MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION - Annual Report for 1998 



management in the United States, the Service has 

 estimated walrus catch levels in Alaska through a 

 walrus harvest monitoring program. Except in 1990 

 and 1991, when the program was suspended because 

 of a lack of funding, harvest monitoring has been 

 conducted cooperatively with the Eskimo Walrus 

 Commission, a Native organization established to help 

 oversee and manage the walrus population. Under the 

 program, harvest monitors are placed in the principal 

 walrus hunting villages to record catch data and to 

 collect biological samples. 



Over the past decade, estimated catch levels by 

 Alaska Natives from the walrus harvest monitoring 

 program have ranged from about 1,000 to 2,500 

 animals (see Table 6). Over the same period, report- 

 ed catch levels in Russia have declined from more 

 than 4,500 to fewer than 1,000 walruses. In addition 

 to the number of walruses landed, some animals are 

 shot, but escape wounded or sink before they can be 

 retrieved. Because of the rarity of healed bullet 

 wounds seen on live walruses, it is thought that most 

 walruses that are shot and not retrieved probably die 

 soon after they are struck. Recent data on the number 

 of walruses struck and lost by hunters are not avail- 

 able; however, based on data collected in Alaska from 

 1952 to 1972, it has been estimated that 42 percent of 

 the walruses shot during the harvest die but are not 

 recovered. 



In addition to collecting catch data, the walrus 

 harvest monitoring program also provides an opportu- 

 nity to collect biological samples and relevant infor- 

 mation to help assess trends in the general health and 

 population status of Pacific walruses. In this regard. 

 Native hunters reported seeing far fewer calves in 

 1998 than in previous years. Although weather 

 tended to limit hunting opportunities in 1998 and may 

 have affected observations, there was concern among 

 Native hunters that the observation might indicate a 

 decline in reproductive rates. 



To help ensure that harvest monitoring programs in 

 Alaska and Russia are providing the best possible 

 information on catch levels, the Eskimo Walrus 

 Commission and the Fish and Wildlife Service jointly 

 hosted a workshop to examine opportunities to im- 

 prove and standardize harvest monitoring methods. 

 The workshop, held on 21-25 September 1998 in 



Nome, involved U.S. and Russian officials as well as 

 Alaska Natives. Unfortunately, Native hunters from 

 Chukotka, Russia, were unable to attend because of 

 weather problems. Participants reviewed harvest 

 monitoring methods in both countries, recent walrus 

 harvest data, management organizations and subsis- 

 tence user groups, and the importance of subsistence 

 hunting among indigenous residents. Severe funding 

 constraints due to the Russian economic crisis have 

 almost eliminated support for the Russian harvest 

 monitoring program. As a result, Russian harvest 

 estimates are no longer considered reliable. There- 

 fore, as a matter of urgency, workshop participants 

 identified alternative funding strategies and recom- 

 mended action to secure funding to continue the 

 Russian harvest monitoring program. At the end of 

 1998, a report of the workshop was being completed. 



Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Program 



In 1988 the Service also began a marine mammal 

 marking, tagging, and reporting program to document 

 harvest levels in all hunting villages and to help 

 control illegal trade in certain walrus, sea otter, and 

 polar bear parts. Under the program, Alaska Native 

 hunters must present marine mammal parts, such as 

 walrus tusks, for tagging within 30 days of an animal 

 being taken. Taggers, usually village residents hired 

 and trained for this purpose, are located in more than 

 100 coastal villages around the state. To assess 

 compliance with the marking, tagging, and reporting 

 program at the major walrus hunting villages, the 

 Service undertook a study to compare harvest data for 

 the spring 1994 and 1995 hunts obtained from the 

 walrus harvest monitoring program and the marine 

 mammal tagging program. 



The findings, published in 1998, suggest that 

 harvest levels reported through the marking, tagging, 

 and reporting program varied by village. They 

 ranged from between about 65 to 99 percent of the 

 catch levels recorded by the walrus harvesting moni- 

 toring program. As a result, the study concluded that 

 walrus harvest levels reported through marking, 

 tagging, and reporting program are below actual 

 harvest levels. Calves (which lack tusks), in particu- 

 lar, were underreported. 



72 



