Humpback Whales in Glacier Bay National Monument, Alaska — Text and Context

(0 User reviews)   394
In Category - Marine Life
United States. Marine Mammal Commission Project Gutenberg 2011 Not confirmed
Humpback whale; Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (Alaska) Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words 13,509
Reading time 59 min
Text sections 5

The source record for Humpback Whales in Glacier Bay National Monument, Alaska — Text and Context measures this digital text at 13,509 words, 59 min estimated reading time, and 5 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 19.9 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Humpback whale,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

This report from a 1979 interagency meeting examines the sudden decline of humpback whales in Glacier Bay, analyzing vessel traffic, environmental factors, and data gaps through a formal scientific lens.
Share
Editorial Edition Score 4.6/5

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated
  • Description quality20 pts
  • Title & short description10 pts
  • Source metadata20 pts
  • Text length15 pts
  • Chapters / structure15 pts
  • EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

Read the Text

Bay were observed and, on one occasion, a whale known to have had an interaction with a vessel left the Bay. Monument personnel discussed the problem with the area office of the National Park Service. A number of options, including emergency closure of the Bay were considered. It was decided to provide funds for a more thorough analysis of the available information on whale/vessel interactions, and to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

The NMFS was advised of the situation and, on 10 August 1979, NPS and NMFS representatives met in Seattle, Washington to review available information concerning the nature and possible causes of the departure of whales from the Bay. Another meeting was held in late August to discuss the problem with members of the cruise ship industry. It was agreed that additional research was needed to better define the nature and possible causes of the problem and that a meeting should be held to discuss possible research approaches with other professionals in the marine mammal field. These decisions led to the meeting described in this report.

Subsequent to the meeting reported here, the National Marine Fisheries Service in a letter dated December 3, 1979, responded to the National Park Service's request for a Section 7 consultation. A copy of the NMFS's response is provided in Appendix D of this report.

Humpback whales (_Megaptera novaeangliae_) inhabit the inland waters of southeast Alaska, including Glacier Bay during the summer months (June-August). In the years from 1967 through 1977, 20 to 25 individually recognizable whales were observed feeding in Glacier Bay. In 1978, the whales entered the bay but left earlier than expected. In 1979, only a few humpbacks entered Glacier Bay. The limited information available suggests that increased human activity in the Bay may have been responsible, at least in part, for the observed shift in distribution. Increased human use of coastal waters is not limited to Glacier Bay and the movement of humpbacks from Glacier Bay to areas outside the Bay may be symptomatic of a larger problem.

The purposes of this meeting were: (1) to review available information concerning the nature and possible causes of the movement of whales from Glacier Bay; (2) to review present and planned research and management actions relating to humpback whales in Glacier Bay and southeast Alaska; and (3) to identify additional research or management actions that may be necessary to conserve and protect the North Pacific population(s) of humpback whales.

The meeting was held on the 12th and 13th of October 1979, at the College of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle. The meeting agenda is included as Appendix A. Individuals who made formal presentations at the meeting are identified on the agenda. A list of the meeting attendees, their organizations, addresses, and telephone numbers are listed in Appendix B.

=Distribution and Abundance of Humpback Whales in the North Pacific=[1]

Humpback whales are seasonal migrants found in all of the world's oceans. In the North Pacific, humpback whales winter in tropical regions over the shallow coastal shelfs associated with the Hawaiian Islands, Baja California, central Mexico, the Ryukyu Islands, Bonin Islands, and Mariana Islands. They summer in cold temperate regions, also over shallow coastal shelfs, from Point Conception, California, north through Alaska, west through the Aleutians, and south to Honshu Island, Japan. Calving and probably breeding occur on the wintering grounds. Feeding is believed to occur primarily in the summering grounds.

In Alaska, humpback whales are known to inhabit Prince William Sound, the waters of the Alexander Archipelago, and the waters adjacent to Kodiak Island and the Aleutians. Some whales may also overwinter in the northern summering areas.

The distribution, movements, abundance, and habitat requirements of humpback whales are not well known. Based upon Japanese catch statistics, the pre-exploitation population of humpback whales in the North Pacific is estimated to have been approximately 15,000. Much of the exploitation of humpback whales occurred in the twentieth century, especially during the early 1960's. A small number of whaling stations established in southeast Alaska took humpbacks between 1907 and 1922. In 1966, the International Whaling Commission imposed a worldwide ban on the taking of humpback whales.

The report opens with a stark observation: in 1979, all but three humpback whales left Glacier Bay within 24 hours of entering, a dramatic shift from prior years. This document, the proceedings of an October 1979 interagency meeting, does not narrate a natural history but instead dissects a management crisis. Its language is that of official science—tables of contents, agenda items, and agency acronyms—yet the subject is an ecological puzzle. The authors, the Marine Mammal Commission, present the meeting as a response to inadequate data: existing research and management plans “did not anticipate” the rapid influx of vessels and people. The report thus becomes a case study in how bureaucratic structures grapple with unexpected environmental change.

A Meeting Framed as Evidence

The report’s structure reveals its purpose. It is not a monograph but a record of a two-day meeting held at the University of Washington’s College of Fisheries. The agenda, reproduced in full, lists presentations on physical characterization of Glacier Bay, historical whale use, and human activity. Speakers include Mr. Charles Jurasz, who presented on whale distribution and behavior, and Mr. Gregory Streveler, who covered geomorphology and glaciology. This format—presentations followed by discussion—shapes the document’s voice: it is provisional, acknowledging gaps. For instance, the summary notes that “no known information exists” on natural environmental changes that might affect whale movement. The report thus functions as a snapshot of scientific uncertainty, not a definitive account.

The Language of Displacement

Key phrases in the report point to a central tension: human activity and whale behavior “may be mutually exclusive.” The evidence for displacement is circumstantial but suggestive. In 1978, whales departed after a “far shorter time period” than recorded previously; in 1979, the exodus was nearly immediate. The report links this to increased vessel traffic during the 1970s, but it carefully avoids claiming causation. Instead, it lists possible factors: natural changes in whale movements, chemical or biological shifts in the bay, and human disturbance. The word “may” recurs throughout, underscoring the limits of available data. This cautious diction is a deliberate authorial choice, reflecting the meeting’s goal to identify research needs rather than assign blame.

Data Gaps as a Structural Theme

The report repeatedly emphasizes what is not known. Under “Adequacy of Existing Data,” it states that current plans are “inadequate to deal effectively” with the growing influx of people and vessels. The agenda includes a session on “Possible reasons for observed changes” led by Dr. Robert Hofman, but the summary offers no single answer. Instead, it prioritizes short-term research: analyzing all available data to develop management plans. This focus on missing information—on the absence of studies about whale food distribution, acoustic characteristics of the bay, and tidal factors—becomes a structural motif. The report is as much about the limits of science as it is about whales.

Agency and Coordination

The document’s final sections turn to management. It lists “Agency Responsibilities and Need for Cooperation and Coordination,” reflecting the meeting’s interagency nature. Participants included the National Park Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Marine Mammal Commission. The report calls for integrated research and management, but it does not prescribe specific actions. Instead, it outlines alternative management actions without selecting one. This open-endedness is a feature of the genre: the report is a record of deliberation, not a policy directive. The language remains procedural, with phrases like “identifying and selecting the most appropriate research/management strategy.” The reader is left with a sense of process rather than resolution.

Readers should approach this report as a primary source on environmental management in the late 1970s. Its value lies not in conclusions but in the questions it raises: how do agencies respond to sudden ecological change? What counts as evidence when data are scarce? The report’s formal structure—agendas, summaries, references—belies the urgency of its subject. It is a document of its time, reflecting both the limits of scientific knowledge and the beginnings of a more cautious approach to human activity in protected areas.

The rain kept the report’s charts muted, its stern tables of whale counts and vessel logs soft-edged. I remember tracing the numbers, then setting it aside. My eye landed on a weathered copy of The Common Objects of the Country — Background and Themes, and for a while, I simply watched the water streak the glass, letting the old fieldwork settle into something quieter.

There are no reviews for this eBook.

0
0 out of 5 (0 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
There are no comments for this eBook.

Reader reflection

Before you leave, reflect on the book

Use these questions to collect your thoughts before moving on.

Your progress 0 / 10
1

Which reading stage best describes you?

2

How did the book work for you overall?

3

Would you pass this book on to a friend?

4

What was the reading difficulty like?

Related eBooks