Stenella coeruleoalha

Stenella cocruleoalha

Stenella cocruleoalha

Pseudorca crassidens

Ziphius cauirostris

Megaptera nouaeangliae (calf)

Feresa attenuata (4)

Pseudorca crassidens (?)

Unidentified dolphin

Unidentified small whale

Grampus griseus

Physeter macrocephalus (?)

Mesoplodon densirostris

Stenella coeruleoalha

Peponocephala electra

Unidentified beaked whale

Tursiops truncatus

Stenella cocruleoalha

Globicephala macrorhynchus

Physeter mtUTocephalus

Peponocephala electra

Location

Kalihi Beach, Kauai

Anini, Kauai

Waimanalo, Oahu

Midway

Midway

Bellows Beach, Oahu

Kahuku, Oahu

Lahaina, Maui

Sandy Beach, Oahu

Waianae, Oahu

Makaha, Oahu

Kahuku, Oahu

Keehi Lagoon, Oahu

Laie, Oahu

Makapuu, Oahu

Kaaawa, Oahu

Kalaupapa, Molokai

Kailua Beach, Oahu

On fence post/Hawi, Hawaii

Haleiwa, Oahu

Kaanapali, Maui

Kihei, Maui

Kahuku, Oahu

Punaluu, Oahu

Kihei, Maui

Wailuku, Maui

Waimea, Kauai

Punaluu, Oahu

Mokuleia, Oahu

Reef Runway, Oahu

Kihei, Maui

Haleiwa, Oahu

Kailua Beach, Oahu

Kahala, Oahu

Barbers Point, Oahu

Kahuku, Oahu

Volcano Nat. Park, Hawaii

Mokapu Peninsula, Oahu

Kihei, Maui

Kaaawa, Oahu

Kihei, Maui

Kihei, Maui

Mokapu Peninsula, Oahu

Hilo, Hawaii

Punaluu, Oahu

Maalaea, Maui

Hana, Maui

Kihei, Maui

Mauna Kea Beach, Hawaii

Kihei, Maui

Haena, Kauai

Laysan Island

Punaluu, Oahu

Makaha, Oahu

Waiakalua-Pilaa, Kauai

Kepui Beach, Molokai

Pauwalu Harbor, Molokai

Kahana Bay, Oahu

Kaneohe Bay, Oahu

Mokuleia, Oahu

Investigator/source

Anon. (1958e, I)

Anon. (1959a); Tomich (1986)

Anon. (1959b,c,d)

Galbreath (1963)

Galbreath (1963)

Norris

Norris

Norris

Norris

Norris

Norris

Norris

Norris

Shallenberger

Shallenberger

Shallenberger

Shallenberger and Naughton

Shallenberger

Shallenberger

Shallenberger

Naughton>

Shallenberger

Shallenberger

Shallenberger

Shallenberger

Shallenberger

Telfer

Shallenberger

Shallenberger

Shallenberger

Iversen

Shallenberger

Shallenberger

Shallenberger

Shallenberger>

Shallenberger

Naughton

Shallenberger

Shallenberger

Shallenberger

Hudnall>

Shallenberger>

Shallenberger

Gilmartin>

Naughton>

Pacific Whale Foundation>

Maui Police Dept. >

Pacific Whale Foundation>

Karr>

Ball*

Heacock>

Gilmartin>

Schroeder>

Henderson>

Moriarty>

Sheraton-Molokai >

Sautter>

Nitta>

Consiglieri>

Consiglieri>
___________________ Nitta: Overview of the Hawaiian Marine Mammal Stranding Network 59

Table 1 (Continued)

Date

3 Oct 1985

8 Jan 1986

13 Jan 1986

13 Mar 1986

24 Mar 1986

2 Apr 1986

9 May 1986

8 Jun 1986

13 Jun 1986

25 Sep 1986

25 Sep 1986

23 Oct 1986

1 Jan 1987

12 Jan 1987

4 Feb 1987

20 Mar 1987

20 Jun 1987

21 Sep 1987

11 Feb 1988

23 Feb 1988

16 Jul 1988

17 Jul 1988

14 Aug 1988

13 Sep 1988

23 Sep 1988

26 Sep 1988

16 Oct 1988

Species

Tursiops truncalus

Kogia breviceps

Megaptera novaeangliae

Slenelia coeruleoalba

Peponocephala electra

Tursiops truncatus

Globicephala macrorhynchus

Stenella attenuata

Unidentified dolphin

Pseudorca crassidens

Stenella coeruleoalba

Stenella longirostris (calf)

Sleno bredanensis

Stenella attenuata (calf)

Megaptera novaeangliae (calf)

Megaptera novaeangliae (calf)

Kogia simus

Stenella longirostris

Grampus griseus

Stenella longirostris

Feresa attenuata

Feresa attenuata

Kogia breviceps

Feresa attenuata

Physeter macrocephalus

Stenella longirostris

Peponocephala electra

Location

Mokuleia, Oahu

Kalaupapa, Molokai

Kahoolawe

Kailua, Oahu

Kuau Bay, Maui

Bellows Beach, Oahu

Kahului Harbor, Maui

Kaoio Pt, Oahu

Olowalu, Maui

Mokapu Peninsula, Oahu

Lanikai, Oahu

Mokapu Peninsula, Oahu

Waipio Bay, Hawaii

Makaha, Oahu

Waiakalua, Kauai

Kalaupapa, Molokai

Hauola Gulch, Lanai

Haleiwa, Oahu

Paia, Maui

Nukumoi Pt, Kauai

Kihei, Maui

Kihei, Maui

Punaluu, Oahu

Kihei, Maui

Ahukini, Kauai

Kaanapali, Maui

Mokuleia, Oahu

Investigator/source

Consiglieri"

Consiglieri"

Consiglieri"

Nitta"

Consiglieri"

Consiglieri"

Consiglieri"

Henderson"

Naughton"

Schroeder"

Naughton"

Schroeder"

Henderson"

Consiglieri"

Heacock"

Nitta"

Nitta"

Nitta"

Nitta"

Heacock"

Nitta"

Henderson"

Nitta"

Nitta"

Heacock"

Kehler"

Nitta"

reported by NMFS. Of these reports, 48 records are

available and on file with the Protected Species Program,

Pacific Area Office. Each stranding is listed as a single

incident whether or not more than one animal was involved. The list is by no means complete and there may

be other records available. A listing provided by the

Smithsonian Institution, MMEP included many entries not

reported by Shallenberger (1981) and vice versa, which is

due, in part, to apparent discrepancies between the two

lists in collection dates, reporting dates, and collectors

and/or citations.

The MMEP records and reports only cetacean strandings and, to be consistent, only cetacean stranding reports

are logged into the Hawaii data base. Sea turtle and

Hawaiian monk seal (Monachlls schauinslandl) strandings are

also reported but are maintained separately by the Honolulu Laboratory, Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

The most frequent strandings by occurrence of reports

(since 1936) are of streaker or striped dolphins (Stenella

coeruleoalba). The next most common species in order of

reporting frequency are short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus), melon-headed whales (Peponocephala

electra), humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), and

pygmy sperm whales (Kogia breviceps). All other reported

species had incidences offive reports or less (Table 2). This

list, however, is not an accurate measure of the total

number of animals of each species that was stranded and

reported, since some reports involved two or more individuals and others are mass strandings spread over the

course of a few days and/or two or more islands.

Interestingly, significant numbers ofstrandings, both live

and dead, are reported from specific areas such as Maalaea

Bay on the southwest coast of Maui, and the northwest

coast of Oahu from Mokuleia to Kahuku (Fig. 1). There

is no apparent trend in the frequency of stranding by

species from these two areas.

Discussion

Treatment and on-scene decisions concerning stranded

marine mammals are almost always difficult. At the one

extreme, there are those that demand (usually the wellmeaning public or conservation groups) that heroic measures be undertaken to attempt to save even hopelessly ill

marine mammals. At the other end of the spectrum are

those individuals and organizations charged with the

animal's welfare but having limited resources. As always,

marine mammal recovery decisions are judgments based

on available veterinary advice and experience, satisfying

few ofthe interested parties. The key agency questions tend

to be the following: Should it respond, directly depleting
60 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

,--------------------------------_._---

Table 2

Frequency of stranding reports 1936-1988.

Species Reports Species Reports

Stenella coeruleoalha 13 Pseudorca crassidens 4

Glohicephala macrorhynchus' 11 Grampus griseus 4

Peponocephala electra 10 Stenella attenuata 3

Kogia hreviceps 8 Tursiops truncatus 3

Megaptera novaeangliae 8 Mesoplodon densirostris 2

Steno hredanensis b 5 Orcinus orca 1

Ziphius cavirostris 5 Balaenoptera physalus 1

Physeter macrocephalus 5 Kogia simus 1

Feresa attenuata 5

, At least two mass strandings reported in 1958 were listed as separate incidents because of the different stranding sites and dates. The 1958 strandings involved up to 24 animals each in three separate

incidents on Lanai and Kauai over a 25 day period in October.

bA single mass stranding of 18 individuals on 10 March 1976 was reported as one incident. Figure 1

Hawaiian Archipelago and areas of

reported high incidences of cetacean

strandings.

KAHUKU POINT

-30'

154'30°30'

-+---)~20'

1550

160'

f

N

LANA'",- U MAUl

MAALAE"'" BAa

A N

165'

o C E

170'

F I c

175 0

A C I

180'

KURE

AT8,LL (ttr~AY I.

'''&t,~:~~- "T',:::'.",::" "'"

I LISIAN1SKI I. e,\,":) M~~b ,;;.BANK p....

GuA!-'-R"'O-=N... E::'R'::-+---=-__------1---------+-------25. REEF .) TIEN BANK

BANKS

'.::.'. NECKER I.

FRENCH .:':::::. .;>0.

FRIGATE

SHOALS

I ':J. HANCOCK

~;Z~~~~NK-'----------11--------+--------+-

157')"'1'

p
___________________ Nitta: Overview of the Hawaiian Marine Mammal Stranding Network 61

available funds for the year in order to attempt to save one

member of an apparently large and healthy stock of marine

mammals? Are some species such as spinner dolphins less

"valuable" than bottlenose dolphins or humpback whales?

Do all species weigh equally in our decisions to attempt

to treat individual animals? Each case is unique and requires the judgment of the responsible person on-scene to

evaluate the resources available, prognosis for recovery of

the animal (in consultation with a veterinarian); accessibility of animals; and extent of public interest and

involvement.

The public in general is still not well informed about the

low survivorship of stranded cetaceans. High and undue

expectation of survival of animals many times leads to an

expenditure of effort, funds, and resources that might be

better used for the common good of the species or stock.

Loftin (1985; p. 231) argues that "those who take it upon

themselves to treat wildlife are well-intentioned and genuinely concerned about their charges." But, he continues,

doctoring individual wild animals is of extremely limited

value, wastes valuable resources, and diverts attention from

higher priority needs. Although it is not wrong to treat or

attempt to treat sick or injured individual animals, it should

be remembered that value lies in the ecosystem and not

so much in the individual (except perhaps in certain endangered species near extinction). Ethical and moral

judgments aside, there are tangible benefits to be gained

in the treatment of individual animals including increased

knowledge of disease identification and treatment, channeling concerned public interest toward species and ecosystem values, and soliciting support for research and

management funding from private and public sources, even

in areas of apparent low stranding activity such as Hawaii.

Operating within the constraints of limited response

resources and the statutory restrictions on the treatment

of stranded marine mammals, the Hawaii Stranding Network permits the extraction of the best possible information from stranding incidents while facilitating the expedient and legal removal or treatment of animals if that is

warranted. While providing for the short-term treatment

and disposition ofstranded marine mammals, the Network

also contributes to long-term information needs related to

understanding population structure, species distribution,

and other facets of the natural history of Hawaiian

cetaceans.

Acknowledgments _

During his assignment to the Protected Species Program,

Pacific Area Office, LT, Lewis D. Consiglieri, NOAA

Corps, was responsible for conducting the organizational

meetings, formalizing the interagency agreements, and

overseeing the operation of the Hawaii Marine Mammal

Stranding Network. His efforts are gratefully acknowledged.

Citations _

Anonymous.

1936a. 18 foot whale makes call (by request), jams traffic. Honolulu Star-Bull., 14 March 1936.

1936b. Plans to exhibit baby whale hit slight snag by Health Board.

Honolulu Advertiser, 15 March 1936, p. 1.

1937. 75 foot whale washed ashore on Garden Isle. Honolulu StarBull., 5 April 1937, p. 9.

1954a. Whale beached off Kahuku - all town knows. Honolulu

Advertiser, 29 September 1954, p. A-2.

1954b. Dead whale identified as now-scarce sperm. Honolulu

Advertiser, 1 October 1954, p. C-1.

1957. Second whale washed up on Kuhio Beach dead. Honolulu

Star-Bulletin, 18 June 1957, p. 1.

1958a. Cat crew has whale of a time. Honolulu Advertiser, 13

May 1958, p. A-6.

1958b. Sharks end brief hour offame for a whale. Honolulu StarBulletin, 13 May 1958, p. 1.

1958c. 23 whales stranded on beach. Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 3

October 1958, p. 1.

1958d. 23 follow leader to Lanai coast - only one beached whale

survives. Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 4 October 1958, p. 2.

1958e. Nine pilot whales reported beached at Kilauea, Kauai.

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 28 October 1958, p. 1.

1958f. 12 pilot whales washed up on Kauai beach. Honolulu

Advertiser, 29 October 1958, p. B-7.

1959a. Photograph by M. Fern of pilot whale carcasses from Anini,

Kauai being buried at landfill. Honolulu Advertiser, 11 May

1959, p. A-2.

1959b. Photograph of stranded pilot whales near Anini, Kauai.

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 11 May 1959, p. 1.

1959c. Wayward windward whale whisked Waikikiward. Honolulu Advertiser, 15 May 1959, p. 1.

1959d. Pilot whale swims at aquarium, but chances of survival are

slim. Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 15 May 1959, p. 1.

Brady, S.

1958. It's Black Friday for whales on Lanai. Honolulu Advertiser, 4 October 1958, p. 1.

Galbreath, E.C.

1963. Three beaked whales stranded on the Midway Islands, Central Pacific Ocean. J. Mammal. 44(3):422-423.

Geraci, J.R., and D.]. St. Aubin.

1979. Biology of marine mammals: insights through strandings.

Marine Mammal Comm. Rep. No. MMC-77/13. U.S. Dep.

Commer. NTIS Doc. PB 293890, 343 p. (Available from

the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA

22161.)

Hubbs, C.L., W.F. Perrin, and K.C. Balcomb.

1973. Stenelfa coeruleoalba in the Eastern and Central Tropical Pacific.

J. Mammal. 54:549-552.

Loftin, R.W.

1985. The medical treatment of wild animals. Environmental

Ethics 7:231-239.

Malo, D.

1951. Hawaiian antiquities. Bishop Museum Spec. Publ. No.2,

278 p.

Peale, T.R.

1848. U.S. exploring expedition. Vol. VIII: Mammalia and Ornithology. Lee and Blanchard, Philadelphia, 388 p.

Pukui, M.K., and S.H. Elbert.

1965. Hawaiian-English dictionary. Univ. Hawaii Press,

Honolulu, 370 p.

Richards, L.P.

1952. Cuvier's beaked whale from Hawaii. J. Mammal.

33(3):255.
62 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Scott, R.

1957. Two whales wash ashore; one in aquarium, one dead.

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 18 June 1957, p. 1.

Shallenberger, E.W.

1981. The status of Hawaiian cetaceans. Final report to the U.S.

Marine Mammal Commission, Contract No. MM7A C028.

U.S. Dep. Commer. Doc. PB 82-109398, 82 p.

Tinker, S.W.

1988. Whales of the world. Bess Press, Inc., Honolulu, 310 p.

Titcomb, M.

1972. Native use of fish in Hawaii. Avery Press, Ltd., New

Plymouth, New Zealand, 162 p.

Tomich, P.Q.

1986. Mammals in Hawai'i. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu,

375 p.

Williams, S.

1957. Wilbert may be a pilot whale, but he's no navigator. Honolulu Advertiser, 19 June 1957, p. A-5.
The Northeast Regional Marine Mammal Stranding Network

GREG EARLY

New England Aquarium

Central Wharf

Boston, MA 02110

TRACEY P. McKENZIE*

NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Region

1 Blackburn Drive

Gloucester, MA 01930

ABSTRACT

The Northeast Regional Marine Mammal Stranding Network is coordinated and managed by

the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, and currently includes six Letter of

Agreement (LOA) holders between Maine and Virginia. Each LOA holder is responsible for

a specified geographic area and has developed response protocols that meet the needs and

capabilities of its geographic area. Major species that LOA holders encounter include pilot whales

(Globicephala melaena) (especially during mass stranding events); harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena); Atlantic white sided dolphins (Lagenorhyncus acutus); common dolphins (Delphinus delphis);

humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae); harbor seals (Phoca vitulina); and gray seals (Halichoerus

grypus). Over the past ten years the number of responses to marine mammal strandings has increased greatly and the issues facing the Stranding Network are more complex. Ethical,

philosophical, and legal issues regarding treatment, humane care, euthanasia, and the appropriateness of intervention are all being addressed in a regional review by the National Marine

Fisheries Service and the LOA holders in an effort to provide the best level of response that is

regionally appropriate.

Introduction _

The Northeast Regional Marine Mammal Stranding Network is a collaboration of six Letter of Agreement (LOA)

holders to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS), Northeast Region (NER), that responds to

strandings from the Canadian border through Virginia.

Active LOA's are currently (as of 1990) held by the College of the Atlantic (Bar Harbor, Maine); New England

Aquarium (Boston, Massachusetts); Mystic Marinelife

Aquarium (Mystic, Connecticut); Okeanos Foundation

(Long Island, New York); Marine Mammal Stranding

Center (Brigantine, New Jersey); and the Virginia Institute

for Marine Science (Gloucester Point, Virginia). Current

LOA holders include institutions that are private non-

• Current address: Pacific Environmental Technologies, 170 West Dayton

Street, Edmonds, W A 98020.

profit corporations established for the purpose of operating

a public aquarium; educational institutions; rescue and

rehabilitation facilities; and private, nonprofit research and

educational institutions.

The earliest LOA's were established following the 1977

stranding conference in Athens, Georgia (Geraci and St.

Aubin 1979). In 1982 the NER was "regionalized" by

NOAA/NMFS, and LOA holders jointly agreed to divide

the network into fixed geographic areas to avoid possible

disputes over coverage of an area. As a result, each LOA

holder was assigned a defined geographic area. Although

each institution works within its specific geographic area,

there is a free exchange of help during extraordinary events

such as mass strandings and die-offs.

In 1981 several informal stranding meetings served to

catalyze establishment of regular regional meetings which,

from 1982 through 1988, were held annually in a conference or workshop format. The content of the meetings

included business meetings and formal presentations of

63
64 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

data and related information. These meetings provided a

useful forum for the exchange of information and standardization of data collection. Early workshops were well

attended by the public, served to increase the visibility of

LOA holders, and helped to establish the LOA holders

better as focal points for stranding responses.

Data collection was standardized at these meetings in

a format appropriate for the Smithsonian Institution's data

bases (i.e., the Scientific Event Alert Network now called

the Marine Mammal Events Program [MMEP)). The

Smithsonian Institution acts as a national repository for

specimen material and for all cetacean stranding records.

The level of data required by the Smithsonian Institution

represents the minimum that is collected and required from

all stranding events outlined in the LOA's. The MMEP

reports are distributed to other LOA holders through the

New England Aquarium. Data collected beyond the minimal data required are controlled by the letter holding institutions. These data augment basic life-history and event

reports; document findings from internal and external examinations; and describe the collection and preservation

of parasites and tissues for histological and contaminant

analyses.

Each LOA holder has developed response protocols that

closely match the needs and the capabilities of its geographic area. This provides a specialized and efficient

response in each area while maintaining consistency and

quality control of collected data within the NER. The

following summaries of current LOA holder institutions

provide some insight into the diversity of stranding events

and the range of responses.

Maine

The College of the Atlantic (Bar Harbor, Maine) responds to 5 to 30 marine mammal strandings annually

(Table I). Most live animals are orphaned and sick

young harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) pups (live pinnipeds

that are initially handled by College of the Atlantic are

recorded as accessioned by New England Aquarium, Table

1) that are picked up at the stranding site, stabilized by

students and volunteers, and shipped to the New England

Aquarium for treatment and care. Other strandings involve

large or small cetaceans that commonly occur off the coast

of New England, as well as relatively rare or extraliminal

species such as pygmy sperm whales (Kogia breviceps), and

beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). The College of the

Atlantic maintains an active education program called

"Whales on Wheels" which has great success with highly

innovative uses of specimen materials collected from

strandings. Marine mammal parts and skeletons of small

cetaceans are kept in a vehicle that can be driven to locations and used as educational tools to teach individuals

about the evolution, life history, and ecology of marine

mammals.

New Hampshire and Massachusetts

The New England Aquarium responds to the greatest

number (i.e., over one hundred annually) of marine mammal strandings in the NER (Table 1). The majority of

strandings involve harbor seal pups. Much of the Aquarium's history in marine mammal strandings reflects issues

now being faced by other LOA holders as their levels of

effort increase. Institutionally the New England Aquarium

has maintained a high level of commitment to marine

mammal strandings and has continued contact and continuity throughout the Stranding Network. Because of the

scope of some stranding events, the New England Aquarium often seeks and receives help from other LOA holders.

Jointly, the New England Aquarium, the College of the

Atlantic and, until recently, Sealand ofCape Cod, respond

to strandings from the Canadian border to Rhode Island.

As of November 1989, Sealand of Cape Cod (Brewster,

Massachusetts) is no longer a LOA holder with NOAA/

NMFS. The facility is located in an area close to where

many pinniped and single and mass cetacean strandings

occur. Sealand concentrated its stranding efforts on rescue

and rehabilitation of live marine mammals that stranded

on Cape Cod. Dead animals were collected and held for

the New England Aquarium to examine. Between 1977

and 1986 Sealand of Cape Cod responded to about 700

cetacean and pinniped strandings (see Table 1, New

England Aquarium). The majority of marine mammal

strandings involved mass strandings of pilot whales (Globicephala melaena); as well as Atlantic white sided dolphins

(Lagenorhyncus acutus); harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena);

and common dolphins (Delphinus delphis). The harbor seal

(Phoca vitulina) is the primary pinniped that strands along

Cape Cod, but gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) strandings have

become more common in the past two to three years.

Rhode Island and Connecticut

The Mystic Marinelife Aquarium (Mystic, Connecticut)

responds to marine mammal and sea turtle strandings

from Rhode Island through Connecticut. The Aquarium

also frequently assists other LOA holders in adjoining

areas during unusual events such as mass strandings. Approximately 10% of the Aquarium's stranding responses

are in Connecticut. Sixty percent of its responses are in

Rhode Island and 30% percent are on Cape Cod and Long

Island. The Aquarium works primarily to rehabilitate

single stranded animals. Since 1974 the Aquarium has

responded to 40 pinniped and nearly 60 small cetacean

strandings including 35 live strandings (Table 1). The

Aquarium has successfully rehabilitated and released an

Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhyncus acutus) and

has found permanent homes for 30 beached or stranded

pinnipeds. Although there has been only one mass stranding in this area since 1977 (pilot whales [Globicephala
Early and McKenzie: The Northeast Marine Mammal Stranding Network 65

Table 1

List of marine mammals accessioned by participants in the Northeast Region LOA holders. Dates in parentheses indicate the

earliest year that data were available through 1988. Therefore, the actual numbers of animals accessioned by the College of

Atlantic, Okeanos, Marine Mammal Stranding Center, and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science are greater than what are

reported here. These data do not include marine mammals that were entangled or incidentally taken in commercial fishing operations. Data for the New England Aquarium and the Mystic Marinelife Aquarium were provided by these institutions. All other

data were provided by the Smithsonian Institution. The large number of specimens of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) listed under

New England Aquarium reflects epizootics.

Mystic Marine Mammal Virginia

New England New England College of Marinelife Okeanos Research Stranding Institute of

Aquarium Aquarium Atlantic Aquarium Foundation Center Marine Science

(1977-1988) (1989 only) (1983-1988) (1974-1989) (1982-1988) (1982-1988) (1982-1988)

Eubalaena glacialis 2 1

Balaenoptera physalus 6 2 11 7

B. acutorostrata 25 4 4

M egaptera nooaeangliae 20 1 1 1

Physeter macrocephalus 6 2

Kogia breoiceps 8 2 4 4 6

Kogia simus 1 3

Mesoplodon mirus

M. europaeus 2

M. densirostris

Delphinapterus leucas

Orcinus orca 1

Globicephala melaena 334 6 4 18 11 10 3

G. macrorhynchus 3

Lagenorhynchus ocutus 186 5 3 16 4 2 1

Delphinus delphis 52 3 9 3 1

Delphinid sp. 1 11

Tursiops truncatus 4 7 74' 274'

Grampus gnseus 11 2 2

8tenella attenuata 1 1

S. coeruleoalba 17 3 1 5 4 5

S. graffmani 2

S. frontalis 1 1 1 1 1

Phocoena phocoena 212 10 12 5 9 11 15

Ziphius caoirostris 1

Phoca oitulina 1421 145 34 2 19

Halichoerus grypus 23 19 4 5 2

Cystophora cristata 11 2 1 2

Pagophilus groenlandica 3 2 1 1

Cetacean sp. 2 3

Dolphin sp. 19 40

Total 2346 196 25 96 79 170 368

'Dolphin die-off 1987.

melaena), on Block Island in 1983), Mystic Marinelife

Aquarium has assisted the New England Aquarium in

responding to several mass strandings on Cape Cod,

Massachusetts. The Aquarium's records have been

standardized recently into a uniform format leading to

32 peer-reviewed papers and articles on marine mammal

biology and husbandry; six dealt specifically with stranded

marine mammals (e.g., Spotte et al. 1978; Buck et al.

1988).

New York

The stranding activities of the Okeanos Research Foundation (Hampton Bays, New York) have increased greatly in recent years. The Foundation's stranding program

is partially funded by the State of New York. Okeanos

responds to all live and dead stranded, distressed, or entangled marine mammals and sea turtles in New York and

Long Island. The Foundation is also actively engaged in

fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) and Kemp's ridley sea turtle
66 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

(Lepidochelys kempit) research. Okeanos frequently assists

other LOA holders in responding to mass strandings. Since

1982 Okeanos has responded to 55 small cetacean strandings and 16 balaenopterid strandings (Table 1). The majority of whale strandings involved dead animals. Okeanos

has responded since 1982 to 48 pinniped strandings; about

50% have been live strandings. Prior to 1985 the majority

of strandings were cetaceans. Since 1987 the number of

pinniped strandings has increased. The majority ofstrandings involve marine mammals that commonly occur in the

western North Atlantic, but occasionally, rare marine

mammals have stranded in Okeanos's area.

New Jersey

The Marine Mammal Stranding Center (Brigantine, New

Jersey) responds to all live and dead stranded, distressed,

or entangled marine mammals and sea turtles along the

New Jersey coast, and also north into Delaware. The

Center currently responds to an average of 6 pinniped

strandings and 12 cetacean strandings a year but unusual

events such as the 1987 tursiops mortality can lead for a particular year to the Center's handling far more than their

yearly average (Table 1). The majority of cetaceans that

strand are dead and most of the pinnipeds are alive. The

Center is involved extensively in responses to sea turtle

strandings and has established an education pavilion on

Center property that is open to the public. The Center has

also provided support to other LOA holders during mass

strandings.

Virginia

The Virginia Institute for Marine Science (Gloucester

Point, Virginia) became an official LOA holder in 1988,

although it has been responding to marine mammal strandings in Virginia since 1979. The majority of marine mammal strandings involve bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops iruncatus) (Table 1). The marine mammal stranding activities

are expected to increase as funding through state ager.cies

becomes available. The Institute is also actively involved

in sea turtle strandings and research.

Conclusion _

The NOAA/NMFS is currently conducting a national

review of all stranding programs and the NER is currently

reviewing the structure ofthe NER Stranding Network and

will be pursuing new LOA's with acceptable institutions

in states where a need has been identified (i.e., The

National Aquarium, Baltimore, Maryland; State of Delaware; and the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC).

The past ten years have been marked by both quantitative

and qualitative increases in stranding responses. Stranding responses have become more numerous and more

complex.

Details of the New England Aquarium's stranding activities over the past 10 years are used here to illustrate

trends that are common among LOA holders and may be

common in other stranding regions. Since 1977, the New

England Aquarium has accessioned over 2500 animals.

Over 1600 have been pinnipeds and more than 900 have

been cetaceans. The collection of data has been consistent

during this time and regularly supplied to the Smithsonian

Institution. In-house data are computerized and three years

of basic data as well as specimen inventory are currently

"on-line." The New England Aquarium attempts to

provide a response to all aspects ofstrandings and has made

extensive use of volunteer networks. The Aquarium

developed formal agreements called Secondary Letters of

Agreement with individuals and organizations subject to

approval of NOAA/NMFS, NER in an effort to organize

and support local response groups. The Secondary Letters

of Agreement outline general and specific activities and

guidelines and allow volunteers to act on behalf of the New

England Aquarium under its LOA with NOAA/NMFS,

NER. In recent years these coordinating efforts have

become increasingly complex and additional agreements,

specific to mass stranding events on Cape Cod, have been

developed. These specific sub-agreements outline the

responsibilities of the New England Aquarium, subdesignees, and volunteers. The agreements are reviewed

and renewed annually by NOAA/NMFS, NER; the New

England Aquarium; and sub-designees. This mechanism

enables the New England Aquarium to maintain overall

responsibility and a faster and more efficient response over

a large geographic range. It also encourages an efficient

use of local resources.

Stranding activities in the NER have become more

varied and complex involving entanglements, single strandings, mass strandings, and mass mortalities. In the past

ten years roughly 16 mass strandings of pilot whales and

white sided dolphins (see for example, Geraci et al. 1978),

and 3 epizootics in the harbor seal population occurred in

New England (Geraci et al. 1982; Hinshaw et al. 1984).

Mass mortality investigations (i.e., humpback whale

[Megaptera novaeangliae] ; see Geraci et al. 1989) and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus [see Geraci 1989] die-offs)

add yet another dimension to stranding responses, where

a coordinated and directed effort must be made to determine the cause of mortality and monitor short- and longterm effects on the population.

The New England Aquarium is actively involved in the

rehabilitation of marine mammals, particularly pinnipeds.

Over 60 harbor seals have been rehabilitated and more

than half returned to the wild. To better assess and understand the survival prognosis of seals returned to the sea,

the Aquarium collaborated with Manomet Bird Observatory (Manomet, Massachusetts) on a project to radio tag
________________ Early and McKenzie: The Northeast Marine Mammal Stranding Network 67

and track released harbor seal pups. Released pups were

shown to adapt quickly to the wild following release (New

England Aquarium, unpub!. data). Currently, released

animals are visually tagged (flipper tagged) only. Unreleasable animals are provided to licensed and Department

of Agriculture approved zoos or aquaria, thereby reducing

the need to remove healthy individuals from the wild for

public display.

The New England Aquarium opened its Animal Care

Center in 1985. Although not a dedicated stranding facility, the center provides holding areas for harbor seal pups

that require a more formal rehabilitation program, and an

area suitable for the rehabilitation of small whales and

dolphins. The Aquarium'S recent success in rehabilitating,

releasing, and assisting with the monitoring of three young

pilot whales is an extension of this commitment to t:nhancement of survival of stranded marine mammals (Mate

1989).

Species accessioned by the New England Aquarium's

stranding program from 1977 through September of 1989

are shown in Table 1. Over one half of the total (62 %)

are pinnipeds. With the exception of years of very high

mortalities (1980, 1983, and 1985) the number of animals

recovered appears uniform (70-80 animals per year).

Despite such consistency in the number of animals recovered annually, more effort has been made each year

to reduce the number of' 'unnecessary" harbor seal strandings along the coast of Maine during the pupping season.

A major public information and education program, coordinated by NOAA/NMFS law enforcement (Portland,

Maine office) since 1984, and currently by NOAA/NMFS

Regional Office, has appreciably reduced both human

disturbance of rookeries and the premature "rescue" of

harbor seal pups temporarily abandoned by foraging

mothers. This program involves letters and information

packets to local law enforcement and natural resource

officers, posters, and televised public service announcements. As a result of this highly visible and successful program, the animals recovered are generally those that would

not have survived otherwise. In the past three years there

have been more live, sick, and moribund animals recovered, although total numbers recovered have remained

nearly the same. It is unclear whether this is because of

a greater abundance of harbor seals or quicker reporting

on the part of the public and quicker response by the New

England Aquarium. There also has been an increase in

the number of rare or extraliminal species of pinnipeds

(e. g., hooded seals [Cystophora cristata1; harp seals [Phoca

groenlandica]; and gray seals [Halichoerus grypus]). Similarly

some of these more unusual species are appearing as far

south as New Jersey, Virginia, and Florida.

Excluding mass strandings, the New England Aquarium

accessions roughly 50 cetaceans per year. This number increases greatly in years of mass strandings. Pilot whale

strandings, with their apparent regularity and regional

specificity are major events requiring the coordination of

many organizations as well as the public and media. Planning for these events takes place year-round among

NOAA/NMFS, NER, Aquarium staff; sub-designees

under the Aquarium's LOA; local officials; and volunteer

groups. The development of procedures, policies, and

equipment is ongoing.Clearly stranding responses have

changed considerably in the past ten years for all members

of the NER Marine Mammal Stranding Network. The

basic LOA with NOAA/NMFS, NER allows for the development of a response network that is well suited to the

local demands. A general LOA and a limited number of

institutions within the Regional Network allow for close

coordination and communication among LOA holders and

between LOA holders and NOAA/NMFS, NER. A Secondary LOA between the primary LOA holder, NOAAI

NMFS, NER, and the secondary LOA holder allows

NOAA/NMFS to maintain control of stranding activities

and allows the primary LOA holder to designate other institutions or individuals that will adhere to the primary

LOA holder's policies and procedures and to respond to

strandings on their behalf. The development of "institutional identities" with clear institutional standards, policies,

and ethics by LOA holders provides some level of consistency. This level of consistency allows for the development of an informal goal statement by the Network, but

differences in policies and institutional structure and purpose have kept the members from adopting a more formal

structure.

Not only have sheer numbers of responses increased

in all areas throughout the NER but the range of strandings and the complexity of response have also increased.

The NER Marine Mammal Stranding Network now faces

complex ethical, philosophical, and legal issues of treatment, humane care, euthanasia, and appropriateness of

intervention. The New England Aquarium and other

public display institutions that are LOA holders in the

NER have drawn on many institutional policies to support their program policies. In this way the facilities'

response meets certain clear standards for animal care, data

collection and dissemination, and public education. A close

and clearly defined relationship with NOAA/NMFS, NER

and other LOA holders allows LOA holders to provide a

response that is regionally appropriate, efficient, and consistent. Close contact with other LOA holders through formal meetings and informal exchanges allows this relationship to develop through the network.

The future will probably bring increasing public interest

and exposure to marine mammal stranding activities. This,

along with the increasing diversity and complexity of

stranding issues, events, and efforts, requires closer coordination among Federal, state, and local agencies, LOA

holders, and volunteers; a greater commitment of resources

to the Stranding Network; and an increased sophistication

of response, particularly concerning emerging issues about
68 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

ethics, standards for live animals, mass stranding, and mass

mortality responses.

Citations

Buck, J.D., P.M. Bubucis, and S. Spotte.

1988. Microbiological characterization of three Atlantic whitesided

dolphins (LagenoThynchus acutus) from stranding through captivity

with subsequent rehabilitation and release of one animal. Zoo.

BioI. 7: 133-138.

Geraci, J.R.

1989. Clinical investigation of the 1987-88 mass mortality of

bottlenose dolphins along the U.S. Central and South Atlantic

coast. Final report to National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S.

Navy, Office of Naval Research and Marine Mammal Commission, 63 p.

Geraci, J.R., and J.D. St. Aubin.

1979. Biology of marine mammals: insights through strandings.

Marine mammal Comm. Rep. No. MMC-77/13. U.S. Dep.

Commer., NTIS Doc. PB 293890, 343 p. (Available from

the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA

22161.)

Geraci, J.R., S.A. Testaverde, D.J. St. Aubin, and T.H. Loop.

1978. A mass stranding of the Atlantic white sided dolphin

(LagenoThynchus acutus): a study into pathobiology and life history.

Final report for MMC contract MM5AC008. NTIS PB83-289

361, 141 p.

Geraci, J.R., D.J. St. Aubin, I.K. Barker, R.G. Webster, V.S. Hinshaw,

W.J. Bean, H.L. Ruhnke, J.H. Prescott, G. Early, A.S. Baker,

S. Madoff, and R.T. Schooley.

1982. Mass mortality of harbor seals: pneumonia associated with

influenza A virus. Science 215:1129-1131.

Geraci,J.R., D.M. Anderson, R.J. Timperi, D.J. St. Aubin, G.A. Early,

J .H. Prescott, and C.A. Mayo.

1989. Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) fatally poisoned

by dinoflagellate toxin. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 46(11):1895-1898.

Hinshaw, V.S., W.J. Bean, R.G. Webster, J.E. Rehg, P. Fiorelli,

G. Early, J.R. Geraci, and D.J. St. Aubin.

1984. Are seals frequently infected with avian influenza viruses? J.

Virol. 51(3):863-865.

Mate, B.R.

1989. Watching habits and habits from earth satellites. Oceanus

32(1):14-18.

Spotte, S., J.L. Dunn, L.E. Kezer, and F.M. Heard.

1978. Notes on the care ofa beached-stranded harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Cetology 32:1-6.
Collecting and Archiving of Cetacean Data and Specimens

JOHN E. HEYNING

Section of Mammalogy

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County

900 Exposition Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90007

ABSTRACT

Stranded cetaceans are a source of data for a wide range of biological disciplines and virtually

the only source of data for some species. The amount of information ultimately available depends

on two major factors: 1) the quality and amount of data originally collected from the specimen

during a necropsy, and 2) the proper archiving of the data and specimen materials so that they

will be available to future researchers. At least a minimal amount of data (see also "Level A"

data, Hofman 1991) such as sex, total length, locality, and date should be collected from every

stranded cetacean, as well as the gonads, stomach contents, and voucher materials (skull or

skeleton). Properly accredited museums playa crucial role in stranding programs as they are

the ultimate archival institutions for the storage of data and specimens, and thus insure their

availability to current and future researchers.

Introduction _

For centuries, stranded cetaceans have provided scientists

with opportunities to elucidate some of the biology of these

mammals. The British have historically had a strong interest in stranded cetaceans which were considered royal

fishes and property of the Crown (Fraser 1977). Thus,

regions under current or former British influence have

tended to document and report strandings better than other

regions of the world. Stranded cetaceans received sporadic

examination by biologists in the United States until the

mid-twentieth century. The collecting of data and specimens from stranding events has increased exponentially

in the past thirty years. The type and amount of information gathered from these mammals has also increased.

In the past, many traditionally trained mammalogists

who examined stranded cetaceans took only sex, length,

and locality data and saved only the skull. The first systematic collection of additional morphometric data and

tissues was associated with British whaling efforts in the

Antarctic (Mackintosh and Wheeler 1929). In an attempt

to standardize additional measures and data collected from

all stranded cetaceans, Norris (1961) published a cetacean

data sheet. In 1974, the International Whaling Commission held a special meeting on small cetaceans and published a more comprehensive data sheet (Mitchell 1975a:

appendix E). This data sheet was modified slightly by

James Mead of the Smithsonian Institution and is in wide

use today. With the increased awareness of the value and

diversity of information that can potentially be gathered

from a stranded animal and the increasing number of

researchers collecting and using such information, it has

become evident that each stranded cetacean should be

examined in a standardized manner. Efforts should be

made to insure that the maximum amount of information

is collected, and that both data and specimens are properly stored and, thus, available to current and future

researchers.

For many types of information and samples collected

from a stranding, the longer the period between death and

examination, the lower the potential value ofthe specimen.

Much of the elapsed time is beyond the control of the collector. Nonetheless, it is important that the investigator

be prepared to examine an animal soon after notification

of the stranding event. A well conceived necropsy procedure with clear goals and priorities can expedite data

collection, and maximize the information obtained.

A stranded cetacean is a potential data source for many

biological disciplines including, but not limited to, systematics, paleontology, morphology, histology, genetics,

pathology, natural history, parasitology, toxicology, and

biochemistry. Examination of cetacean carcasses can also

contribute to disciplines in which the use of such data is

not obvious. For example, because behavior is essentially

69
70 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

the study of patterns of the movement of morphological

structures, contributions to this field are also possible by

the analysis of morphology, pigmentation, and natural

history (e.g., Heyning 1984). Hypotheses regarding cetacean sexual strategies and social organization have been

partially constructed from such data (e.g., Best 1979;

Brownell and Ralls 1986; Heyning 1988; Sergeant 1982).

Minimum Data

Certain data that are critical (Level A data, as described

by Hofman 1991) to most, if not all, of the various disciplines listed previously include the sex, total length,

reproductive status, locality, date, and voucher specimens

(i.e., skull, skeleton, etc.). The difference in time and date

from the first reporting of a stranding to the time when

the examination (data collection) actually occurred is useful

for interpreting results. This information is quickly noted

and thus would not compromise any other type of data collected. The techniques documented by Myrick (1986) for

collecting the basic life-history information from dolphins

in the tuna purse-seine operation are, with minor modifications, useful for stranded animals.

Priorities for Examination of

Stranded Cetaceans

The priorities for data collection from beached animals will

obviously vary among researchers. There are, however,

some biological and logistical considerations that require

a sequence of procedures if complete data (see Levels B

and C data in Hofman 1991) are to be taken. The general

sequence of data acquisition is listed below.

• Pigmentation-Several researchers have noted that the

pigmentation pattern of cetaceans darkens quickly post

mortem, especially if exposed to the sun (Norris and

Prescott 1961; Mitchell 1970). Because good documentation of pigmentation patterns are rare for most species

of cetaceans, photographs ofthe dorsal, lateral, and ventral aspects are extremely valuable. I have found that

suspending a small cetacean by its flukes permits easy

photography of all three views. If the specimen has been

frozen, defrosting it underwater will best preserve the

true pigmentation pattern.

Pigmentation has been used to differentiate among

specimens of closely related species (e.g., Perrin et al. 1981,

1987; Mead et al. 1982), as well as to document ontogenetic

(e.g., Perrin 1969) and geographic variations within species

(e.g., Perrin 1972, 1975; Evans et. al. 1982). Evolutionary

and ecological inferences can be made from the careful

analysis of pigmentation patterns (Perrin 1969, 1972; Mitchell 1970, 1975b).

I prefer to use either black and white print film or color

slide film to document pigmentation. Black and white has

the advantage of being easily used for plates in scientific

journals. Disadvantages of black and white film are that

it does not document color and that it is more difficult to

archive because of the necessity to store and cross reference

both prints and negatives. Slide film documents color well

and it is easy to label and store, but an inner negative must

be made in order to produce a plate. Color films also have

the disadvantage that colors change over long time periods.

Photographic materials must be stored in archival quality

holders (e.g., mylar) because poorer quality plastics (polyvinyls) give off chemicals that will destroy the negatives

or slides.

• External Morphology-The documentation of the external morphology of cetaceans presents many inherent

difficulties. Cetaceans cannot be easily skinned or preserved whole as is typically done for most vertebrates.

Thus, a far greater number of measurements is usually

taken for cetaceans than for other mammals. These measurements, along with photographs and total weights,

are most accurate when done on an intact carcass.

Measurements have proven useful in quantifying differences in morphology between closely related species

(e.g., Ross 1979), populations within species (e.g.,

Ichihara 1966; Perrin 1975), and for documenting sexual dimorphism (e.g., Perrin 1975). A researcher working with internal tissues that decompose quickly may

forgo these measurements in order to expedite the collection of tissues. However, in every case total length

should be taken.

• Internal Tissues-There are a wide variety of tissues

that must be collected quickly as the natural process of

necrosis destroys the desired information. Fresh samples

are needed for biochemical, histological, biochemical

systematic (including electrophoretic, DNA, karyotyping, etc), and toxicology studies. Most of these studies

require only small subsamples that can be quickly taken

during the initial examination of the internal organs and

for the most part do not compromise other data.

• Gross Internal Examination-Most researchers examine the internal organs to: 1) perform pathology

studies; 2) examine descriptive and functional morphology; 3) obtain organ weights; and 4) collect samples

such as reproductive organs and stomach contents for

life-history studies. Tissues saved for histology should

be fixed in 10% neutral buffered formalin. As a rule,

formalin will penetrate about one centimeter from any

direction. Thus samples over two centimeters thick (one

centimeter penetration from both sides) should be sliced

to expose more surface area to the formalin. It is also

important to have a sufficient volume of formalin to

tissue (approximately 10 times as much formalin as

tissue) in order to get proper fixation.

The proper collection and preservation of reproductive

tissues is extremely important. In most incidences, the
___________________ Heyning: Collecting and Archiving Cetacean Data and Specimens 71

importance of information from these tissues relating to

the reproductive status of that animal outweighs other information that can be gained from these tissues. For instance, the destruction of an ovary to determine the

pesticide level within that organ results in less information

on that animal than would be obtained by determining the

pesticide level from other tissues (e. g., blubber, muscle,

liver, etc.) and using the ovaries as indicators of sexual

maturity or reproductive status.

The exception to the use of formalin is in the preservation of stomach contents. The otoliths of fish and the

statoliths of squid are destroyed by the acidic nature offormalin which breaks down to formic acid. Thus, preserving a stomach in formalin dooms that sample to eventual

uselessness. Most researchers store stomach contents either

frozen or in alcohol. Alcohol does not fix tissues well, but

retards bacterial decomposition and is not inherently acidic.

Frozen storage is not a long-term solution, because specimens must be prepared immediately if a mechanical failure

occurs. However, frozen stomach contents are needed to

test for biotoxins which have been suggested as a potential

cause of mortality in cetaceans (Geraci 1989).

Rarely, intact prey items can be found in the stomach,

indicating that the prey was consumed shortly before the

cetacean's death. A stomach full of fleshy prey items is a

strong indication of traumatic death, often associated with

fisheries interactions. Prey remains in the digestive tract

are usually in the form of fish otoliths or squid beaks, which

are retained longer in the digestive system.

Weights

Weights provide a simple, accurate, and readily comparable measure of size. Weights of whole carcasses and

various organs are rare for many species. The most important weights to measure are the whole body and the

gonads. It is important to note the type of scale and its

relative accuracy on the data shet't. For paired organs, it

is important to note whether recorded weights refer to the

right or left organ (preferably both, but separately). Many

published papers dealing with gonad weight have not noted

which side was weighed, or even if the weight listed was

for one or both gonads combined. This has hindered the

use of these data in constructing the reproductive parameters for these species (e.g., see Mead 1984:91).

Data Archiving

Primary goals in any stranding program are to record data

collected from a carcass and to store this information on

paper so it can be used for research and, ultimately, for

publication. Thus, the manner of data documentation and

archival is just as important as the way in which the data

were originally collected. At most major museums, there

are three places where data are recorded. The first is the

field notebook. Typically, each collector assigns a unique,

sequential field number to a specimen and notes the collection date and locality of the collection. Other pertinent

data are also noted within each entry. By immediately

assigning an animal a unique number, all information

subsequently collected can be attributed to that individual

in the future. Sometimes field stations or institutions use

their own field numbers rather than individual collectors'.

Ifthis is the case, extreme care must be taken that two collectors do not assign different animals the same institutional

numbers or the same animal different numbers.

The second place where data are recorded is on a specimen data sheet such as that shown in Figure 1. The sheet

is usually filled out at the time of the necropsy, which may

occur months or years after the stranding, if the specimen

was initially frozen. The data sheet should always contain

the field number and catalog number (see below) so that

data can be cross-referenced back to the specimen.

Data are also stored in the museum's specimen catalog.

Prior to installing a specimen into a research collection,

each animal is given a unique museum number that is

entered into an institutional catalog. This catalog number

is the ultimate reference number by which specimen

material, data sheets, field notes, and photographs can be

cross-referenced. Catalogs usually note only basic data, but

provide the framework upon which a research collection

is organized.

All paper used for storing data must be of high quality.

Heavy weight (20 lb or over), 100% rag paper should

always be used. Inferior quality paper often yellows, becomes brittle over time, or disintegrates if wet. All the effort

of collecting good data is wasted if the paper upon which

information is stored disintegrates. For the same reasons,

only good quality technical inks should be used for writing

data (Williams and Hawks 1986). Ballpoint-pen ink should

never be used as it runs when wet or exposed to either

alcohol or formalin. Pencil marks made with soft lead will

fade and smear with age. I have found data sheets from

the 1960s that have become virtually useless due to

deterioration because the proper paper and/or inks were

not used.

Tagging

All specimens and their parts must be tagged with the field

and/or catalog number to be of any use. In the absence

of a tag that documents that specimen's identity, there is

always a chance for an error. Erroneous data caused by

the mismatch of a specimen and data are often worse than

no data at all. Tags must always be of high quality and

affixed directly to the specimen. Secondary tags on containers are often advantageous for processing and storage

but should not be used in lieu of tags attached directly to

specimens. Similarly, samples stored in jars should have

a tag inside the container and should not just be labelled
REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM

72 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

CETACEA DATA RECORD

MEASUREMENTS (specify units )

1 total length ·--------~2~4~n~umber of throat grooves .

2 snout to anus -------- 25 length of throat grooves .

) snout to genital slit ------- 26 flipper length, anterior., ------- 4 snout to umbilicus _..------- 27 flipper length, posterior•....-------

5 snout to throat grooves -------- 28 flipper width, maximum* ------- 6 snout to dorsal fin tip -------- 29 length mammary slits R L------- 7 snout to ant. dorsal fin ..------- 30 number of mammary slit~.-------

8 snout to fllpper -------- 31 len9th genital slit .ana1------- 9 snout to ear -------- 32 perlneal length (ma~ ------- 10 snout to eye....... 33 fluke width •..................------- 11 snout to gape -------- 34 fluke depth*, lobe* notch*------- 12 snout to blo~hole(s) -------- 35 fluke notch depth*.~ ------- 13 snout to melon apex ---- 36 dorsal fin height* -------

14 eye to ear· -------- 37 dorsal fin base length ------- 15 eye to gape* -------- 38 girth at eye •.................------- 16 eye to blowhole edge, L•..-------- 39 girth at axilla•..............------- 17 eye to blowhole edge, R... 40 girth, rnaximum•...............------- 18 blowhole length width*------- 41 girth at anus•................------- 19 diameter ear openlng -------- 42 girth midway anus to notch•...-------

20 head diameter at e¥es..... 43 height same place* ------- 21 length of eye openlng -------- 44 thickness same place* ------- 22 rostral ~idth, melon apex*------- 45 blubber thickness, dorsal -------

23 projection up/lower ]aw ... 46 blubber thickness, lateral -------

47 blubber thickness, ventral =======:

Female

~~:~~~~: i~~~f~~eR---ma~ure-' ~~~~i~~O~~rAL~~~~~ :---------t·--------- number corpord aIDICantia ----- , corpora lutea dlameter CL mammary gland: color , length , wldth , depth =m~l~lT.k~?----

pre9nant? , fetus: length ----- • ~s~e~x~=-=-=-===.:,~w:e~lght_-_------ vagIna length , number of vagInal folds_

Male

teStes: weight with epididymis R L_________ without R L, _ dimensions (LxWxD) R --r. , penis length _ sperm in epIdIdymis?

STOMACH CONTENTS fore: vOlume fish bones otoliths squid beaks _

ma in: volume ._f lsh hones otollths squld beaks _

pyl orl.C: vol ume __f ISh bones otollths squId beaks _

generar··~r~e~m~a~r~k~s'==:~============================= AGE DETERMINATION

~~~~;~r~~Y:~i~~~~~~~ ~~:~ntum mm, closed ei~~~r: , ClOS~de!~et~rble _

WEIGHTS (specify units types of scale(s)~ _ intact carcdss.... heart........... stomach, empty . viscera........... lung, right..... intestine =======: muscle: epaxial -----lung, left...... pancreas . hypaxial .. Iiver adrenal right =======: mIsc...... s~leen.......... adrenal left . total...... kidney right --------brain -------- bone -------kidney left --------thymus ------- hlubber........... stomachs, full.. intestine length ------- remarks -------

PARASITE/PATHOLOGY CHECKLIST (X if present, NO if absent, NE if not examined) eye forestomach .. m~mmary qlands muscle .. _

mouth....... mainstomach.. lIver......... Phyilobothrium

genital slit======~yloric ======bile duct Honor~ygma, =======: anal slit... Intestine.... uterus........ crasslca~did..

appendages .. ======rectum•...... ======lungs ======Bra~nina =======: barnacles... kidney....... heart......... Nasltrema . cyamids ------kidney duct ..-----brain ------other -------

penella =====:Pancreas..... ======air sinuses ======

SPECIMEN COLLECTION CHECKLIST teeth/baleen... ear plugs.... liver sample. epiphyses . stomach content-----ectoparasites-----kidney sample------electrophoretic-----

gonads ====:endoparasites======fetus ======toxicology _ mammary gland .. blubber skull x-Ray _

uterine mucosa. muscle skeleton other __

REMARKS

Figure 1

Sheet for recording data from cetaceans.

All measurements are taken as straight

lines, parallel to the body axis except those

measurements marked with an asterisk

which are measured point to point.
____________________ Heyning: Collecting and Archiving Cetacean Data and Specimens 73

on the exterior. Paper tags should be of the same paper

as mentioned above or even heavier. Tyvek tags are readily

available and can withstand moisture, grease, and blood.

Many institutions use tags with the number embossed on

plastic or metal for osteological specimens during preparation. These tags can be read no matter what process is used

to clean the skeleton (dermestid beetles, maceration, or

burial).

Role of Museums in Stranding Programs

Museums form an integral part of a stranding program

by functioning as the institutions that properly store and

archive the specimens and data. Most major museums, including those within some universities, have a long-term

commitment to house research collections. Thus material

collected from the 1800s is still available for researchers

to use today, and specimens collected now will be available

for future research. For example, when revising the systematics of spotted dolphins (Stenella spp.), Perrin et al.

(1987) resolved taxonomic questions by examining holotype

materials in European museums that were collected in

the mid-nineteenth century. For many species, it is only

through the accumulation of data and specimens over

several decades, or even centuries, that we can begin to

understand the basic biology of these species (see Mead

et al. 1982).

In addition, museum specimens function as voucher

specimens to clarify previous research. For example, in

their study of pathology of stranded cetaceans in southern

California, Cowan et al. (1986) listed field numbers of the

specimens examined, and most of this material was

deposited at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles

County. In a similar study, Britt and Howard (1983) did

not deposit voucher materials in a museum. In the geographical region of both studies, there are at least two

distinct populations of the common dolphin (Delphinus

delphis) (Evans 1982), if not two separate species (Banks

and Brownell 1969). Should future evidence prove that

there are two species of Delphinus, the data presented by

Cowan et al. (1986) can be separated into the two species

by examination of the skulls housed in museums, whereas

the information presented by Britt and Howard (1983) can

not be re-evaluated and would have limited value.

Additionally, museum specimens are available for many

studies not initially envisioned when collecting the specimens. Isotope concentrations may be used to infer various

aspects offeeding habits (e. g., Schoeninger and De Niro

1984) and archaeologists use skeletal specimens in research

collections as comparative material to identify animal

remains found in middens (e.g., Glassow 1980).

The American Society of Mammalogists (ASM) publishes minimum standards for institutions housing mammal specimens in research collections and accredits such

collections (Anon. 1978). The ASM thereby attempts to

insure that 1) specimens are curated correctly; 2) materials

are available to qualified researchers; and 3) the institution has a longer commitment to the collection than the

interests of a particular researcher or collector.

Conclusions _

Beached marine mammals can provide a wealth of data

useful to numerous disciplines if these data are collected

and archived in the proper manner. Minimum data (Level

A data) such as species, sex, length, locality, and date

should be collected for every stranding as this information

is vital, simple to note, and does not compromise other

studies. The collection of reproductive organs and stomach

contents is also critical to understanding the life history of

a species. Individual researchers or local institutions should

develop a relatively standardized protocol to insure that

basic data, as well as any specialized data, are collected

and properly stored. Relatively minor steps can be taken

to insure that beached animals are used to the fullest extent and that data will be available for future biologists.

Acknowledgments _

I wish to thank L.J. Barkley,J.L. Chovan, and A.A. Hohn

for their constructive criticisms of this manuscript.

Citations _

Anonymous.

1978. Revised minimal standards, and the systematic collections

that meet them. J. Mammal. 59:911-914.

Banks, R.C., and R.L. Brownell.

1969. Taxonomy of the common dolphins of the eastern Pacific

Ocean. J. Mammal. 50:262-271.

Best, P.B.

1979. Social organization in sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus.

In Behavior of marine animals: current perspectives in research,

Vol. 3: Cetaceans (H.E. Winn and B.L. alia, eds.), p. 227-389.

Plenum Press, New York and London.

Britt, J.O. Jr., and E.B. Howard.

1983. Tissue residues of selected environmental contaminants in

marine mammals. In Pathobiology of marine mammal diseases,

Vol. II (E.B. Howard, ed.), p. 79-94. CRC Press, Boca Raton,

FL.

Brownell, R.L. Jr., and K. Ralls.

1986. Potential for sperm competition In baleen whales. In

Behaviour of whales in relation to management (G.P. Donovan,

ed.), p. 97-112. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. (Special Issue 8),

Cambridge, England.

Cowan, D.F., W.A. Walker, and R.L. Brownell Jr.

1986. Pathology of small cetaceans stranded along southern California. In Research on dolphins (M.M. Bryden and R. Harrison,

eds.), p. 323-368. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Evans, W.E.

1982. Distribution and differentiation ofstocks of Delphinus delphis

Linna..us in the northeastern Pacific. Mammals in the Sea, Vol.

IV, FAa, Rome. p. 45-66.
74 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Evans, W.E., A.V. Yablokov, and A.E. Bowles.

1982. Geographic variation in the color pattern of killer whales

(Orcinus orca). Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 32:687-694.

Fraser, F.C.

1977. Royal fishes: the importance of the dolphin. In Functional

anatomy of marine mammals, Vo!' 3 (R.J. Harrison, ed.), p.

1-44. Academic Press, London.

Geraci, J.R.

1989. Clinical investigation of the 1987-88 mass mortality of

bottlenose dolphins along the U.S. central and south Atlantic coast.

Rep. to NMFS, U.S. Navy, and Marine Mammal Comm., ii +

63 p.

Glassow, M.A.

1980. Recent developments in the archaeology of the Channel

Islands. In The California islands: proceedings of a multidisciplinary symposium (D.M. Power, ed.), p. 79-99. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Heyning, J.E.

1984. Functional morphology involved in intraspecific fighting of

the beaked whale, Mesoplodon carlhubbsi. Can. J. Zoo!' 62:

1645-1654.

1988. Presence of solid food in a young calf killer whale (Orcinus

orca). Marine Mammal Sci. 4:68-71.

Hofman, R.L.

1991. History, goals, and achievements of the regional marine

mammal stranding networks in the United States. In Marine

mammal strandings in the United States: proceedings of the second

marine mammal stranding workshop; 3-5 December 1987, Miami,

FL O.E. Reynolds and D.K. Odell, eds.), p. 7-15. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 98.

Ichihara, T.

1966. The pygmy blue whale, Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda, a new

subspecies from the Antarctic. In Whales, dolphins, and porpoises

(K.S. Norris, ed.), p. 79-113. Univ. California Press, Berkeley,

and Los Angeles, CA.

Mackintosh, N.A., andJ.F.G. Wheeler.

1929. Southern blue and fin whales. Disc. Rep. 1:257-540.

Mead, J.G.

1984. Survey of reproductive data for the beaked whales (Ziphiidae).

In Reproduction in whales, dolphins and porpoises (W.F. Perrin,

R.L. BrownellJr., and D.P. DeMaster, eds.), p. 91-96. Rep.

Int. Whaling Comm. (Special Issue 6), Cambridge, England.

Mead, J.G., W.A. Walker, and W.J. Houck.

1982. Biological observations on Mesoplodon carlhubbsi (Cetacea:

Ziphiidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology No. 344: 1-25.

Mitchell, E.D.

1970. Pigmentation pattern evolution in delphinid cetaceans: an

essay in adaptive coloration. Can. J. Zoo!' 48:717-740.

1975a (editor). Review of biology and fisheries for smaller cetaceans. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32:875-1242.

1975b. Whale pigmentation and feeding behavior. American

Zoologist 12:655.

Myrick, A.C. Jr.

1986. Procedures for sampling dolphins: a handbook for shipboard

observers. NOAA Tech. Memo. SWFC-62, vi + 69 p.

Norris, K.S. (editor).

1961. Standardized methods for measuring and recording data on

the smaller cetaceans. J. Mammal. 42:471-476.

Norris, K.S., and J.H. Prescott.

1961. Observations on Pacific cetaceans of Californian and

Mexican waters. Univ. Calif. Pub!. Zoo!' 63:291-402 + pis.

27-41.

Perrin, W.F.

1969. Color pattern of the eastern Pacific spotted porpoise Stenella

graffmani Lonnberg (Cetacea, Delphinidae). Zoologica 54:

135-142 + 7 pis.

1972. Color patterns of spinner porpoises (Stenella cf. S. longirostn·s)

of the eastern Pacific and Hawaii, with comments on delphinid

pigmentation. Fish. Bull., U.S. 70:983-1003.

1975. Variation of spotted and spinner porpoise (Genus Stenella)

in the eastern tropical Pacific and Hawaii. Bull. Scripps Inst.

Oceanogr. 21:1-206.

Perrin, W.F., E.D. Mitchell, J.G. Mead, D.K. Caldwell, and

P.J.H. van Bree.

1981. Stenella clymene, a rediscovered tropical dolphin of the Atlantic. J. Mamma!' 62:583-598.

Perrin, W.F., E.D. Mitchell,J.G. Mead, D.K. Caldwell, M.C. Caldwell,

P.J.H. van Bree, and W.H. Dawbin.

1987. Revision of the spotted dolphins, StenelLa spp. Marine Mammal Sci. 3:99-170.

Ross, G.J.B.

1979. Records of pygmy and dwarf sperm whales, genus Kogia,

from southern Africa, with biological notes and some comparisons.

Ann. Cape Provo Mus. (Nat. Hist.) 11:259-327.

Schoeninger, M.J., and M.J. De Niro.

1984. Nitrogen and carbon isotopic composition of bone collagen

from marine and terrestrial animals. Geochimica et Cosmochimica 48:625-639.

Sergeant, D.E.

1982. Mass strandings of toothed whales (Odontocet.) as a population phenomenon. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 34:1-47.

Williams, S.L., and C.A. Hawks.

1986. Inks for documentation in vertebrate research collections.

Curator 29(2):93-108.
Medical Findings in a Mass Stranding of Pilot Whales

(Globicephala macrorhynchus) in Florida

MICHAEL T. WALSH and DEKE O. BEUSSE

Sea World oj Florida

7007 Sea World Drive

Orlando, FL 32821-8097

W. GLENN YOUNG

Sea World oj Texas

10500 Sea World Drive

San Antonio, TX 78238

ABSTRACT

J.D. LYNCH, EDWARD D. ASPER, and DANIEL K. ODELL

Sea World oj Florida

7007 Sea World Drive

Orlando, FL 32821-8097

A pod of at least thirty-three short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) stranded on

Marco Island on the southwest coast of Florida on 23 July 1986. Because the animals were already

being returned to the Gulf of Mexico by another response group at the time we arrived, our

initial examination was limited to bloodwork on eight live individuals and post-mortems on six

of eight dead individuals. The remainder of the live individuals, some of which were marked

for future identification with plastic tags and by notching dorsal fins, headed north in the Gulf

after regrouping at the mouth of the Marco River. On 9 August 1986 the apparent remnants

of the pod were found stranded near Key West, Florida. On this date 10 of 17 animals found

were dead. Surviving animals were transported to Sea World of Florida from Key West and were

sampled for complete blood counts and serum chemistries before therapy began. All of the individuals sampled from the incidents on 24 July and 9 August showed physical, clinical pathological,

or histological evidence ofillness. None of the individuals survived longer than two weeks. Physical

abnormalities noted in the live whales included increased respiratory rate, difficult breathing,

and elevated heart rate. Clinical pathologic abnormalities included elevated hemoglobin levels,

elevated plasma fibrinogen, leukopoenia, leukocyte left shift, hyperglycemia, elevated serum

creatinine, elevated serum bilirubin, decreased alkaline phosphatase, elevated lactic dehydrogenase,

elevated liver enzymes, hypocalcemia, and hypophosphatemia.

These findings suggest that the majority of whales sampled in this mass stranding were clinically

ill. Stranded individuals should be examined for illness by common diagnostic procedures such

as blood counts, serum chemistries, and necropsy to determine the extent of illness in stranded

whales.

75

strand (Cordes 1982; Ridgway 1972; Geraci et al. 1976;

Geraci 1978; Robson 1984; Eaton 1979; Best 1982;

Morimitsu et al. 1986, 1987; Ellis 1987; Odell 1987;

Warneke 1983). Theories advanced include 1) unfamiliarity of deep water species with coastal areas; 2) evolutionary

Introduction _

Whales have been found stranded on beaches for thousands

of years. During this time humans interested in these events

have proposed various theories to explain why whales
76 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

~-_._-----------------------'

Table 1

Length and sex of 30 short-finned pilot whales stranded

in southwest Florida in 1986. SWF = Sea World of Florida;

C = University of Miami.

hematocrit tubes for 3 minutes in a 58 0 C water bath. Serum chemistries were analyzed on an Abbot Spectrum (Abbot Spectrum, P.O. 152020, Irving, 'IX 75015). Standards

for individual tests were human based and run at 37 0 C.

Electrolytes, blood urea nitrogen and glucose were analyzed

on a Beckman Astra (Beckman Astra, 200 South Kraemer

Blvd., Brea, CA 92621-6209) unit. Evidence of the presence of hepatitis A and B virus was investigated using

human test kits by analyzing serum samples in 11 whales.

It took approximately two hours to herd the survivors

down to the river mouth on the Gulf of Mexico. During

this time seven more animals, three of which had been bled

earlier, died. All dead individuals were towed to a deserted

beach where they were necropsied. Morphometric data

were collected on all whales at the time of necropsy. Tissues

taken from individuals that had not undergone decomposition were placed in 10% neutral buffered formalin for

routine histopathologic examination. Bacterial cultures

were not taken at this time owing to surf action on the

whales during necropsy.

memory of land so that it is sought for unknown reasons;

3) environmental disturbances such as earthquakes; 4) sloping beaches; 5) loss of sonar ability; 6) geomagnetic field

abnormalities; and 7) illness (Dudok Van Heel 1962;

Sergeant 1982; Klinowska 1985, a, b, and c; Kirscbvink

et al. 1985). Many of these proposed theories are based

on very little factual data, while others are based on "partial" truths which do not fully explain the event. As personnel with medical backgrounds have become involved

in mass strandings, more emphasis has been placed on preand post-mortem identification of illness factors that may

better explain the deaths of many ofthese individuals. The

addition of individual medical evaluations of membns of

a stranded pod to the data base can help to determine if

illness is a factor in the stranding, how many individuals

may be involved, and which individuals may have the best

chance for survival.

Materials and Methods _

A pod of short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) consisting of at least 33 individuals stranded at Marco

Island on the southwest coast of Florida on 23 July 1986.

The initial rescue team responded to the stranding by

pushing the animals back out to sea on 24 July 1986. At

0800 hr on 24 July 1986 a portion of the pod was still in

the Marco River broken into three groups, one consisting

of nine individuals on a sand bar, a second on the opposite

side of the river (exact number unknown), and a third

group of four or five individuals in the channel closer to

the river mouth. As many as 20 animals were already in

the process of being returned by the initial rescue team

toward open water by this time. We detained 10 other individual whales as they were being taken through the channel. These animals were sexed, measured, marked with

grease pencils on the dorsal fins with numbers, and tagged

with plastic tape with corresponding numbers (Table 1).

Two large individuals in the center channel were also

marked by notching the dorsal fin.

Heart rates and respiratory rates were taken in five individuals and antibiotics (Dual-Pen [Dual-Pen, Techamerica

Group Inc., P.O. Box 338, Elwood, KS 66024)-1 cc/10

kg) administered to each. Blood was drawn from nine individuals for complete blood counts, serum chemistries, hepatitis titers, whole blood element analysis, and serum hormone levels. All blood samples were taken before the

administration of any drugs. Complete blood counts were

done at Sea World of Florida utilizing a Coulter (Coulter,

540 West 20th St., Hialeah, FL 33010) Model M4-30.

Spun packed cell volumes were taken for comparison to

Coulter hematocrit values. Total protein values given in

Table 2 are derived from a serum refractometer. Fibrinogen levels were determined by indirect method comparing

refractometer serum protein levels pre- and post-heated in

Field number

SWF-GM-8644-B

SWF-GM-8645-B

SWF-GM-8646-B

SWF-GM-8647-B

SWF-GM-8648-B

SWF-GM-8649-B

SWF-GM-8650-B

SWF-GM-8651-B

SWF-GM-8652-B

SWF-GM-8653-B

SWF-GM-8654-B

SWF-GM-8655-B

SWF-GM-8656-B

SWF-GM-8757-B

SWF-GM-8658-B

SWF-GM-8659-B

SWF-GM-8660-B

SWF-GM-8661-B

SWF-GM-8662-B

SWF-GM-8663-B

SWF-GM-8664-B

C-86-19

C-86-20

C-86-21

C-86-22

C-86-24

C-86-25

C-86-26

C-86-27

C-86-28

Whale ID

(in text)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

8B

13

12

14

15

16

9

10

11

Sex

M

M

F

M

F

M

F

F

F

F

F

F

M

M

F

F

F

F

M

F

F

F

M

M

M

M

F

M

F

F

Length

(em)

450

440

226

216

330

243

380

356

331

308

350

333

367

292

331

360

328

330

123

144

323

364

321

453

470

459

362

334

351

354
__________________ Walsh et al.: Medical Findings in a Mass Stranding of Pilot Whales 77

Table 2

Complete blood counts (CBC) from 16 live short-finned pilot whales stranded in Florida in 1986. HGB = hemoglobin; HCT

= hematocrit; RBC = Red Blood Cell count x 10; MCV = mean corpuscular volume; MCH = Mean corpuscular hemoglobin

(picogram); MCHC = mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (grams/deciliter); NR = nucleated red cells per 100 white

cells; MORPH = red blood cell morphology (N = normal, B = Burr cell, HJ = Howell Jowell body, C = crenation); TP

= total protein (gm/dL); PCV = packed cell volume (%); FIB fibrinogen (gm/dL); WBC = White blood cell; BA = Bands;

SEG = Segmented neutrophils; LY = Lymphocytes; MON = Monocytes; EOS = Eosinophils; BAS = Basophils; PL =

Platlets (N = normal).

ID HGB HCT RBC MCV MCH MCHC NR MORPH TP PCV FIB WBC BA SEG LY MON EOS BAS PL

1 16.7 51 4.18 1208 40.6 33.1 0 N 8 47 <0.1 5600 0 66 26 2 2 0 N

2 19.1 53 4.13 130.5 46.2 35.4 0 N 7 51 0.4 7800 0 88 10 0 0 0 N

3 20.5 61 4.90 122.0 41.4 33.9 0 B 7 48 0.2 8400 0 90 10 0 0 0 N

4 19.4 63 4.41 143.4 44.0 30.9 0 N 8 53 0.1 2400 0 56 36 4 0 0 N

5 19.3 57 4.48 127.2 43.1 33.9 0 N 8 53 0.1 1300 0 64 28 0 0 0 N

6 17.1 50 3.90 126.5 43.0 34.4 0 N 7 46 0.1 6800 0 76 22 0 0 0 N

7 19.1 58 4.43 130.5 43.0 33.0 I N 8 53 0.1 4700 0 76 16 0 0 0 N

8 18.3 53 4.28 123.8 42.8 34.8 0 N 8 46 0.1 3700

8B 18.2 52 4.25 126.6 428 33.8 0 N 7300 0 84 6 0 0 0 N

9 17.3 50 ... 06 121.9 42.6 34.9 0 N 8 47 1.2 5300 0 79 18 2 1 0 N

10 18.8 53 4.28 123.8 42.8 34.5 0 Hj 8 51 <0.1 7100 0 95 4 0 1 0 N

11 18.2 52 4.21 124.0 43.2 34.9 0 Hj,B,C 8 51 0.1 9100 0 88 11 I 0 0 N

12 18.2 54 4.24 127.8 42.9 33.6 0 B 7 52 <0.1 4500 0 91 8 0 0 0 N

13 19.7 56 4.57 123.0 43.1 35.1 0 B,C 8 56 0.1 4700 0 93 5 1 I 0 N

14

15 179 53 4.31 123.4 41.0 33.6 0 N 8 48 0.3 7900 0 91 2 2 0 0 N

16 20.2 58 4.47 129.5 45.2 34.9 0 Hj,B,C 7 56 0.3 3700 0 90 5 2 0 0 N

._---_._-----

On 8 August 1986 the remnants of the pod which was

pushed out at Marco Island restranded in Florida Bay near

Key West, Florida. At the time of discovery, 10 individuals

were already dead; these were examined by personnel at

the University of Miami. Seven live whales were found in

various stages of weakness and transported to Sea World

of Florida for evaluation and treatment. One individual

died during transport. Blood samples were taken from all

live individuals before transport and on a regular basis after

animals arrived at Sea World. After blood sampling, each

whale was given Banamine (Banamine, Flunixin Meglumine, Schering Corporation U.S.A., Kenilworth, NJ

07033) I.M. (1.0 mglkg of body weight, not to exceed 600

mg), VIT E-Selenium (Vit E - Selenium - Scherir.g Corporation U.S.A., Kenilworth, NJ 07033) I.M. (0.13 mgl

kg), Cimetadine (Cimetidine - Tagamet, Skof Laboratory

Co., Cidra, PR 00639) 600 mg I.M. and Dual-pen LM.

(1 cc per 15 kg).

Upon arrival at Sea World the survivors were placed in

a community pool and given oral fluids twice a day. The

fluids consisted of fresh water at a rate of 1 liter17 5 kg,

which also contained 50 mL of 50% glucose per liter and

3-5 Cimetidine tablets (300 mg). On day two, each individual was given 10 cc of B-complex (B-Complex - Professional Veterinary Lab., Minneapolis, MN 55437) I.M.,

5 cc of thiamine (Thiamine - Tech America Inc., Elwood,

KS 66024) I.M., and antibiotics were changed to Keflex

(Keflex - Cephalexin, Zenith Labs. Inc., Ramsey, NJ

07446) at a dose of2.5mg/kg LM. Initial bacterial cultures

(aerobic) were taken from inside the blow hole. Identification of bacteria isolated was performed using the API (API,

200 Express Street, Plainview, NY 11803) system and sensitivities to antibiotics were analyzed by Kirby Bauer

(Kirby-Bauer Method - BBL, Microbiology Systems, Becton Dickinson and Co., Cockeysville, MD 21030) disc

method. Antibiotic for individual 11 was changed from

Keflex to tetracycline (Tetracycline, HCL, Purepac Pharmaceutical Co., Elizabeth, NJ 07207) on day 3. Whale

number 60 was also given Kanamycin (Kanamycin - Kantrim, Bristol Labs., Syracuse, NY 13201) 2.4 mglkg I.M.

twice a day after 14 August 1986. Two whales were given

Ivermectin (Ivermectin - Ivomec, MSD Aguet Merck and

Co. Inc., Rahway, NJ 07065) (1 ccll00 kg I.M.). Whales

that expired were examined grossly at Sea World of

Florida.

Tissue samples were taken from all organs, placed in

10% neutral buffered formalin, and processed routinely.

Bacterial cultures (aerobic and anaerobic) were taken

from major organs and areas of observed pathology. Gross

examination of the animals included inspection of the

pterygoid sinus and the eighth cranial nerve area. Urinalysis of samples taken by needle aspirate at necropsy

was performed on 4 whales using Multistix (Multistix,

Ames Div., Miles Labs. Inc., Elkhart, IN 46515), refractometer (specific gravity) and microscopic exam of

sediment.
78 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings

._-------

Table .3

Serum chemistries from 17 live short-finned pilot whales stranrled in Florida in 1986. GLU = Glucose (mg/dL); BUN = Blood

urea nitrogen (mg/dL); CR = Creatine (mg/dL); BIUT = Total Bilirubin (mg/dL); BUD = Direct bilirubin (gm/dL); CHOL

= Cholesterol (mg/dL); TRIG = Triglycerides (mg/dL); TP = Total protein (gm/dL); ALB = Albumin (gm/dL); GLOB

= globulin (gm/dL); ALP = Alkaline Phosphatase (U/L); ALT = Serum alanine aminotransferase (U/L); AST = Serum

aspartate aminotransferase (U/L); LD = Lactic dehydrogenase (U/L); CA = Calcium (mg/dL) PHOS = Phosphorous (mg/dL);

NA = Sodium (Meq/L); CL = Chloride (Meq/L); K = Potassium (Meq/L); FE = Iron (mg/dL); CO2 = Carbon Dioxide;

Serum Uric Acid levels on all animals were not detected «0.6).

ID GLU BUN CR BIUT BILID CHOL TRIG TP ALB GLOB ALP

1 164 29 4.7 0.3 164 126 6.9 3.4 3.6 158

2 117 37 4.5 0.3 0.1 149 113 6.6 3.2 3.4 177

3 119 52 1.9 0.3 0.1 237 264 5.7 3.1 2.7 310

4 251 28 2.1 0.2 265 121 6.6 3.3 3.3 607

5 199 36 3.2 0.1 245 109 6.8 3.1 3.7 237

6 222 29 2.1 0.1 148 86 6.2 3.4 2.8 242

7 144 35 3.7 0.2 269 82 6.8 3.4 3.4 189

8

8B

9 120 58 2.0 0.7 213 186 5.1 3.5 1.5 151

10 177 43 2.8 0.3 153 100 7.2 3.4 2.0 71

11 171 43 3.0 0.3 151 102 6.9 3.2 3.7 78

12 154 48 3.1 0.5 221 89 6.2 3.5 2.7 222

13 140 41 2.4 0.4 0.3 197 180 6.1 3.6 2.5 310

14 111 31 4.0 0.5 212 144 7.5 3.5 4.0 90

15 178 34 2.8 0.3 0.1 135 49 6.9 3.8 3.1 178

16 174 43 3.3 0.4 0.2 227 105 6.0 3.5 2.5 81

ID ALT AST LD CA PHOS NA CL K FE CO2

1 33 249 730 8.7 2.5 161 117 5.2 27

2 26 179 813 8.1 1.9 154 121 5.1 24

3 29 348 899 7.6 3.2 146 113 5.5 23

4 18 227 1088 10.0 1.8 155 113 4.6 24

5 25 238 725 8.3 1.6 150 118 5.3 20

6 17 188 984 9.2 2.1 149 121 5.0 20

7 40 310 1588 9.1 1.1 156 126 5.3 21

8

8B

9 27 288 1112 6.9 4.2 153 4.3 326 27

10 20 184 574 8.9 1.0 155 114 5.6 246 15

11 21 193 721 9.1 1.3 157 118 5.6 149 15

12 75 377 534 7.1 2.6 157 123 3.8 220 16

13 51 310 1886 7.3 3.7 150 114 3.6 26

14 32 316 984 9.6 2.9 159 109 5.1 326 10

15 73 375 1492 6.8 4.1 153 119 3.6 176 21

16 79 430 2712 7.4 4.9 157 118 4.4 184 24

Results _

Male members of the pod sampled at both sites ranged in

length from 123 to 470 em. Female whales ranged in length

from 144 to 380 em. (Table 1.)

Respiratory rates for whales from Marco Island ranged

from 6-70 respirations/5 min. Of the portion of the pod

which restranded in Key West respiratory rates ranged

from 13-25/5 minutes. Heart rates were obtained on only

two individuals. Whale 3 had a heart rate of 68 beats per

minute (bpm) while number 7 had a heart rate of 37 bpm.

Complete blood count results from the live stranded individuals are given in Table 2. Whales 1 through 8B were

animals from the initial stranding while whales 9 through

16 were individuals from the Key West portion. A complete blood count (CBC) was not available from whale 14.

Red blood cell morphology abnormalities included HowellJolly bodies (3 whales), poikilocytosis (1), Burr cells (2),

crenation (3), and acanthocytes (1).

Total protein levels from serum refractometer readings

did not appear grossly elevated but were consistently higher

than serum protein determination. Spun packed cell vol-
___________________ Walsh et al.: Medical Findings in a Mass Stranding of Pilot Whales 79

Table 4

Aerobic bacterial isolates from blowhole

cultures of 17 live short-finned pilot whales

stranded in Florida in 1986.

Table 5

Bacteria recovered from tissue cultures from pilot whales stranded in Florida

in 1986. Numbers in the table are identification numbers for each whale

(see Table 1).

Bacterium

Streptococcus faecalis

Staphylococcus aureus

S. duras

S. sciuri

S. saprophyticus

Acinetobacter calco var. Iwoffii

Enterobacter aerogenes

E. cloacae

E. gergoviae

Klebsiella pneumoniae

Pseudomonas spp.,

flourescent group

Listeria monocytogenes

Whale ID

16

13

9

9

9

13,15,16

13

9

12,15,16

15

12,13,15,16

13

Organism Kidney Liver

Streptococcus faecalis 16' 16

Citrobacter fruendi

Morganella morganii

Pseudomonas spp.,

flourescent group 16 16

Pseudomonas putrefaciens

Escherichia coli

Proteus mirabilis

Clostridium sporogenes 11

Bacteroides asachanolyticus

Tissues

Lymph

Lung node Spleen

11,12,15,16

15,16

9,15,16

12 16 16

12

11 16

11

11

Table 6

Analysis of urine collected at necropsy of four short-finned pilot whales stranded in Florida in 1986. Analysis by refractometer

(S.G.) N-Multistix for urinalysis and microscopic (sediment). S.G. = Specific Gravity; Protein = mg/dL; Glucose = mg/dL;

Ketone = mg/dL; Urobilinogen = Ehrlich units/dL; Bilirubin = small, moderate, large; Sediment: WBe = White blood

cells per high power field; Epithelial cells = Occasional; - = ;>.

Whale Protein Glucose Ketone Urom Color Character S.G. (mg) Blood pH (mg) Nitrite (mg) bilinogen Bilirubin Sediment

10 Yellow 1.045 100 6 5 8.0 moderate

11 Green Clear 1.052 300 6 500 8.0 WBC(10-15)

13 Brown Turbid 1.026 300 6 250 8.0 WBC(4-6)

15 Yellow Clear 1.015 300 6 500 8.0 WBC(10-15)

Epith cells

urnes (range = 46-55 %) were within the normal range

but did not correlate well in some individuals with Coulter

hematocrit determinations. Fibrinogen levels were considered elevated when >200 mg/dL, as seen in four whales

(Table 2). Normal white blood cell counts (WBC) usually

ranged from 5000 to 10000 cells/mm3 in most cetaceans

(Ridgway 1972). Seven individuals had decreased total

white cell counts and four individuals showed more severe

leukopenia «4,000 cells/mm3). A leukocyte left shift, as

evidenced by the presence of immature neutrophils, was

seen in nine individuals.

Serum chemistry and serum electrolyte results from initial blood samples are given in Table 3. Chemistries were

not available from whales 8 or 8B. Glucose levels ranged

from 117 to 251 mg/dL. Initial bacterial culture from the

external nares (blow hole) of five whales transported for

treatment are given in Table 4. Bacterial isolates recovered

from various organ tissues at necropsy of five whales are

presented in Table 5. Isolates were recovered from the

lung, liver, lymph nodes, kidney, spleen, and vagina. It

should be noted that these isolates were cultured from individuals that were previously on antibiotics.

Urinalysis

Urine was recovered from four animals at necropsy (Table

6). The urine pH of each whale was 6.0. Specific gravity

ranged from 1.026 in whale 15 to 1.052 in whale 10. Protein levels were elevated in each individual even though

red blood cells were not present. Urobilinogen levels were

elevated compared to urine from other cetaceans. Bilirubin

was present in the urine of whale 10. Glucose was detected

in whales 11, 13, and 15. White blood cells were seen in

the sediment from whales 11, 13, and 15.

Hepatitis Panel

Serum from whales analyzed for hepatitis A and B (Table

7) revealed four whales with positive reactions for Hepatitis

A antibody, three individuals with borderline reactions to
80 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Table 7

Serum hepatitis titers from 11 short-finned pilot whales

stranded in Florida in 1986. A-AB = Hepatitis A antibody;

A-AB-IgM = Hepatitis A antibody IgM; B-Surf-Ag =

Hepatitis B surface antigen; B-core-AB = Hepatitis B core

antibody; B-surf-AB = Hepatitis B surface antibody; +

= Positive; - = Negative; B = Borderline; W + =

weakly positive.

Whale

ID A-AB A-AB-IgM B-surf-Ag B-core-AB B-surf-AB

2

4

5 + B

8 +

8B +

9

11 B

12

13 B

15 +

16 W+

Hepatitis B surface antibody and one whale with a weakly

positive reaction for Hepatitis B surface antibody.

Necropsy

The results of necropsy of animals which expired on Marco

Island and at Sea World are given by Bossart et al. (1991).

Animal identities are cross-referenced.

Discussion _

Numerous theories have been proposed to explain why

cetaceans strand in mass. The majority of these theories

are based on conjecture rather than facts related tCo the

stranding. While illness of part or all of the group has been

suggested (Geraci 1978), little has been documented regarding the individual clinical health at the time of the

stranding other than post-mortem findings. The approach

with this stranding was to investigate the possibility that

some or all members of the mass stranding were ill at the

time they stranded. Cetacean species are likely to suffer

from the same disease processes as any other mammals,

including trauma, toxins, infectious agents (viruses, bacteria, fungi, yeast, parasites) and nutritional and metabolic

illnesses. To eliminate illness as a major factor in a stranding, it is necessary to study in depth three different facets

of the event. First, the individual's external health status

should be evaluated. Second, an evaluation should be made

of the whale's internal health status. Third, a post-mortem

examination must be done to include at minimum a gross

examination of all individuals, including bacterial cultures

of tissues, and histopathologic examination. External health

evaluation can be partially accomplished by a superficial

physical exam. This should include noting respiratory

rates, heart rates, and overall "attitude" (activity, alertness, awareness of surrounding environment, response to

stimuli). A single observation of heart and respiratory rates

can be confusing if these are used as the only method of

evaluation. A "healthy" animal may show elevated rates

during phases of excitement and a weak individual who

is no longer responsive to external stimuli may show apparent normal values. Initial decisions should be based on

serial heart and respiratory rates coupled with other information. It may be necessary to sedate animals lightly

which have elevated heart and respiratory rates to rule out

the possibility that stress is the cause rather than illness.

Because expression of illness is not limited to elements of

the cardiovascular or respiratory system, it is also helpful

to obtain blood samples for routine diagnostic tests such

as complete blood counts (CBC), serum chemistries, and

electrolyte values. Values obtained from CBC's and

chemistries may differ among laboratories as a result of

a lack of familiarity with species differences as well as differences in test methodology.

The CBC can give information relevant to individual

health in areas such as hydration, anemia, inflammation,

and infection. Using automated counters has some potential problems. The HCT is calculated by the instrument after

determining the RBC and mean corpuscular volume

(MCV). Potential error is greater because of the measurement complexity and the standardization of most machines

for human cells. As a result, the packed cell volume (PCV)

is used as a more reliable index in the whales. The mean

corpuscular volume (MCV), mean corpuscular hemoglobin

(MCH), and hemoglobin concentration are also common

values supplied by automated equipment. The MCV can

be determined directly by some automated counters and

may be affected by anemia, an increase in reticulocytes

(young red cells) and iron deficiency. The MCH and

MCHC are calculated values.

Total serum protein levels (Table 2) were determined

with a refractometer. The difference between refractometer

levels and levels determined in the serum chemistry section should be noted. The total protein level can be used

to determine dehydration in animals where normal values

are known; however, total protein level may be affected

by starvation, disease states or factors which affect serum

clarity such as lipemia. Fibrinogen levels are rough estimates of inflammation. Normal levels are usually less then

300 mg/dL (Duncan and Prasse 1977). Whales 2, 9, 15,

and 16 had fibrinogen levels indicating active inflammation which may be related to disease or to damage received

during stranding.

White blood cell counts are generally used to help determine the presence of infection or inflammation. Infection

may result in a different white count at different stages.
__________________ Walsh et al.: Medical Findings in a Mass Stranding of Pilot Whales 81

Increases in total white cell numbers (> 15 000) were not

seen in these animals. The presence of young white cells

(neutrophils-bands) usually associated with an infection was

noted however. Leukopenia (total decreased low white cell

count <5000 mm3) was seen in seven whales. This may

be associated with viral infections, or, as in some species

such as cattle, there may be a period where the peripheral

white cell population migrates to the site of an infection

resulting in a temporary circulating total white cell decrease. Ifthe animal is capable of responding to an infection, the total white cell count should increase past the

normal level giving the more classic leukocytosis. This did

occur in the whales which were treated and given time to

respond. Differences in the differential of the white cell

count (breakdown of white cell count components) may

change because of infection type, response capability and

stress. The" stress response" leukocyte picture usually involves an increase in overall numbers (leukocytosis), predominantly a result of an increase in neutrophils, and a

decrease in eosinophils and lymphocytes. The absence of

a left shift helps to differentiate this from inflammatory

diseases.

Serum chemistries can be very helpful in determining

whether various organ systems are affected by illness. This

information is also affected by variability among laboratories in test methodology and results. Many automated

chemistry units run all tests at a constant temperature (ex:

37° C). Other analyzer systems are not run at constant

temperature, resulting in variation in enzyme levels especially ALT, AST, CPK, LDH and HBD. The kidneys may

be partially evaluated by the BUN (blood urea nitrogen)

and creatinine levels. Creatinine levels greater than 2.5

mg/dL are considered elevated. The level of increase in

most of the pilot whales is within the range associated with

dehydration. Creatinine levels greater than 4.0 mg/dL

should be considered serious elevations which may soon

become life threatening. Whales treated at Sea World with

oral fluids did respond, as evidenced by serial decreases

in creatinine levels. Total bilirubin levels greater than 0.3

mg/dL units are usually considered elevated as seen in 5

individuals. This may be associated with liver disease,

anorexia, and dehydration.

The significance of cholesterol and triglyceride levels and

their relationship to disease is unknown. The levels are

given for future reference. Serum total protein levels from

the pilot whales differ from refractometer levels as shown

in Table 2. The differences may be partially related to inappropriate test application and human specific kits not

detecting total albumin and globulin levels. Alkaline phosphatase levels are normally elevated in cetaceans. Levels

detected at 37°C generally range from 250-600 /AIL units.

Levels less than 150 /AIL are considered abnormally low.

Lower levels are usually associated with illness and possibly

a decreased food intake. Liver enzymes such as ALT

(alanine aminotransferase) and AST (aspartate aminotransferase) may be elevated during liver disease but are

not totally specific for liver destruction. Normal levels for

this hospital lab are < 40 /AIL for ALT and < 300 for AST.

The LDH (lactic dehydrogenase) levels may be elevated

from liver disease or muscle disease. Normal LDH levels

are less that 500U/L. Serum calcium levels less than 8

mg/dL are considered low. Levels less than 7 could predispose the individual to weakness or possible seizure activity. Normal phosphorous levels range between 3.5 and

5 mg/dL. The significance of low serum phosphorous levels

in cetaceans is unknown. Animals with less than 3 mg/dL

are supplemented with oral phosphorous.

Electrolyte imbalances are also seen in ill cetaceans. Increased sodium levels have been associated with dehydration and ingestion of sea water in other ill cetaceans such

as the false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) from a stranding inJune 1986 (unpubl. data). Potassium levels are only

slightly elevated above the normal range of 3.5-5.0 units.

Serum carbon dioxide levels normally range from 18 to

28 units, with levels less than 16 suggesting acidosis as

shown by whale 14 which died just after sampling.

Bacterial cultures taken from the blow hole of five

animals taken to Sea World of Florida showed that most

individuals carried more than one species of bacterium in

the external nares. Whether or not these bacteria were

pathologically significant is unknown but this does illustrate

that there may be more than one species present which

could be involved clinically. Of the animals receiving treatment with various antibiotics at Sea World of Florida, those

animals which survived longest received more than one

antibiotic type concurrently during therapy.

There are some potential problems related to identification of some marine organisms, because many commercial systems available for identifying bacteria do not include these organisms in their data banks. Bacterial cultures

taken at necropsy listed in Table 5 show a variety of organisms present in multiple tissues of the whales involved.

The clinical significance of these isolates is difficult to determine but it also suggests the need for proper multiple antibiotic use because all ofthese individuals were on antibiotic

therapy before death. In addition it is a possibility that these

animals may be immunosuppressed so that "normal"

bacterial flora may become pathogenic.

Urinalysis of samples taken by needle aspirate from the

bladder is given in Table 6 and shows various abnormalities. The application of many of these findings is unknown

at this point because the samples were taken from dead

individuals.

From analyses ofserum liver enzyme elevations and pathology reports concerning liver disease, it is suspected that

hepatitis viruses might be involved in some cetacean disease

states. The application of human tests kits for evidence of

hepatitis may be of questionable value but the hepatitis

viruses are probably present in most species so that it is

worthwhile investigating the possibility at this stage.
82 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Parasitic infection as a cause ofstrandings is one theory

which has some factual basis but such infections are probably over-emphasized since they also occur in healthy wild

individuals (Ridgway and Dailey 1972). A percentage of

parasitic illnesses can result in death when there is central

nervous system migration or massive organ dysfunction

(lung worms, heart worms, liver flukes, gastrointestinal

worms). Intestinal parasites found in this stranding did not

occur in large enough numbers to kill the animals. Parasites

found in the pterygoid sinuses, while higher in number than

in the intestines, did not appear to be causing any obvious

pathology. Morimitsu et al. (1986) examined histologically

the eighth cranial nerve of a few whales involved in mass

strandings in]apan and felt that migrating parasites damaged the nerves, resulting in loss of equilibrium and eventual stranding. It should be noted that nematodes and

trematodes are commonly found in the pterygoid sinus.

These investigators looked at only a few animals out of the

group and did not investigate other health factors; and

some of the whales were examined histologically after the

tissue had already been refrigerated or frozen.

The results of necropsies of whales involved in this

stranding are given by Bossart et al. (1991). Necropsies

are an essential part of any illness investigation and should

be performed on any cetacean which expires for unknown

reasons. This procedure complements the physical and

clinical pathology portions of a stranding investigation,

often clarifying or contributing to an explanation of the

cause of death.

A major complicating factor in understanding a mass

stranding is the strong social system which exists among

the members ofthe pod. Members ofthe group may blindly

follow other individuals, especially those who are apparently leaders of the pod. As a result, if an illness is at

first isolated in a pod's leader, this individual may lead

the group away from normal migration patterns including

food sources. An infectious agent may move rapidly

through the pod resulting in many ill individuals at the time

of stranding.

The actual etiology of a mass stranding event may

be unknown because the original inciting factor, such

as a virus, may have occurred days or even weeks

before. Without knowledge of the time frame involved or

how many animals may have already died at sea, it is

unlikely that the true cause of many strandings will be

established.

Based on clinical pathology findings coupled with histologic findings (Bossart et al. 1991), it is obvious that there

are other factors in mass strandings which should be examined in order to understand better why these animals

strand. It should be assumed that some or all members of

a stranded pod are ill until proven otherwise. The following outline provides recommendations that may help in

gathering information relevant to the health of a stranding

pod:

1) Provide initial first aid and identification for each

animal.

A) Keep animals in sternal position to avoid inhalation of sand.

B) Provide shade and keep skin moist with water.

C) Tag each individual with a numbered "spaghetti"

tag through the caudal edge of the dorsal fin for

future identification.

2) Collect clinical data on each individual for evaluation

and future use.

A) Record respirations per 5 minutes and heart rate

every 30 minutes.

B) Obtain blood samples (50-100 cc) for complete

blood count, serum chemistries, and electrolytes.

If possible have these analyzed while working on

stranding.

3) Decide disposition of pod based on above information.

If members of the pod are already dead assume others

will die shortly.

A) If facilities are available consider transporting the

youngest and strongest for treatment.

B) If no facilities are available and animals must be

returned to sea, consider humane euthanasia for

those who are dying and might cause the pod to

restrand.

4) Animals removed for treatment and which survive

should be held for six months. They should not be

released without a complete medical workup for evidence of infectious or contagious diseases. Animals that

originate from a pod where most have perished from

an unknown illness may inadvertently carry a potentially fatal disease back to unexposed pods. Without intervention these animals would have died on the beach

limiting the spread of a possible contagious disease.

5) All individuals that are released should be tagged or

freeze-branded to help identify them if restranding

occurs.

Acknowledgments _

This is Sea World of Florida Technical Contribution No.

8805-F. The authors would like to thank the Animal Care

staff at Sea World of Florida and the personnel of the

Florida Marine Patrol who assisted in gathering information from this stranding.

Citations _

Best, P.B.

1982. Whales, why do they strand? African Wildlife, 36:6-10.

Bossart, G., M.T. Walsh, D.K. Odell, J.D. Lynch, D.O. Beusse,

R. Friday, and W.G. Young.

1991. Histopathologic findings of a mass stranding of pilot whales

(Globicephala Tflacrorhynchus). In Marine mammal strandings in the
___________________ Walsh et al.: Medical Findings in a Mass Stranding of Pilot Whales 83

United States: proceedings of the second marine mammal stranding workshop; 3-5 December 1987, Miami, FL O.E. Reynolds

and D.K. Odell, eds.), p. 85-90. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech.

Rep. NMFS 98.

Cordes, D.O.

1982. The causes of whale strandings. New Zealand Veterinary

Journal 30:21-24.

Dudok van Heel, W.H.

1962. Sound and cetacea. NetherlandsJournal of Sea Research

1(4):407-507.

Duncan, R., and K. Prasse.

1977. Veterinary laboratory medicine. Iowa State Univ. Press,

Ames, lA, p. 55.

Eaton, R.L.

1979. Speculations on strandings as "burial, suicide, and mterspecies communication." Carnivore 2(3):24.

Ellis, R.

1987. Why do whales strand? Oceans 20(3):24-29,63.

Geraci, J.R.

1978. The enigma of marine mammal strandings. Oceanus

21(2):38-47.

Geraci, J.R., S.A. Testaverde, D.J. St. Aubin, and T.H. Loop.

1976. A mass stranding of Atlantic white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus: a study into pathobiology and life history. Final

Report, U.S. Mar. Mammal Comm. contract MM5AC008.

Dep. Commer., NTIS PB-289 361, p. 141. (Available from the

National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.)

Kirschvink, J.L., A.E. Dizon, and J.A. Westphal.

1985. Evidence from strandings for geomagnetic sensitivity in cetaceans. J. Exp. Biology 120:1-24.

Klinowska, M.

1985. Interpretation of the UK cetacean strandings records. Rep.

Int. Whaling Commission 35:459-467.

1985a. Cetacean live stranding sites relate to geomagnetic topography. Aquatic Mammals 11(1):27-32.

1985b. Cetacean live stranding date relate to geomagnetic disturbances. Aquatic Mammals 11(3): 109-119.

Morimitsu, T., T. Nagai, M. Ide, A. Ishii, and M. Koono.

1986. Parasitogenic octavus neuropathy as a cause of mass stranding in Odontoceti. J. Parasitol. 72(3):469-472.

Morimitsu, T., T. Nagai, M. Ide, H. Kawano, A. Naichuu, M. Koono,

and A. Ishii.

1987. Mass stranding of Odontoceti caused by parasitogenic eighth

cranial neuropathy. J. WildI. Disease 23(4):586-590.

Odell, D.K.

1987. The mystery of marine mammal strandings. Cetus 7(2):

2-6.

Ridgway, S.H.

1972. Mammals of the sea. Biology and medicine. Charles C.

Thomas, Springfield, IL, 812 p.

Ridgway, S., and M.Dailey.

1972. Cerebral and Cerebellar involvement of trematode parasites

in dolphins and their possible role in stranding. J. WildI. Disease

8:33-43.

Robson, F.D.

1984. Strandings: ways to save whales, a humane conservationists

guide. The Science Press,Johannesburg and Capetown, 124 p.

Sergeant, D.E.

1982. Mass strandings oftoothed whales (Odontoceti) as a population phenomenon. Scientific Reports Whale Research Institute,

Japan 34: 1-47.

Warneke, R.

1983. Whale stranding - accident or design? Australian Natural

History 21:43-47.

Histopathologic Findings of a Mass Stranding of

Pilot Whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus)

GREGORY D. BOSSART

Miami Seaquarium

4400 Rickenbacker Causeway

Miami, FL 33149

and

Veterinary Reference Laboratories

P.O. Box 660187

Dallas, TX 75266

MICHAEL T. WALSH, DANIEL K. ODELL, J.D. LYNCH,

DEKE O. BEUSSE, ROBIN FRIDAY*, and W. GLENN YOUNG*

Sea World of Florida

7007 Sea World Drive

Orlando, FL 32821

ABSTRACT

Thirty short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) stranded on the Gulf coast of Florida

in 1986. Gross and microscopic necropsies were performed on 10 whales. This report describes

the histopathologic findings on these whales. A wide diversity of lesions was present not only

within individual whales, but within the stranding group as a whole. The severity of these lesions

also had a wide range. Pathologic changes included multiorgan inflammatory and degenerative

lesions as well as adrenocortical and lymphoid changes consistent with prolonged stress and possible

secondary immunologic suppression. The histopathologic findings were often indicative of chronic

progressive disease processes suggesting the existence of disease some time prior to stranding.

Introduction _

Numerous theories have been proposed for mass strandings

ofliving cetaceans. In most strandings, however, pertinent

biological data are either unobtainable or incomplete, only

fueling further speculation concerning stranding circumstances.

The southwest coast of Florida has a history as a site

for mass strandings. Recent strandings include short-finned

pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) in 1971 (Fehring

and Wells 1976), 1979, 1985, and 1987 (Odell 1991,

unpub!. data) and false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens)

in 1972, 1976, and 1986 (Odell et a!' 1980; Odell 1991,

unpub!. data). Typically, the herd initially strands on the

upper southwest coast (e.g., Ft. Myers area) where the live

• Present address: Sea World of Texas, 10500 Sea World Drive, San

Antonio, TX 78251.

animals are returned to sea, only to strand again in a few

days further to the south (Fehring and Wells 1976; Odell

et a!' 1980).

On 23 July 1986, 30 living short-finned pilot whales

(Globicephala macrorhynchus) stranded near Marco Island on

Florida's Gulf coast. Thirteen ofthese whales subsequently

died or were euthanized. Stranding data collected from this

incident included geographic parameters, population

dynamics, animal morphometries, and hematologic and

blood chemistry parameters. Seventeen of the remaining

whales were returned to the sea. They restranded 16 days

later near Key West, Florida.

Complete gross and microscopic necropsies were performed on 10 whales from the initial stranding. The

purpose of the present report is to characterize the histopathologic findings ofthese pilot whales to determine potential cause(s) of death and suggest circumstances preceding

the stranding.

85
86 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Materials and Methods _

Thirty living short-finned pilot whales stranded on the

beaches ofthe Gulf coast of Florida in]uly 1986 (for details,

see Walsh et al. 1991). Ten of these whales had gross and

microscopic necropsies performed (Table 1) after assignment of individual case numbers and recording of morphometric and geographic stranding data.

Gross necropsies were performed by the staff of Sea

World of Florida and members ofthe Southeastern Marine

Mammal Stranding Network, generally within four hours

after death. Carcasses were kept cool with ice in the interim, when possible. Gross necropsy findings were recorded on individual case reports so these findings could

be cross-referenced later with microscopic findings.

Tissues from organs and reported lesions were collected

and fixed in 10% neutral-buffered formalin. These specimens were processed routinely for light microscopic evaluation, sectioned at 5 JAm, and stained with hematoxylin and

eosin. In selected cases other stains were used, including

Brown and Brenn, Fite acid fast, Grocott methenamine

silver, and periodic acid-Schiff. Only data from freshly

salvaged whales, which had minimal microscopic tissue

autolysis, were used in this study.

For this report a numerical histologic grading system

(grade range of + 1 to + 5 was utilized to categorize inflammatory and degenerative lesions, as well as pathologic

changes of primary lymphoid tissues and the adrenal

glands. Pathologic changes graded + 1 were mild (diffuse

or focal); + 3 were moderate (diffuse or focal); and + 5

were severe (diffuse or focally extensive) in nature with a

grade range of + 1 to + 5 (Table 1).

Results _

Parasites were grossly reported in the middle ears of five

whales. These were identified as nematodes (probably

Stenurus sp.) in all cases, with one whale having a combined

trematode (Nasitrema sp.) infestation. In the gross necropsy

reports the number of parasites in this region ranged from

"few" to "many." Gross lesions associated with these

parasites were not reported and tissues from this region

were not included for histologic evaluation.

The graded histopathologic findings are summarized in

Table 1 by organ system in relation to individual whale,

length, sex, and general lesion classification. For clarity

the detailed histologic findings will be presented by organ

system.

Gastrointestinal System

Mild to moderate multifocal chronic-active ulcerative inflammation of the fundic and pyloric stomach compartments was present in seven whales. These gastric lesions

were uniformly characterized by focal mucosal ulceration

with associated submucosal infiltrates of polymorphonuclear leukocytes, plasma cells, lymphocytes, and histiocytes with hemorrhage. Occasional lesions had fibroplasia

peripheral to the inflammation. In all cases inflammation

was limited to the mucosa and adjacent submucosa.

In six ofthese whales the gastric lesions were associated

microscopically with parasites including nematodes (three

whales), trematodes (two whales), and one parasite unidentifiable because of fragmentation and degeneration. These

parasites were generally found within the gastric submucosa and associated with marked peripheral fibroplasia.

In addition, the gastric mucosal ulcerations in whales B,

D, and F were associated with numerous coccoid bacterial

colonies, some of which had been phagocytized by inflammatory cells.

Whale I had severe chronic-active non-ulcerative gastritis

of the pyloric stomach compartment. This inflammation

was not microscopically associated with parasites or infectious agents. Whales A and G had no gastric lesions.

In whales B, C, and] there was severe diffuse chronicactive pseudomembranous inflammation of the small intestine. These enteric changes were characterized by diffuse villous atrophy with a fibrinous to fibrinopurulent

adherent mucosal lining. The lamina propria and submucosa were widely infiltrated by increased numbers of

lymphocytes and plasma cells, as well as numerous

eosinophils and neutrophils. The cause of these extensive

inflammatory changes was not apparent from microscopic

examinations. Whale I had moderate diffuse chronic-active

inflammation of the small intestine without concurrent

pseudomembrane formation. This inflammation was characterized by infiltrates of numerous eosinophils with associated multifocal mucosal and adjacent submucosal fibroplasia, suggesting a parasitic etiology. Despite multiple

sectioning, parasites were not identified. The intestines of

the remaining six whales were histologically unremarkable.

Respiratory System

Whales A, I, and] had moderate bronchoalveolar pneumonia. The lungs were characterized by diffuse (whales

A and]) or multifocal (whale I) bronchoalveolar suppuration with infiltrates of neutrophils, macrophages, and occasionallymphocytes and plasma cells. Moderate multifocal

pulmonary edema, hemorrhage, and congestion were also

present in these whales. Infectious agents were not present.

Whale B had mild to moderate focal chronic inflammation of the upper respiratory tract. Whale D had mild

multifocal granulomatous pulmonary inflammation associated with degenerating parasites resembling nematodes.

Myocardium

Whale C had moderate to severe chronic inflammation of
_______________ Bossart et al.: Histopathologic Findings of a Mass Stranding of Pilot Whales 87

the heart. The heart was characterized by multifocal interstitial infIltrates, primarily lymphocytes and histiocytes with

associated fibrosis and occasional Anitschkow cells. The

fibrosis was focally extensive and often involved degenerating Purkinje cells. There was also focal myofiber degeneration characterized by swollen eosinophilic cytoplasm,

loss of cross-striations, and fragmentation.

Whale B had similar but less extensive chronic myocardial changes with associated edema. Whales D, F, G, H,

and I had mild focal to multifocal chronic inflammatory

lesions ofthe myocardium. The cause ofthese myocardial

changes could not be determined. Infectious agents were

not present.

Hepatic System

Various moderate nonspecific hepatocellular degenerative

changes were present in five whales. Whales A and] had

diffuse combined hepatocellular fatty change and hydropic

degeneration. Whales E, F, and I had moderate diffuse
88 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

hepatocellular atrophy. All five of these whales also had

hepatic extramedullary hematopoiesis and varying degrees

of multifocal hepatic hemosiderosis.

Lymphoid System

Multiple visceral and peripheral lymph nodes from eight

whales had extensive lymphoid depletion. The histologic

pattern of the depletion was both follicular and paracortical. The spleens ofthese eight whales had similar but less

extensive lymphoid depletion.

The spleens of whales G and J were histologically normal. Lymph nodes were not included for evaluation from

these whales.

Adrenal Glands

The adrenal glands of five whales had moderate lipid depletion. This involved principally the zona glomerulosa and

zona fasciculata. The adrenal glands of whales Band D

were unremarkable. Adrenal glands were not included for

evaluation from whales F, G, and J.

Renal System

• Whale A had moderate multifocal papillary necrosis involving many renules. This necrosis was associated with

focal infiltrates of neutrophils and macrophages. In addition there was multifocal medullary tubular mineralization.

The cause of these changes could not be determined.

Pancreas

Two whales had moderate to severe inflammation of the

pancreas. The pancreas of whale F was characterized by

multifocal fibrosis with exocrine atrophy and moderate

focal infiltrates of chronic inflammatory cells. Similar cells

were present in peripancreatic fat foci. Whale G had pancreatic inflammation characterized by multifocal acinar

necrosis with associated peripancreatic fat necrosis and

saponification. There were infIltrates of neutrophils, plasma

cells, and macrophages associated with this necrosis. There

was also multifocal hemorrhage. The endocrine pancreas

of whales F and G was unremarkable.

Integumentary and Skeletal

Muscle Systems

Whale C had severe focal acute inflammatory changes involving subcutaneous tissues associated with a grossly

reported skin lesion measuring approximately 25 em by

100 em, which was attributed to exposure (e.g., sunburn,

surf action, etc.). Histologic sections of this region were

characterized by focally extensive subcutaneous coagulative

necrosis with infiltrates of many neutrophils, eosinophils,

mast cells, and macrophages. There was also extensive

multifocal hemorrhage and edema.

Whale D had severe multifocal chronic-active inflammatory changes involving grossly reported skin lesions of

the peduncle and flukes, as well as adjacent skeletal muscle.

The epidermis was characterized by multifocal ballooning

degeneration of the stratum spinosum and stratum intermedium with exocytosis. The adjacent papillary dermis had

infiltrates of many neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes,

and occasional histiocytes. Skeletal muscle adjacent to this

area had extensive coagulative necrosis with infiltrates of

an admixture of inflammatory cells and hemorrhage.

Reproductive System

The uterus of whale H had multicentric circumscribed

arrangements of interlacing bundles of straplike cells

resembling well-differentiated smooth-muscle fibers. These

cells often intersected at right angles and were characterized

by poorly defined cell boundaries, eosinophilic amorphous

cytoplasm, cigar-shaped monomorphic hyperchromatic

nuclei, small nucleoli, and sparse mitotic activity. There

was also a fibrillar background matrix of collagenous connective tissue. These uterine masses were diagnosed as

fibroleiomyomas. These benign smooth muscle tumors

commonly arise in the mammalian female reproductive

tract and have been reported in pilot whales (Landy 1980).

Discussion _

A wide diversity of histopathologic lesions was present in

this group of whales. In some individuals these pathologic

changes were severe and probably related to other organ

system lesions representing disseminated infectious processes. Either singly or in combination, many of these

lesions could have compromised organ function resulting

in death.

Inflammation and degenerative changes involving the

gastrointestinal system were common. A similar histologic

pattern of severe inflammation of the small intestine was

present in three whales (B, C, and J). The diffuse, pseudomembranous, chronic-active nature of these lesions suggests an infectious etiology. Jones and Hunt (1983) showed

that in other species similar enteropathies can be caused

by bacterial infections (e. g., Salmonella sp., Fusobacterium

necrophorium) and viral infections (e. g., feline infectious

enteritis, malignant catarrhal fever).

Two of the whales (B and C) had concurrent moderate

inflammation of the heart while the third whale U) had

moderate inflammation of the lungs. This suggests a

disseminated infectious disease process possibly originating

from the small intestine.

Two other whales (F and G) had moderate to severe inflammation of the pancreas. The histologic pattern of the
_______________ Bossart et al.: Histopathologic Findings of a Mass Stranding of Pilot Whales 89

pancreatic changes was different. In whale F the pathologic

changes were consistent with chronic progressive pancreatic

disease, while in whale G they were suggestive of a recent

acute episode of pancreatitis. Unlike the inflammatory

lesions found in the previous whales, the moderate to severe

inflammation in whale G involved only one organ system.

Acute pancreatic necrosis and chronic "relapsing" pancreatitis are common diseases in humans and dogs and are

frequently fatal Oubb et al. 1985). In whales G and F the

cause of the pancreatic inflammation, as in other species,

could not be determined.

Moderate degenerative changes of the liver were present in five whales. These were generally present in whales

with moderate to severe lesions in other organ systems, a

circumstance that suggests the hepatopathies may have

been secondary in nature.

Pulmonary inflammation of a moderate nature was present in three other whales (A, B, and I). These individuals

also had concurrent moderate to severe inflammatory

lesions of other organ systems, ranging from renal inflammation only (whale A) to inflammatory changes involving

the pyloric stomach compartment, small intestine, and

heart (whale I). These concurrent changes are also suggestive of disseminated disease with possible multiorgan

functional compromise.

Inflammation of integument and adjacent tissues was

severe in two whales (C and D). In whale C there was a

similar concurrent pattern of inflammation ofthe heart and

small intestine suggesting a septicemia.

Parasites were present microscopically in the stomach

compartments of six whales and lungs of one whale. The

inflammatory changes associated with these parasites were

generally mild and focal in nature, confined to the superficial mucosa (in the stomach) and stimulating peripheral

fibrosis.

Primary lymphoid tissue in all whales examined was

remarkably abnormal. Lymphoid depletion in the spleen

and lymph nodes has been associated with chronic stress,

immunosuppression, and cachexia in other animals

(Bossart 1984; Leighton 1986; Glick 1983; Selye 1973).

The universal histologic pattern of lymphoid depletion in the lymph nodes of these whales was both follicular (the bone-marrow derived lymphoid system

zone) and paracortical (the thymic-dependent lymphoid

system zone). This is the morphologic expression of a

combined humoral and cell-mediated immunodeficiency

Oubb et al. 1985; King 1986). In humans and other

mammals, immunodeficient states may be congenital or

acquired (Tomar 1979). Acquired (secondary) immunodeficiencies in humans can be associated with malnutrition, chronic infection, cancer, renal disease, and primary

viral agents.

Increased susceptibility to multiple opportunistic infections frequently is the ultimate cause of death (King 1986;

Robbins et al. 1979).

Considering the diversity and severity of the other concurrent, often chronic, lesions in these whales, the lymphoid changes probably reflect a secondary condition that

is the consequence of the other disease processes. Further

understanding of the cetacean immunologic system is required for any additional interpretation.

In five of seven whales, where adrenal glands were

microscopically evaluated, there was adrenocortical lipid

depletion suggestive of a stress-related condition. Lipid

depletion occurs in adrenal steroidogenic cells responding

to adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation and

should be considered an index of this physiologic state

rather than a degenerative change (Leighton 1986; Assenmacher 1973). Adrenal glucocorticoid hormones are considered important mediators ofstress related lesions (Selye

1973). Further investigation of lymphoid and adrenocortical lesions in relation to stress and the immunopathogenesis of cetacean disease may provide important future

stranding data.

With few exceptions, the types ofhistopamologic changes

present in these whales were indicative of chronic progressive processes, encompassing the inflammatory and

degenerative lesions as well as the lymphoid and miscellaneous changes. This implies that many of these whales

had functional compromise of some organ systems prior

to the mass stranding. These findings raise questions

regarding the humanity of returning recently massstranded cetaceans to the sea.

Acknowledgments _

This is Sea World of Florida Technical Contribution No.

8806-F.

Citations _

Assenmacher, I.

1973. The peripheral endocrine glands. In Avian biology, Vol.

3 (D.S. FarnerandJ.R. King, eds.), p. 184-286. Acad. Press,

New York.

Bossart, G.D.

1984. Suspected acquired immunodeficiency in an Atlantic bottlenosed dolphin with chronic-active hepatitis and lobomycosis.

J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 185:1413-1414.

Fehring, W.K., and R.S. Wells.

1976. A series of strandings by a single herd of pilot whales on the

west coast of Florida. J. Mammal. 57:191-194.

Glick, B.

1983. Bursa of Fabricius. In Avian biology, Vol. 7 (D.S. Farner,

J.R. King, and K.C. Parkes, eds.), p. 413-500. Acad. Press,

New York.

Jones, T.C., and R.D. Hunt.

1983. Veterinary pathology. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, 187 p.

Jubb, K.V.F., P. Kennedy, and N. Palmer.

1985. Pathology of domestic animals, Vols. 2 and 3. Acad. Press,

Orlando, Florida.
90 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

King, N.W.

1986. Simian models of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: a

review. Vet. Pathol. 23:345-353.

Landy, R.B.

1980. A review of neoplasia in marine mammals. In The comparative pathology of zoo animals. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington, D.C.

Leighton, F.A.

1986. Clinical, gross, and histological findings in herring gulls and

atlantic puffins that ingested Prudhoe Bay crude oil. Vet. FathoI.

23 :254-263.

Odell, D.K.

1991. A review of the southeastern United States marine

mammal stranding network: 1978-1987. In Marine

mammal strandings in the United States: proceedings of the

second marine mammal stranding workshop; 3-5 December 1987, Miami, FL U.E. Reynolds and D.K. Odell,

eds.), p. 19-23. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS

98.

Odell, D.K., E.D. Asper, J. Baucom, and L.H. Cornell.

1980. A recurrent mass stranding of the false killer whale,

Pseudorca crassidens, in Florida. Fish. Bull., U.S. 78:171-177.

Robbins, S.L., R.S. Cotran, and V. Kumar.

1979. Pathologic basis of disease. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia.

Selye, H.

1973. The evolution of the stress concept. Am. Sci. 61:692.

Tomar, R.H.

1979. Gammopathies, hypersensitivity, immunologic deficiency.

In Clinical diagnosis and management by laboratory methods, p.

1396-1399. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia.

Walsh, M.T., D. Beuse, W.G. Young, J.D. Lynch, E.D. Asper, and

D.K. Odell.

1991. Medical findings in a mass stranding of pilot whales

(Globicephala macrorhynchus) in Florida. In Marine mammal strandings in the United States: proceedings of the second marine mammal stranding workshop; 3-5 December 1987, Miami, FL U.E.

Reynolds and D.K. Odell, eds.), p. 75-83. Dep. Commer.,

NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 98.
Use of Corneal Cell Culture for R-Band Chromosome

Studies on Stranded Cetaceans

DEBORAH A. DUFFIELD and JAN CHAMBERIN-LEA

Department of Biology

Portland State Unioersity

Portland, OR 97201

JAY C. SWEENEY

4467 Sarasota Ave.

San Diego, CA 92107

DANIEL K. ODELL and EDWARD D. ASPER

Sea World of Florida

7007 Sea World Dr.

Orlando, FL 32821

WILLIAM G . GILMARTIN

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

2570 Dole St.

Honolulu, HI 96822

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a cell culture technique using corneas of postmortem animals and explores

the application of fluorescent reverse banding (R-banding) chromosome analysis in stranded cetaceans. These techniques were used to look at heteromorphic (variable) regions in the karyotypes

of five representative cetacean species which strand on U.S. coastlines: pygmy killer whale (Feresa

attenuata); false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens); short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus); pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps); and humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Numerous

heteromorphic regions found in karyotypes of these species were compared with similar regions

in karyotypes of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), a species for which extensive cytogenetic

work has been done. An extra, unique chromosome was found in the karyotype of an individual

M. novaeangliae which stranded in Hawaii. The results suggest that there are cytogenetic markers

in these species that can be used, as they are in other cetaceans, to confirm relationships and

examine regional population differences.

Introduction _

Cytogenetic studies of stranded cetaceans have made an

important contribution to the karyotypic data base for the

Cetacea by providing an opportunity for chromosome

analysis of species largely unavailable by other sampling

methods (Amason et al. 1977; Duffield 1977; Benirschke

and Kumamoto 1978; Amason 1980, 1981). To establish

cell cultures for chromosome analysis, living tissue is essential. While sampling blood is a direct way of obtaining cells

for standard leukocyte culture from live whales and

dolphins (Duffield 1986; Duffield and Chamberlin-Lea

1990), obtaining viable, uncontaminated tissue samples

from cetaceans dead for several days is a major problem.

We have developed a technique for establishing cell cultures

from the corneas of postmortem cetaceans. Corneal tissue

91
92 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

has excellent regenerative properties associated wit:'l high

mitotic indices (Van Horn et al. 1977; Leeson and Leeson

1981) and postmortem cornea can remain viable up to

several weeks (Doughman et al. 1976).

Corneal cell cultures have been used for a variety of in

vitro studies, including chromosome analysis (Conrad

1970; Dahl et al. 1974; Manski and Whiteside 1974;

Pimenova and Simonenko 1974; Kenney et al. 1986). Cdl

cultures initiated from the corneas of postmortem cetaceans

were used in this study to provide a supply of mitotic cells

for chromosome preparations. These preparations were

stained using a fluorescent reverse banding (R-banding)

technique, which, in cetaceans, is particularly useful for

chromosome studies because it bands euchromatic regions

of the chromosomes for homologue identification and

simultaneously visualizes highly variable heterochromatic

regions (chromosome heteromorphisms) present in the

chromosomes (Duffield 1986; Lambertsen and Duffield

1987; Duffield and Chamberlin-Lea 1990).

In this paper, we present R-band karyotypes derived

from corneal cell cultures for five cetacean species which

are periodically handled by stranding networks along the

coast of the United States. The heteromorphic regions of

the chromosomes from these species were compared with

those of Tursiops truncatus.

Methods _

Animals

The R-band karyotypes were prepared for four species that

frequently strand on the east coast of Florida: pygmy killer

whale ([Feresa attenuata), N = 1; field No. C-83-20, male,

215 em, 10 July 1983); false killer whale ([Pseudorca crassidens), N = 2; field No. SWF-8631B, female, 259 em, 5

June 1986; Id. No. SWC-PC- 8326, female, 312 em, 25

February 1986); short-finned pilot whale ([ Globicephala

macrorlrynchus), N = 2; field No. SWF-8651B, female, 356

em, 24 July 1986; Id. No. SWC-GM-8003, female, 272

em, 5July 1983); and pygmy sperm whale ([Kogia breviceps],

N = 1; field No. SWF-KB-8330-B, female, 272 em, 18

September 1983). The R-band karyotypes were also prepared for a humpback whale ([Megaptera novaengliae), N = 1;

male calf, SLP-Mn-81, 7 March 1981) stranded in Hawaii.

Both blood and corneal cell cultures were available for one

of the false killer whales and one of the pilot whales.

Collection of Corneal Samples

The eye was removed from the socket by severing the eye

muscles, associated connective tissue, and the optic nerve,

care being taken to ensure that the eye remained intact.

Sterile precautions were not necessary during collection.

The eye was stored and shipped dry ill a plastic bag at 4° C

until culturing; fluid in the bag encouraged tissue decomposition and increased the possibility of contamination. The

inner corneal layers were kept moist by the aqueous humor,

so desiccation of the cornea was not a problem.

Corneal Cell Culture

The eye was well rinsed in running tap water and placed

cornea down in a 1: 750 dilution of 17 % aqueous Zephiran

chloride (Winthrop Laboratories, New York, NY 10016)

for 2 to 3 minutes. This procedure removed gross bacterial

contamination from the corneal surface and did not appear to damage the inner cell layers. The cornea was

carefully rinsed with distilled water to remove any traces

of disinfectant.

A piece of cornea (ca. 3-4 mm diameter) was excised

aseptically. To ensure maximum viability, two to three

pieces were taken from different portions of the cornea.

The inner portion of the cornea (including Descemet's

membrane) and the associated endothelial cell layer occasionally separated from the stroma. This membrane and

cell layer must be included for cell growth. The corneal

sample was soaked for 1 hour in culture medium (Ham's

F-1O with L-glutamine [Gibco, Grand Island, NY 14072]

supplemented with 10-15% fetal calf serum; penicillinstreptomycin (Gibco), final concentration 100 units/mL;

and Fungizone, amphotericin B (Gibco), final concentration 2.5 mcg/ml), which was further supplemented with

10 x concentrations of antibiotic and fungicide. The explants were minced, transferred to culture flasks, fed with

culture medium and the cell cultures were placed in a

36°C, 5% CO2 -air incubator.

Cytogenetic Analysis

Metaphase cells were collected by the addition of colcemid

(Gibco; final concentration 0.1 I-lg/mL) overnight. Cells

were harvested by standard techniques (Hack and Lawce

1980) using a one part 0.075M KCl and one part 20% fetal

calf serum hypotonic solution for 12 minutes at 37°C. Cells

were fixed in three parts absolute ethanol and one part

glacial acetic acid. Chromosomes were banded with a

fluorescent R-banding technique using chromomycin A-3

and distamycin A (Sahar and Latt 1978; Schweizer 1980).

Photographs, using Kodak Technical Pan 2415 film, were

taken on a Zeiss microscope equipped with an ultraviolet

light source and epifluorescence. Two to five karyotypes

were prepared for each animal. In these karyotypes, the

chromosome pairs were arranged into four groups (A-D)

based on centromere position and numbered consecutively.

The resultant karyotypes were examined for R-band

heteromorphisms, discrete chromosomal regions which

showed size and/or intensity differences between homologues. Chromosome composites were constructed based

on the similarity in banding pattern of these species to

Tursiops truncatus; the latter species was chosen as the stan-
__________________ Duffield et al.: R-Band Chromosome Studies on Stranded Cetaceans 93

Figure 1

R-banded karyotype of a male

Feresa attenuata (2N = 44).

dard because of its established R-band karyotype and range

ofheteromorphisms (Duffield and Chamberlin-Lea 1990).

Differences among species in R-band heteromorphisms

were noted.

Results _

Cell cultures were established from eyes which varied in

postmortem age from three days to two weeks. The corneal

cells grew vigorously in culture. Outgrowth of cells from

the original explant most commonly occurred within one

day of the initiation of culture, no matter what the postmortem age of the eye. Significant amounts of cell migration from the explant were observed by the third or fourth

days. For one eye, cell outgrowth was delayed for two or

three weeks, but once established, this culture grew as well

as those which had initially grown out more quickly.

The R-banded karyotypes of F. attenuata, P. crassidens,

G. macrorhynchus, K. breviceps, and M. novaeangliae are shown

in Figures 1-5. The F. attenuata, P. crassidens, and G. macrorhynchus karyotypes had a diploid chromosome number of

2N = 44. The M. novaeangliae calf had a 2N = 45 ( + mar),

exhibiting an extra, small chromosome in its karyotype

(Fig. 5). This chromosome stained faintly with R-banding

and its origin was unknown, but it was consistently pres-
94 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Figure 2

R-banded karyotype of a female

Pseudorca crassidens (2N = 44.1.

ent in all cells examined. The karyotype of Kogia breviceps

had a 2N = 42. For P. crassidens and G. macrorhynchus, the

karyotypes obtained by corneal culture were consistent with

those obtained from blood.

To compare the distribution of observed heteromorphic

regions, a composite karyotypic comparison was constructed using one chromosome of each chromosome pair

from the five species examined (Fig. 6). This composite

included Tursiops truncatus as a standard because many individuals of this species have been examined by R -banding

and both the distribution of heteromorphic regions and the

type of variation found is well documented (Duffield and

Chamberlin-Lea 1990).

Discussion _

From the results reported here, as well as from several years

of trials using corneal tissue to establish cell cultures for

chromosome analysis in Duffield's laboratory, we have

observed that prolonged postmortem viability, freedom

from contamination and ease of handling make cornea an

extremely useful tissue for establishing cell cultures from

stranded cetaceans. We have found that the chances for

viability are greatest when eyes are taken either from

animals that washed ashore dead or from animals that were

returned to the water prior to death. Animals dying out

of the water more often exhibited decreased corneal cell
__________________ Duffield et al.: R-Band Chromosome Studies on Stranded Cetaceans 95

Figure 3

R-banded karyotype of a female

Globicephala macrorhynchus (2N

= 44).

viability, possible owing to extreme overheating (D. Duffield, pers. obs.). In contrast to other postmortem tissues,

the inner cell layers of the cornea appear to remain uncontaminated until the eye has become severely decomposed. Because the eye can be removed intact from the

animal and does not require sterile handling or preservation in culture media, samples are easy to obtain in the

field.

Fluorescent R-band karyotypes have been previously

reported for M. novaeangliae (Lambertsen and Duffield 1987;

Lambertsen et al. 1988), but not for the other stranded

species. The diploid number for M. novaeangliae is 2N =

44. The stranded calf examined here had a extra, small

chromosome (2N = 45, + mar). The origin and significance of the extra chromosome seen in the karyotype of

the stranded humpback whale calf is not clear, but a

similar extra chromosome has been noted in a live Atlantic humpback whale that was sampled by skin biopsy

(Lambertsen and Duffield 1987). An extra chromosome

has also been reported for T. truncatus (Duffield et al. 1985;

Duffield and Wells 1988). In this species, a small, unique

marker chromosome was found in certain individuals

belonging to a resident female bottlenose dolphin social unit

in Sarasota Bay, FL. In contrast to the extra chromosome

in the humpback whale, the extra chromosome in the

bottlenose dolphin was brightly staining with satellites
96 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

-I ..... • ., A .. .. oJ • •

2 3 5

• • ~~ B '. J #

f ... • ..

6 7 8 9 10

, C . ... I" • .' " • 16

.. 12 13 14 15 11

• 0

19 20 21 17

" •

It

.., x x

.. ... ~, • # ....., • breviceps

.. c ,.f,\ • I • II, .."..~ .~

1>"-.. ," " (

'e

#

Figure 4

R-banded karyotype of a female

Kogia breviceps (2N = 42),

and carried nucleolar organizer regions. This marker

chromosome had been inherited for three generations

and did not appear to have a phenotypic effect in any of

the animals. The inheritance pattern of the marker confirmed long-term observational and behavioral data suggesting that resident female bands in the Sarasota study

area were composed largely of related individuals (Wells

et al. 1980; Irvine et al. 1981; Wells 1986). Because they

are relatively rare and found in specific animals, these

marker chromosomes are particularly useful for tracing the

relationships and reproductive interactions of individuals

and groups with neighboring or distant groups ofthe same

species.

Although there were subtle differences in R-banding pattern among the five species examined here, their chromosomes were similar enough that the numbers on the

chromosome pairs refer to the same homologous chromosome pair in each species. Pygmy sperm whales, as well

as sperm and beaked whales, have a chromosome number

of2N = 42 (Amason and Benirschke 1973; Amason et al.

1977; Duffield 1977). A fusion between two of the acrocentric chromosome pairs may account for the 2N = 42

karyotype ofK. breviceps (observation from the visual comparison of the R-band karyotypes, Fig. 6). However, detailed banding analyses have not been completed to determine the extent of similarities and differences in R-banding
__________________ Duffield et al.: R-Band Chromosome Studies on Stranded Cetaceans 97

.. " .. t: A . . ..

2 3 5

" ,- .. • B .- .. 6 7 8 9 10

': • • • • !" • • 11 12 13 14 15 16

D .... ,. ~.

t·

17 18 19 20 21

•

X Y mar

Megaptera =

Figure 5

R-banded karyotypes of a male

Megaptera novaeangliae (2N = 45,

+ mar). Two intensities of the

metaphase spread for M. novaeangliae are included to show the

faint staining extra chromosome. The presence of this extra chromosome was confirmed

with standard Giemsa staining

(not shown).

~, C- l'~ .. .,

1 t 'e"? . " , "-: L.~ , •

r

~.., .' ~, .- ~. "W! .. ,~ .• I '

",- ·t ", •

" ..

,. -\ ( . .,~ •

"

patterns and the basis for the change in number in K.

breviceps. Instead, this paper concentrates on the presence

in these'species' karyotypes of chromosomal heteromorphisms which are visualized by R-banding.

Chromosome heteromorphisms have been noted in cetacean karyotypes both by C-banding (Amason 1974, 1980;

Amason et aI. 1977, 1980, 1985; Duffield 1977; Stock 1981;

Worthen 1981) and fluorescent R-banding (Duffield 1982,

1986; Lambertsen and Duffield 1987; Duffield and Chamberlin-Lea 1990). C-banding is a chromosome banding

technique that leaves tightly coiled C-band positive areas

of the chromosome darkly stained (Bradbury et al. 1981)

but denatures euchromatic regions. It, therefore, requires

the sequential application of an additional banding technique (such as G-banding or R-banding) to identify

homologous chromosome pairs. Fluorescent R-banding,

in contrast, uses a staining agent which binds to guaninecytosine (GC) rich DNA areas of the chromosomes. It

bands euchromatin areas for homologue identification,

while simultaneously binding strongly to GC-rich heteromorphic (variable) regions (Schweizer 1980). A significant

number of GC-rich heteromorphic regions have been

reported in the chromosomes of cetacean species (Duffield 1986; Lambertsen and Duffield 1987; Duffield and

Chamberlin-Lea 1990). In Tursiops truncatus, Orcinus orca,

and Megaptera novaeangliae at least half of the chromosome
98 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Figure 6

One chromosome of each chromosome pair from the karyotypes of Tursiops truncatus (Tt) compared to those of Pseudorca crassidens

(Pc), Feresa attenuata (Fa), Globicephala macrorhynchus (Gm), Kogia breviceps (Kb), and Megaptera novaeangliae (Mn), to demonstrate

the positions of known R-band heteromorphic regions in the chromosomes of these species (brackets). Note the unusual blocks

of R-band heteromorphic material in P. crassidens (D-18) and in M. novaeangliae (X chromosome).
_____________-'- Duffield et al.: R-Band Chromosome Studies on Stranded Cetaceans 99

Figure 7

Examples of the types of R-band variants

seen in various heteromorphic regions in the

karyotypes of Globicephala macrorhynchus

(Gm), Pseudorca crassidens (Pc), Feresa attenuata

(Fa), and Megaptera novaeangliae (Mn).

pairs in their karyotypes exhibit these heteromorphic

regions which may vary in size and in intensity ofstaining.

Chromosome pairs exhibiting R-band heteromorphisms

in this study are indicated in each of the karyotypes (Figs.

1-5). A comparison of the distribution of heteromorphic

regions in the chromosomes of the five stranded cetacean

species and T. truncatus (Fig. 6) shows that many of the

R-band heteromorphic regions are in the same chromosomal locations in all six species; however, there are also

species differences (see, for example, the X chromosome in

M. novaeangliae and D-18 in P. crassidens). Examples of the

types of heteromorphisms seen in this study are illustrated

in Figure 7. In T. truncatus, 52 heteromorphisms for 11

chromosome pairs have been found among 104 animals

studied (Duffield and Chamberlin-Lea 1990). This number

of variants makes R-band heteromorphism analysis

extremely useful in population studies, especially when

hypotheses of specific relationshi ps need to be tested. As

more individuals of each of the stranded species are karyotyped, the number of recognizable heteromorphic regions

and the range of heteromorphisms within these regions will

be established.

In cetaceans, R-band chromosome heteromorphisms

have been used both as genetic markers for determining

parentage in captive breeding programs (Duffield et al.

1986; Duffield and Chamberlin-Lea 1990; Hewlett et al.

1989) and for investigating population structure in the field

(Lambertsen and Duffield 1987; Duffield and Wells 1988;

Duffield et al. 1989). An exciting application of R-band

heteromorphisms analysis for stranded cetaceans lies in its

potential for confirming suspected relationships among

animals stranding together, as in Florida, for example,

where K. breviceps often strand in adult female-calf pairs

or in adult female-calf pairs accompanied by a juvenile or

adult male (D. Odell, pers. obs.). Similarly, chromosome

heteromorphism analysis could be useful in a mass stranding situation to investigate relationships among specific

individuals.

The use of cornea to establish cell cultures from postmortem cetaceans opens up the possibility for cytogenetic

studies on stranded cetaceans which have been dead for

several days. Fluorescent R-band chromosome heteromorphisms in the karyotypes of these species, as well as the

existence of unique marker chromosomes, provide cytogenetic markers for assessing relationships within groups

of stranded animals and for looking at regional population

differences in these species.

Acknowledgments _

We wish to take this opportunity to thank all of the stranding network participants who have so graciously collected

and shipped eyes to us. This work was supported, in part,

by a grant from Sea World Enterprises, Inc. and by

Portland State University, Research and Publication Grant

90-050-580lDDA.

Citations _

Amason, U.

1974. Comparative chromosome studies in Cetacea. Hereditas

77: 1-36.

1980. C- and G-banded karyotypes of three delphinids: S/entl/a

dyment, LagenoThynchus a/biroS/Tis and Phocoena phocoena. Hereditas

92: 179-187.

1981. Banding studies on the gray and sperm whale karyotypes.

Hereditas 95:277-281.
100 NOAA Technical Report ~MFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Amason, U., and K. Benirschke.

1973. Karyotypes and idiograms of sperm and pygmy sperm

whales. Hereditas 75:67-74.

Amason, U., K. Benirschke, W.W. Nichols, and J.G. Mead.

1977. Banded karyotypes of three whales: Mesoplodon europaeus, M.

carlhubbsi and Balamoptera acutorostrata. Hereditas 87:189-200.

Amason, U., R. Lutley, and B. Sandholt.

1980. Banding studies on six killer whales: an account ofC-band

polymorphism and G-band patterns. Cytogenet. Cell Genet.

28:71-78.

Amason, U., H. Bellamy, P. Eyporsson, R. Lutley,J. Sigurjonsson, and

B. Widegren.

1985. Conventionally stained and C-banded karyotypes of a female

blue whale. Hereditas 102:251-253.

Benirschke, K., and A. Kumamoto.

1978. The chromosomes ofCuvier's beaked whale, Ziphiuscavirostris.

Mammal. Chromo Newsl. 19:70-72.

Bradbury, E.M., N. Maclean, and H.R. Matthews.

1981. DNA, chromatin and chromosomes. John Wiley & Sons

Inc, New York, NY, 281 p.

Conrad, G.W.

1970. Collagen and mucopolysaccharide biosynthesis in mass

cultures and clones of chick corneal fibroblasts in vitro. Devel.

BioI. 21:611-635.

Dahl, I.W., W. Johnsen, A. Anseth, and H. Prydz.

1974. The synthesis of glycosaminoglycans by corneal stroma cells

in culture. Expl. Cell Res. 88: 193-197.

Doughman, OJ., D. Van Horn, W.P. Rodman, P. Byrnes, and

R.L. Lindstrom.

1976. Human corneal endothelial layer repair during organ culture.

Archives Ophthal. 94:1791-1796.

Duffield, D.A.

1977. Phylokaryotypic evaluation of the Cetacea. Ph.D. diss.,

Univ. California, Los Angeles, 154 p.

1982. Indian River Tursiops: genetic studies. In Live capture,

marking and resighting of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus.

Final Rep. NMFS contract NA80-GA-C-00063, p. 312-324.

1986. Orcinus orca: taxonomy and evolution - cytogenetics and population structure. In Behavioral biology of killer whales (J.

Lockhard and B. Kirkevold, eds.), p. 19-33. Alan R. Liss, New

York.

Duffield, D.A., and J. Chamberlin-Lea.

1990. Use of chromosome heteromorphisms and hemoglobins in

studies of dolphin populations and paternities. In The bottlenose

dolphin (S. Leatherwood and R.R. Reeves, eds.), p. 609-620.

Acad. Press, San Diego CA.

Duffield, D.A. and R.S. Wells.

1988. New ways of looking at whales: use of molecular techniques

in the study of social structure in bottlenose dolphins. In The

world's whales, a closer look (S. Taylor, ed.), p. 41-50. Am.

Cet. Soc., San Pedro, CA.

Duffield, D.A. J. Chamberlin-Lea, R.S. Wells, and M.D. Scott.

1985. Inheritance of an extra chromosome in a resident female band

of bottlenose dolphins in Sarasota, Florida. Abstract, 6th Bienn.

Conf. on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Vancouver, B.C.

Duffield, D.A., J. Chamberlin-Lea, M.A. Dudley, and L.H. Cornell.

1986. Dolphin chromosome variation: an example of the application of R-band heteromorphism analysis to the discrimination of

paternity. Abstract, 17th Ann. Conf. Intern. Assoc. Aquatic

Animal Medicine, Biloxi, MS.

Duffield, D.A., R.S. Wells, J. Chamberlin-Lea, P.L. Goldie,

A.B. Irvine, and M.G. Scott.

1989. The genealogy of a bottlenose dolphin community. Abstract, 8th Biennial Conf. on the Biology of Mar. Mammals, Pacific

Grove, CA.

Hack, M.S:, and HJ. Lawce (editors).

1980. Association of Cytogenetic Technologists Cytogenetics

Laboratory Manual. Assoc. of Cytogenet. Tech., 677-S, Univ.

Calif., San Francisco, 430 p.

Hewlett, K.G., J. Chamberlin-Lea, P.L. Goldie, D.A. Duffield, and

T.A. Stevens.

1989. Determination of paternity in killer whales (Orcinus orca) by

chromosomes and DNA fingerprinting. Abstract, 8th Biennial

Conf. on the Biology of Mar. Mammals, Pacific Grove, CA.

Irvine, A.B., M.D. Scott, R.S. Wells, and J.H. Kaufmann.

1981. Movements and activities of the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin,

Tursiops truncatus, near Sarasota, Florida. Fish. Bull., U.S. 79:

671-688.

Kenney, M.C., L.M. Shih, U. La~rmeir, and D. Satterfield.

1986. Modulation of rabbit keratocyte production of collagen,

sulfated glycosaminoglycans and fibronectin by retinol and retinoic

acid. Biochem. Biophys. Acta 889: 156-162.

Lambertsen, R.H., C.S. Baker, D.A. Duffield, andJ. Chamberlin-Lea.

1988. Cytogenetic determination of gender among individually

identified humpback whales (Megaptera novamngline). Can. J. Zool.

66: 1243-1248.

Lambertsen, R.H., and D.A. Duffield.

1987. Biopsy studies of the humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae.

NMFS and Int. Whaling Comm. Tech. Rep. 50-EANF-5-00094,

72 p.

Leeson, T.S., and C.R. Leeson.

1981. Histology. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA, 4th ed.

600 p.

Manski, W., and T.L. Whiteside.

1974. Cell-surface receptors of normal regenerating and cultured

corneal epithelial and endothelial cells. Invest. Ophthalmol.

13:935-955.

Pimenova, M.N., and V.D. Simonenko.

1974. Metod kul'tivirovaniia rogovitsky glaza myshi In vitro.

Tsitologiya 16: 1179-1181.

Sahar, E., and S.A. Latt.

1978. Enhancement of banding patterns In human metaphase

chromosomes by energy transfer. PNAS 75(11):5650-5654.

Schweizer, D.

1980. Simultaneous fluorescent staining of R-bands and specific

heterochromatic regions (DA-DAPI) bands in human chromosomes. Cytog. Cell Genet. 27: 190-193.

Stock, A.D.

1981. Chromosomal variation and constitutive heterochromatin in

three porpoise species (genus Stenella). Cytogenet. Cell Genet.

31 :91-100.

Van Horn, D.L., D.O. Sendele, S. Seideman, and PJ. Buco.

1977 . Regenerative capacity of the corneal endothelium in rabbit

and cat. Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 16(7):597-613.

Wells, R.S.

1986. Population structure of bottlenose dolphins: behavioral studies

along the central west coast of Florida. NMFS Tech. Rep.

4-5-WCNF-5-00366.

Wells, R.S., A.B. Irvine, and M.D. Scott.

1980. The social ecology of inshore odontocetes. In Cetacean

behavior: mechanisms and processes (L.M. Herman, ed.), p.

263-317. Wiley & Sons, NY.

Worthen, G. L.

1981. Preliminary analysis of the potential for stock assessment of

Pacific ocean Delphinids by G and C chromosome banding.

NMFS Rep. LJ-81-02C, 99 p.
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Concentrations and Their Use

for Describing Population Discreteness in Harbor Porpoises

from Washington, Oregon, and California

JOHN CALAMBOKIDIS

Cascadia Research Collective

21831 W. Fourth Avenue

Olympia, WA 98501

JAY BARLOW

Southwest Fisheries Center

P. O. Box 271

La Jolla, CA 92038

ABSTRACT

Concentrations of PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls, a class of industrial chemicals), DDE (the

primary breakdown product of the pesticide DDT), and HCB (hexachlorobenzene, a fungicide)

were determined in blubber samples from 45 harbor porpoises collected along the coasts of

Washington, Oregon, and California. The primary purpose of this study was to test for regional

patterns in the concentration of contaminants and their ratios in order to evaluate the feasibility

of using contaminants to gain information about the degree of intermixing of harbor porpoises

along the west coast of North America. Concentrations varied widely with averages of 14 ppm

(mg/kg by wet weight) PCBs, 31 ppm DDE, and 0.51 ppm HCB. Concentrations of contaminants

were strongly associated with latitude (location), length of the animal, and sex. Distinct regional

patterns were found in both the concentrations ofDDE and the ratios of PCB to DDE and HCB

to DDE. Contaminant ratios were far less variable than individual contaminant concentrations

and were, therefore, more useful for examining regional patterns. Through discriminant analysis

using a combination of pollutant ratios, the state (California, Oregon, or Washington) in which

harbor porpoises were collected could be correctly predicted for 86 % of the samples. Pollutant

ratios did not reveal specific boundaries for stocks but indicated that harbor porpoise movements

may be restricted in some areas.

Introduction _

Chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminants have been recovered from marine mammals from around the world (Gaskin

et al. 1971; Taruski et al. 1975; Clausen et al. 1974;

Wagemann and Muir 1984). Risebrough (1978) reviewed

the occurrence and impacts of pollutants in marine mammals. Nearshore marine mammals such as pinnipeds and

some cetaceans tend to accumulate high concentrations of

stable chlorinated hydrocarbons because they 1) are long

lived, 2) feed high on the food chain, and 3) have blubber

layers that serve as stable repositories for these lipophilic

contaminants.

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) occur primarily in

nearshore waters off Europe, Asia, and the east and west

coasts of North America (Gaskin et al. 1974). Harbor porpoise populations have declined in many parts of their

range (Otterlind 1976; Prescott and Fiorelli 1980; Calambokidis et al. 1984), and there is evidence of high rates of

mortality in nets along the California coast (Deiter 1991;

Diamond and Hanan 1986; Hanan et al. 1986). Estimates

of harbor porpoise population size along the west coast of

the United States have recently been completed (Barlow

1988) but there is little information on the presence of different population stocks or interchange among areas.

The potential utility of chlorinated hydrocarbon concentrations or ratios for examining movements and intermixing in marine mammals has been reported previously (see

review in Aguilar 1987). Winn and Scott (1978) included

differences in PCB and DDT concentrations as part of the

101
102 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Table 1

Sources of harbor porpoise samples analyzed in this study.

Years No. of Sample

Sources Region collected samples prefix

Wa. Dept. Game Wash. and 1981-85 4 MMP and WDG

Olympia, WA N. Ore.

Nat. Mar. Mamm. Lab N. Wash. 1984 RJF

Seattle, WA

Cascadia Research N. Wash. 1985 4 CRC

Olympia, WA

Oregon State Univ. Oregon 1984-86 8 OSU

Newport, OR

Ore. Inst. Mar. BioI. Oregon 1985-86 4 OIMB and CO

Coos Bay, OR

Cal. Acad. Sci. Cent. Calif. 1971-86 4 CAS

San Francisco, CA

SW Fisheries Center Cent. Calif. 1983-85 18 LML, REJ. MVZ.

La Jolla. CA .odMLML

Nat. Hist. Mus. of LA Co. S. Calif. 1983 2 JEH

Los Angeles, CA

evidence for separate stocks of humpback whales in the

western North Atlantic. Gaskin et al. (1982) noted differences in DDT concentrations in harbor porpoises from

inside and outside the Bay of Fundy. Calambokidis et al.

(1984; 1979a) reported differences in the PCB/DDE ratio

in Washington harbor seals and discussed its usefulness in

evaluating regional movement and interchange.

The purposes ofthis study were to 1) determine the concentrations of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls, a class of

industrial chemicals), DDE (the primary breakdown

product of the pesticide DDT), and HCB (hexachlorobenzene, a fungicide) in harbor porpoises from Washington, Oregon, and California; 2) test for regional differences in these contaminants and their ratios; and 3)

evaluate the utility of this information in discerning harbor porpoise populations.

Methods _

Blubber samples from 45 harbor porpoises were tested for

concentrations of PCBs, DDE, and HCB. Also, seven

blubber samples were taken from different locations

(anterior-dorsal, mid-dorsal, posterior-dorsal, anteriorventral, mid-ventral, posterior-ventral, and mid-lateral)

from each of two harbor porpoises for testing to evaluate

toxicant differences based on body location.

Sample Collection

Samples for analysis were received from a wide variety of

sources in addition to those collected by the authors (Table

1). All were collected from animals found dead on the

shores of Washington, Oregon, and California (Fig. 1).

Samples were stored either in glass, aluminum foil, or

plastic bags. Samples were stored frozen after collection,

except those provided by the California Academy of

Science, which had been preserved in formalin. Cooperating organizations also provided information that was

tested for association with contaminant concentrations, including collection location, date, sex, length, and blubber

thickness.

Sample Analysis

Analyses for concentrations of PCBs, DDE, and HCB were

conducted as described in previous reports (Calambokidis

et al. 1979b, 1984; Mowrer et al. 1977). The analyses were

conducted at the Environmental Analysis Laboratory of

The Evergreen State College.

Approximately 5 g of blubber, subsampled from the

unexposed interior of samples received, was digested in 50

mL BFM solution (glacial acetic and perchloric acid) over

a steam bath for several hours (Stanley and LeFavoure

1965). Samples were extracted four times with 20 mL aliquots of 'pesticide quality' hexane. Lipid weights were

determined by evaporating a portion of the hexane-lipid

extract to dryness. A 10 mL portion of the hexane-lipid

extract was cleaned with 1-2 mL concentrated sulfuric acid

(Murphy 1972). After centrifuging, 1-9 IJL was injected

into a Hewlett-Packard electron capture (63Ni) gas

chromatograph equipped with a 1/4" x 6' glass column

packed with 10% DC-200 on Gas Chrom Q, 80/100

mesh. The column also had a 1" alkaline (KOH and
________________ Calambokidis and Barlow: Population Discreteness in Harbor Porpoise 103

45

35

125

Concentrations of PCBs, DDE, and HCB in the blubber

of the 45 harbor porpoises examined varied widely (Tables

Results _

chlorinated PCB homologs were present, they were not included in the total because some samples contained interfering compounds and a reproducible minimal value was considered more important than a more variable estimate of

total PCBs. The magnitude of this downward bias is approximately 25-40 %.

Multiple linear regression and ANOVA were used to

evaluate the association between contaminant concentrations and other variables. Concentrations based on lipid

weight were used for the linear regressions because lipid

weight was found to be significantly correlated to concentrations in models using wet weight. Concentrations were

log transformed for these calculations to meet the assumptions of normal distribution of data. In addition to latitude,

collection location was categorized by state and five collection locations: the Morro Bay, CA area (n = 2); the

Monterey Bay, CA area (n = 13); the San franciscol

Bodega Bay, CA (n = 9); Oregon (n = 13); and Washington (n = 8). (More detail was included in California owing

to high fishery mortality there.) Two samples were excluded from multivariate tests: one collected 10 years prior

to the other samples and the other collected within the inland waters of Puget Sound, Washington.

Stepwise discriminant analysis and stepwise multiple

regression were used to determine whether collection locations could be predicted from linear combinations of pollutant values. Discriminate analysis was formed using collection location as the categorical variable. A jackknifed

calculation system was used to determine the predictive

power of discriminant functions (Lachenbruch and Mickey

1968). Each sample was classified based on discriminant

functions calculated from all data excluding the sample being classified. Multiple regression was performed using

latitude of the recovered sample as the dependent variable.

Five predictive variables were considered (all expressed as

ratios): PCBIDDE, HCBIDDE, PCB-14/PCB, PCB-16/

PCB, and PCB-17/PCB. The PCB-H, PCB-16, and

PCB-17 components represent homologs of PCB that

comprise a portion of the total PCBs quantified. The DDE

was chosen as the denominator for the first two variables

because it showed lower coefficient of variation than did

PCBs or HCB. Because the variables were expressed as

ratios, the assumption of homogeneity of variance is

violated. For this reason, more emphasis will be placed on

the descriptive aspects of multivariate analyses, and little

emphasis will be given to significance tests. Multivariate

and discriminant statistical tests were performed using

SYSTAT (Wilkinson 1986) and BMDP (Dixon 1985) computer programs.

40

ORE

Figure 1

Locations ofstrandings of harbor porpoises sampled for this study.

NaOH) precolumn to reduce interference from other compounds and to convert any small amounts of p,p'DDT to

p,p'DDE (Miller and Wells 1969). The concentration of

p,p'DDE plus any p,p'DDT will be referred to as DDE

throughout this paper.

Contaminants were identified and quantified based on

comparison of elution times and peak areas to PCB, DDE,

and HCB standards injected daily. PCBs (a mixture of

compounds) were quantified by individual homolog analysis using mean weight percent figures reported by Webb

and McCall (1973). Minimum PCB values were calculated

using only the more chlorinated PCB homologs corresponding to the PCB components present in the commercial PCB mixture Aroclor 1260. Though additional less
104 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings

Table 2

Description of and results for harbor porpoise blubber samples from California.

Standard Concentration Ratios

Collection date Blubber (rng/kg, wet wt.) Latitude length thickness % PCBI HCBI HCBI

Sample If (degrees) (d) (rno) (yr) Sex (crn) (crn) lipid PCB DDE HCB DDE DDE PCB

JEH-338 35.4 27 09 1983 F 138 1.0 76 16.3 85.2 0.77 019 0.0091 0.047

JEH-339 35.5 17 08 1983 M 134 1.5 73 22.1 131.8 0.58 0.17 0.0044 0.026

LML-85-4A 36.65 27 02 1985 F 135 2.2 83 7.5 25.1 0.34 0.30 0.0134 0.045

LML-85-4B 36.8 11 04 1985 F 149 2.0 78 21.8 65.4 0.52 0.33 0.0079 0.024

MLML-OOI 36.8 1985 M 127 2.2 83 9.9 34.2 0.43 0.29 0.0126 0.044

MLML-005 36.8 1985 M 131 1.5 87 14.8 60.0 0.69 0.25 0.0115 0.047

LML-86-6 36.8 28 07 1986 M 96 1.5 82 11.3 35.7 0.44 0.32 0.0123 0.039

LML-85-8 36.9 14 09 1983 F 117 1.8 83 5.7 15.2 0.31 0.37 0.0204 0.055

LML-84-5 36.9 03 08 J984 F 150 1.3 73 42.0 IOJ .5 0.64 0.41 0.0063 0.015

LML-85-3 36.95 07 03 1985 F 159 2.0 85 10.0 25.6 0.09 0.39 0.0034 0.009

LML-84-3 36.95 13 05 1984 M 77 1.1 69 2.6 6.3 0.07 0.41 0.0105 0.026

LML-85-5 36.95 27 05 1985 F J03 2.0 74 18.1 66.3 0.89 0.27 0.0134 0.049

LML-85-6 36.95 23 08 1985 F 147 2.0 99 12.7 48.7 0.42 0.26 0.0085 0.033

HJB-008 36.95 09 07 1983 F 131 1.6 68 25.6 77.6 0.58 0.33 0.0075 0.023

LML-86-5 37.1 30 05 1986 F 168 2.5 85 7.2 17.6 0.22 0.41 0.0125 0.031

CAS-A3870 37.35 30 06 1984 F 85 1.7 85 8.2 11.5 0.33 0.72 0.0286 0.040

CAS-A3209 37.8 01 07 1980 M 75 1.0 59 8.8 20.3 0.25 0.43 0.0125 0.029

CAS-22173 37.9 27 05 1980 F 80 1.5 48 9.5 13.0 0.11 0.73 0.0086 0.012

CAS-15892 37.9 23 04 1971 F 69 1.0 51 3.2 14.2 0.07 0.23 0.0048 0.021

MVZ-I72409 38.3 15 07 1986 F 108 2.0 92 2.1 8.3 0.15 0.26 0.0181 0.070

REJ-1415 38.4 1985 F 132 1.7 90 5.6 21.9 0.28 0.25 00127 0.050

REJ-1414 38.4 08 05 1985 M 145 1.0 51 6.1 26.9 0.16 0.23 0.0059 0.026

MVZ-I72408 38.4 15 07 1986 M 162 0.5 49 63.6 101.0 0.38 0.63 0.0037 0.006

MVZ-173468 38.5 20 08 1986 F 154 2.0 81 5.1 14.1 0.12 0.36 0.0085 0.024

2 and 3). Concentrations of PCBs averaged 14 ppm (mg/kg

wet weight, SD = 13) or 21 ppm (lipid weight, SD = 23).

The DDE concentrations tended to be higher, averaging

31 ppm (wet weight, SD = 30) or 45 ppm (lipid weight,

SD = 46). The HCB concentrations were much lower than

PCB orDDE averaging 0.51 ppm (wet weight, SD = 0.42)

or 0.77 ppm (lipid weight, SD = 0.80). Concentrations of

DDE (lipid weight, log transformed) varied significantly

among the five regions compared (ANaYA, P<O.OOI).

No significant differences were found among regions for

PCB or HCB (ANaYA, P>0.05).

Stepwise multiple regression analyses were used to determine which factors best explained the variations in concentrations found. A significant regression was found

between PCBs and animal length (r = 0.37, P<0.05). The

DDE concentrations were significantly associated with

length and latitude (r = 0.51, P<O.OI). The HCB concentrations were weakly associated with latitude (r = 0.39,

P<0.05). Blubber thickness and year of collection significantly influenced contaminant concentrations in some

models, with higher concentrations associated with thinner blubber layers and earlier collection years. These effects were generally weak or not significant in all models.

The association between PCB and DDE concentrations

and length was not consistent for males and females. For

both PCBs and DDE the association between concentrations and animal length was significant in males (n = 17,

r = 0.70, P<O.OI and r = 0.76, P<O.OI, respectively) but

not in females (n = 26, P>0.05 for both PCB and DDE).

The significant associations with length in the entire

sample, therefore, primarily reflect this association in males

only.

Ratios of contaminants were less varied than the concentrations. Both the ratios of PCB to DDE and HCB to

DDE varied significantly by latitude (r = 0.70, P<O.OOI

and r = 0.83, P<O.OOI, respectively). Similarly both these

ratios varied significantly among regions (ANaYA,

P<O.OOI in both cases). No significant associations were

found between ratios and others factors. Figure 2 illustrates

differences in the PCB/DDE ratio among regions.

Analyses of blubber samples from seven different locations on two harbor porpoises (14 samples) yielded similar

results. In both animals, samples from the dorsal peduncle area had about 20 % lower concentrations than other

samples. Concentrations from other parts of the body were

fairly uniform deviating less than 10% in most cases (never

more than 20%) from average values for all samples

(excluding the dorsal peduncle). Further details ofthis comparison are reported in Calambokidis (1986). Concentrations (by lipid weight) and ratios for four samples pre-
Calambokidis and Barlow: Population Discreteness in Harbor Porpoise 105

Table .3

Description of and results for harbor porpoise blubber samples from Oregon and Washington.

Concentration Ratios

Collection date Standard Blubber (mg/kg, wet wI.) Latitude length thickness % PCB/ HCB/ HCB/

Sample # (degrees) (d) (mo) (yr) Sex (cm) (cm) lipid PCB DDE HCB DDE DDE PCB

Oregon

OIMB-C044 43.4 04 07 1986 F 90 1.0 62 2.8 9.5 0.54 0.30 0.0570 0.192

OIMB-C043 43.45 11 07 1986 M 70 0.5 57 1.9 6.9 0.21 0.27 0.0300 0.110

UO-l 43.7 19 03 1985 F 115 60 2.2 3.0 0.16 0.73 0.0530 0.073

OIMB-C046 43.9 25 07 1986 F 92 0.5 55 1.4 3.2 0.16 0.45 0.0490 0.111

OSU784-256 44.4 27 07 1984 F 149 1.6 80 11.5 33.2 0.64 0.35 0.0190 0.055

OSU886-764 44.45 21 08 1986 M 149 1.0 57 12.4 28.0 0.47 0.44 0.0167 0.038

OSU786-761 44.6 07 07 1986 F 172 1.5 84 1.5 2.1 0.08 0.70 0.0370 0.054

OSU786-762 44.65 11 07 1986 F 178 1.4 84 2.7 4.7 0.31 0.58 0.0660 0.113

OSU785-658 44.65 15 07 1985 M 159 1.5 85 13.5 32.0 0.51 0.42 0.0160 0.038

OSU784-255 44.65 24 07 1984 M 118 1.5 67 5.7 18.5 0.92 0.31 0.0500 0.162

OSU985-679 44.7 14 08 1985 F 103 41 22.9 38.3 1.76 0.60 0.0460 0.077

OSU885-671 44.7 10 08 1985 M 121 2.0 80 13.5 17.7 0.84 0.76 0.0470 0.062

MMP-l08 45.9 06 04 1981 M 141 2.0 69 49.6 52.1 1.78 0.95 0.0342 0.036

Washington

MMP-92 46.7 06 03 1981 M 131 2.0 82 29.9 26.7 0.87 1.12 0.0327 0.029

MMP-SKULL 47.3 04 09 1985 120 1.0 19 6.6 10.0 0.43 0.66 0.0436 0.066

MMP-384 47.3 20 09 1985 15 0.2 0.2 0.01 1.02 0.0490 0.048

RCF-112 48.2 26 07 1984 F 176 1.7 85 26.6 15.2 0.56 1.75 0.0370 0.021

CRC-251 48.6 11 08 1985 F 142 1.1 85 22.3 12.5 0.91 1.78 0.0730 0.041

CRC-250 48.6 11 08 1985 M 163 2.0 80 28.1 16.3 0.72 1.72 0.0440 0.026

CRC-248 48.6 11 08 1985 F 171 1.5 79 8.7 7.6 0.42 1.13 0.0550 0.049

CRC-308 48.2' 25 04 1986 M 124 0.8 66 15.8 26.7 1.73 0.59 0.0647 0.109

'Collected from Puget Sound, Washington.

served in formalin were not significantly different from

those that had been frozen (ANCOVA, P>0.05, with all

other significant factors used as covariates).

Stepwise discriminant analysis was based on five predictive variables and data collected from five locations. The

three variables, which included the fractional composition

of total PCBs did not, however, add appreciably to the

discrimination of collection location and were excluded by

the stepwise procedure. Using only two variable (PCBI

DDE and HCB/DDE) discriminant analysis, we were able

to assign correct collection location to 63 % of 43 samples

(Table 4). On a coarser geographic scale, 86% of samples

were correctly assigned to state (Table 4). Typically with

discriminant analysis, the separation of groups is illustrated

by plotting the first and second factor scores for each

sample. When only two variables are used to compute the

factor scores, it is equivalent to plotting the values for each

variable (Fig. 3; note that a plot offactor scores would be

a simple rotation of this figure). As seen in Figure 3, there

are three samples taken in Oregon which appear to be more

similar to California samples, and there is one sample from

Washington which appears similar to Oregon samples.

Within California, the southern samples appear relatively

distinct from other areas, but there is considerable overlap

between Monterey Bay and areas north of there. Samples

from Monterey Bay are characterized by very low variance

in both PCB/DDE and HCBIDDE ratios (Fig. 3).

Multiple regression was able to predict accurately the

latitude at which samples were collected using 5 variables

(multiple R = 0.89). Again the fractional components of

PCBs did not add appreciably to the regression and were

excluded by the stepwise procedure. The regression coefficient (multiple R) was 0.87 using only PCB/DDE and

HCB/DDE. The predicted and estimated latitudes for each

sample are shown in Figure 4. There appear to be four

outliers in Oregon which appear more like those from

northern California and one sample from California that

appears more like those from southern Oregon.

Discussion _

Concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons found in this

study were generally in the middle of the range reported

from harbor porpoises from other areas (Gaskin et al. 1971;

1982; Koeman et al. 1972; Clausen et al. 1974; Otterlind

1976; Calambokidis et al. 1984). Correlations between

length and contaminant concentrations found in this study
106 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

130

2 .18

4

4

12

8

13

1.54

.94

.49

.45

.33

1.13 - 1.78 r

.66 - 1.12

.27 - .76

.23 - .73

.25 - .41

.17 - .19

12li

ORE

45

40

35 Figure 2

Number ofsamples, mean, and range of PCB/DDE ratios

for harbor porpoises from different areas. Excluded are

one sample collected in 1971 and one sample from Puget

Sound (inland waters of Washington State).

,-------------------------------------------,

Table 4

Predicted sample locations from discriminant analysis using PCB/DDE and HCB/DDE

as predictive variables. Samples wer'~ categorized as being from Morro Bay Area (CA-1),

Monterey Bay (CA-2), San Francisco/Bodega Bay area (CA-3), Oregon (OR), and

Washington (WA). Excluded are one sample collected in 1971 and one from Puget Sound

(inland waters of Washington State). A total of 27 locations were predicted correctly to

region and 37 were predicted correctly to state (out of 43 samples).
- -'- CalaU-:bokidis and Barlow: Population Discreteness in Harbor Porpoise 107

Figure 3

Pollutant residues expressed as the

ratios HCBIDDE and PCBIDDE for 43

samples collected in 5 regions. Regions

are defined in the text. Polygons enclose

all samples collected in each of the 5

regIOns.

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

RATID PCB:DDE

o 0.2 0.4 0.80.6

0.1

,0 CA-l

0.09 o CA-2

• CA-J

• OR

0.08 I::. WA

0.07

UJ 0.06 0

0

CD

u 0.05 :I: • a

i=

<{

a: o.o~

•

0.03

0.02

are consistent with other reports of accumulation with age

primarily in male harbor porpoises (Gaskin et al. 1982;

1983) and other marine mammals (Addison et al. 1973;

Addison and Smith 1974; Donkin et al. 1981; Calambokidis et al. 1984).

Organic pollutant residues give valuable clues regarding

the population structure and feeding ecology of west-coast

harbor porpoises. If the population were panmictic (randomly mixing), homogeneous pollutant ratios for all

samples should exist. Instead, very strong gradients occur

with latitude. This is likely to occur only if individual porpoises remain in one area for long periods of time. Similarly, pollutant ratios imply something about the feeding

ecology of west-coast harbor porpoises. The observed patterns would not be expected if harbor porpoises were

feeding on fish populations which had homogeneous pollutant ratios. It is likely that harbor porpoises feed largely

on local fish stocks rather than on highly migratory fish.

These patterns appear to differ from those of harbor porpoises along the east coast of the United States which may

migrate a considerable distance to feed on a migratory fish,

the herring, in the Bay of Fundy (Gaskin et al. 1985).

If an individual changes location, it is not known how

much time is required to attain pollutant ratios which are

characteristic of the new location. The required time period

is related to the residence times of the pollutant and the

difference between current pollutant load and that characteristic of the new location. Because chlorinated hydrocarbons accumulate over prolonged periods of time (the

entire lifespan in males), we infer that most harbor porpoises remain in a region for extended periods if not most

of their lives. Some exceptions may be evident in the data.

Both discriminant and multivariate regression analyses

identified several individuals from Oregon whose pollutant

ratios more closely resembled samples from northern

California. Although this could be natural variation about

a mean value for Oregon, it could also be due to animals

that moved at one point during their lives from California

to Oregon or to animals that regularly move between those

regIOns.

Pollutant ratios in Monterey Bay samples are particularly interesting because of their low variance. Monterey Bay samples show little variability in both PCB/DDE

and HCB/DDE ratios (Fig. 3). Samples collected north of

Monterey Bay (primarily near San Francisco and Bodega

Bay) overlap with those values seen in Monterey Bay, but

have much higher variance. In the discriminant analysis,

62 % of the misclassifications were associated with this San

Francisco/Bodega Bay area (Table 4). The low variance

may be indicative of a resident population in Monterey
108 NOAA Technical _Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings -'- -'-'-- _

00

0

0

0

0 0 o 0 0

8

0

0

0 0 [()

( 00

0

55

53

52

51

50

~9

48

., ~7 "0

~6 ..

...J

..,

., « "0

t: ~3

0.

~2

~1

40

39

38

37 0

0

36

35

35 ~1

o

47

Latitude of Sample Collection

51

Figure 4

Observcd and prcdictcd collcction

latitudes for 43 samplcs bascd on multiple regression. The dependent variables

included HCBIDDE and PCBIDDE

Bay. The higher variance of the more northerly samples

may indicate an area ofmixing. Although speculative, these

interpretations could be tested as additional information

becomes available.

Unfortunately, pollutants ratios do not indicate any

logical subdivision of the west-coast porpoise population

into stock units. A stock is a management term and does

not have a widely accepted definition. The Marine Mammal Protection Act- of 1972 defines a stock as a group of

animals ofthe same species which inhabit a common spatial

arrangement and which interbreed when mature. Perhaps

the best definition of a stock is a collection of animals that

can be sensibly managed as a single unit (Larkin 1972;

MacCall 1984). The problem with harbor porpoise management is that the animals do not appear to fit this concept of a stock. Based on pollutant ratios, harbor porpoises

do not move great distances; thus animals from California and Washington are not likely to interbreed and should

thus be assigned to different stocks. However, there may

be movement from Washington to Oregon and from northern California to Oregon. Harbor porpoise distributions

are continuous between California and Washington (Barlow 1988) and there are no apparent barriers to movement

or gene exchange. Thus assigning clear boundaries of

potentially discrete stocks may not be possible.

It is unrealistic to expect that one technique, analysis

of pollutant ratios, will answer all questions about stock

structure. We have suggested, however, that harbor porpoise interchange between some areas is relatively restricted. Other techniques, such as conventional tagging

or radio tracking may help refine knowledge of their

movements and use of cytogenetic and biochemical

methods (see Duffield et al. 1991) may determine degree

of interbreeding. Until such additional information

becomes available, we urge a conservative approach to harbor porpoise management, avoiding depletion of populations in local areas.

Acknowledgments _

Many people provided invaluable support in completing

this study. The assistance, often without compensation, of

various individuals and organizations in providing samples

for analyses was invaluable. We especially want to thank

R. Brown, R. Brownell, R. Ferrero, M. Graybill, J. Harvey, J. Heyning, J. Hodder, A. Hahn, S. Jeffries,

L. Jones, R.Jones, G. Steiger, I. Szczepaniak, B. Troutman, and L. Tsunoda. J. Peard, G. Steiger, and S. Kort

aided in chemical analysis. The manuscript was reviewed
_________.-.,.__.-.,..-.,. Calambokidis and Ba~low: Population Discreteness in Harbor Porp'oise 109

by J. Cubbage, G. Steiger, D. Odell, andJ. Reynolds.

Jim Lecky, Southwest Regional Office of the National

Marine Fisheries Service and the Southwest Fisheries

Center, provided the support that made this study possible.

The Evergreen State College rented laboratory facilities

and W. Niemic, K. Kelly, S. Herman, and M. Beagle provided valuable assistance.

Citations _

Addision. R.F., and T.G. Smith.

19i+. Organochlorinc rcsiduc Icvels in Arctic ring-cd scals: van·

ation with agc and scx. Oikos 25:335-337.

Addison, R.F., S.R. Kcrr, J. Dale, and D.E. Sergeant.

1973. Variation of organochlorine residue levels with age in Gulf

of St. Lawrcnce harp scals (Pagophilus .eroe1lIandicus). J. Fish. Res.

Hoard Can. 30:595-600.

Aguilar. A

1987. Using organoch.lorine pollutants to discriminate marine mam·

mal populations: a review and critique of the methods. Mar.

Mammal Sci. 3:242-262.

Harlow, J.

1988. Harbor porpoise, Phoeoena phoeorna, abundance estimation

for California, Oregon and Washington: 1. ship surveys. Fish.

Bull., U.S. 86:417-432.

Calambokidis, J.

1986. Chlorinated hydrocarbons in harbor porpoise from WashingtOn, Oregon, and California: regional differences in pollutant

ratios. NMFS Southwest Fish. Cent. Adm. Rep. LJ-86-35C.

29 p.

Calambokidis, J., S. Carter, and J.C. Cubbage.

1979a. The concentrations and dynamics of chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminants in harbor seals and their use in gaining

biological information. In Proceedings (abstracts) of the third

biennial conference on the biology of marine mammals; 7-11

October 1979, Seattle, WA.

Calambokidis, J., J. Mowrer, M.W, Beug, and S.G. Herman.

1979b. Selective rctention of polychlorinated biphenyl components

in the mussel (My/ilus tdul;s). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.

8:299-308.

Calambokidis, J., J. Peard, G.H. Steiger, J.C. Cubbage, and

R.L Delong.

1984. Chemical contaminants in marine mammals from Washington State. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS OMS 6. Dcp. Commcr., NTIS, Springfield, VA. 167 p.

Clausen, J., L Braestrup, and O. Berg.

1974. The content of polychlorinated hydrocarbons in Arctic mammals. Bull. Environ_ Contam. Toxico!. II :529-534.

Deitcr, R.L

1991. Rccovery and necropsy of marine mammal carcasses in and

near the Point Reyes National Seashore, May 1982-March 1987.

In Marine mammal strandings in the United States: proceedings

of the second marine mammal stranding workshop; 3-5 December

1987, Miami, FL U .E. Reynolds and O.K. Odell, eds.), p. 123-

141. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 98.

Diamond, S.L, and D.A. Hanan.

1986. An estimate of harbor porpoise mortality in California set

net fisheries April 1, 1983 through March 31, 1984. NMFSSWR, Adm. Rep. SWR-86-15, 40 p.

Dixon, W.]. (editor).

1985. BMDP statistical software. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley,

CA, 734 p.

Donkin, P., S.V. Mamm, and E.!. Hamilton.

1981. Polychlorinated biphenyl, DDT, and dieldrin residues in grey

seal (Halichoerus grypus) males, females, and mother-foetus pairs

sampled at the Fame Islands, England, during the breeding season.

Sci. Total Environ. 19:121-142.

Duffield, D.A., J. Chamberlin·Lea, J.C. Sweeney, O.K. Odell,

E.D. _-\sper, and W.G. Gilmartin.

199 J. Use of corneal cell culture for R-band chromosome studies

on stranded cetaceans. In Marinc mammal strandings in thc

l- "ited States: proceedings of the second marine mammal stranding workshop; 3-5 December 1987, Miami, FL U.E. Reynolds

and O.K. Odell. eds.). p. 91-100. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech.

Rc? :--lMFS 98.

Gaskin. D.E.. M. Holdrinet, and R. Frank.

1(,~; Organorhlorine pesticirlc residues in harbour porpoises from

ib" of Flinch" rt'{!inn. ~;lllln: :2~rL4q9-:)Oq.

I ~,~--_ UI)T IT~idlle:-; in blubher (lr harbour porpoise. Fh(/(:uow./JiIO-

(:':-k L.) from eastern Canadian waters during- (he tive-year period

]G~(LI97:l. \lamrnals in Ill<' SCilS, FAO Fish. Sec. No.5.

"-I·U

Caskin. i) L 1'.\\' .-\rnold. and 1\ ..-\. Hlair.

1~;~ j)!JO((}(1/(J phf'((JOW. \LllIlllialinn Spet:it..'s No. 4'2: I-B.

Gaskin. DE., R. Frank. ilnd \1. Holdrine!.

J ~lS3 Polychlorinatcd lJiphl:nyls in harbor porpoisc PhO{Ofna plto-

',~ (L.) t"nlll1 lilt, B;IY o( I:uncly, Call;l(la and adjaccnt waters.

\".:i:! 501l"H' infonll;lIItHl on chlordallc and !Icxachlol"olwnzl:J1l' Ic\·cls.

.",feh. Envirnn. ContaIn. To,icol. 12:211-219.

Caskill. D.E.. A-J. Read. I'.F Walts. and G-.J.D. Smi,h.

1~l8) Population <ii~persal, sizt:o and interactions of haruour pOl'·

poJi;es in the [)a\' of Fundy and Gulf of Maine. Can. Tech. Rep.

Fi;n Aqua!. Sci. 1291.1-28.

Hanan. D ..-\ .. S.L. Diamond, and J.P. School.

IQ8o. An estimatc of harbor porpoise 1110rtality in California set

net lisheries April I, 1984 through March 31, 1985. NMFSS\\'R Adm. Rep. SWR 86-16,38 p.

Koeman. J.H., W.H.M. Peters. C-J. Smith, P.S. Tjioe, and

J.].\1 De Goeij.

lQ~2. Persistent chemicals in marine mammals. TNO Nieuws

2 5iO-5 78

Lachenbruch, P., and R.M. Mickey.

1968. Estimation of error rates in discriminant analysis. Tech-

"ometrics 10: 1-11

Larkin. P.A.

19~~. The stock concept and management of Pacific salmon. In

The slOck concept in Pacific salmon (R.C. Simon and P.A. Larkin,

cds.), (p. 11-15) H.R. MacMillan lecturcs in fisheries, Univ.

British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.

MilcCca!l. A.

j ':-<.:. R.cvicw (Jl lilt..: bl(JlogiGd r"ni(Hlalt: for iucnt ifyi ng subpupulaltons in fisheries. In Identifying fish subpopulations: proceedings

of a California sea grant workshop; 27 January 1984, Scripps Ins!.

Oceanogr., Uni,·. Calif., San Dicgo (Dennis Hedgecock, ed),

I' 9-13.

Miller. G.A., and c.E. Wells.

1969. Alkaline pre-column for use in gas chromatographic pesticide

residue analysis. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 52:548-553.

Mowrer j., j. Calambokidis, N. Musgrove, B. Drager, M.W. Beug,

and S.G. Herman.

19~ Polychlorinated biphenyls in couids, mussels, and sediment

in Southern Puget Sound, Washington. Bull. Environ. Contam.

Toxicol. 18:588-594.

Murph\. P.G.

19~·2. Sulfuric acid for the cleanup of animal tissues for analysis

of acid stable chlorinated hydrocarbon residues. J. Assoc. Off.

Anal. Chern. 55:1360

Onerlmd. G

J9~6. The harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocotna) endangered in

3·.'edish waler;. ICES C.M. 1976/N:16.
110 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Stran~ings '-- _

Prescott, J.H., and D.M. Fiorelli.

1980. Review ofthe harbor porpoise (Phoconra phoconra) in the U.S.

Northwest Atlantic. Report to U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, Wash., D.C., 64 p.

Risebrough, R.W.

1978. Pollutants in marine mammals, a literature review and recommendations for research. Marine Mammal Commission, NTIS

PB-290728, Wash., D.C., 64 p.

Stanley, R.L., and H.T. LeFavoure.

1965. Rapid digestion and clean-up of animal tissues for pesticide

analysis. J. Assoc. Off. Agr. Chern. 48:666-667.

Taruski, A.G., C.E. Olney, and H.E. Winn.

1975. Chlorinated hydrocarbons in cetaceans. J. Fish. Res. Board

Can. 32:2205-2209.

Wagemann, R., and D.C.G. Muir.

1984. Concentrations of heavy metals and organochlorines in

marine mammals of northern waters: overview and evaluation.

Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 1279, 97 p.

Webb, R.G., and A.C. McCall.

1973. Quantitative PCB standards for electron capture gas chromatography. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 11:366-373.

Wilkinson. L.

1986. SYSTAT: the system for statistics. SYSTAT, Inc.,

Evanston, IL, 822 p.

Winn, H.E.. and G.P. Scott.

1978. .\ model for stock Structuring of humpback whales (Mtgaptaa

no. c;;c ..gliat) in the "'estern North Atlantic. Draft Record to Int.

W~~ Comm
Marine Mammal Beachings as Indicators of Population Events

CHARLES D. WOODHOUSE

Santa Barbara Museum oj Natural History

2559 Puesta del Sol Rd.

Santa Barbara, CA 93105

ABSTRACT

Using two data bases compiled from 1975 to 1987. comparisons of beach cast versus living

populations were possible for seven species of marine mammals. The study was conducted in

the northern portion of the Southern California Bight and coastal waters ofsouthern central California. Results of the comparisons indicate that beached animals may act as indicators of populations relative to seasonality, residency, natality, and mortality.

Introduction _

Single beach cast marine mammals can provide valuable

information at the level of the individual organism. This

leaves open the question of what that individual may indicate relative to its parent population. An unusual beaching may be interpreted as an anomaly. It may be seen as

a sick or injured animal that lagged behind the pod or stock

with which it associated, and that either remained longer

in an area than normally expected, or accidentally drifted

into a region where the species rarely, if ever, occurs. Alternatively, such an individual may indicate the presence of

a regional stock of that species. A monospecific series of

beach cast specimens may provide indications of population movement patterns, residency, or reproductive status.

Correlations drawn between commonly beached species

and their parent populations may be applicable to interpreting population information from species that appear

beach cast less frequently.

In late 1974 at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural

History (SBMNH), I developed a program devised to incorporate a two-fold compilation of information about

marine mammals of the region. To date, one file contains

over 1500 records of live sightings primarily of cetaceans,

and the other contains over 500 records of beach cast sick,

moribund, or dead pinnipeds and cetaceans. After 12

years, a comparison of both data bases provides some insight to the relation of individual beachings and populations offshore.

Materials and Methods _

Records of live cetaceans occurring in the northern portion of the Southern California Bight have been maintained

since 1975. These are gathered fortuitously from a few

sources considered reliable (Woodhouse, in press).

Beach cast cetaceans and pinnipeds have been measured

according to the suggested methods of Norris (1961) and

Scheffer (1967), respectively. A number of the pinnipeds

are small, sick specimens that are nursed back to health

by the Santa Barbara Marine Mammal Center, a regional

rehabilitation organization. Each specimen that is cared

for by that group is given a museum field number, and

duplicate records pertaining to each are maintained in the

museum's files. All specimens are routinely reported to the

Marine Mammal Stranding Network of the National

Marine Fisheries Service.

The region covered by this study incorporates the coasts

of Ventura, Santa Barbara, and southern San Luis Obispo

Counties, California, including the Northern Channel

Islands: Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San

Miguel. With only a few exceptions, the pinnipeds were

recorded from the mainland, and no rigorous attempt was

made to monitor mortality among the island rookeries and

hauling grounds.

Results _

The number of beach cast species recorded since January

1975 reflects the diversity of marine mammals in this portion of the California Current (Table 1). Seven of the 21

species have beached frequently enough to allow some comparison to patterns noted in their living populations offshore. Others are evidently present year round, and yet

beach relatively infrequently (Woodhouse, in press; Bonnell et al. 1981; Gentry 1981). Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides

III
112 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Table 1.

Beach cast pinniped and cetacean records by species for

the northern Southern California Bight and southern Central California, 1975-1987.

%

20 ZALOPHUS

N=252

MIROUNGA

S N

N =35

J

PHOCA

N =65

J M M

10

10

10

20

20

30

30

%

%

Months

Species No. records recorded'

Pinnipedia

Zalophus californianus 252 All

Callorhinus uTsinus 5 V. IX. X. XIl

Phoca uilulina 6', .-\11

Mirounga angustirostris 35 All but VI. Vlll

Cetacea: Mysticeti

Eschrichlius rohuSluJ :n I. II. III. 1\'. V.

X. XI. XII

Balaenoptera musculus I \' I I I

B. aculoroslrala 4 Ill. IV. VII

Cetacea: Odontoceti

Delphinus delphis 42 All but I. X

Lagmorhynchus obliquidms 29 All but XI

Lissodelphis borealis 22 III. IV. V. VI.

IX

Phocomoidcs dalli 8 III. Vll. VIlI.

X. XI

Globiccphala macroThynchus 7 V. IX. XI

Phocoma phocoma 6 [II. VIl. X

Tursiops lruncalus 4 V. VIII. IX. XI

Kogia breuiccps 3 VIII. XI

Orcinus orca 2 III, IV

Grampus griscus I IV

Mcsoplodon densiToslTis I VI

M. carlhubbsi I VI

Stenella cOCTuleoalba I XII

Stmo bredanensis 1 XI

• Months by Roman numeral from I = January to XII

December.

Figure 1

Frequency of beached pinnipeds on the mainland coast ofCalifornia between latitudes 34° Nand 35° N.

dalll) , for example, appears to be resident and yet no beach

cast specimens have been nOlCU since laiC I ~78. A pOU or

the coastal form of bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

was first recorded in the area by the SBMNH program in

October 1983. The first dead specimen was noted in May

1984. Since 1983, living bottlenose dolphins have been

observed in every month of the year.

Among the three pinniped species most commonly found

beach cast, frequencies of sick or dead specimens appear

different for each, albeit a spring peak is shared by harbor

seals (Phoca vitulina) and northern elephant seals (Mirounga

angustirostris) (Fig. I). The chi-square statistic was used to

determine whether the three species beached with equal

frequency over twelve months. California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) appear to beach as sick, moribund, or

dead animals at an equal rate from November through

July, but from August through October this rate is significantly lower (X 2 ; P<O.05) (Fig. I). For harbor seals,

beached, distressed animals are more frequent in the

months February through April (Table 2). Beached,

distressed elephant seals reflect a similar pattern (Table 3).

Among cetaceans two species occur seasonally and two

appear to be resident. Gray whales (EschTichtius Tobustus)

are markedly seasonal and represent a type of control in

correlations between the presence of living populations and

beach cast specimens (Fig. 2). Beach cast northern right

whale dolphins (Lissodelphis borealis) also reflect the seasonality of the living population even with a small sample size

(Fig. 3). Comparative frequencies of common dolphins

(Delphinus delphis) and Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) indicate a year-round presence that is

reflected in both live sightings and beach cast records (Figs.

4 and 5). The relative magnitude of histograms reflecting

the live sighting data should not be interpreted as a measure

of actual fluctuations in the respective species' populations

because the information is mainly gathered fortuitously and
_______________________ Woodhouse: Beachings as Indicators of Population Events 113

Table 2

Chi-square analysis of beach cast harbor seals, Phoca vitulina.

X2 = 0.885, df = 3. Model = 58.5% beached harbor seals

during the Feb.-Apr. period and 14% beached harbor seals

in each of remaining periods.

Period No. observations Expected

Feb.-Apr. 38 37.7

May-Jul. 11 9.1

Aug.-OCL 9 9.1

Nov.-Jan. 7 9.1

30 A

%

10

Table 3

Chi-square analysis of beach cast elephant seals, Mirounga

angustirostris. X2 = 2.000, df= 3. Model = 65.7% beached

elephant seals during the Feb.-Apr. period ahd 11.4%

beached elephant seals in each of remaining periods.

30 B

10

(59)

Figure 3

(A) Frequency of LissoiUlphis borealis sightings in the northern portion of the Southern California Bight. (B) Frequency of beached

specimens for the same region.

Period

Feb.-Apr.

May-Jul.

Aug.-OCL

Nov.-Jan.

40 A

No. observations

23

4

2

6

Expected

23.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

J M M N

Figure 2

(A) Frequency of Eschrichtius robustus sightings in the northern portion of the Southern California Bight. (B) Frequency of beached

specimens for the same region.

20

40

20

J

B

M M J s N

lacks the necessary level of effort to determine population

size in any given sampling period.

In a small way, reproductive information from individual

female dolphins corroborates the residency of each species.

Near-term fetuses were noted in specimens of common

dolphin and Dall's porpoise.

Discussion _

The relative frequency of beach cast pinnipeds may reflect

population size and proximity of population centers to the

mainland. California sea lions and harbor seals occur

regularly along the mainland as well as island coastlines

whereas northern fur seals (Callorhinus uTsinus) and northern

elephant seals occur in greater abundance on the offshore

islands. Northern fur seals, in particular, concentrate on

the western end of San Miguel Island. That, coupled with

their pelagic habit, may account for the few records of

beached specimens in the data base reported here.

The spring peaks of beach cast harbor and northern

elephant seals include a large proportion of small

specimens. In the case of elephant seals, the peak in

beachings occurs around the time when the animals would

be expected to be weaned and starting to leave their island

rookeries to fend for themselves. A few of these individuals
114 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

30 A 30

A

20

%

10

I'" B

..--

,....-

..--

I I I

30

B

J M M J s N

10

20

%

J M M J s N

10

30

20

'1'0

Figure 4

(A) Frequency of Delphinus delphis sightings in the northern portion of the Southern California Bight. (B) Frequency of beached

specimens for the same region.

Figure 5

(A) Frequency of Lagenorhynchus obliquidens sightings in the northern portion of the Southern California Bight. (B) Frequency of

beached specimens for the same region.

have been found with flipper tags which relate them to

rookeries on San Nicolas and San Miguel Islands.

Among the four cetaceans, there appears to be a correlation between the time of beachings and the presence

of the parent population offshore (Figs. 2-5). Conversely,

presence of a living stock is not necessarily reflected in

beachings. The lack of regular beachings noted for other

cetacean species that were sighted year round, such as

Dall's porpoise, may correspond to relative population size.

A review of ten years of Dall's porpoise sightings in the

region of this study, forming a sample of 191 records,

revealed that 66% were of pods of 1-5 animals, and it was

the second most common cetacean recorded (Woodhouse,

in press). Alternatively, pods of common and Pacific whitesided dolphins numbering several tens of animals are not

atypical. In the case of the former, over 100 animals have

been recorded in a single pod. These two species have

beached with a higher frequency than the others. Since the

arrival of coastal bottlenose dolphins in 1983 during the

El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) episode, only four

beached specimens have been recovered over a six-year

period, and these ranged from neonate size to physically

mature adults. Pod counts of up to 50 animals have been

recorded, and this may represent the maximum size of the

local population.

The northern right whale dolphin has been sighted in

groups exceeding 100 animals, and yet they rarely beach.

Seventeen of the 22 specimens recorded by this study came

ashore in a six-week period in 1981 on island and mainland

beaches. Nevertheless, the pattern of beachings reflects

their seasonal presence. In terms of the relative frequency

of living cetaceans sighted, northern right whale dolphins

rank twelfth, whereas gray whales, common and Pacific

white-sided dolphins rank first, third, and sixth, respectively. The seasonal presence of the northern right whale

dolphin, coupled with a relatively small population size

compared to the other seasonal species (e.g., gray whale),

may partially explain the relatively low numbers of

beachings.

At least in the portion of the California current involved

in this study, beached animals appear to act as indicators

of population events. Seasonal population changes are expressed, as are indications of residency, among the seven

species most commonly found. Knowing the basic habits

of each beached species (e. g., gregarious vs. solitary,

pelagic vs. neritic, or migratory vs. resident) may help in

formulating a judgment as to whether more of its kind are

likely to be regionally present.

Acknowledgments _

Over the years many people have helped with this study,

but in particular I would like to acknowledge Paul Collins,
________________________ Woodhouse: Beachings as Indicators of Population Events 115

Brian Arnold, Matt Nixon, Paula White and Charles Rennie. Peter Howorth has been particularly helpful in

documenting beached pinnipeds. Finally, my appreciation

goes to Charles Rennie for his critical review of the

manuscript.

Citations

Bonnell, M.L., B.J. Le Boeuf, M.O. Pierson, D.H. Dettman,

G.D. Faarrens, and C. Heath.

1981. Summary of marine mammal and seabird surveys of the

southern California Bight Area, 1975-1978. Vol. III: Investigators

reports. Part I: pinnipeds of the southern California bight. Final

Report, Bureau of Land Management, Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Office, Los Angeles, 557 p.

Gentry, R.L.

1981. Northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursin us (Linnaeus, 1758). In

Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 1: The walrus, sea lions,

fur seals and sea otter (S.H. Ridgway and R.J. Harrison, eds.),

p. 143-160. Acad. Press, NY.

Norris, K.S.

1961. Standardized methods for measuring and recording data on

the smaller cetaceans. J. Mammal 42(4):471-476.

Scheffer, V. B.

1967. Standard measurements of seals. J. Mammal 48(3):

459-462.

Woodhouse, C.D.

In press). A ten year catalogue of cetacean occurrences in the northern portion of the southern California Bight: proceedings ofthe

third California islands symposium.

Survival and Behavior of Previously Captive

Harbor Seals after Release into the Wild

JAMES T. HARVEY*

College oj Oceanography

Oregon State University

Hatfield Marine Science Center

Newport, OR 97365

ABSTRACT

Eight male harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) that had been held in captivity for 4-16 years, were

weighed, measured, and radio-tagged before being released along the Oregon coast in the spring

of 1986 and 1987. These previously captive harbor seals remained in the bays in which they were

released for up to eight days. One individual moved 61 km north of the release site, whereas

another moved as far south as 210 km. Duration of dive was an average 0.7-1.2 min for four

of the harbor seals that were tracked; maximum time underwater was 8.6 min. Four (50.0%)

of the eight previously captive harbor seals were found dead and stranded along the Oregon coast;

they survived 7, 30, 38, and 223 days after their release. Two probably died from starvation,

and another from an infection caused by a fish spine that passed through the upper lip. Cause

of death of the fourth animal was not determined. Two had lost 11 % and 13% of their body

weight after release. Although robust harbor seals probably can survive longer than thinner individuals after release, survival rate in the wild is probably lower for previously captive harbor

seals than for wild pups because of the former's dependence on a stable environment. Rehabilitated

pinnipeds that were in captivity for less than one year probably adapt more readily to the wild

than those held for longer periods.

Introduction _

The number of pinnipeds in zoos and aquaria has increased

recently because breeding has occurred in captivity, and

stranded individuals have been rehabilitated and retained.

In the past, excess pinnipeds in one institution often were

placed in other aquaria and zoos, or they were used in new

public displays and as replacements for animals that had

died. The recent surplus ofpinnipeds in captivity has made

it difficult to find alternate locations for individuals. One

possible solution to this problem was to release some individuals into the wild; however, there were few data

concerning survival and behavior of previously captive pinnipeds after release.

In this study, I determined survival and behavior ofharbar seals (Phoca vitulina) released into the wild after being

in captivity for many years. Harbor seals were released in

Oregon, where there are many isolated haul-out sites and

an increasing number of harbor seals, which may indicate

• Present address: Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, P.O. Box 450,

Moss Landing, CA 95039.

sufficient food supplies (Harvey 1987). These conditions

could enhance the survivability of previously captive harbor seals in the wild.

Methods

Eight male harbor seals were transported in pairs from

Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium, Tacoma, Washington

(n = 6) and Seaside Aquarium, Seaside, Oregon (n = 2) to

a to- by 20- by 2-m cement tank located outdoors at the

Hatfield Marine Science Center (HMSC), Newport,

Oregon. These harbor seals were kept in captivity for all

of their 4-16 years (Table 1). Some became captive within

a week of birth and others were born in captivity. Each

pair of harbor seals was held at the HMSC for 2.0-3.7

months as subjects of a study regarding digestion of harbor seal prey (Harvey 1987). The tank was completely surrounded by a 2-m high fence, so the harbor seals were

isolated from people, other than when the tank was cleaned.

These harbor seals were maintained on a diet of Atlantic

herring (Clupea harengus harengus) and eulachon (Thaleichthys

117
118 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Table 1

Length and weight of eight male harbor seals released along the central Oregon coast in

1986 and 1987. The number ofdays from the release date to the date they were last relocated,

and minimum distance traveled in that time, are given for each harbor seal.

Release

Time of release to Minimum distance

Length Weight Captivity last sighting traveled

Seal ID (cm) (kg) (yrs) (d) (km)

011 143 "-'120 16 51 (3)' 52.6

082' 177 "-'130 15 223 (17) 270.2

120 156 81 28 (6) 98.8

060 14-9 85 29 (7) 7.7

200' 128 36 8 7 (1) 0

300' 14-1 4-6 4- 38 (1) 30.9

301 136 86 4- 78 (5) 23.2

209' 154- 65 8 30 (3) 4-80

'Found dead.

'Numbers in parentheses represent number of times relocated.

pacijicus), and periodically fed 13 other taxa of fishes and

cephalopods commonly eaten by harbor seals in Oregon

(Graybill 1981; Brown and Mate 1983; Roffe and Mate

1984). Fish and cephalopods were thrown over the fence;

meals were not presented to harbor seals by hand.

Previously frozen prey were fed to harbor seals until the

last two weeks of captivity, when live fishes were placed

in the tank. Before their release, all harbor seals ate live

fish, although the amount was not determined.

Before release, harbor seals were weighed, measured,

and marked with external tags. Radio transmitters (5- by

3- by 1.5-cm and 98 g) were glued to the hair on the back

of the head using Devcon epoxy adhesive (Fedak et al.

1982; Harvey 1987). Individual radio tags were identified

by their unique frequency (148-149 MHz), and signals

could be heard from 8 km on land and 16 km in aircraft.

Because a radio tag was placed on top of the harbor seal's

head, signals would be received when the harbor seal was

on land or at the water's surface. Radio tags were designed

to operate for 9-12 months and to remain attached until

the period ofmolt (August-September). As an aid for identification an Allflex cattle ear-tag was placed in the webbing of each hind flipper, and a red-dye mark (Woolitel

sheep dye) or a neoprene patch was placed on the back of

these harbor seals.

Harbor seals released in Yaquina and Alsea Bays were

identified and located by visually recognizing marks on the

animals, or by receiving signals from radio tags using a

Telonics1 receiver. Generally, during the first two to three

days after release, the location and activities of harbor seals

were monitored continuously. Thereafter, released harbor

seals were located periodically. To locate released harbor

seals, nine airplane flights were conducted either south or

north of Newport. When released harbor seals were found

dead, a necropsy was conducted.

Results and Discussion _

Two harbor seals were released in Alsea Bay and six were

released in Yaquina Bay between April 1986 and March

1987 (Fig. 1). Harbor seals remained in the bay in which

they were liberated for up to eight days after their release

(Table 2). One individual (#011) was observed within 16

hours of release with 190 other harbor seals on a haul-out

site in Alsea Bay. This individual spent 2.3 hrs on land

(13.4% of total time monitored). Two other released harbor seals (#082 and #301) were located on land. Harbor

seal #082 was found ashore on three occasions, one of which

was a mudflat in Alsea Bay not used commonly by harbor

seals. Individual #301 was observed on two occasions on

a stretch of beach south of Waldport (Table 2).

Harbor seals probably spent the first days after release

becoming familiar with their surroundings before entering the ocean. The duration of dives for four released harbor seals was generally less than for wild seals similarly

tagged and tracked (Harvey 1987). Previously captive harbor seals had dives that averaged 0.7-1.2 min in duration

(Table 3). The greatest dive duration was 8.6 minutes.

Average time spent at the surface· between dives was

0.3-0.5 minutes. In Oregon, wild harbor seals spent an

average of 1.0-3.1 min underwater during a dive (maximum = 11.4 min), and 0.4-0.6 min at the water's surface between dives (Harvey 1987).

Seven of eight harbor seals moved into the ocean; one

individual traveled as far south as Port Orford, Oregon
___________________ Harvey: Survival and Behavior of Previously Captive. Harbor Seals 119

N

A

Coos Bay

OREGON

1

45°

I • 1!o60 Yaquina Bay

20V3O'

300 200 120

Alsea Bay

44°

30 km

CALIFORNIA

Figure 1

Locations of release (closed squares) for eight male harbor seals along the Oregon coast between 1985

and 1986. Open circles represent locations where these radio-tagged harbor seals were resighted or signals

from their tags were heard. Closed circles represent the last known location of these animals. These

locations were always on or within 2 km of shore. The numbers identify the individual harbor seals.

(210 km from the release site), another as far north as

Cape Kiwanda, Oregon (61 km from the release site; Fig.

1). Movements of captive harbor seals after release in

Oregon were similar to radio-tagged harbor seals caught

and tagged in Oregon bays (Brown and Mate 1983; Harvey

1987). Wild harbor seals remained within 8 km of their

capture site for many months, or moved 280 km north and

250 km south. Movements of some previously captive

harbor seals along the Oregon coast, therefore, were not

surprIsIng.

Four (50.0%) harbor seals died 7,30,38, and 223 days

after their release, and their carcasses were recovered

(Table 1). Two individuals (#082 and #200) possibly died

from starvation, harbor seal #300 probably died as a result

of a systemic infection caused by a fish spine through the

upper lip, and the #209 died for unknown reasons. Only
120 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings ........ _

Table 2

Locations and movements of eight harbor seals released in Oregon.

Seal ID

011

082

120

060

200

300

209

301

Radio or

Date identification Location and status

22 April Both Released in Alsea Bay

23-28 April Radio In Alsea Bay

5 May Visual In water near Port Orford docks

30 May Radio On land at Bandon Rocks

11 June Radio In water north of Bandon

22 April Both Released in Alsea Bay

23-28 April Radio In Alsea Bay

30 May Radio In water near Siuslaw River outlet

9 June Radio In water south of Newport

11 June Radio In water south of Siuslaw jetties

H June Visual In surf at Cape Kiwanda

2 July Radio In water 8 km S of Umpqua River

HJuly Radio On land in Alsea Bay

1 December Visual Found dead near Coos Bay

20 August Both Released in Yaquina Bay

21-21 August Radio In Yaquina Bay

6 September Visual In Coos Bay

17 September Visual In water at Strawberry Hill

20 August Both Released in Yaquina Bay

21-24 August Radio In Yaquina Bay

11 September Radio In water south of Newport

13 September Visual In water near Yaquina Head

18 September Visual In water at Yaquina Head

25 November Both Released in Yaquina Bay

2 December Visual Found dead in Yaquina Bay

25 November Both Released in Yaquina Bay

2 January Visual Found dead in Sand Lake

H March Both Released in Yaquina Bay

15 March Radio In water in Yaquina Bay

13 April Visual Found dead near Lincoln City

14 March Both Released in Yaquina Bay

15-16 March Radio In Yaquina Bay

25-27 April Visual On beach 12-16 km S Waldport

1 May Visual On beach S Waldport

29 May Visual In water near Alsea Bay

two of these animals (#200 and #300) were weighed after

death, and they had lost 11 % and 13% of their body

weight. Mid-ventral blubber thickness was 4-5 mm, less

than the average 20-31 mm found in healthy harbor seals

(Pitcher 1986).

For those individuals that died, duration of survival

seemed to be related to their mass at time of release. The

harbor seal (#082) with the greatest mass survived for over

seven months before it was recovered dead near Coos Bay,

Oregon. This individual was found with only a few crustacean fragments and feathers in its stomach. It probably

had fed on some prey, but had not consumed an adequate

amount to remain healthy. The other two harbor seals that

died weighed less, when released, than harbor seals of

similar length caught in the wild. Harbor seal #200, which

weighed the least upon release, died within eight days, and

never moved outside the bay in which it was released.

Greater fat stores probably allow individuals a greater

period of time to adjust to feeding in the wild.

Release of previously captive harbor seals is analogous

to the period of weaning for this species. During the 3-6

weeks ofsuckling, harbor seal pups become obese and are

dependent on their mothers for food and protection. Upon

weaning, the mother suddenly separates from the pup.

Captive harbor seals also are often obese and dependent

for their food, and their release to the wild is sudden.

Although these captive harbor seals were 4-16 years old,

they had to make some of the same adjustments, such as

feeding on live prey and gaining self-protection, as do newly

weaned pups. Certainly these older captive animals are
___________________ Harvey: Survival and Behavior of Previously Captive Harbor Seals 121

Table 3

Mean, standard deviation, and maximum duration of dives

and surface intervals between dives (min) for four radiotagged harbor seals released in Oregon. n is number of

dives or surfacings recorded.

Seal identification

011 062 082 120

Dive (min)

n 351 163 653 52

mean 1.2 0.7 1.2 0.7

SD 1 1 0.7 1.0 0.9

maximum 8.6 3.9 6.7 4.0

duration

Surface (min)

345 166 645 52

mean 0.5 0.4 0.4 03

SD 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3

maXlnlum 4.2 3.9 3.6 1.1

duration

more developed physically and socially than pups. It might

be expected that larger individuals, such as these previously

captive harbor seals, would have greater survival than pups

because they have a greater body mass that provides supplemental energy until they learn to capture prey. In addition, larger individuals may be better able to defend

themselves against predators than are pups. The·mortality rate of 50 % for these captive harbor seals, however,

was greater than first-year mortality rate of 20 % reported

for harbor seals in British Columbia (Bigg 1969).

Rehabilitated harbor seals have been located alive and

seemingly in good health after their release into the wild.

For greater than one year, Picken (1978) found that an

I1-month-old harbor seal, released in England, fluctuated

in growth and continued to use a boat-slip near the

laboratory in which it had been held captive. A pup and

4.5 year-old harbor seal were located 35 days (80 km) and

46 days (92 km), respectively, after their release in

Washington and Oregon (Harvey et aI. 1983). Webber and

Allen (1986) resighted 2 of 27 harbor seal pups that were

rehabilitated, tagged, and released off central California.

These two pups were resighted 127 days (80 km) and 14

days (42 km) after release. The California Marine Mammal Center has rehabilitated and released 462 pinnipeds,

and 109 have been resighted (Gavette and Roletto 1987).

Only 17 of these individuals, 7 of which were dead, were

found stranded again. The number of individuals that died

but were not beached is unknown. Seagers (1987) reported

that 16.8% of 398 stranded pinnipeds that were rehabilitated and released in California were subsequently resighted alive, or were found dead (3.5 %). Individuals that

died were found an average of 120 days after release.

Harbor seals that have remained in captivity for more

than one year may not adapt to life in the wild as easily

as those individuals that are captive for a shorter period

of time. Although captive harbor seals may have large fat

reserves and are taught to capture live fish, it may be more

difficult for these individuals to initiate feeding on their

own in the wild. Individuals that have fed in the wild before

captivity may adapt to the wild more readily than individuals that have been in captivity their entire life. The

starvation of one released harbor seal (#082) after seven

months indicates that observations of released animals after

a short period of freedom do not necessarily indicate the')'

have successfully adapted to the wild. It may take extended

periods of time for some individuals to adapt. Therefore,

we may be overly optimistic regarding their successful transition to the wild if monitoring these individuals IS confined to the first 3-4 months of liberty.

Acknowledgments

I thank the Oregon Coast Aquarium, Newport, Oregon

(B. Henderson) and Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium,

Tacoma, Washington (T. Otten) for providing funds for

purchasing radio tags. Volunteers from the Oregon Coast

Aquarium helped feed harbor seals while in captivity at

the Hatfield Marine Science Center, and assisted in tracking harbor seals after their release. Personnel at Point

Defiance Zoo and Aquarium and Seaside Aquarium were

extremely helpful in providing the harbor seals for these

experiments. I especially thank R. Brown for his help in

transferring and tracking harbor seals. I appreciate the

helpful comments of J. Reynolds, D. Odell, and M.

Yoklavich on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Citations _

Bigg, M.A.

1969. The harbour seal in British Columbia. Fish. Res. Board

Can. Bull. 172:1-33.

Brown, R.F., and B.R. Mate.

1983. Abundance, movements, and feeding habits of harbor seals,

Phoca vitulina, at Netarts and Tillamook Bays, Oregon. Fish.

Bull., U.S. 81:291-301.

Fedak, M.A., S.S. Anderson, and M.G. Curry.

1982. Attachment of a radio tag to the fur of seals. Notes Mamm.

Soc. 49: 298-300.

Gavette, C.A., and J. Roletto.

1987. The disposition of tagged and released pinnipeds from a

rehabilitation center. Abstract of the seventh biennial conference

on the biology of marine mammals; 5-9 December 1987, Miami,

Florida, p. 25.

Graybill, M.R.

1981. Haul out patterns and diet of harbor seals, Phoca vilulina, in

Coos County, Oregon. M.S. thesis, Univ. Oregon, Eugene,

55 p.

Harvey, J.T.

1987. Population dynamics, annual food consumption, movements,
122 NOAA Technical'Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

and dive behaviors of harbor seals, Phoca vitulina richardsi,

in Oregon. Ph.D. diss., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis,

177 p.

Harvey, J.T., R.B. Brown, and B.R. Mate.

1983. Two sightings following release ofrehabilitated harbor seals.

Murrelet 64: 18.

Picken, M.J.

1978. The growth and behavior of a hand-reared common seal

(Phoca vitulina vitulina) after release to the sea. J. Zool., Lond.

186:535-574.

Pitcher, K.W.

1986. Variation in blubber thickness of harbor seals in southern

Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 50:463-466.

Roffe, T.J., and B.R. Mate.

1984. Abundances and feeding habits of pinnipeds in the Rogue

River, Oregon. J. Wildt. Manage. 48:1262-1274.

Seagers, D.

1987. An analysis of the tagging program for released rehabilitated pinnipeds in California. Abstract of the seventh biennial

conference on the biology of marine mammals, 5-9 December

1987, Miami, Florida, p. 62.

Webber, M.A., and S.G. Allen.

1986. Resightings of two rehabilitated and released harbor seals

in California. Calif. Fish Game 45:60-61.
Recovery and Necropsy of Marine Mammal Carcasses

in and near the Point Reyes National Seashore,

May 1982-March 1987

RAYMOND L. DEITER

MOBL VET Bolinas and Sausalito Animal Hospitals

288 Mesa Road

P. O. Box 1039

Bolinas, CA 94924

ABSTRACT

The examination of beach cast marine mammal carcasses provides a unique opportunity to

determine the causes and seasonality of mortality. The study was conducted along the coastline

from Bodega Bay to Fort Funston, San Francisco, California including the San Francisco Bay.

Necropsies were performed to determine cause of death, sex, and reproductive status of the animals

recovered. A total of 248 dead marine mammals, involving 14 species, were reported. Cause

of death was determined for 80 animals and the majority of these fell into one of three categories:

natural disease, 33 %; shooting victims, 35 %; and set net (gill and trammel net) casualties, 29 % .

Three species (California sea lion, harbor seal and harbor porpoise) accounted for 85 % of all

animals reported. Annual, seasonal and size related variation in mortality factors is discussed

for these species. Nine percent of the animals reported include: northern elephant seal, northern

fur seal, northern sea lion, striped dolphin, Pacific white-sided dolphin, common dolphin, Dall's

porpoise, dense beaked whale, Cuvier's beaked whale, gray whale, and dwarfsperm whale. The

remaining 6% were pinnipeds or cetaceans reported but not identified because they were not

found. A large number of animals must be examined to demonstrate trends in cause of death

categories. An ongoing program of examination of dead beach cast animals would provide data

useful for management of marine mammals in this area.

Introduction _

The occurrence of beach cast marine mammal carcasses

provides a unique opportunity to learn about species that

can, otherwise, be logistically difficult to study. A regular

program of examination of beach cast carcasses makes it

possible, for example, to obtain insight into the causes and

seasonality of mortality of some species. This type of information can sometimes be used to determine natural

variation and the general condition of the individual

animals and the populations of which they are a part. Data

can also be utilized to detect human related changes in mortality patterns, and to help monitor the health and vitaHty

of the marine ecosystem.

The objectives of this study were to examine all reported

dead beach cast marine mammals in and near the Point

Reyes National Seashore area. The cause of death, length,

sex, and reproductive status of the animals recovered were

determined by observation, gross necropsy, and histopathologic examination of collected tissues. Similar work

has provided valuable information on many marine mammals in North America (see, for example, Stroud and Roffe

1979; O'Shea et al. 1985; and Rice et al. 1986).

Methods _

The study was conducted along the coastline from Bodega

Bay to Fort Funston, San Francisco including the San

Francisco Bay (Figs. 1-3). This report includes data from

May 1982 through March 1987. The study is continuing

as funds allow. This research is conducted under authority of a Letter of Authorization from the National Marine

Fisheries Service issued to the California Academy of

Sciences. Research was also conducted under authorization of the Department of the Interior via a permit issued

to the Point Reyes National Seashore.

Sightings of beached marine mammal carcasses in the

study area were reported by National Park Service personnel and others to the 24-hour answering service at the

123
124 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

LOCATION OF HARBOR SEALS REPORTED DEAD

MAY 1982-MARCH 1987

o

Point Reyes

17 1982

• 1983

o 1984

• 1985

o 1986

• 1987

...

0017

00••

o • o •• o~ •• ~~~y ~vv

0000000000000 17

o ••••• 17

o

o.

Ocean Beach

Figure 1

Location of Harbor Seal Reports May 1982-March 1987.

Sausalito and Bolinas animal hospitals. An identification

number (RLD #) was assigned to each animal found.

Those animals reported by knowledgeable sources (i.e.,

people competent in identifications of marine mammals)

that were not found were not assigned an identification

number, but the following data, if available, were recorded

and listed in this report: location, species, length, and sex.

If possihle. all animals were measured. The data were

reported tG .al Marine Fisheries Service using

their standaro. Ilarine Mammal and Marine Turtle

Data Record form. If the animal was not too autolyzed

(decomposed) a complete gross examination and necropsy

were done. As funds were limited, histopathology was performed primarily on these animals where tissue conditions

were good enough to yield relevant data and where gross

observations warranted further investigation. Specimens

from animals also were frozen to allow for histopathology

at a later date when funds are available. When the animal

was suspected of being gunshot, radiographic examinations

were done using a mobile x-ray machine or the machines
of stocks; hair coat color analysis; complete identification

of parasites, bacteria and viruses; and computerized tomography (CT scan) evaluation of cetacean sonar, vocalization, and echolocation organs. Tissues for toxicological

analysis were collected and stored for later analyses. Additional tissues were sent to other researchers who requested

them for toxicological analyses. Bacterial typing and parasitological and histopathological studies were conducted by

the pathology services group at Army Letterman Institute

in San Francisco, by the Veterinary Reference Laboratory

• • 000

•

o

•• '1 1982 ••000

00'"

• 1983

0 1984 •• ~da •• .0••• 0

\ • 1985

a-- a 1986 Fort Funston

• 1987

.0

Point Reyes

Figure 2

Location of California Sea Lion Recoveries May 1982-March 1987.

o

LOCATION OF CALIFORNIA SEA LIONS REPORTED DEAD

MAY 1982-MARCH 1987

Bodega Bay

at the Sausalito and Bolinas animal hospitals. When possible, animals were photographed with Polaroid and 35 mm

cameras. Blubber thickness was measured mid-sternum,

to investigate whether chronically ill animals had thin blubber layers, and conversely whether acutely diseased animals

had thick blubber layers.

Tissue samples and organs were collected for a variety

of studies beyond the scope of this report including lifehistory evaluation; identification of possible toxic residues;

complete determination of stomach contents; phenotyping

_____________________ Deiter: Recovery and Necropsy of Marine Mammal Carcasses 125
126 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

LOCATION OF HARBOR PORPOISES REPORTED DEAD

MAY 1982-MARCH 1987

'7 1982

... 1983

o 1984

• 1985

o 1986

• 1987

...

o

000000000'7'7

'7 Pacifica

o

Figure 3

Location of Harbor Porpoise Recoveries May 1982-March 1987.

in San Leandro, and by the California State Veterinary

Pathology Laboratory in Petaluma. Viral typing was done

at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis,

Tennessee.

Specimens were assigned one of five categories of approximate maturity: O-fetus, I-juvenile, 2-immature,

3-adult, 4-unknown. A fetus was defined as any animal

found in the womb. Full-term newborns with or without

aerated lungs or milk/colostrum in the stomach were included in the juvenile category. Standard length measurements were used as approximations to differentiate between

immature and mature animals for the two most abundant

species reported as follows: harbor seals were considered

to be mature if they were at least 148 cm long (for females)

and 161 cm (for males), as suggested by Bigg (1969);

California sea lions were considered mature if they were

at least 150 cm long (for females) and 200 cm long (for

males), as suggested by Peterson and Bartholomew (1967);

harbor porpoise were considered adults if they were at least

129 cm long, as described by Fisher and Harrison (1970).
_____________________ Deiter: Recovery and Necropsy of Marine Mammal Carcasses 127

The latter study, it should be noted, occurred in the North

Atlantic rather than the Pacific. Animals for which standard length could not be accurately determined were listed

as age unknown.

Carcass condition was categorized as O-unknown,

I-good, 2-fair, 3-poor. Gross and/or histologic tissue examination was used to determine these classes. Carcasses

in good condition had reasonably normal gross and histologic tissue appearance. Fair condition denoted reasonably

normal gross tissue appearance but autolyzed histologic appearance. Carcasses were listed in poor condition when

gross examination indicated tissue autolysis. When histopathology was performed on tissues from fair or poor carcasses, the tissues indicated autolysis. Environmental

conditions such as time in water (which has a refrigeration effect in this study area), time on the beach and

amount of sun (both of which have a heating effect), type

of beach (rocky or sandy), and surf and weather conditions

determined how long the carcass would remain in the above

categories. Time of death could not be precisely determined

for most carcasses examined. However, based on my

veterinary experience with other animals, as well as with

marine mammals for which time of death could be determined, I used the following general guidelines: good condition encompassed approximately 0-36 hours post

mortem; fair, about 36-72 hours post mortem; and poor

over 72 hours post mortem. Rigor mortis, stiffening of the

body due to hardening of the muscles by chemical reaction, generally occurs six to twenty-four hours after death

(Spitz and Fisher 1980). This time period is shortened to

two to four hours if the animal struggled shortly before

death. Rigor mortis dissipates usually within 24 to 36

hours, when decomposition begins. This timing is primarily affected by the temperature of the carcass.

Decomposition rate varies by tissue type. The brain,

liver, and kidneys autolyze quickly while the skin, connective, and muscle tissues can show gross lesions up to approximately 7-9 days post mortem.

Multiple animal recoveries (animals found at the same

time and location) may provide a basis for inference of

cause of death when it can be determined for some of the

animals in the groups. Such assumptions have not been

made in this study.

Natural deaths included any disease process, non-human

related trauma, and shark predation. Trauma was diagnosed for many animals but only two animals evidenced

severe musculoskeletal and sudden organ injury without

any evidence of human impacts. Trauma as a cause of

death can be difficult to diagnose owing to livor mortis,

the discoloration of soft tissues on dependent parts of a carcass. Liquid blood flows by gravity to the down (dependent) part of the body and gels, usually within 6-18 hours.

Once livor mortis occurs, it remains even if the position

of the carcass is changed. This "blueness of death" appears similar to blunt trauma but only vessel engorgement

of gelled blood and perivascular tissue congestion occurs

with livor mortis; while blunt trauma causes hemorrhaging throughout all the affected tissues (B. Stevens, San

Francisco Coroner's Office, San Francisco, CA 94103,

pers. commun., August 1988).

Where shark bites were diagnosed, an attempt was made

to determine premortem or postmortem timing. Generally,

when a live animal is bitten, local hemorrhaging is immediate but usually is not recognizable because the open cuts

allow sea water to dilute and wash away the hemorrhages.

Margination into vascular walls of inflammatory cells,

fibrin clots, and collagen swelling occur at a minimum of

30-180 minutes after insult as recognized by light microscopy (Spitz and Fisher 1980). If the animal dies before

that time. perimortem histological verification is very difficult, if not impossible. Histochemical changes do occur

sooner but these were not analyzed in this study. Unless

histopathology verified the attack to be premortem, shark

Gites were assumed to be postmortem.

Human related causes of death included shooting and

entanglement in set nets (gill and trammel nets). Shooting

was listed as cause of death only if a projectile or its

fragments were found and if it appeared to be more than

a superficial or old healed wound. If the projectile could

not be found or seen on radiographs, the cause of death

was not listed as shooting.

When set-net entanglement was determined as cause of

death, type of set-net material, number of filament strands

and mesh size (stretched diagonally) were documented.

Pieces and sometimes entire nets washed in attached to the

animals. Seals and sea lions were listed as having been

killed by set nets only if the net or a piece of the net was

attached to the carcass and no other significant pathology

was recognized. Set nets were listed as cause of death for

cetaceans when net marks were found on the body and if

there was no other recognizable pathological evidence for

cause of death.

Results and Discussion _

A total of 248 dead marine mammals involving 14 species

was reponed from May 1982-March 1987 (Table 1). In

1982 and 1987 the months covered were May-December

and January-March, respectively. For the four years with

complete information, 1983-1986, the total number of

reported animals ranged from 40 in 1985 to 61 in 1986,

and included substantial annual variations in numbers of

the three species most commonly found: harbor seals (Phoca

vitulina); California sea lions (Zalophus cali/omianus); and harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena).

It was not possible to determine cause of death for 68 %

(168) of the animals. Of the 168 animals, autolysis was too

advanced in 51 % to assess accurately cause of death; 29 %

of the animals were not found, presumably because of
128 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings .;...... _

Table 1

Numbers of reported carcasses by species and year 1982-1987.

Species 1983 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Total

Harbor seal, Phoca uitulina 9 15 5 14 31 75

Northern elephant seal, Mirounga angustirostris I I 2 4

Northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursin us 2 2

California sea lion, Zalophus calijomianus 15 29 17 II 21 94

Northern sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus 2 I I 4

Seal species-not found or identified 1 4 2 6 13

Striped dolphin, Stene/La coeruleoalba I 1 1 3

Pacific white-sided dolphin, LagerlOrhyndlUs obliquideru 1

Common dolphin, Delphinus delphis I "

Harbor porpoise, Phocoena pho~oena 13 4 12 4 41

DaB's porpoise, Phocoenoides dalli I 2

Small cetaceans not found or identified I 2

Dense beaked whale, Mesoplodon densirostris I

Cuvier's whale, Ziphius cauirostris I

Gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus 2

Dwarf sperm whale, Kogia simus 1

Total 23 45 55 40 iii '2+ 248

recovery by other researchers, tidal action, or miscommunication; 9 % exhibited no recognizable lesions; 7%

were buried by National Park personnel; and 4% were inaccessible (floating in water).

Of the 80 animals for which cause of death was determined, only 53 were in good enough condition to do histopathology. Diagnosed animals were necessarily broadly

grouped by gross necropsy examination into useful categories, the majority dying from three causes: natural

disease or infection 33 % (26); shooting 35 % (28); and entanglement in set nets 29% (23). Two individuals died of

non-human related trauma (3 %) and one individual (1 %)

was killed by a shark. For all species and individuals for

which the cause of death could be determined, natural

causes were responsible for 36 % (29) and human related

causes were responsible for 64% (51).

Shark attack as a cause of death was frequently mentioned by reporting personnel; however, there was only one

premortem, histopathologically verified shark victim during this study. Three animals showed characteristic

evidence of great white shark (CaTchaTodon caTchaTias) bites

(silver dollar size teeth marks, tooth fragments, and bite

diameters); however, on the basis of histopathology, two

ofthese attacks probably occurred after the animals' deaths.

Other animals reported as shark victims had actually gone

through normal stages of decomposition and had lost

cranial soft tissue and skull parts at about 10-14 days

postmortem (specimen identification numbers RLD #52,

77,117,119,148, 171), giving the appearance that the

heads were bitten offby sharks. Heads were also removed

postmortem by people on occasion.

Preliminary sightings of dead animals often indicated

that the animal had been shot. However, in many cases,

holes resembling bullet wounds had been produced by birds

pecking at carcasses. Birds tended to eat the eyes first, fracturing the thin bone of the skull's frontal lobe, and penetrating the cranial vault. They also pecked holes in the skin,

which, during subsequent decomposition and bloating,

enlarged. These types of holes in the skin and skull can

appear to be large-bore bullet holes. Radiographs revealed

shotgun or .22 caliber projectiles in 27 animals, (3 harbor

seals and 24 California sea lions). Shooting of marine mammals accounted for 35 % (28) of all diagnosed deaths in this

study, and varied annually between 6 % and 93 %.

Twenty-nine percent (23) of the 80 animals for which

cause of death was determined had cuts, marks or other

indications of having been entangled in set nets. The

smooth skin of dolphins and porpoises makes the cause of

death by set net entanglement more obvious than in rough

hair coated seals and sea lions. Set nets leave characteristic

perimortem marks on cetacean skin (RLD #1,4,13,31,

60,66, 70, 71, 74, 75, 114, 116) and these marks can last

for at l~ast nine days postmortem (RLD #7, 59, 63, and

78). The number of filament strands used in set nets and

the mesh size can often be deduced by the line cut marks

encircling the head or neck of cetaceans. Type of set net

material, number of filament strands, and mesh size were

identified and recorded from the nets and pieces of nets

found attached to some of the animals. In almost every

case, these measurements and type of line used corresponded with the type of gill and trammel nets used in

fishing for California halibut (Paralichlhys californicus) (Wild

1987). Seals and sea lions show none of the above characteristic set net marks, probably because of their coarse

haircoat. A California sea lion dead 5-6 days (released

from the California Marine Mammal Center, CMMC
Deiter: Recovery and Necropsy of Marine Mammal Carcasses 129

Table 2

Number of marine mammals dying from various causes, 1982-1987.

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Total

Disease 3 2 8 3 9 26

Trauma (non-human related) 1 1 2

Shark 1 1

Shooting 1 1 1 8 3 14 28

Set net (gill and trammel) 7 4 9 2 1 23

Undetermined 12 37 37 26 47 9 168

Total 23 45 55 40 61 24 248

#5061) RLD #45, washed ashore on 19 November 1983,

entangled in a 200-yard long, 7-inch opening, multistrand

green gill net. The net line encircled its neck and left no

gross distinguishable marks externally or internally. The

only fisherman with a permit to set gill or trammel nets

in the Bolinas area said that he had taken ten harbor seals

during the 1985 summer halibut fishing season. Two dead

harbor seals were recovered in the same vicinity in the

summer of 1985; one (RLD #110) was listed as having

no lesions recognized, and the other (RLD #111) was

autolyzed.

When confronted with a liquid environment, all mammals react with a laryngospasm (involuntary closure of the

larynx). It is usually only after death that liquid may leak

into the lungs (Spitz and Fisher 1980). Lungs of animals

were examined to ascertain presence of seawater. As expected, seawater, (determined by its specific gravity), was

nonexistent in freshly dead animals and increased with the

amount of time the carcass had spent in the ocean. If sea

water enters the lungs while the heart is still active, one

would expect increased levels of magnesium in the heart's

right chamber owing to high concentration of magnesium

in sea water. Magnesium levels were measured in the right

and left chambers of five set net victims: 2 harbor porpoise

(RLD #4,31); 1 California sea lion (RLD #17); and 2 harbor seals (RLD #20, 26). Magnesium levels were not

elevated in any of the right heart chambers measured (Appendix A); this finding confirms that death from entanglement resulted from suffocation rather than entrance of

water into the lungs.

Deaths determined to be from entanglement in set nets

averaged 6.7/year in 1982, 1983, and 1984, and 1. 5/year

in 1985 and 1986. This apparent decrease may be due to

a combination of events. First, legislative closure of inshore

waters to gill netting may have resulted in fewer harbor

porpoises and other marine mammals being caught. Second, animals caught in deeper waters may not be recovered

because currents take them away from shore rather than

cause them to beach. Third, several fishermen have indicated that, in order to prevent recovery, they section or

eviscerate dead marine mammals caught and killed in their

nets so that bloating will not occur, allowing the animal

to sink and not beach.

Natural causes accounted for 36 % (29) of all deaths for

which cause could be determined and ranged annually from

27% (3) in 1982 to 71 % (10) in 1986, and 7% (1) during

the first three months of 1987 (Table 2). California sea lions

accounted for 88 % (7) of the deaths by natural causes in

19S4. Kidney and liver pathology suggested that leptospirosis, which seems to be endemic in the sea lion population, peaked during that year (Vedros et al. 1971; Ettinger

1983; Dieraufet al. 1985). In 1986, 77% (7) of the animals

which died because of disease were harbor seals. Six ofthese

seven animals had severe pneumonia.

Three animals, with oil on their body surfaces, were

recovered shortly after the sinking of the oil tanker Puerto

Rican on 3 November 1984. One was a gray whale (RLD

#93) found 11 November at Kehoe Beach, which had been

dead for a month or more. The second was a harbor porpoise (RLD #94) found at the same location on the same

day; it had also been dead several weeks. Both of these

animals died before the Puerto Rican sank and their bodies

probably floated through the oil slick. The third animal,

an adult male California sea lion (RLD #95), was found

14 November at Stinson Beach and had been dead approximately 5-6 days. This animal was too autolyzed for accurate determination of cause of death. Petroleum was

found externally, but none was seen in the digestive tract

or other internal organs.

On 23 occasions more than one carcass was discovered

at the same location on the same date. These multiple

recovery incidents involved 27 % of the animals (68/248)

and included single species groups of harbor seals (4 incidents), California sea lions (1) and harbor porpoise (2).

The mixed species groups most frequently included harbor seals (11 incidents) followed by California sea lions (8)

and harbor porpoises (6). Among these three species, no

pattern of association was evident. Three northern elephant

seals (Mirounga angustirostris) were found on single occasions

in association with harbor seals; only four northern

elephant seals were reported during the entire study period.

No general patterns of recovery with regard to location
130 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Table 3

Harbor seal mortality by month and year, 1982-1987.

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Total

January

February 1 3

March 2 3

April 1 1 2

May 1 1 2 4

June 7 2 5 18 33

July 1 9 11

August 1 5 4 10

September 2 1 3

October 2 2

November 3 3

December 1

Total 9 15 5 14 31 75

were observed for individual species, except that California sea lions were found more often inside San Francisco

Bay than any other species (Fig. 2). It is likely that

recoveries are more common on stretches of the coastline

that are frequented by humans because animals beached

in these areas are more likely to be observed and reported.

Three species were reported more often than any others:

harbor seal, California sea lion, and harbor porpoise, which

accounted for 30% (75), 38% (94) and 17% (41), respectively, of all animals reported. Because of the small numbers of other species, discussions of variation in size-class,

sex, and seasonal and annual composition of recoveries are

limited to these three most reported species. A complete

list of pathological findings for animals examined in this

study appears in Appendix A of this report.

Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina)

Harbor seal recoveries were greatest during the months of

June, July, and August when 33, 11, and 10 animals,

respectively were recorded during the 5 year study (Table

3). Most of the animals were categorized as adults.

Ofthe 75 animals reported (Fig. 1),41 % (31) occurred

in 1986 (Table 3). Many more mature than immature harbor seals were reported in 1986, in contrasts with other

study years when immature seal mortality was higher

(Table 4).

Cause of death was determined for 27 % (20) ofthe harbor seals reported. Of these, eight animals (40%) died of

pneumonia, and one of the eight also had hepatitis; six of

these eight were recovered in 1986. Four animals (20%)

had net material encircling their necks suggesting that they

were killed in set nets (two in 1982 and two in 1983). Three

animals (15 %) had been shot (one in 1984 and two in

1985). Single animals were diagnosed as dying from kidney

infection, bacterial infection, peritonitis, non-human

Table 4

Harbor seal mortality by age and year, 1982-1987. Definitions of reproductive status as a function of length appear

in Bigg (1969).

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Total

Fetus 1 1

Immature 6 11 2 7 9 36

Adult 1 1 2 14 18

Unknown 3 3 2 4 8 20

Total 9 15 5 14 31 75

related trauma and shark predation. As noted earlier,

because ofthe coarse haircoat, pathognomonic signs of entanglement in set nets were not grossly detectable; nor were

there pathognomonic indications for drowning. Thus, it

is quite possible that deaths due to entanglement in set nets

were underestimated for harbor seals.

The large number of harbor seal deaths in June (33)

occurred primarily in 1986 when 18 animals were reported.

Seventeen of these animals were recovered in 3 groups.

Nine animals were discovered at Double Point on 5 June

1986. The heads were gone, the abdomens were open

owing to prior examination and collection by RobertJones

of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley. The carcasses were too autolyzed at the

time of my examination on 8 June 1986 to determine cause

of death. One ofthe two harbor seals found on 8 June 1986

at RCA beach, a beach adjacent to Double Point, died from

pneumonia. Of five animals examined 28 June 1986 at

Double Point, three died from pneumonia. Some of the

lung cultures taken from animals that died of pneumonia

revealed the presence of Staphylococcus aureus (RLD #152,

153, 154). These bacteria were also isolated by the California State Veterinary Pathology Laboratory in nasal swabs

taken for this study from ten of the live harbor seals captured for radio tagging in 1986 at Drake's Estero (Deiter,

unpub!.). Bacterial pneumonia was possibly a secondary

cause of death, setting in after debilitation by a virus.

Severe population declines documented in New England

have been attributed to an avian influenza A virus (Geraci

et al. 1982). Testing ofseventeen animals from the Drake's

Estero live harbor seal capture and six animals from the

June 1986 Double Point and RCA groups returned

negative results for presence of avian influenza A virus.

Another viral pneumonia, documented in pinnipeds in the

Netherlands, due to a mammalian herpes virus (Osterhaus

et a!' 1985), was not tested for in this group.

More harbor seals in the Point Reyes area haul out during the spring and summer months, which correspond to

the breeding and molt periods (Allen and Huber 1984).

This behavior may expose the animals more to both

transmittal of disease and harassment by humans. For
____________________ Deiter: Recovery and Necropsy of Marine Mammal Carcasses 131

Table 5 I

California sea lion mortality by month and year, 1982-

1987.

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Total

Table 6

California sea lion mortality by age and year, 1982-1987.

Definitions of reproductive status as a function of length

appear in Peterson and Bartholomew (1967).

Adult males: 1.6 cm (range 0.7-2.7); n 7

Subadult males: 2.2 em (range 0.8-3.2); n 9

Adult females: 2.2 cm (range 1.0-4.0); n 11

Subadult females: 2.3 cm (range 0.6-4.0); n 6

Sample sizes were too small for comparison of blubber

thickness among different cause of death categories. Annual or seasonal variations in blubber thickness were not

examined.

California Sea Lion (Zalophus californianus)

A total of94 animals was reported during the study period,

75 of which were recovered for study (Fig. 2). Peak

numbers (29) occurred in 1984 (Table 5). Of the animals

example, of the two known shooting incidents that involved

harbor seals in this study, one occurred in June 1984 and

the other involved a pregnant female and her full-term fetus

in March 1985.

Although the overall ratio offemale to male harbor seals

approached unity (28:25, with 22 unknown), the ratio was

not consistent among size/maturity classes. Adult females

outnumbered adult males by eight to one (17:2), while a

1: 1 ratio was approximated for immatures (14 females: 20

males). The preponderance of adult females was largely

due to the 8 June 1986 examination at Double Point where

seven of the eight adult animals were females. This is likely

related to the skewed ratio present on the beach at that time

due to differences in schedules of molt for males and females

(Allen 1986).

Blubber thickness was compared in 33 animals where

both age and sex were known. Adults males had a discernible difference in average blubber thickness among

these categories:

33

41

20

94

2

12

7

21

1

5

5

11

3

11

3

17

19

8

2

29

7

5

3

15

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Total

Immature

Mature

Unknown

Total

for which maturity level was assigned, 55 % (41) were

mature and the remaining 45% (33) were immature. Of

animals reported, standard length (and hence maturity)

could not be assigned for 21 % (20) (Table 6). During the

study, approximately equal numbers of mature and immature California sea lions were recovered (41 mature: 33

immature: 1 unknown) despite the virtual absence of immature animals in 1985, 1986, and 1987. Peak numbers

for any month occurred during March and were due to

a high count of 15 animals in 1987 (Table 5).

Cause of death was determined for 36% (34) of the

animals reported. Of these 34, 71 % (24) had been shot,

26 % (9) died of a variety of diseaseslinfections and 3 %

(1) was apparently killed in a set net. All recoveries of

animals that had been shot were between December and

July. This is in contrast to the overall seasonal variation

in mortality. Numbers of animals by season were compared, using only the four years where coverage was complete. More animals were recovered in the fall (38-August

to November) than either the winter (19-December to

March) or the spring-summer (15-April to July). This

trend matches the haul out and in-water occurrence pattern observed on Point Reyes Headlands and SE Farallon

Island (Allen and Huber 1984; Huber et al. 1985).

The eleven California sea lion deaths in August 1984

coincides with the peak of the California Marine Mammal Center's admission ofCalifornia sea lions for that year

O. Roletto, California Marine Mammal Center, Fort

Cronkhite, CA 94965, pers. commun., August 1988).

Clinical symptoms and histopathology suggest that many

of them died from leptospirosis (L. Gage, California

Marine Mammal Center, Fort Cronkhite, CA 94965, pers.

commun., August 1988).

The seasonal clumping ofshooting deaths likely reflects

interactions between sea lions and fishermen. Six of the

shooting deaths occurred in 1985 and 14 during the first

three months of 1987. The majority of animals found in

1987 were on beaches near the entrance to the San Francisco Bay. Twelve of the fourteen had herring (Clupea

harengus) in their stomachs. The first shooting victim was

recovered 27 January 1987 (RLD #169) and the last

shooting was estimated to have occurred on 12 March

3

12

23

2

5

6

3

15

7

7

9

2

21 94

2

4

15

2

4

1

1

1

I

11

2

3

1

4

4

2

17

January

February

March 3

April 1

May 1 1

June 1 1

July 1 1

August 2 11

September 4 3

October 4 1

November 2 7

December

Total 15 29
132 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

(RLD #184); herring season closed on 13 March. In 1987,

12 out of 14 animals shot to death were adult males. Thirteen offourteen sea lions in 1987 were killed by shotgun,

and all but two with #6 shot (R. Jones, Museum ofVertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, CA,

pers. commun" March 1987).

The vast majority of California sea lions which could

be sexed were males (94%-68/72) and most of these

(41/68) were adults. Of the four females, three were immatures and one was an adult. Sex could not be ascertained

for 23 % (21/93) of the animals. The strongly skewed sex

ratio no doubt is due to the disjunct post breeding ranges

of male and female sea lions. Females remain in the

southern end of the range, closer to the breeding colonies,

while males disperse to the north after the May through

July breeding season (Mate 1973, 1975).

Blubber thickness of 18 adult males, 11 subadult males,

1 adult female, and 1 subadult female was measured. The

means and ranges of blubber thickness were as follows:

Table 7

Harbor porpoise mortality by month and year, 1982-

1987.

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Total

January

February

March

April

May 2 3

June 7 2 10

July 3 1 2 2 9

August 1 9 10

September 2 4 7

October

November

December

Total 13 4 12 4 7 41

Sample sizes were too small for comparison of blubber

thickness among different cause of death categories. Annual or seasonal variations in blubber thickness were not

examined.

Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

From 1982 to 1987, 41 harbor porpoises were reported,

32 of whieh were recovered (Fig. 3). Mortality was strongly

seasonal: mortalities for all but two animals reported were

in the months of May through September (Table 7). This

contrasts with observed seasonal abundance patterns which

indicate that harbor porpoises are most abundant in fall,

followed by spring, winter and summer. For the animals

where cause of death could be determined, 95% (18/19)

were due to entanglement in set nets. The other individual

apparently died from pneumonia. Cause of death could

not be identified for 54% (22/41) of the animals, but 20

out ofthe 22 animals for which cause of death was undetermined (i.e., 91 %) were recovered during the halibut fishing

season; an unknown number may have died from entanglement.

Between 1972 and 1981, the California Academy of

Sciences recovered 45 harbor porpoises for an average of

4.5 animals per year along the coast of the southern tip

of Sonoma County, and all of Marin, San Francisco and

San Mateo counties. From 1982 to 1985, the California

Academy of Sciences recorded approximately 90 harbor

porpoises in the same study area, and this study recovered

an additional 33 animals between Bodega Bay and Fort

Other Species

Thirteen unidentified seals and two small cetaceans (6%

of all animals reported) were reported but not found. The

remaining 9 % of the dead marine mammals reported in

this study include northern elephant seal (MiTounga angustiTostTis); northern fur seal (CalloThinus uTsinus); northern sea

lion (Eumetopias Jubatus); striped dolphin (Stenella cOI!Tuleoalba); Pacific white-sided dolphin (LagenoThynchus obliquidens); common dolphin (Delphinus delphis); Dall's porpoise

(Phocoenoides dalll); dense beaked whale (Mesoplodon densiTostTis); Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius caviTostTis); gray

whale (EschTichtius Tobustus); and dwarfsperm whale (Kogia

simus) (Table 2). Some of the species recovered are someFunston, for a yearly average of 31 animals O. Schonewald, Research Associate, Department of Ornithology and

Mammalogy, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA 94118, pers. commun., November 1985). This

change from 4.5 to 31 animals per year coincided with increased effort of the California halibut set net fishery (S.

Diamond, California Department ofFish and Game, Long

Beach, CA 90813, pers. commun., August 1988).

No apparent skewing of the sex ratio for animals whose

sex could be determined (11 females: 17 males) was observed; however, many more mature than immature

animals (as defined by standard length measurements) were

recovered (23 mature: 8 immature). This is consistent with

age ratios observed at sea (Dohl 1984).

Blubber thickness of harbor porpoise averaged as follows:

n = 5

n 3

n 6

1.7 em (range 1.3-2.0);

1.9 em (range 1.4--2.3);

1.6 em (range 1.3-1.8);

2.0 em; n = 1

Adult males:

Subadult males:

Adult females:

Subadult females:

18

11

2.1 em (range 0.5-4.0); n

1.2 em (range 0.7-2.5); n

2.2 em; n 1

1.3 em; n = 1

Adult males:

Subadult males:

Adult female:

Subadult female:
____________________ Deiter: Recovery and Necropsy of Marine Mammal Carcasses 133

what rare in the study area, as shown by the following

examples.

An adult female dense beaked whale, pregnant with a

female fetus, washed onto China Beach at the entrance to

the San Francisco Bay on 17 November 1985. Necropsy

indicated cause of death to be pyometra (uterine infection).

The only other published record of this species along the

North American west coast was a female that washed

ashore in San Mateo on 19 November 1978 (Schonewald

1978).

Hubbs et al. (1973) reviewed sightings and specimens

of striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) in the Pacific, and

indicated that three specimens had been recovered from

central-northern California. Three new recoveries occurred

during this study, one each in 1983, 1984, and 1986; all

were adult animals: one male, one female, and one sex

unknown.

Dwarfsperm whale (Kogia simus) has been reported once

from as far north along the Pacific coast of North America

as Vancouver Island, but reports of this species are very

rare along western North America (Nagorsen and Stewart

1983). A dwarfsperm whale beached alive at Stinson Beach

on 12January 1987 and died shortly thereafter. The stranding ofthe immature male in 1987 appeared to be the result

of chronic anemia from a massive load of gastrointestinal

parasites, Anisakis species. The actual death was histopathologically consistent with acute cardiovascular collapse

from rolling in the surf. This animal had a row of circular

lesions near his eyes and down his body which would suggest an encounter with a squid shortly before his death.

His skin also demonstrated disseminated chronic,

ulcerative dermatitis with a bacterial and yeast infection.

He had three external parasites identified as the copepod

Penella sp. (Accession #N2657941, Veterinary Reference

Laboratory). Other reports of this copepod in Kogia could

not be found.

Conclusions

and Recommendations _

The examination of dead beach cast marine mammals during a five-year period provides insights into the causes and

seasonality of mortality for fourteen species of marine mammals. Such information helps to understand the life history

of these animals and in some cases identifies possible

management problems. Because of the duration of the

study, natural and human caused changes in mortality patterns have been identified within the study area.

The difficulties involved in accurately assessing cause

of death mean that a large number of animals must be examined in order to obtain meaningful results. The large

annual variation in cause of death for some species such

as the California sea lion also indicates that five years is

a minimal baseline period for information. Continuing exami nation of dead beach cast animals would provide the

basis for detecting changes in mortality patterns, determining whether the changes are due to fisheries or other human

activities, and assessing the effectiveness of any measures

taken to prevent or reduce human related mortality.

Identification and examination of the rarer species provide new distributional records, anatomical data, and other

information. This information is important for understanding the diversity of life that is supported in the waters off

the coast of central California.

The study area is the coastline of a large metropolitan

area with many opportunities for interactions between

humans and marine mammals, both on land and at sea.

The Gulf of the Farallones supports a large fishing industry

as well as many marine mammals. This study indicates

that, when the cause of death could be determined, the two

major sources of mortality for marine mammals in this area

were death due to entrapment in set nets and death by

shooting.

Death due to set nets may be abating because of recent

legislative action, whereas shooting deaths appear to have

increased. These activities affect different species: set nets

primarily impact harbor seals and harbor porpoises while

California sea lions are more likely to be shot. It is possible that the number of deaths due to set nets is greatly

underestimated for some species, such as harbor seals,

because the coarse hair coat does not retain net marks and

because carcasses may be deliberately sunk.

The harbor porpoise population from Point Sur to

Bodega Head is roughly estimated at 1555 animals (Barlow

1988). The California Department of Fish and Game's

rough estimate of set net mortality in the Gulf of the

Farallones averaged 112-160 harbor porpoises ± 75 annually from 1983 through 1985 (D. Hanan, California

Department ofFish and Game, LaJolla, CA 92038, pers.

commun., August 1988; S. Diamond, California Department of Fish and Game, Long Beach, CA 90813, pers.

commun., August 1988). Because of both the probable

vulnerability of harbor porpoise to the set net fishery and

the small porpoise population in the Gulf of the Farallones,

monitoring of this species should be continued for several

more years. Such information would help to determine

whether or not this species has truly been protected by gill

net legislation or continues to be adversely impacted.

The timing and location ofshooting deaths in 1987 suggest herring fishermen could have been responsible. Interviewing herring fishermen during herring fishing seasons

might provide information on the nature of the problem

and means for preventing, reducing, or mitigating such

deaths. Similar interviews have been conducted with

fishermen in other areas (Miller et al. 1973). The monitoring program of the central California gill and trammel net

operation, conducted by the California Department of Fish

and Game, should be broadened to include salvaging and

studying animals caught in set nets.
134 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to the numerous state and federal park

rangers who notified me of the presence and loca~ions of

beached animals. Special thanks go to the scientists and

staff of Point Reyes Bird Observatory who helped me formulate and prepare this report. I particularly thank Teya

Penniman. I am grateful to the staff of the California

Academy of Sciences, where I am a field associate in the

Department of Ornithology and Mammalogy, for their

help in my learning process during this study. I appreciate

the California Academy of Sciences and the Point Reyes

National Seashore authorizing me to collect dead marine

mammals under their permits. The Point Reyes National

Seashore was responsible for the administration of funding

from the Gulf ofthe Farallones National Marine Sanctuary

for 1983 and 1984. Gary Fellers gave encouragement and

help on an earlier draft. The 1985 study was made possible by the financial support ofthe Marine Mammal Commission MM-2911030-8, and its assistance was much

appreciated. The comments of Robert Hofman on the

original and subsequent drafts of this report were very

helpful.

Citations _

Allen, S.G.

1986. Movement and activity patterns of harbor seals at Drake's

Estero, Calif. Final report, Sanctuary Programs Office, NOAA,

42 p.

Allen, S.G., and H.R. Huber.

1984. Pinniped assessments in Point Reyes, California,

1983-1984. Final report National Marine Sanctuary, S.lnctuary

Programs Office, NOAA, 71 p.

Barlow, J.

1988. Harbor porpoise, Phocoma phocoma, abundance established

for California, Oregon and Washington. I: Ship surveys. Fish.

Bull., U.S. 86(3):417-432.

Bigg, M.A.

1969. Clines in the pupping season of the harbor seal. J. Fish.

Res. Board Can. 26:449-455.

Dierauf, L.A., DJ. van den Broek, J. Roletto, M. Koski, L. Amaya,

and LJ. Gage.

1985. An epizootic ofleptospirosis in California sea lions. J. Am.

Vet. Med. Assoc. 87(11):1145-1148.

Dohl, T.P.

1984. Harbor porpoises and other cetaceans of the Farallon Basin.

NMFS Southwest Fisheries Center Arlmin. Rep. LJ-84-16C:

135-152.

Ettinger, SJ. (editer).

1983. Textbook of veterinary internal medicine, 2nd ed. W.B.

Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA, 2260 p.

Fisher, H.D., and RJ. Harrison.

1970. Reproduction in the common porpoise, Phocoma ph&coma, of

the North Atlantic. J. Zool. (London) 161:471-486.

Geraci,J.R., OJ. St. Aubin, I.K. Barker, R.G. Weber, V.S. Hinshaw,

W.I. Bean, H.L. Ruhnke, J.H. Prescott, G. Early, and A.S. Baker.

1982. Mass mortality of harbor seals: pneumonia associated with

influenza A virus. Science 215 (4536):1129-1151.

Hubbs, C.L., W.F. Perrin, and K.C. Balcomb.

1973. Stenella cocruleoalba in the eastern and central tropical Pacific.

J. Mammal. 54(2):549-552.

Huber, H.R., L. Fry, A. Rovetta, S. Johnston, andJ. Nusbaum.

1985. Studies of marine mammals at the Farallon Islands,

1983-1985. Final report, National Marine Sanctuary, Sanctuary

Programs Office, NOAA, 44 p.

Mate, B.R.

1973. Population kinetics and related ecology of the northern sea

lion, Eumetopiasjubatus, and the California sea lion, Zalophus californianus, along the coast of Oregon. Ph.D. Diss., Univ. Oregon,

94 p.

1975. Annual migration of the sea lions Eumetopias jubatus and

Zalophus califomianus along the Oregon USA coast. Rapp. P.-v.

Reun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer 169:465-461.

Miller, OJ., M.]. Herder, and J.P. Scholl.

1983. California marine mammal-fishery interaction study,

1979-1981. NMFS Southwest Fisheries Center Admin. Rep.

LJ-83-13C, 233 p.

Nagorsen, D.W., and G.E. Stewart.

1983. A dwarf sperm whale (Kogia simus) from the Pacific coast of

Canada. J. Mammal. 64(3):505-506.

O'Shea. T.]., C.A. Beck, R.K. Bonde, H.I. Kochman, and D.K. Odell.

1985. An analysis of manatee mortality patterns in Florida,

1976-81. J. Wildl. Manage. 49( 1): 1-11.

Osterhaus, A.D.N.E., H. Yang, H.E.M. Spijkers, J. Groen,

J.S. Teppema, G. van Steenis.

1985. The isolation and partial characterization of a highly

pathogenic herpesvirus from the harbor seal Phoca vitulina. Archives of Virology 86:239-252.

Peterson, R.S., and G.A. Bartholomew.

1967. The natural history and behavior of the California sea lion.

Spec. Publ. No.1, The Am. Soc. Mammalogists, 79 p.

Rice, D.W., A.A. Wolman, B.R. Mate, andJ.T. Harvey.

1981. A mass stranding of sperm whales in Oregon: sex and age

composition of the school. Marine Mammal Science 2(1):64-69.

Schonewald, J.

1978. Mystery of the deep. Pacific Discovery 31 :(6):23-81.

Smith, H.A., T.C. Jones, and R.D. Hunt.

1972. Veterinary pathology. Lea and Febinger, Philadelphia, PA,

1521 p.

Spitz, W.U., and R.S. Fisher.

1980. Medical legal investigation of death, 2nd ed. Charles C.

Thomas Co., Springfield, IL, 623 p.

Stroud, R.K., and TJ. Roffe.

1979. Causes of death in marine mammals stranded along the

Oregon coast. J. Wildl. Diseases 15:91-97.

Vedros, N.A., A.W. Smith, J. Schonewald, G. Migaki, and

R.C. Hubbard.

1971. Leptospirosis epizootic among California sea lions. Science

172: 1250-1251.

Wild, P.

1987. Progress report: central California gill and trammel net investigations (Northern area) 1986. Calif. Dep. Fish Game,

Marine Resources Division, Monterey, CA 93940, 37 p.
_______________________ Deiter: Recovery and Necropsy of Marine Mammal Carcasses 135

Appendix Table

List of major findings and pathological lesions of 184 marine mammals (plus a mass mortality ofseabirds concurrent with marine

mammal beachings) recovered or verified during the study.

ID Identification numbers refer to field numbers. All identification numbers would be prefaced by the letters RLD. Voucher materials have

not been accessioned in a common facility, so only the RLD field numbers are given here.

Species (as listed also in Table 2): Cause of death and/or major findings of necropsy

I Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)

2 Northern elephant seal (MiTounga angustiTostTis)

3 Northern fur seal (CalioThinus uTsinus)

4 California sea lion (Zalophus californianus)

5 Northern sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)

6 Unidentified pinniped

7 Striped dolphin (Stenella coeTuleoalba)

8 Pacific white-sided dolphin (LagenoThynchus obliquidens)

9 Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis)

10 Harbor porpoise (Phoceona phocoena)

11 Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalh)

12 Unidentified odontocete

13 Dense beaked whale (Mesoplodon densiTostTis)

14 Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius caviTostTis)

15 Gray whale (EschTichtius Tobustus)

16 Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia simus)

I Hepatitis

2 Kidney infection

3 Uterine infection

4 Parasitic pneumonia

5 Pneumonia

6 Bacterial infection

7 Hemorrhagic gastroenteritis

8 Gastroenteritis

9 Leptospirosis

10 Stomach ulcers and parasites

11 Peritonitis

12 Trauma, non-human related

13 Shark

14 Emaciated

15 Abdominal cancer

16 Parasitic anemia

17 Pneumonia + hepatitis

18 Shooting

19 Net entanglement

20 Autolyzed

21 No significant lesions

recognized

22 Inaccessible

Exam Probable cause

ID Species Sex date Pathology-noteworthy observations of death

10 F 05/07/82 Monofilament circular line cut around head-17 inch; subcutaneous hemor- 19

rhaging left side of skull; digested and undigested fish-esophagus and

stomach; edematous lungs.

2 M 06/07/82 Subcutaneous hemorrhaging right side of skull; radiograph-subluxation 19

temporal-mandibular joint; lungs-edematous; digested and undigested shrimp

in stomach; microscopically: mild to moderate autolysis with all tissues

essentially normal; acute, diffuse moderate congestion of lungs-nonspecific

terminal event; 8-inch diagonal green monofilament gill net attached to head.

3 F 06/09/82 Elliptical corneal ulcerations-both eyes probably from beaching; blood in 19

naso-pharyngeal cavity; lung-acute, diffuse moderate congestion-nonspecific

terminal event; all tissues examined microscopically, although mild to moderately autolyzed, were essentially normal; 8-inch diagonal green monofilament

gill net attached to neck.

4 10 F 06/15/82 Mg levels of right and left ventricles identical: 12,0 mg/dl. 19

5 U 06/19/82 Necropsy-like ventral midline incision; abdominal and thoracic contents 20

missing-autolyzed.

6 M 06/20/82 Autolyzed, cranial soft tissues and lower mandibles gone. 20

10 M 06/20/82 Autolyzed, gill net mark around head; lying adjacent to large gill net. 19

8 10 M 06/20/82 Four-inch circular necrotic skin lesion ventral tail stock; autolyzed. 20

9 M 06/24/82 Stomach-approximately I-quart roundworms; lungs congested, edematous; 5

yellow pus engorging bronchial tree and interstitium.

10 10 M 07/07/82 Lungs edematous; increased serosanguinous fluid in pleural cavity; lung 20

worms; autolyzed.

11 4 M 07/13/82 Subcutaneous hematoma top of head extending down right side of head to 18

upper mandible; stomach engorged with partially digested fish; subcutaneous

hematoma-right pectoral fin; radiograph-approximately 72 small lead shot;

11 left side of head, 61 right side of head.

12 10 M 07/16/82 Eyed pecked out by birds, many crab marks; digested fish in stom3.ch approximately 1 Y, pints. Both lungs severely congested with many lung worms 4

throughout parenchyma.

13 10 F 07/29/82 Monofilament line marks head and tail flukes; left top of skull crushed; 19

stomach-fresh digested fish and light roundworm infestation.
136 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings

Appendix"T ble (Continued)

Exam Probable cause

ID Species Sex date Pathology-noteworthy observations of death

14 F 08/06/82 Semi-Circular, silver dollar sized, healed teeth mark-about 10"-12" diameter 6

right dorsal cranial pelvic area; culture of large absce"ss surrounding trachea

and esophagus C)-C,; pus in all bronchioles of both lungs.

15 10 M 09/27/82 14-inch circular line-type cut around head; line cuts on cranial edges of tail; 19

20-inch diagonal knife cut right side of body; all organs posterior to stomach

gone.

16 15 U 04/02/83 Baleen collected; autolyzed; no necropsy performed; measurements taken. 20

17 4 M 05/26/83 3 squares green multi-strand gill net attached to neck; no gross lesions seen 19

on neck at attachment of net; white frothy foam in oval cavity; cranial lung

lobes edematous, posterior lobes aerated and pink; stomach fluid filled with

some squid beaks. Mg levels right and left ventricles: 8.4 and 8.6 mgldl.

f8 4 M 06115183 Perforating hole in left flipper at metacarpal-phalangeal joint; pus filled; frac- 18

tures of 3rd, 4th, and 5th metacarpals. Radiograph .22 caliber bullet, retrieved.

WBC-44,OOO, animal seen holding up left flipper on beach for two days.

19 F 06/15/83 Autolyzed. 20

20 F 06/26/83 Partially digested food in stomach; radiographs-fracture of jaw at symphysis 19

and right ramus of mandible: upper and lower molars of side all loose in

sockets; lucent monofilament line net around neck-9 inch diagonal; Mg level

of right and left ventricles identical: 9.0 mgldl.

21 10 M 07/30/83 Autolyzed. 20

22 M 08/10/83 18-inch diameter bite in a silver dollar circular pattern, from pelvis to rib 13

cage removed everything from left abdomen; although moderately autolyzed

histopathology shows compatible pre-mortem changes; 1 shark tooth found in

subcutaneous tissue of abdominal wall.

23 M 08/03/83 Autolyzed. 20

24 F 08/03/83 White pus in parenchyma of both kidneys; increased amount of pericardial 2

fluid; gastrointestinal tract empty save some roundworms in stomach;

yellowish calculi in ureters and urinary bladder; urinary wall thickened.

25 5 M 08/03/83 Autolyzed. 20

26 M 08/12/83 Blood from nose; chunks of fish in esophagus; heavy hemorrhage lungs; gill 19

net piece attached to neck; Mg levels of right and left ventricles identical: 7.2

mgldl.

27 4 M 08/22/83 Autolyzed. 20

28 14 M 08/25/83 First five thoracic ribs fractured wlo displacement, lungs edematous. 3/8 inch 21

diameter puncture near genital slit extending 4 inches into body; full gastrointestinal tract of digested food; pancreas had multifocal blackened areas.

29 F 08125/83 Autolyzed. 20

30 10 M 08/29/83 Chest and abdomen eaten away by birds; autolyzed. 20

31 10 M 09/06/83 Food in caudal GI tract but stomach chambers empty; gouged out area 19

caudal to anus to last vertebrae; subcutaneous hemorrhaging right side of

lower jaw; monofUament line marks around head, leading edge of dorsal and

tail flukes; Mg levels of left and right ventricles: 10.2, 10.8 mgldl. Also found

within 1 mile of same beach 94 dead murres, 1 harbor porpoise, 2 harbor

seals, 2 California sea lions. One of the murres was attached to a piece of gill

net; autolyzed.

32 10 U 09/06/83 Autolyzed. 20

33 F 09/06/83 Autolyzed. 20

34 M 09/06/83 Autolyzed. 20

35 4- M 09/06/83 Autolyzed. 20

36 4 M 09/06/83 Autolyzed. 20

37 Uria aalgt 94 common murres within 1 mile of same beach as RLD 31,32,33,34,35,36.

Most in same state of decay-autolyzed. I bird in 8" diagonal green monofilament net piece.
Deiter: Recovery and Necropsy of Marine Mammal Carcasses 137

Appendix Table (Continued)

Exam Probable cause

ID Species Sex date Pathology-noteworthy observations of death

38 4 M 09/07/83 Autolyzed. 20

39 4 M 09121/83 Autolyzed. 20

40 4 M 10/08/83 Autolyzed. 20

41 4 M 10/08/83 Autolyzed. 20

42 4 M 10/08/83 Autolyzed. 20

43 4 M 10/12/83 Autolyzed. 20

44 5 F 11/14/83 Small knife-type cut at neck level; head probably decapitated by human; 20

autolyzed.

45 4 U 11/19/83 Tag #5061; entangled in an entire multi-strand green gill net with lines and 20

floats; autolyzed, no lesions recognized; net also contained rays, angelfish,

sturgeon, hundreds of fish and birds.

46 3 F 11/20/83 Tags SMI 2956,2957; bilateral severe opaque cataracts; no food in 14

gastrointestinal system; extremely emaciated animal.

47 M 11/23/83 Autolyzed. 20

48 2 M 11/24/83 Autolyzed. 20

49 M 11/24/83 Autolyzed. 20

50 7 F 12/04/83 Autolyzed. 20

51 U 12128/83 Autolyzed. 20

52 4 M 03/08/84 Reported as shark attack; soft tissues gone from skull, lower jaws dis- 20

articulated; on beach 7 days; autolyzed.

53 8 F 03/15/84 Right lung field necrotic and pus filled; mediastinal lymph node enlarged and 5

impinging on trachea.

54 4 M 03120/84 Autolyzed. 20

55 4 M 03/31/84 Autolyzed. 20

56 4 M OS/29/84 Slice marks on ventral neck and chest probably post-mortem propeller marks. 20

57 M 06/06/84 Macerated right eye; blood from both nostrils; small sized shotgun pellets 18

right side of head entering and penetrating skull.

58 4 M 03/31/84 Floating in yacht harbor along rip-rap wall. 22

59 10 M 07/07/84 Circular line cut marks around head; line type marks tail flukes. Watched this 19

animal decomposed; line marks visible for nine days.

60 10 F 07/26/84 Milk in mammary glands; line-type marks head and tail flukes. 19

61 4 M 08/02/84 Smooth knife-type cut through neck; head probably cut off by a person; 20

autolyzed.

62 11 F 07/31/84 Autolyzed. 20

'63 10 M 08/05/84 Circumferential line type cut circling head and neck; cranial edges of dorsal 19

fin and tail flukes decomposed; digested food in stomach.

64 4 M 08/05/84 Small areas of emphysema both lung fields; left eye pecked at and hemorrhag- 7

ed. Stomach empty save for a few roundworms; small intestine generalized,

moderate to severe chronic enteritis with ecchymotic hemorrhages.

65 4 F 08/08/84 Approximately one quart of stomach parasites; multiple verminous 10

granulomas in fundic wall, 3 ulcers ranging 1/2 to 1 inch diameter ulcers in

fundus, 1 perforating through wall and leaking into abdomen; fibrinous adhesions to omental membranes, 120 cc serosanguinous fluid in abdomen.

66 10 M 08/08/84 2-inch hole left commissure of mouth; many crab and bird marks entire body; 19

3-inch diameter granuloma left lung plus multiple pinpoint lung worm

granulomas; I-inch diameter granuloma of gastric worms. Increased amount

of pericardial fluid. Circular line cut around head.

67 U 08/12/84 Mummified. 20

68 4 M 08/12/84 2-inch hole in abdominal wall left of genital opening with approximately two 21

feet of small intestines eviscerating-probably postmortem; no significant

lesions recognized.
138 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings

Appendix Table (Continued)

Exam Probable cause

ID Species Sex date Pathology-noteworthy observations of death

69 4 M 08/12/84 Emaciated; spleen and liver enlarged and congested; liver mottling at portal

triads.

70 10 F 08/14/84 Partially digested fish in stomach; circular line-type cut around head; line 19

marks cranial edges dorsal fin and tail flukes.

71 10 F 08/20/84 Partially digested fish in stomach; circular line-type cut around head. Line 19

marks cranial edges, dorsal fin and tail flukes; found within 60 yards of 2

dead young California sea lions and 14 dead murres.

72 4 M 08120/84 No significant lesions recognized; eyes pecked out. 21

73 4 M 08/20/84 Autolyzed. 20

74 10 F 08/20/84 Digested fish in stomach with some roundworms; circular line-type cut around 19

head; line marks cranial edges of tail flukes.

75 10 M 08120/84 Circular line-type cut around head; line marks cranial edges of tail flukes. 19

76 4 M 08/22/84 Granulomatous areas involving liver capsule, subcapsular space, and 1

parenchyma.

77 4 F 08/24/84 Cranial soft tissues partially missing from head. 20

78 10 F 08/25/84 Enlarged uterus; milk in mammary glands; circular line-type cut around head. 19

79 4 F 08/27/84 No significant lesions recognized. 21

80 4 M 08/29/84 Gastrointestinal hemorrhaging and necrosis; large intestinal wall normal but 8

filled with blood.

81 4 M 09/08/84 Autolyzed. 20

82 4 M 09122/84 Autolyzed. 20

83 4 M 09123/84 No significant lesions recognized. 21

84 F 10/17/84 Autolyzed. 20

85 4 M 10/26/84 Small intestine and stomach necrotic with ecchymotic hemorrhages. 7

86 F 10/31/84 Autolyzed. 20

87 4 M 11/04/84 Autolyzed. 20

88 4 M 11/04/84 Autolyzed. 20

89 4 M 11/05/84 Autolyzed. 20

90 4 M 11/07/84 Autolyzed. 20

91 4 M 11/08/84 Autolyzed. 20

92 4 M 11/08/84 Infarcted, hemorrhagic, and mottled kidney, liver and small intestine. Positive 9

silver stain for Leptospira sp.

93 15 U 11/11/84 Autolyzed. 20

94 10 F 11/11/84 Autolyzed, head missing. 20

95 4 M 11/14/84 Autolyzed. 20

96 4 M 02/16/85 Stomach full of digested fish; pus in mesenteric lymph node; parasitic ulcer in 21

fundus of stomach; petechial hemorrhages in fundus; no significant lesions

recognized.

97 4 M 02/18/85 Blood from nose, mouth, and left ear; stomach engorged with partially 18

digested and undigested herring; left lung collapsed.

98 4 U 02/18/85 In surf at north tower of Golden Gate Bridge; long, longitudinal cuts (14 22

inches) along back and left flank.

99 4 M 03/02/85 Stomach engorged with undigested herring; 2 small holes penetrating from 18

left throat through left thoracic cavity into left abdominal cavity; deformed

lead slug found in abdominal cavity.

100 F 03/03/85 Large healing wound (3 inches x 9 inches) right thorax; reddish color phase 18

anterior half of body; pregnant, near-term; deformed lead slug in left

cranium.

101 M 03/03/85 Female fetus of an:.mal #100. Fetus died when mother died. 18
______________________ Deiter: Recovery and Necropsy of Marine Mammal Carcasses 1.39

Appendix Table (Continued)

10

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

Species

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

1

4

10

4

10

10

13

4

4

4

9

4

4

7

4

Sex

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

F

F

F

U

M

M

M

M

M

F

F

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

Exam

date

03/06/85

03/07/85

03/13/85

05/18/85

OS/27/85

05129/85

06/01/85

06/01/85

06/02/85

06/07/85

06/13/85

06/25/85

06/25/85

06/25/85

07/07/85

07/15/85

08/05/85

08/17/85

08/21/85

09/10/85

11/18/85

12/01/85

12/08/85

02120/86

02/21/86

02/21/86

02126/86

03/02/86

03123/86

04/05/86

Pathology-noteworthy observations

Large caliber lead slug penetrating upper right mandible down into neck,

fracturing mandible and larynx, and severing left carotid artery; massive

hemorrhaging in neck.

Large caliber slug entering cranium through frontal sinus.

Found tied to Pier 41 at San Francisco.

Eyes and genital opening pecked by birds; no significant lesions recognized.

Autolyzed.

Autolyzed.

A .22 caliber slug penetrating left lateral abdominal wall, spleen, small

intestine, and lodging in liver.

Autolyzed.

Blood from both nostrils down into trachea; stomach filled with partially

digested fish.

Autolyzed.

Massive subcutaneous hematoma from right pectoral flipper to umbilicus extending from sternum to dorsal midline; 7-inch tract from right pleural cavity

leading into subcutaneous fat directed cranially; whole body radiographs normal.

Autolyzed.

Line-type marks on head, neck and dorsal fin.

Autolyzed.

Carcass cut in half at level of caudal ribs. Caudal section missing; circular

line-type cut around head.

Chest and abdominal contents eaten by birds; cranial soft tissues of skull sloughed.

Skin of head sloughed; eyes gone; maxillary bones fractured.

Autolyzed; soft tissues of skull sloughed.

Autolyzed.

A 4-inch emphysematous bulla in left lung lobe; parenchyma surrounding

bulla heavy, wet and inspissated; emphysematous area on greater curvature of

omentum; 1/5 or 20% of each kidney fibrosed.

Left chest wall had 5 fractured ribs without displacement; about 5 gallons

serosanguinous fluid in uterus with whitish floating plaques that stained gram

negative rod bacteria; negative bacterial growth aerobically and anaerobically;

well-developed female fetus.

Shotgun pellets penetrating left dorsal chest wall and left lung lobe.

Abscess (4 em diameter) serosal surface of lesser curvature of stomach; multilobulated abscess (4 inches x 8 inches) with caseous yellow-green interior

attached to omentum; egg sized nodules throughout mesentery were abscessed

lymphatic tissue; linear scar tissue tracts in spleen and liver; approximately 2

gallons serosanguinous fluid in abdominal cavity.

Small sized shotgun pellets entering calvarium and penetrating first two

cervical vertebrae; 3-inch diameter stone in stomach along with digested fish.

Partially digested fish in stomach; no significant lesions recognized.

Night exam; no significant lesions recognized.

Right lung lobe consolidation; many hard, firm 3-mm nodules throughout liver.

Skull disarticulated; autolyzed.

Bilateral mandibular fractures; autolyzed.

Lack of blubber layer and any physiological fat; large fibrous-looking mass in

caudal abdomen, posterior to left kidney, measured 9 inches x 6 inches x 4

inches, with a necrotic core; increased vascularity to mass attached to

mesentery; numerous similar nodules throughout abdomen up to 1 inch

diameter; I-inch nodules in liver; half inch nodules in diaphragm.

Probable cause

of death

18

18

22

21

20

20

18

20

21

20

12

20

19

20

19

20

20

20

20

5

3

18

11

18

21

21

17

20

20

15
140 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings

Appendix Table (Continued)

Exam Probable cause

ID Species Sex date Pathology-noteworthy observations of death

132 F 04/09/86 All teeth worn down to near gingival margins; autolyzed. 20

133 10 M 05/08/86 Animal partially burned in campfire. 20

134- 4 M 05/10/86 Small sized (#6) shotgun pellets entering left side of head and neck, 18

penetrating skull and vertebrae.

35 M OS/25/86 No significant lesion, recognized. 21

136 M OS/27/86 No significant lesion; recognized. 21

137 F 06/08/86 Autolyzed. 20

138 F 06/08/86 Autolyzed. 20

139 U 06/08/86 Autolyzed. 20

140 F 06/08/86 Autolyzed. 20

141 M 06/08/86 Autolyzed. 20

142 F 06/08/86 Autolyzed. 20

143 F 06/08/86 Autolyzed. 20

144 F 06/08/86 Autolyzed. 20

145 F 06/08/86 Autolyzed. 20

146 F 06/08/86 Shrimp in stomach; normal x-ray exam of skull, chest, and abdomen. 21

147 F 06/08/86 About 1/3 of left lung lobe consolidated with a circumscribed line on the 5

serosal surface delineating normal and abnormal parenchyma.

148 4 M 06/11/86 Cranial soft tissues sloughed; maxilla fractured off; mandibles gone; cranium 20

disarticulated.

149 M 06/20/86 Autolyzed. 20

150 2 M 06/28/86 Both lung lobes consolidated; normal skull radiographs. 5

151 F 06/28/86 Normal skull radiographs; autolyzed. 20

152 M 06/28/86 Interlobular emphysema with consolidation of both lung lobes; pure culture of 5

Staphylococcus aureus gcown from lung cultures; normal skull radiographs.

153 F 06/28/86 Interlobular emphysema with consolidation of left lung lobe; pure culture of 5

Staphylococcus aureus grown from lung cultures; normal skull radiographs.

154 F 06/28/86 Interlobular emphysema with consolidation of both lung lobes; pure culture of 5

Staphylococcus aureus grown from lung cultures; normal skull radiographs.

155 1 U 06/28/86 Normal skull radiographs; autolyzed. 20

156 10 U 07/02/86 Autolyzed. 20

157 M 07/09/86 Interlobular emphysema and consolidation of both lung lobes; small 5

granulomatous areas in parenchyma of liver, kidney, pancreas, and spleen.

158 2 M 07/09/86 Autolyzed. 20

159 1 F 07/09/86 Autolyzed. 20

160 F 07/09/86 Autolyzed. 20

161 M 07/18/86 Localized granulomas of serosal surface of intestines and greater omentum; 11

cultures of these grew E. coli, Pseudomonas sp., and Corynebacterium pyogenes.

162 5 M 07/19/86 Shark bites on left flipper-approximately 12-14 inches diameter; left meta- 11

carpalarea pus-filled, with high caliber lead slug; tan plaques on serosa and

parenchyma of liver.

163 10 F 09/15/86 Circumferential line cut around head at eye level; stomach filled with partially 19

digested fish.

164- 10 M 09/15/86 Lower jaw disarticulated; no significant lesions recognized. 21

165 10 M 09/15/86 Autolyzed. 20

166 10 F 09/15/86 Autolyzed; 17 dead adult cormorants found on same beach as animals 20

numbered RLD 163-166.

-----_.-_._----
Deiter: Recovery and Necropsy of Marine Mammal Carcasses 141

Appendix Table (Continued)

Exam Probable cause

ID Species Sex date Pathology-noteworthy observations of death

167 11 F 11/06/86 Blunt trauma to left side of snout and skull with hemorrhages; radiographs 12

revealed a severely comminuted fracture through left mandible, with dislocation; many copepods in stomach, and a heavy load (1 liter) of nematodes

(Anasakis sp.)

168 16 M 01/12/87 Acute congestion of all tissues consistent with acute cardiovascular collapse, 16

probably from rolling alive in the surf; circular erosive lesions in a curved

linear patterns, probably from a squid; focal, chronic, ulcerative dermatitis

with bacterial and yeast infection; hemorrhage, gastrointestinal contents;

stomach contained squid beaks, otoliths, and a significant load of nematodes

(Anasakis sp.); packed cell volume less than 5 %; two external parasites located

near left flipper identified as parasitic copepod , Penella sp.

169 4 M 01/27/87 Close range, barely expanded #6 shotgun blast penetrating right dorsal chest 18

wall, exiting left ventral abdominal wall.

170 4 M 02/05/87 Stomach filled with 43 undigested herring weighing 38 pounds; #6 shotgun 18

pellets throughout head, neck, and chest.

171 4 M 02/21/87 #6 shotgun pellets in head and neck penetrating right thoracic cavity into 18

abdomen.

172 4 M 02/27/87 Close range #6 shotgun blast, 2. 5-inch diameter entry wound in left chest, 18

perforating lung, diaphragm, liver, and intestines; partially digested herring

in stomach.

173 4 M 03/01/87 #6 shotgun pellets penetrating left shoulder, shattering scapula and 6th 18

cervical vertebra; 14 pounds undigested herring in stomach.

174 4 M 03/02/87 Large caliber bullet entering skull. 18

175 4 M 03/06/87 #6 shotgun pellets in skull and cervical vertebrae; large hematoma top of skull. 18

176 4 M 03/06/87 #6 shotgun pellets entering right side of neck and fracturing 3rd cervical 18

vertebra; partially digested herring filling stomach.

177 4 M 03/10/87 A 2-inch diameter hole left side of neck, with #4 buckshot fracturing cervical 18

vertebrae and severing spinal cord; partially digested herring filling stomach.

178 4 M 03/11/87 Left chest-holes from #6 shotgun pellets penetrating and macerating left lung 18

with pellets lodged in spine.

179 M 03/13/87 Decapitated by sharp instrument; parasitic granuloma with 2-inch diameter in 21

wall of fundus.

180 4 M 03/14/87 Shotgun plastic shot holder and #6 shot penetrating left shoulder and fractur- 18

ing scapula; digested fish in stomach.

181 4 M 03/15/87 Wound penetrating dorsal right neck, exiting ventral right neck; left 7th rib 18

fractured and #6 shotgun pellets in left lung.

182 4 M 03/17/87 Wedged between rocks in heavy surf area. 22

183 4 M 03120/87 #6 shotgun pellets entering left chest wall, fracturing 2nd rib, macerating left 18

and right lung lobes, exiting between 6th and 7th right ribs; partially digested

herring filling stomach.

184 4 M 03120/87 #6 shotgun pellets entering right side of head into skull; partially digested 18

herring filling stomach.

185 10 M 03/30/87 Head missing, only bones left of rest of body; some soft tissues of tail stock 20

remaining.

A Resident Belukha Whale (Delphinapterus leucas)

in Long Island Sound

NEAL A. OVERSTROM, STEPHEN SPOTTE,

and J. LAWRENCE DUNN

Mystic Marinelife Aquarium

Sea Research Foundation

Mystic, CT 06355-1997 .

ARTHUR D. GOREN

Department oj Dentistry

Long Island Jewish Medical Center

New Hyde Park, NY 11102

H.W. KAUFMAN

Department oj Oral Biology and Pathology

School oj Dental Medicine

State University oj New York at Stonj Brook

Stony Brook, NY 11791

ABSTRACT

Participants in marine mammal stranding networks are often involved in research besides simple

recovery and necropsy of beached animals. This report documents the occurrence and activities

of a solitary belukha (Delphinapterus leucas) that inhabited Long Island Sound from February 1985

until its death in May 1986. The whale's movements are reconst"ructed from 4-8 sighting events

reported to Mystic Marinelife Aquarium (Mystic, CT). Most sightings are documented from

the Connecticut shoreline vicinities ofConnecticut River/Saybrook (31.3 %); Guilford (22.9%);

Patchogue River/Westbrook (16.7%); and New Haven (12.5%); additional sightings are documented from the north shore of Long Island. The whale often approached swimmers and was

attracted to slow moving boats and moored buoys. Necropsy results demonstrated extensive skin

lesions of probable viral origin and evidence of human related trauma in the form of multiple

gunshot wounds in the thorax, a fishing hook embedded in the right commissure of the mouth,

and a fishing sinker lodged in the left nasal cavity. The results of tissue examination indicate

possible nutritional deficiencies. The behavior of this whale is discussed with reference to other

"friendly" cetaceans, and the susceptibility of such animals to vandalism, poaching, and other

human activities is reinforced.

Introduction _

The belukha or white whale (Delphinapterus leucas) is a circumpolar species found in arctic and subarctic waters. Except for an isolated population of approximately 500

animals in the St. Lawrence estuary, most ofthe estimated

26,500 belukhas in North America are seasonally distributed in coastal waters of Hudson's Bay, Lancaster Sound

and vicinity, and the Beaufort Sea (Sergeant and Brodie

1975). Belukhas seldom venture from cold arctic and

estuarine subarctic habitats, as evidenced by the paucity

of North Atlantic sightings or strandings from the Canadian Maritime Provinces southward (Sergeant and Brodie

1969; Reeves and Katona 1980). The purposes of this

report are to 1) document the occurrence and activities of

a solitary belukha that strayed into the western reaches

143
144 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

i

i

J

i

!

I

\

\.

\.

• 1 event

• 2·5 events

• 6·10 events

• >10 events

• known transit•

Figure 1

Distribution of belukha sighting events reported to Mystic Marinelife Aquarium.

of Long Island Sound, where the animal resided from

February 1985 until its death in May 1986; 2) describe

necropsy results that verified trauma of human origin; and

3) demonstrate that "friendly" cetaceans may become easy

targets for vandals and poachers.

Materials and Methods

Sighting data were compiled at Mystic Marinelife Aquarium (Mystic, CT) as informal reports by shoreline residents, commercial fishermen, workboat operators, and

recreational boaters. Observers were asked to provide date,

location, and the behavior and description of the animal.

Distinctive dorsal lesions on the whale facilitated positive

identification. Many observers also provided written and

photographic accounts of their encounters. Numerous attempts by Aquarium personnel to see the animal were

unsuccessful. A gross necropsy was performed at Mystic

Marinelife Aquarium following the animal's death. Procedures paralleled those outlined by Hare and Mead (1987)

and standard measurement methods followed Norris

(1961). The head was left intact, then frozen and forwarded

to another laboratory (Naval Oceans Systems Center, San

Diego, CA) for detailed examination. Excised samples of

skin lesions were preserved in 10% buffered formalin and

submitted to two pathology laboratories (Pfizer, Inc.,

Groton, CT; and ZooPath, Sterling, VA) for microscopic

examination. To estimate age ofthe animal, one tooth was

sectioned and prepared for densitometric examination of

growth layer groups by microradiograph (Goren et al.

1987).

Case History

The movements and activities of the whale were reconstructed from 48 detailed sighting events, many reported

independently by several observers. Aquarium personnel

first learned of a belukha whale in Long Island Sound in

April 1985. A marina owner in New Haven, CT, reported

that a few shoreline residents and workboat operators had

seen a whale since February. The number of sightings

subsequently increased with the onset of recreational

boating in May. During the following 12 months, the

majority of reports were from the Connecticut shoreline

vicinities ofConnecticut River/Saybrook (31.3 %), Guilford

(22.9%), Patchogue River/Westbrook (16.7 %), and New

Haven (12.5%), as shown in Figure 1. Residents of Long

Island's north shore, particularly the Port Jefferson area,

also contacted the Aquarium with reports of the whale.

Sightings reported to the Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation (Hampton Bays, NY) indicated that a belukha had

visited the vicinities of Orient Point and Southold, LI, as

well (S. Sadove, Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation,

Hampton Bays, NY, pers. commun., 1985). Interestingly,

one observer who could identify the whale reported seeing

five or six other belukhas near New Haven several times
___________________ Overstrom et al.: A Resident Belukha Whale in Long Island Sound 145

Table 1

Reported transits of the solitary belukha in Long Island Sound.

Date

24 July 85

09 Aug. 85

15 Aug. 85

04 Sept. 85

05 Sept. 85

08 Sept. 85

Transit

Near Faulkner Island (Guilford, CT)

to off Old Saybrook, CT

Near Stratford Shoal Middle Ground

to Port Jefferson Harbor, LI

Off Stamford, CT to off

New Haven, CT

Near Faulkner Island to Housatonic

River, Stratford, CT

Off Darien, CT to off Norwalk, CT

Five Mile River, Rowayton, CT to

Huntington Bay, LI

Distance (km)

25.9

10.0

51.9

35.2

9.3

14.8

Comments

Light gray color noted.

"Bullseye" scar noted on left side; vessel motoring at "-'12.1

km/h (6.5 kt); "petted" by people aboard.

Vessel motoring at "-'IDA km/h (5.6 kt); light gray color

noted.

Following pleasure boat.

Following oyster boat.

Following pleasure boat.

during late May and early June 1985. These whales were

unapproachable, however, and were not reported from any

other localitiFs.

On two occasions the whale was seen in widely separated

locations on the same day. On 2 September 1985 the

Aquarium received a morning sighting from Port Jefferson, NY, and an afternoon sighting from Clinton, CT (approximately 55.6 km away); on 12 May 1986 the whale

was seen both in the Connecticut River and off New Haven

(approximately 48.2 km apart). Although this might initially suggest that more than one whale was present, the

animal was known to make transits of similar distances

while following pleasure boats, the longest well-documented

transit being 51.9 km (Table 1). Moreover, commercial

fishermen said that the whale routinely followed their boats

across the Sound, possibly eating benthic organisms

disturbed by fishing gear. Based on these accounts it appeared that the whale was not suffering from impaired

mobility. During the 51.9-km transit the whale maintained

a 10.4-km/h (5.6 kt) swimming speed for 5 hours, frequently shifting from one side of the vessel to the other.

During shorter transits the whale reportedly swam at speeds

exceeding 12.1 km/h (6.5 kt).

One consistent feature of the sighting reports was the

whale's attraction for navigation buoys and other floating

objects. Observers usually found the whale near a buoy,

particularly off Lighthouse Point, New Haven, and Cornfield Point, Old Saybrook. The whale frequently rubbed

on the bottoms of slow moving boats and on 3 May 1986

spent nearly 1.5 hours pushing around a small inflatable

boat with two children aboard.

In addition to this attraction for inanimate objects, the

whale solicited contact with people during many sightings.

It allowed swimmers and boaters to rub its head and back

and it often spit mouthfuls of water in their direction. Once

it was even reported that the whale had retrieved blocks

of wood. Because ofits "friendliness" the belukha became

well known to shoreline residents who referred to it as

"BW," the acronym for belukha whale. The last time the

animal was reported alive was on 12 May 1986 when it

was sighted off Lighthouse Point, New Haven.

On 13 May 1986, Coast Guard Group Long Island

Sound (New Haven) contacted Aquarium personnel at

approximately 1000 h. During routine patrol one of their

boat crews sighted what was described as a dead whale or

dolphin floating ventral side up in Long Island Sound at

41 0 10' N latitude and 72°5' W longitude (approximately

three miles south of New Haven harbor). The animal was

later towed to shore where it was identified as a belukha

and retrieved for necropsy.

The whale arrived at the Aquarium at 1800 h where an

external examination was performed. It was a female

measuring 313 em total length and 240 em maximum girth.

Weight was 422.7 kg. The skin was light gray in color and

had extensive postmortem lesions on the ventral side caused

by seabird predation. In addition, large, round ulcerations

were present on the ventral thorax ("-'20 em diameter),

right lateral thorax ("-'6 em diameter and "-' 11 em diameter)' left lateral thorax ("-'25 em diameter), left ventral

peduncle ("-'7 em diameter), dorsal ridge ("-'8 em diameter), and dorsal peduncle ("-'7 em diameter). Surrounding

several of the ulcerated areas were patches of verrucous,

papilliform tissue (Fig. 2). In addition to these pathological

abnormalities, there were two small lacerations ("-'4 em and

"-'2 em long) in the integument on the left anterior dorsal

region, a flounder hook imbedded in the right commissure

of the mouth, and evidence of previous injury to the left

commissure in the form of extensive scar tissue. Finally,

there were four O. 5-cm diameter, draining punctures in

the area dorsal to the left axilla (Fig. 2). Following external gross examination the carcass was covered with ice.

A complete necropsy the next morning revealed extensive autolysis of the internal organs. Of significance,

however, was the finding that the punctures were caused
146 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Figure 2

Left lateral view of belukha

showing one large skin lesion and

four bullet wounds (arrows).

by gunshots. The track of one puncture led to a bullet fragment embedded dorsal to the transverse process of vertebra

T6. Another puncture led to a l-cm opening of the thoracic

cavity in the area of vertebrae T8-T9. Careful searching

yielded an intact .22 caliber projectile free-floating in the

left thorax. Projectiles that might have been associated with

the other two punctures were not located.

Transverse sectioning of the head revealed further

evidence of human related trauma; a 1.4-cm diameter

fishing sinker was found lodged in the left nasal cavity (Fig.

3). Whether the animal accidently aspirated the object, or

somehow it was purposely introduced, was unclear; however, it had been reported earlier that the whale was trailing fishing lines at times. The right nasal cavity was

unobstructed.

Another notable feature was that the right cerebral

hemisphere was shrunken. Most belukhas examined to date

have had either slightly larger right hemispheres or both

hemispheres have been equal in size (S.H. Ridgway, Naval

Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA, pers. commun.,

1986).

Results of the histological examination of excised skin

lesions showed proliferation of surface epitheliuL'l into

papilliferous projections with well-differentiated squamous

epithelium. The condition was compatible with a warty

growth that is associated with papovavirus (R.J. Montali,

ZooPath, Sterling, VA, pers. commun., 1986), although

a lack of appropriate frozen tissue prevented verification

of the condition.

Of additional interest was the histological finding that

the deep adipose layer of skin tissue showed degeneration

of clusters of fat cells and yellowish droplets of what appeared to be ceroid deposits. These deposits were of the

type seen in vitamin E deficient states in other species,

suggesting the possibility of a nutritional abnormality or

deficiency (Robbins 1983). Moreover, during preparation

of the tooth it was discovered that the dentine and enamel

were hypomineralized, further evidence of a nutritional

inadequacy or disorder (Robbins 1983).

No unexpected microorganisms were recovered from

either the blowhole, vagina, or anus. No growth occurred

in internal organ cultures.

The size ofthe whale suggested its age to be 5 to 7 years,

based on growth data published by Brodie (1971) for

belukha populations in Cumberland Sound, Baffin Island.

Cumberland Sound belukhas are similar in size to those

in the St. Lawrence estuary (Sergeant and Brodie 1969).

Subsequent microdensitometric examination of the sectioned tooth revealed 11 growth layer groups (Fig. 4), indicating an age of 5.5 to 6 years based on two growth layer

groups per annum (Goren et al. 1987; Brodie 1971).

Discussion _

The occurrence of belukhas in waters south and west of

Nova Scotia is rare. Extensive aerial and shipboard surveys

conducted by the Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program between October 1978 andJanuary 1982 yielded only

one belukha among 5304 identifiable cetacean sightings in

this area (Kenney and Winn 1986). Reeves and Katona

(1980) compiled a list of extralimital records of belukhas
__________________ Overstrom et al.: A Resident Belukha Whale in Long Island Sound 147

DL Mystic586

( rn

--, 'I() •

in continental shelf waters of New England and the'Canadian Maritimes, They found 31 published and unpublished

accounts dating from 1675, including a description of a

juvenile belukha in waters off western Long Island and

New Jersey during 1978 (Ulmer 1979). A belukha sighted

in Great South Bay, LI, the following year was also thought

to be this individual. We know of eight additional sighting

events confirmed in the northeast (Table 2). Considering

the belukha's affinity for coastal waters it seems likely that

most occurrences in the well-populated northeastern United

States and Canada would be reported.

The region of origin for belukhas that stray into New

England waters is unknown, but probably belukhas sighted

from the Canadian Maritimes southward are from the St.

Lawrence estuary population (Mercer 1973). Although

deep water can effectively inhibit belukha dispersal, individuals in the St. Lawrence population are morphoFigure 3

Ventral view of transverse section of

belukha's head showing location of fishing

sinker lodged in left nasal cavity (arrow).

Figure courtesy of S.H. Ridgway,

logically similar to those in Cumberland Sound; this finding suggests that some whales may follow the Labrador

Current southward along the coast and into the Gulf

(Sergeant and Brodie 1975). It is possible that southern

strays could swim a similar route and continue around

Cape Breton Island and Nova Scotia.

Reeves and Katona (1980) discussed in detail several factors, including temperature, predator avoidance, feeding

strategy, and food abundance, that might affect belukha

movements and account for their sporadic occurrence off

New England and the Canadian Maritimes. They speculated that belukhas may be natural wanderers-as demonstrated in part by the numerous records ofsolitary belukhas

following major rivers hundreds of kilometers inland from

the sea-whose distribution is limited mostly by competition with other cetacean species, and possibly even man,

for food. Because the belukha we examined appeared well
148 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

MEDIAL DISTAL

Figure 4

Densitometric trace of belukha tooth

across longitudinal section with peaks of

growth layer groups circled.

Table 2

Extralimital records of belukhas in northeastern United States waters supplemental to Reeves and Katona (1980). -------------------------------_.__.._---------------

Date

29 May 72

30 May 72

12 Apr. 80

22 June 80

20 May 81

18 Aug. 81

07 June 83

20 July 85

01 Apr. 87

No.

animals

Location and

Comments

Off Milford, CT; Bartlett's Reef, Waterford, CT; sighting.

Reynolds Channel, Hempsted, LT, NY; sighting.

SW of Moriches Inlet, LT, NY; sighting; possibly same animal as 12 Apr. 80.

Gilgo Beach (Suffolk County), LI, NY; stranding; whale appeared to be wounded.

Fire Island Inlet, LI, NY; stranding; observed in same area over prior 4-week

period.

Gay Head, MA, near Philban's Beach; stranding.

Off Marblehead, MA, near Devereux Beach; sighting.

Lubec, ME; stranding.

Source

The Hartford Courant

31 May 72, 01 June 72

Smithsonian

Smithsonian

Smithsonian

Smithsonian

Smithsonian

Smithsonian

S. Katona'

------------------------------------------------

'So Katona, College of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor, ME, pers. commun., 1987.

L..... .__. ----'

fed yet nutritionally deficient, it is interesting to question

whether qualitative features of regional food resources

might also be a limiting factor. This would be significant,

in that the diet of belukhas is normally varied (Vladykov

1946).

Several reports have been published where solitary,

habituated cetaceans have demonstrated behavior similar

to that ofthe animal documented here. Reeves and Kal:ona

(1980) wrote that the whale in Great South Bay, LI,

reportedly" approached vessels and rubbed against working nets," and fed on organisms disturbed by shell

fishermen's clam rakes. In addition, most accounts mentioned that the animals developed affinities for particular

boats or mooring buoys (Lockyer 1978; Webb 1978;

Gilchrist 1967). The suggested reasons for the attractions

were varied. In some cases they were associated with play

as when one bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) seemed

to enjoy towing certain boats by their anchor chains (Webb

1978), or with food as when fishes were congregating

beneath boat hulls (Gilchrist 1967). In another case, a male

dolphin rubbed repeatedly on the bottoms of boats for apparent sexual stimulation as captive males often do with

inanimate objects (Webb 1978).

In our opinion, two other roles for these attractions

should also be considered. First, permanently moored

boats or buoys may serve as navigational guideposts for

the short-range movements ofthe animals. Lockyer (1978)

noted that one bottlenose dolphin actively defended the

areas around such objects as territories. Second, and more

important, solitary whales and dolphins may be attracted

to underwater objects as surrogates for companionship and

security, social needs normally provided by conspecifics.

Social deprivation may also be responsible for habituation

to humans per se, because large groups of whales and
___________________ Overstrom et al.: A Resident Belukha Whale in Long Island Sound 149

dolphins that frequent populated beach areas are rarely approachable (Connor and Smolker 1985).

Finally, this case exemplifies the problems that government officials and marine mammal stranding organizations

may face in dealing with future cases of "friendly" strays.

The problem of potential harassment to such animals is

not new. In 1906 the New Zealand government by Order

in Council enacted, "The closed season for the fish or mammal

of the species known as Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) in

the waters of Cook Strait, orfrom the bays, sounds, and estuaries

adjacent thereto... Any person committing such a breach of this

regulation is liable to a fine of not less than £5 nor more than

£100," thereby attempting to protect one of the most

famous of all friendly cetaceans, Pelorus Jack (Cowan

1930). In our view, the prognosis for long-term survival

in habituated cetaceans is poor, especially in areas with

populated shorelines and heavy boat traffic. Many people

may advocate the attempted capture and relocation ofsmall

cetaceans, such as belukhas, to populations in their natural

range. In most cases this may be neither practical nor prudent, given the possibility for accidental introduction of

foreign pathogens to the population. If attempted capture

of a stray is deemed necessary, relocation to an aquarium

might be considered as a logical means to provide for both

the animal's security and its social needs.

Acknowledgments _

We thank Laura Kezer, H. Curtis Horton, and David

Merritt for assisting in the compilation of sighting event

data. Matthew Hare andJames G. Mead provided access

to information in the Smithsonian Institution's Marine

Mammal Events Program computer database. Patricia

Bubucis and the Mystic Marinelife Aquarium husbandry

staff assisted with the necropsy and John D. Buck processed

and analyzed the microbial cultures. Katie Roessner produced Figure 1, Edith Brown photographed the necropsy

and produced Figure 2, and Sam H. Ridgway sectioned

and examined the skull and produced Figure 3. We also

thank everyone who reported their belukha sightings to the

Aquarium, including Coast Guard Petty Officer Steve

Aykroyd, Laurie Beauchemin, Judith Hughes Burch,

Cindy Castiglione, Alan Cungdon, William Horan,

Eugene Lattanzi, C.C. Lefferts, Stuart Lumburg,Joseph

Muldoon, Linda Jane Parson, Charlot Ras-Allard, J.H.

Schuerger Jr., Keven Vanacore, Jane VonBrimer, John

Wadsworth, and Robbin A. Zaleski.

This manuscript is Contribution #64: of Sea Research

Foundation, Inc.

Citations _

Brodie, P.F.

1971. A reconsideration of aspects of growth, reproduction, and

behavior of the white whale (Delphinapterus leueas), with reference

to the Cumberland Sound, Baffin Island, population. J. Fish.

Res. Board Can. 28:1309-1318.

Connor, R.C., and R.S. Smolker.

1985. Habituated dolphins (Tursiops sp.) in western Australia. J.

Mammal. 66(2):398-400.

Cowan, J.

1930. The story of Pelorus Jack. Whitcombe and Tombs, London, 35 p.

Gilchrist, I.G.

1967. Dolphin days. Animals 10:104-107.

Goren, A.D., P.F. Brodie, S. Spotte, G.C. Ray, H.W. Kaufman,

A.J. Gwinnett, J.J. Sciubba, and J.D. Buck.

1987. Growth layer groups (GLGs) in the teeth of an adult belukha

whale (Delphinapterus leueas) of known age: evidence for two annuallayers. Mar. Mammal Sci. 3(1):14-21.

Hare, M.P., and J.G. Mead.

1987. Handbook for determination of adverse human-marine mammal interactions. NWAFC Processed Report 87-06, U.S. Dep.

Commer., Washington, DC, 35 p.

Kenney, R.D., and H.E. Winn.

1986. Cetacean high-use habitats of the northeast United States

continental shelf. Fish. Bull., U.S. 84(2):345-357.

Lockyer, C.

1978. The history and behavior of a solitary wild, but sociable,

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truneatus) on the west coast of England

and Wales. J. Nat. Hist. 12:513-528.

Mercer, M.C.

1973. Observations on distribution and intraspecific variation in

pigmentation patterns of odontocete cetaceans in the western North

Atlantic. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30:1111-1130.

Norris, K.S. (editor).

1961. Standardized methods for measuring and recording data on

the smaller cetaceans. J. Mammal. 42(4):471-476.

Reeves, R., and S. Katona.

1980. Extralimital records of white whales in eastern North

America. Can. Field-Nat. 94(3):239-247.

Robbins, C.T.

1983. Wildlife feeding and nutrition. Academic Press, New York,

343 p.

Sergeant, D.E., and P.F. Brodie.

1969. Body size in white whales, ~lphinapterus lew:as. J. Fish. Res.

Board Can. 26:2561-2580.

1975. Identity, abundance and present status of populations of white

whales, Delphinapterus leueas, in North America. J. Fish. Res.

Board Can. 27:1903-1915.

Ulmer, F.J.

1979. Hans Toft's discovery. New Jersey Audubon 5(2): 12-13.

Vladykov, V.D.

1946. Nourriture du marsouin blanc ou Beluga (~lphinapterus lew:as)

du fleuve Saint-Laurent. Estudes sur les mammiferes aquatiques,

IV. Departement des Pecheries, Contribution 17, p. 9-131.

Webb, N.G.

1978. Boat towing by a bottlenose dolphin. Carnivore 1: 122-

130.

A Note Describing Sounds Recorded from Two Cetacean

Species, Kogia breviceps and Mesoplodon europaeus,

Stranded in Northeastern Florida

MELBA C. CALDWELL and DAVID K. CALDWELL

Marineland of Florida

St. Augustine, FL 32086

ABSTRACT

Live-stranded cetaceans can provide a variety of data that are difficult to obtain from free-ranging

animals. Vocalizations, for example, can be recorded and analyzed from strandings for species

from which clear sounds are otherwise unavailable. Underwater echolocation-type clicks were

recorded at different times from two captive pygmy sperm whales (Kogia breviceps). One animal

was a 11g-cm newborn male, the other a 166-cm juvenile male. Click repetition rate varied at

least from one per 0.1 second to 13 per 0.1 second on sound spectrograms. Frequencies ranged

at least up to 13 kHz. No narrow-band sounds were recorded. Clicks also were recorded from

a 252-cm female Antillean beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus). Again repetition rates varied widely

and frequencies extended at least to 12 kHz. A brief narrow-band sound also was recorded from

this animal, suggesting that this species may have a whistle.

Introduction _

Cetaceans that strand alive may offer the only opportunity to make recordings of their sounds. Under such circumstances both the vocalizing species and individual are

known. In many instances the stranding of a cetacean is

the only time that species is recognized at all. Furthermore,

recording sounds in the wild requires considerable expertise to guard against contamination. It should be noted,

however, that live-stranded cetaceans do not always

vocalize.

Previously (Caldwell and Caldwell 1971) we have had

such an opportunity to record a right whale (Eubalaena

glacialis) neonate and a subadult dense-beaked whale

(Mesoplodon densirostris), both in northeastern Florida. Since

then we have been successful in recording two additional

species from strandings. The individuals were brought into

captivity at Marineland of Florida and placed in isolation

for medical observation.

Methods _

Recording equipment consisted of a Uher 4400-Report

stereo tape recorder (20 kHz upper limit), an Atlantic

Research Corporation model LC-57 hydrophone, and a

preamplifier especially designed and built for the system

by William W. Sutherland, then of the Lockheed-California Company. A running commentary of ongoing events

·was maintained on a separate track of the same tape. Particular emphasis was placed upon noting the orientation

of the animal's head relative to the hydrophone during

sound emissions. Although these notes are only approximations, they do lend some insight into the directionality

of the sound (see Norris 1969, for a review of directionality

in cetacean clicks).

Species Accounts _

Pygmy Sperm Whale (Kogia breviceps)

Almost nothing is known ofthe vocalizations ofthis species.

Reviews of the sound production of cetaceans (Evans 1967;

Poulter 1968; Norris 1969; Wood and Evans 1980; Watkins

and Wartzok 1985) indicate that the only sounds ofthis species described in the literature were made under somewhat

less than optimal conditions; i.e., with a contact microphone held against the animal's head in the region of the

blowhole (Caldwell et al. 1966). The click-type sounds were

of low intensity and with little energy above two kHz.

Underwater recordings of an infant male K. breviceps are

now available (Figs. 1-4). All sound emissions were clicks.

151
152 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 05 0.6 0.7 08

TIME (SEC'>

'----------------_.__.._----

Figure 1

Slow-repetition-rate clicks emitted by a neonate male Kogia

breviceps. These were classified as sounding "sharp." Note wide

frequency spectrum, particularly oflast click. Effective filter bandwidth 600 Hz.

o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

TIME (SEC,)

Figure 4

One ofseveral "buzzes" emitted by the same infant as in Figures

1-3. Effective filter bandwidth 600 Hz.

Figure 2

Faster-repetition-rate clicks emitted by the same animal as in

Figure 1. Animal appears to vary this parameter even at this

young age. Effective filter bandwidth 600 Hz.

o 0.1 0.2

TIME (SEC,)

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

12

~8

..

x

~4-

o

UJ

a::

u.. 0

o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

TIME (SEC) _. -----.J

Figure 5

Clicks emitted by a larger (166 em standard length) male Kogia

breviceps. Larger individuals of this species have proven far more

difficult subjects from which to obtain vocalizations. Effective filter

bandwidth 600 Hz.

o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

TIME (SEC,)

Figure 3

Slow broad-band click train emitted by the same newborn as in

Figures 1 and 2. This is followed by "sucking" sound seen from

1.05-1.15 sec. The latter is not an unusual finding in Tursicps

truncatus recordings. Effective filter bandwidth 600 Hz.

The animal was recorded in isolation when less than 24

hours old. The circumstances of his captivity are as follows:

On the afternoon of 9 August 1973 an adult female of the

species gave birth to the infant male in the surf about 1 Y2

miles south of Daytona Beach Shores, Florida. The mother

stranded shortly thereafter. The infant (MLF 369) was

rescued from the surf by onlookers who had witnessed the

birth and was placed in a small plastic pool until it could

be picked up by a crew from Marineland of Florida. The

animal was apparently in good physical condition when

placed in a 6.4-meter wide, acoustically isolated concrete

holding tank at Marineland. The animal appeared robust

and measured 119 em from tip of snout to the deepest part

of the fluke notch in a straight line. Although pushed back

into the surf, the mother stranded again and died. In effect then, the infant probably never heard post-natal sounds

made by the mother or other cetaceans.
__________________ Caldwell and Caldwell: Sounds Recorded from Two Cetacean Species 153

-------------------------,

l 6~

o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

TIME (SEC.)

1.2 1.4 /.6 1.8 o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

TIME (SEC.)

-----_._----------------~

Figure 6

Slow-repetition-rate clicks emitted by a Mesoplodon europaeus. To

the ear, these sounded like "knocking" clicks. Effective filter

bandwidth 300 Hz.

Recordings were begun at 1030 hours on 10 August and

were continued for about 3 Y2 hours. The animal died that

same evening. During the recording session sufficient data

on the underwater sounds of this little-known species were

collected to be of some interest. The recordings also shed

some light on the sounds of a newborn cetacean uncontaminated by output from the mother. This is significant

because under normal circumstances a newborn infant cannot be separated from its mother because of husbandry

problems.

Several episodes of click trains were recorded as the infant approached the hydrophone, especially during the

early parts of the recording session, just after the instrument was placed in the animal's enclosure. No sounds other

than these apparent click trains were heard. Documenting

clicks in such a young animal is important.

Click sounds (Fig. 5) also were recorded from a 166-cm

male K. breviceps (S-85-KB-03) stranded on 2 May 1985

at St. Augustine Beach, Florida. It was placed in isolation

in a 6.4-meter concrete tank at Marineland of Florida

where it lived for 32 days. He emitted these clicks when

food was held underwater, and possibly the whale was

echolocating.

Although we have tried to record sounds from a few

isolated dwarf sperm whales, K. simus, under these same

conditions, we have not yet succeeded in obtaining sounds

of any kind.

Antillean Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon europaeus)

On 11 October 1983, a male (MLF 409) measuring 252

cm in a straight line from the tip of the lower jaw to the

center ofthe trailing edge ofthe flukes stranded alive about

three miles north of the pier at Flagler Beach, Florida. The

whale was found at the edge of the surf at low tide and

was never fully dry because of rain and a northeastern

wind. It was returned to a 6.4-meter isolation tank at

Figure 7

Faster-repetition-rate clicks emitted by the same animal and during the same recording session as in Figure 6. These sounds are

described as "sharp" clicks, and the dominant frequency is

somewhat higher (ca. 2 kHz vs. 1 kHz). Effective filter bandwidth 300 Hz.

o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 O~ 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

TIME (SEC'>

Figure 8

Slow clicks emitted by the same animal as in Figures 6 and 7.

These were noted as being emitted while the animal was across

the pool from and not oriented toward the hydrophone. Hence,

directionality was not a prominent factor in these clicks. Effective filter bandwidth 600 Hz.

Marineland of Florida where it lived until 30 October. Frequent underwater recording sessions were conducted from

12 through 28 October.

The animal vocalized frequently and usually the sounds

were at a high amplitude. These included both slow and

fast clicks (Figs. 6-8) and a narrow band sound (Fig. 9)

suggesting an ability by this species to produce a whistle.

Discussion _

The sounds presented here are intended chiefly to report

the presence of underwater click emissions in the two

species noted. Although it is considered possible that all

odontocetes produce clicks and that these clicks are used
154

12

NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Clicks emitted by both species were of variable repetition

rates (Figs. 1-8).

8 ...

:I:

.-:

-4

cj

UJ

Q:

lL. O

Acknowledgments _

Peter L. Tyack of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution generously assisted in the preparation of the sound

spectrograms, and Kenneth S. Norris of the University of

California at Santa Cruz gave of his wide knowledge regarding cetacean vocalizations.

o 0.1 0.2

TIME (SEC,)

0.3 0.4 0.5

Citations _

Figure 9

Narrow-band "chirp" at about 6 kHz emitted by M. europaeus.

This indicates a narrow band whistle capability. Effective filter

bandwidth 90 Hz.

by at least some species to echolocate, vocalizations of many

species remain undocumented (Watkins and Wartzok

1985). Click emission by a newborn Kogia breviceps was considered particularly noteworthy as we know very little about

the ontogeny of this class of sounds in any cetacean.

Beyond reporting the sounds and publishing the spectrograms, the constraints ofthe opportunistic nature ofthe

recordings prohibit much speculation. We note, however,

that the K. breviceps infant, and to a lesser degree the

juvenile, emitted many more audible clicks than we have

heard from the older animals. We do not know if K.

breviceps clicks could be used as identification signals as they

reportedly are in sperm whales (Watkins and Schevi1l1977;

Watkins 1980).

There have been no sounds listed in the published

literature for the Antillean beaked whale. The only previously documented sounds for the genus Mesoplodon are brief

narrow-band chirps or brief whistles recorded in air from

a stranded M. densirostris (Caldwell and Caldwell 1971).

Caldwell, D.K., and M.C. Caldwell.

1971. Sounds produced by two rare cetaceans stranded in Florida.

Cetology 4:1-6.

Caldwell, D.K., J.H. Prescott, and M.C. Caldwell.

1966. Production of pulsed sounds by the pygmy sperm whale, Kogia

brevieeps. Bull. So. Calif. Acad. Sci. 65(4):245-248.

Evans, W.E.

1967. Vocalization among marine mammals. In Marine

bioacoustics (W.N. Tavolga, ed.), Vol. 2:159-186. Pergamon

Press, New York.

Norris, K.S.

1969. The echolocation of marine mammals. In The biology of

marine mammals (S. Anderson, ed.), p. 391-423. Acad. Press,

New York and London.

Poulter, T.C.

1968. Marine mammals. In Animal communication; techniques

of dtudy and results of research (T.A. Sebeok, ed.), p.

405-465. Indiana Univ. Press, Bloomington.

Watkins, W.A.

1980. Acoustics and the behavior of sperm whales. In Animal

sonar systems (R.-G. Busnel and J.F. Fish, eds.), p.

283-290. Plenum Press, New York and London.

Watkins, W.A., and W.E. Schevill.

1977. Sperm whale codas. J. Acous. Soc. Am. 62(6):1485-1490.

Watkins, W.A., and D. Wartzok.

1985. Sensory biophysics of marine mammals. Marine Mammal

Sci. 1(3):219-260.

Wood, F.G., and W.E. Evans.

1980. Adaptiveness and ecology of echolocation in toothed whales.

In Animal sonar systems (R.-G. Busnel andJ.F. Fish, eds.), p.

382-423. Plenum Press, New York and London.
Workshop Participants*

• The list includes only individuals specifically invited to participate in the workshop.

Peigin Barrett

California Marine Mammal Center

Marin Headlands

Fort Cronkhite, CA 95965

Nancy Black

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories

P.O. Box 450

Moss Landing, CA 95039

Robert K. Bonde

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

412 N.E. 16th Avenue, Room 250

Gainesville, FL 32609

Burgitta Borguss

Dolphins Plus, Inc.

P.O. Box 2728

Key Largo, FL 33037

Gregory D. Bossart

Miami Seaquarium

4400 Rickenbacker Causeway

Miami, FL 33149

William J. Bowen III

National Marine Fisheries Service

Beaufort Lab

Beaufort, NC 28516

Douglas M. Burn

National Marine Fisheries Service

Southeast Fisheries Center

Miami, FL 33149

Current address:

Marine Mammal Program

USFWS

1011 Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

John Calambokidis

Cascadia Research Collective

218Y2 West Fourth Avenue

Olympia, WA 98501

Susan Candela

University of Miami

RSMAS

4600 Rickenbacker Causeway

Miami, FL 33149

Michael J. Carvan

University of Miami

RSMAS

4600 Rickenbacker Causeway

Miami, FL 33149

Current address:

Department of Veterinary

Anatomy

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX 77843

Elaine Chang

Greenpeace

1436 U Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20009

Donald Chittick

Sea World

P.O. Box 968, MM 68.5

Long Key, FL 33001

Vic Cockcroft

Port Elizabeth Museum

P.O. Box 13147

Humewood, 6013

Port Elizabeth

Republic of South Africa

Raymond L. Deiter

Sausalito Animal Hospital

1917 A Bridgeway

Sausalito, CA 94965

Leslie A. Dierauf

33 Martin Drive

Novato, CA 94949

Deborah A. Duffield

Department of Biology

Portland State University

Portland, OR 97201

Gregory S. Early

New England Aquarium

Central Wharf

Boston, MA 02110

Frederic Felleman

4110 12th Avenue NE #104

Seattle, WA 98105

Stephanie Fernandez

Texas Marine Mammal Stranding

Network

P.O. Box 1675

Galveston, TX 77553

James Gilpatrick

Marine Mammal Stranding Response

NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Center

P.O. Box 271

La Jolla, CA 92038

Natalie Goodall

Sarmiento 44, 9410 Ushuaia

Tierra del Fuego

Argentina

Jay Gorzelany

Mote Marine Laboratory

1600 City Island Drive

Sarasota, FL 33577

Ramona Haebler

USEPA

South Ferry Road

Narragansett, RI 02882

Terry Hankins

Dolphins Plus, Inc.

P.O. Box 2728

Key Largo, FL 33037

James T. Harvey

National Marine Fisheries Service

7600 Sand Point Way N.E.

Seattle, WA 98115

Current address:

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories

P.O. Box 450

Moss Landing, CA 95039

Sandra L. Hersh

University of Miami

RSMAS

4600 Rickenbacker Causeway

Miami, FL 33149

John E. Heyning

Natural History Museum

of Los Angeles County

900 Exposition Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90007

155
156 NOAA Technical Report NMFS 98: Marine Mammal Strandings _

Jan Hodder

Oregon Institute of Marine Biology

University of Oregon

Charleston, OR 97420

Robert J. Hofman

U.S. Marine Mammal Commission

1825 Connecticut Ave., Suite 512

Washington, DC 20006

Aleta A. Hohn

NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Center

P.O. Box 271

La Jolla, CA 92038

Murray L. Johnson

501 No. Tacoma Avenue

Tacoma, W A 98403

Deirdre Keeler

Marine Mammal Stranding

Response

NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Service

P.O. Box 271

La Jolla, CA 92038

Dennis L. Kelly

Orange Coast College

2701 Fairview Road

Costa Mesa, CA 92628

Kathy Krieger

New England Aquarium

Central Wharf

Boston, MA 02110

Elaine Leslie

The Living Seas

Walt Disney World Co.

P.O. Box 10,000

Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830-1000

Conrad Litz

The Living Seas

Walt Disney World Co.

P.O. Box 10,000

Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830-1000

Morgan Lynn

NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Center

P.O. Box 271

La Jolla, CA 92038

Gene Martin

Office of General Counsel, NE

NOAA

1 Blackburn Drive

Gloucester, MA 01930

Thomas J. McIntyre

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA

1335 East West Highway

Silver Springs, MD 20910

James G. Mead

Smithsonian Institution

National Museum of Natural

History

Washington, DC 20560

Bob Miller

N. Y. State Department of

Environmental Conservation

Wildlife Resources Center

Delmar, NY 12054

Gino B. Moro

U.S. Department of Commerce

Law Enforcement Division

14 Elm Street

Gloucester, MA 01930

Sally Murphy

S.C. Wildlife and Marine Resources

Department

P.O. Box 12559

Charleston, SC 29412

Pete Nabor

Mote Marine Laboratory

1600 City Island Drive

Sarasota, FL 33577

Paul E. Nachtigall

Naval Oceans System Center

Hawaii Laboratory

Research Branch Code

P.O. Box 997

Kailua, HI 96734-0997

Eugene T. Nitta

National Marine Fisheries Service

2570 Dole Street

Honolulu, HI 96822

Daniel K. Odell

Sea World

7007 Sea World Drive

Orlando, FL 32821

Helmut A. Oelschlager

Zentrum der Morphologie der

Johann Wolfgang

Goethe-U niversitat

Theodor-Stern-Kai 7

6000 Frankfurt am Main-70

Federal Republic of Germany

Neal A. Overstrom

Mystic Marinelife Aquarium

Mystic, CT 06355

Morris M. Pallozzi

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA

1335 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Geoffrey W. Patton

Mote Marine Laboratory

1600 City Island Drive

Sarasota, FL 33577

Charley Potter

Smithsonian Institution

National Museum of Natural

History

Washington, DC 20560

William Powell

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA

1335 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Gerald T. Regan

Spring Hill College

4000 Dauphin Street

Mobile, AL 36608-1791

John E. Reynolds III

Chairman, Natural Sciences

Eckerd College

P.O. Box 12560

St. Petersburg, FL 33733

Mandy Rodriquez

Dolphin Research Center

Marathon Shores, FL 33052
_________________________________ Workshop Participants 157

Jan Roletto

California Marine Mammal Center

Fort Cronkhite, CA 94965

Tracy Romano

Department Neurobiology and

Anatomy

School of Medicine and Dentistry

University of Rochester

Rochester, NY 14642

William W. Rossiter

21 Laurel Hill Road

Ridgefield, CT 06877

Sam Sadove

Okeanos Ocean Research

Foundation

216 East Montauk Highway

P.O. Box 776

Hampton Bays, NY 11946

David J. Schmidly

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX 77843

Robert Schoelkopf

Marine Mammal Stranding Center

P.O. Box 775

Brigantine, NJ 08203

Gregory Schwab

Texas Marine Mammal Stranding

Network

Padre Island National Seashore

9405 South Padre Island Drive

Corpus Christi, TX 78418

Penny Scoggins

California Marine Mammal Center

Fort Cronkhite, CA 94965

Joe Scordino

National Marine Fisheries Service

7600 Sand Point Way N.E.

Bin C157000

Seattle, WA 98115

Dana J. Seagars

Marine Mammal Program

USFWS

1011 Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

John Sease

NMFS, Alaska Region

P.O. Box 1668

Juneau, AK 99802

Mobashir A. Solangi

Marine Animal Productions

Box 4078

Gulfport, MS 39502

Gretchen Steiger

Cascadia Research Collective

218Y2 W. Fourth Avenue

Olympia, WA 98501

Michael T. Walsh

Sea World of Florida

7007 Sea World Drive

Orlando, FL 32821

Robert Weeks

Department of Veterinary Anatomy

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX 77843

Bradley L . Weigle

Department of Natural Resources

100 8th Avenue S.E. Bldg. C

St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Robert Whistler

National Park Service

Padre Island National Seashore

9405 South Padre Island Drive

Corpus Christie, TX 78418

F.G. Wood

Naval Oceans Systems Center

San Diego, CA 92152

Charles D . Woodhouse

Vertebrate Curator

Santa Barbara Museum of Natural

History

2559 Puesta del Sol Road

Santa Barbara, CA 93105

Kaiya Zhou

Department of Biology

Nanjing Normal College

Nanjing

People's Republic of China

Steven T. Zimmerman

National Marine Fisheries Service

P.O. Box 1668

Juneau, AK 99802