Talk:History of whaling

Museums
Just added a stub about the Butler Point Whaling Museum in New Zealand - which is fairly small print, but was surprised to see no apparent reference to any museums or artefacts here - the Charles W. Morgan springs to mind - should there be some? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winstonwolfe (talk • contribs).

History
I rewrote the majority of the History of Whaling prior to the modern era. In time, I hope to add to it. -Jonas Poole —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonas Poole (talk • contribs).

What is your source for the claim that whaling was integral to the Haida? The Nuu-chah-nulth ('Nootka' is a misnomer, and has fallen out of general use, though it ought to remain in the article as it is an historic term that often occurs in references from the period) have an extensive and well-documented whaling tradition, the Haida do not. There is some archaeological evidence indicating whale use by the Haida (ie. whale bone occasionally occurring in middens), likely attributed to the opportunistic (and very occasional) harvest of drift whales. The Haida themselves do not claim a whaling tradition. On account of this, I've deleted the portion of the article which states that they do, but left intact the reference to their use of whales as 'totems', which is accurate. I trust I've kept the overall gist of the segment intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.133.246 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've amended the section referring to Jewitt et al. to specify their captivity at the hands of the Mowachaht. At the time, the distinction was important (and remains so today, both in terms of identity and the legal distinctions necessary to contemporary claims) as the Mowachaht formed a separate polity from neighbouring groups. I've maintained the historical term "Nootka" and the contemporary "Nuu-chah-nulth" in brackets. Hope this works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.133.246 (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Revisions
The Pacific Arctic fishery is now part of the Yankee whale fishery, that's why it was deleted. Also, the claim the Arctic fleet "became the largest in the world in the 1870s" isn't entirely accurate, as Yankee whaling was then in decline. If it was so, it was only by default. Also, the rorqual fishery was deleted because it was inaccurate.-Jonas Poole —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.68.248.69 (talk • contribs).

The Pacific Arctic Fishery should be removed because, (1) American whalers did not shift from the Davis Strait and Greenland whaling grounds to the Bering Strait region, (2) the American Arctic fleet did not become the largest in the world in the 1870s as it was in decline and the Arctic fleet had been larger than other fleets several decades prior to that time, and (3) the Bering Strait region is included in the Yankee whale fishery, and is no longer needed as a separate section. The Rorqual fishery should be deleted because, (1) rorquals were hunted by the Japanese prior to the late 19th century, and (2) Foyn's Spes et Fides first sailed in 1864, not 1865. I believe Foyn didn't even kill any whales that season. Jonas Poole 02:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Basque Fishery
"In Terranova they hunted bowheads and right whales" It is unclear in this statement what whales are being spoken of, because bowhead are known as the Greenland right whale. I've changed it to "In Terranova they hunted Greenland right whales (bowhead) and North Atlantic right whales"Myrddin y dewydd 22:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it back to "bowheads and right whales," as it is VERY CLEAR as to what species are being spoken of, as the bowhead WAS known as the Greenland right whale but TODAY is commonly known as the former name while the right whale is already referred to in the beginning of the section, so I don't see how there could be any confusion at all on what species are being spoken of. And its the North Atlantic right whale, not Atlantic Northern right whale as you changed it to. Jonas Poole 23:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Pacific Arctic Fishery
This section is now included in the Yankee Whale Fishery, so whoever keeps reverting back to that section needs to stop, as that section has now become redundant. Not only that, but it made false statements about the fishery. Let me say this one more time, the Pacific Arctic fleet did not become the largest fleet in the world in the 1870s, and whalers DID NOT shift from the Davis Strait and Greenland fisheries to the Bering Strait region, that is simply UNTRUE. Jonas Poole 00:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rorqual Fishery
I deleted it because I no longer wanted it there. I wrote it, so I can delete it if I want. Its not like anyone else contributed to that section anyway. Jonas Poole 19:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When you edit Wikipedia you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL, as it states on every "Editing ___" page. Mgiganteus1 21:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jonas for the history. I am related to Abel Douglass and have a much more extensive history of his whaling and sealing activities. I will try to add information later. However if you would contact me about the Douglass, Dawson, and Strachen stories with their exact references, I would be appreciative. David Lewis (coyotez@ uoregon.edu) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.146.14 (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2007

Modern Whaling
I'm adding a section on modern whaling to this article, if anyone would like to add photos depicting modern whaling feel free to do so. I'm still pretty new at this, so I could use some help. Any good quality photos will do. Thanks.Jonas Poole 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Organization
Why is this article organized by country? I've watched this article (to protect it from vandalism and incorrect good faith edits that spill over from whaling), but I honestly haven't even read it, because I really don't care about country by country narratives of history. I think it would make sense to have this article organized chronologically, with examples from various countries supporting various sections when appropriate. This is just a suggestion; all other editors should feel free to ignore it if you disagree, as I'm not going to be re-organizing the article to suit my tastes. I just ask that you all step back from this page a bit and think about the best way to organize it. Enuja (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Chronological you say? Well, how about reverting it back to the Spitsbergen/Greenland Fishery, Japanese Fishery, Pacific Arctic Fishery (but perhaps with a better sounding title), South Sea Fishery (with a Focus on American/British whaling, and little tidbits about French, Dutch, and German whaling), and keep the Rorqual Fishery the way it is (or perhaps reduce it?), and then go region by region but in chronological order with modern whaling until with reach the pelagic era, when all countries will be treated in the same section. That's how the History of Modern Whaling (1982) goes about the last section, as its difficult to adequately cover each region in one section. Does this sound good to anyone? Gave me time to fix this, as I'm reading and taking notes on several books right now as well as doing various other things. I'll try and fix it as soon as I can. Jonas Poole 01:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Or how about something like this: Basque whaling in the Bay of Biscay (1059-?), Basque whaling in Labrador (1548-1603), Japanese Whaling (1570s-1909), Bay Whaling in Spitsbergen (1611-1657), Whaling in the West Ice (1640-1719), Whaling in the Davis Strait (1719-1912), Whaling in the South Seas (1614-1927), Whaling in the Western Arctic (1848-1921), Rorqual Whaling (1850s-1890s), and Modern Whaling (1864-1982). Perhaps a section in the beginning or as a subsection in each section should describe the mode of pursuing, capturing, and processing whales, as well as their uses? The above dates may be off a little as they're off the top of my head, but how does this arrangement sound? Jonas Poole 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Chronological (by technology) then by catching region could be useful - maybe with indications of annual and total catch maybe by species where known ? - Rod57 (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jonahsperm.png
Image:Jonahsperm.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh
I honestly don't know what the editor who added that "the God Speed sailed to Spitsbergen in 1608 to hunt walrus" is talking about. Henry Hudson sailed there in 1607 (and accomplished nothing), and Jonas Poole sailed there in 1610 to explore the area and hunt walrus. Purchas (1625) mentioned no such voyage. Jonas Poole (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Commercial whaling around and from the Faroe Islands
I have been reading Tønnessen J.N., and Johnsen A.O. (1982) and wondered if it would be useful to collect some further details. Please let me know if people think it would be useful to expand this section and I can clean up these notes and build them into the section that already exists. My only concern is that it relies a lot on the one reference (but a good one :-) ) except for the Government referencesPolarbearzombie (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Norwegian whalers were instrumental in developing commercial whaling in the Faroe Islands. Hans Albert Grøn of Sandefjord helped pioneer modern commercial whaling in the Faroes in 1893, being in personal command of expeditions based in Finnmark, the Faroes and Spitsbergen (Tønnessen and Johnsen, 1982)

Grøn had calculated that whales migrating north to Icelandic waters would make ‘landfall’ off the Faroes, and his first catch in 1894 yielded forty-six whales in three months; producing 940 barrels of oil and 5 tons of baleen.

Grøn based his operation at Strømnæs, between the islands of Strømo and Østerø targeting blue whales (though these rapidly declined as stocks were hunted out) and then took a majority of fin, with some humpback, sei and sperm whales.

In April when fin whales appeared on their northward migration whaling took place some 10 to 30 miles off shore, with the majority of whales being male. April would bring Blue whales but these creatures were so quick the whalers found it hard to keep up with them. This was repeated in June when some ‘very thin’ blue whales would pass by. (A thin blue whale may only generate 50 barrels of oil compared to a larger southerly migrating whale, which could generate some 100 barrels of oil).

By 1900 some sixty-six whales were being caught in the Faroese, but it was proving ‘a gamble’ as season to season would vary. Whales populations were being depleted and had to be hunted further and further out to sea from the shore stations, as far north as Iceland and as far south as the Shetlands and even the Hebrides.

Grøn operated for the first four years on his own in the Faroes with competition and catches for this period totaled 212 whales and 5,374 barrels.

Whaling from the Faroes was regulated by the law of the 2nd May 1902, though this was not as rigorous as that applied in Iceland. Its primary object was to safeguard Danish and Faroese interests and whaling was reserved for Danish citizens or companies in which Danes held at least 50% of the share capital. Companies that were already established were allowed to continue operating but would have to fly the Danish flag and pay a levy of Kr.50 on every whale taken.

The Faroese had welcomed commercial whaling as it drove down the cost of whale meat to about a farthing a pound. Many Faroese and Danes participated in the commercial whaling either as crew or as shareholders.

Grøn established a second station in 1901 and set up a Danish-Norwegian company that operated from 1903 onwards from a station near to the Faroese capital of Torshavn. A/S Suderø (named after its location) became a Danish company in 1902 and had two leading Faroese businessmen on the board.

By 1909 there were some six stations open serviced by seventeen boats. This proved unsustainable and after a peak of production of 13,850 barrels in 1909 production slumped and operators started to withdraw, with Grøn the first in 1911.

The Antarctic was acting as a great draw for highly paid gunners and one company had to dismiss all its gunners in 1911 for incompetence.

During his operating period Grøn’s company provided an average dividend of some 28.6% showing that whilst it lasted whaling was highly profitable for the Faroese involved.

In 1914-15 Grøn returned to the Faroes and made a record catch of 179 whales in 1915, making a net profit of 125%. However in 1916 the whales failed to appear and then the war prevented further activity until 1920 when four companies made for the Faroes. However, they were dogged by high running costs and only one company struggled through until 1930.

The total yield from the Faroes between 1894 and 1916 was 6,682 whales and 154,419 barrels of oil with a value of Kr.8 million.

The Faroese themselves have tried reviving their commercial whaling industry on various occasions, both in the 1930s and after the Second World War. One Danish company was operating in 1935/36.

In 1946 whaling was reestablished in the Faroes from two shore stations, resulting in 101 whales and 3,215 barrels of oil. The Danish oil industry financed the stations modernization and extension and with five whale catchers operating the yield rose to 11,251 barrels by 1950. Denmark was keen to start using a floating factory in the Faroes to help train gunners and crew for Antarctic whaling, and in 1949 the IWC granted permission for Denmark to use a floating factory when it was argued that it would operate as a ‘shore station’ when permanently aground and the propeller removed. There was a ban on floating factories in the Atlantic north of 40°S.

However, even with such provisions fin whaling declined after 1950 (377 whales taken) and sei whales disappeared almost entirely. In the post war period 40 blue whales were caught around the Faroes until they were protected by the IWC from the end of 1959.

The area of the Faroes has brought mixed result for commercial whaling. The high of 377 whales in 1950 was down to twenty in 1952 and recovered to 141 in 1957. 1958 returned a low sixteen and whaling was officially suspended between 1959 and 1961.

There were two significant attempts to resume commercial whaling in 1962-64 and then again in 1968, when the yield was six fin and six sperm whales. Both attempts were financially unsuccessful.

According the Faroese Foreign department of the Prime Minister’s office –

‘…the Faroe Islands have in recent history also had a very small commercial catch of the larger baleen whales, in particular fin whales, but also some minke whales. From these catches, landed at whaling stations in the Faroes until the early 1980’s, Faroe Islanders had a relatively inexpensive supply of baleen whale meat. The blubber of baleen whales was the primary commercial target of the catch for industrial use, and was not used for food in the Faroes, unlike the blubber of pilot whales. The meat, a by-product of the catch, was however held in high esteem for its fine texture, taste and nutritional value.’ The Faroe Islands ceased commercial whaling operations under Faroese legislation in 1984 as a consequence of the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling’.

In 2003 the Faroese accepted an import of 11 tonnes of minke whale meat from Norway’s catch, which had ‘been purchased from authorized Norwegian suppliers by wholesalers and retailers’

Mr. Herálvur Joensen, Head of the Representation of the Faroes in Copenhagen, speaking in 2008 about the small cetacean hunt in the Faroes stated,

‘Faroese whaling is not “commercial” in the way that commercial whaling is defined in the whaling debate. No money exchanges hands when a whale catch in the Faroes is shared out according to traditional rules in the local communities. But whale catches have always made a valuable contribution to the national economy. They are a locally available source of food that does not have to be imported or transported over long distances. In principle, individuals are free to sell their shares for money. Some choose to do so, although most people prefer to keep them for their own private use.’ Polarbearzombie (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. Although you should cut it down a little and put it into three or four paragraphs. Jonas Poole (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * cheers Jonas Poole. I'll have a go as you suggestPolarbearzombie (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Rorqual whaling section confusing
The 'Rorqual whaling' section seems more like a history of Thomas Roys efforts and out of place with the other geographically named sections ? It's so long - Could we push most of it into its own suitably named article ? - Rod57 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Alternatively we could just trim the section down to its essential content. At the moment it's reading more like a narrative essay than an article in an encyclopedia. De728631 (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of whaling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130107145939/http://www.savn.fo/00108/00119/ to http://www.savn.fo/00108/00119/
 * Added tag to http://mmr.sansir.net/get.file?ID=7707
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610021813/http://www.du.edu/~ttyler/ploughboy/starbuck.htm to http://www.du.edu/~ttyler/ploughboy/starbuck.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209033326/http://nantucket.plumtv.com/stories/how_nantucket_helped_light_world to http://nantucket.plumtv.com/stories/how_nantucket_helped_light_world
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220135651/http://www.teara.govt.nz/EarthSeaAndSky/HarvestingTheSea/Whaling/en to http://www.teara.govt.nz/EarthSeaAndSky/HarvestingTheSea/Whaling/en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of catch records
The "catches by country and year" and "catches by country and species" sections just were removed from the article entirely ( and following edits), with reference to WP:NOSTATS. This does not seem justified to me on two counts:
 * From the guideline: Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. - These statistics were neither unrelated nor unexplained; they were accompanied by several paragraphs of sourced explanation, which have also been removed. Up front, there is nothing in this guideline that suggests that the tables ought to be removed on content grounds.
 * A case could be made that the tables take up too much screen real estate, with which I would actually agree. The solution here is not to rip out this material and everything related to it, but to simply pre-collapse the tables. In any case, several of the accompanying summary graphics (especially Whaling_Species_since_1900.png and Whales_caught_recently.png) are exemplary uses of imagery to summarize such tables, and the guideline offers no excuse whatsoever to remove them.

These edits have removed a large amount of useful and well-referenced material from the article, based on what seems to be a misreading of the applicable guidelines. I suggest reinstating the material and collapsing the tables while we are at it. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Elmidae @Jay_D._Easy Thank you for your comments on the tables, text and graphics. I put them in last year, and support your suggestion to pre-collapse the tables. I didn't know that was possible. Numbersinstitute (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 copyediting Comment
I appreciate the copyediting, and respect the request not to interfere while it goes on. Two points:

A useful cite on transition from not eating cetaceans to eating them was lost. I suggest putting in the following:
 * Diet analysis shows that humans in Sicily started eating cetaceans around 6200 BCE, and there is evidence these were stranded, not hunted. Previous residents of the Sicilian site, from 9100-6500 BCE, did not eat cetaceans.

The study on US incentives from shared financing is not summarized accurately before or after the copyedit. I suggest the following:
 * Investment and financing arrangements allowed managers of whaling ventures to share their risks by selling some equity, but retain a substantial portion of the equity. As a result, their incentive was to maximize their personal returns by sending ships to areas which had caught most whales in recent years, rather than going to diverse areas to lower investors' risk of a bad year. This stifled diversity in whaling voyages and increased industry-wide risk. Kim9988 (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)