PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference:
CO 885
23 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
26
25 February 1914.]
WHALING COMMITTEE:
Captain L. BRUUN.
500. You mean because they must close down unless they can have really quite large numbers of whalen P
-Yes.
501. Because the prices are so low ?--They are not low; they are high now,
502. But comparatively low; they are lower than they were?—No, much higher.
503. Is that your experience?—Yes. 504. For oil-Yes, for oils.
If it had not been for the new process invented for hardening whale oil, I do not think there would have been any whaling in the South, but lately prices have gone up very much on account of Lever Brothers' process of hardening whale oil.
505. That is just in the last two years?—That is so; in fact we are just beginning to get the benefit of it this year.
506. I misunderstood you then; I thought you meant the prices of oil were now so low compared with the cost of getting it, that unless they took a large number of whales the business would not be profitable! -I still mean that. At the same time prices are not low now. There is no saying how high they are going to rise; people say that they might go up to 301, a ton and then they might do with a smaller number of whales.
507. A things stand at present it costs so much to get the whales that unless they catch a very considerable number they must close down their business P-Yes.
308. What do you call a paying average per ship? I suppose it would depend on the kind of whale-Very much on the kind of whale. I should say if they cannot get 30 to each steamer hereabout, or about 100 in Africa, and about (this is only approximate 150 in the South Shetlands-
509. To each steamer?-To each steamer--unless they got these numbers I do not think it would be much of a paying concern.
510. When you say to each steamer in the South Shetlands, you mean each catcher P-Yes, each catcher. 511. More being required there because of the addi- tional cost of catching them ?--Yes.
512. Now you have suggested incidentally that in a comparatively few years the whales which are left free, when the company ceases catching them, will by breeding renew their numbers and that there will be a large number of whales again. How long do you reckon it would take a Whale Fishery to recuperate like that? I could not answer that.
513. You have no evidence on that point -No, but I want to draw your attention to this fact, that the place where they are fishing the whales is only a small part of the whole yet, as far as the South goes; there are whales all along and all over right away from the Shetlands to Australia and along the ice.
514. You mean that there are very large areas where the whales are and where they cannot be fished ?--That ів во. As far as we have established; yet they are not fished, but they will be yet in due time.
515. But you have no doubt that the whales are much more widely distributed than the fishing stations? Yes, I am absolutely sure of that.
318. So that your conclusion at any rate is that it is doubtful whether there is need for artificial protection ? -I do not know exactly well enough how much pro tection you would put on, but I understand you have put on some restrictions on the South Shetlands and also South Georgia which I think is very good; for instance not to be allowed to take the mother whale with a young one I think is a very good protection and should be carried out strictly.
517. That sort of protection you would advocate ? -Yes, and I also understand that you have enforced a regulation that each ship should have so many boilers to dispose of the carcases, which I think is altogether tiveded.
518. You mean consuming the whole of the car- cuses? Yes. In some places that is quite practicable. and there is nothing to prevent them doing it in South Georgia, for instance. On the South Shetlands, of course, it is more difficult, because they cannot have stations on land there, and if they were going to be absolutely compelled on the big floating factories
[Continued.
there, to utilize every bit of the whale, as we do on a properly conducted northern station, say in Ireland, I very much doubt if the business would be a paying one,
519. For what reason?-Because they could not manage to bring home so much oil. There is a limit even to a 6,000-ton ship,
520. You mean they could not convey it home P- I do not mean that, but there is a limit na to how much you can work on a ship, you see. There is very little work connected with taking the blubber off a fish and boiling that, but it needs a lot of plant and a lot of space to utilise the whole caresse absolutely.
521. You would really think it is a question of time? -A question of time.
80,
522. They would not have time to do it? That is There is a short season. There are lots of places
in the world where they can have a land station, and there they could do it, for instance on the Congo, where they fish; it is a great shame they do not use the
carcases,
523. That has very undesirable results in other ways, I suppose -Yes.
524. (Mr. Baker.) I should like to ask you, Captain Bruun, how many whaling vessels there are from your Arranmore Station; that is to say, how many actually go out to catch the whales?-From the two Irish stations there are four or five, lately four.
525. There used to be nine vessels, but there are now only four vessels-There have never been more than five since I have been there.
526. How many whales did those four or five vessels catch per annum P-I will take the stations sepa rately from 50 to 65, with two boats to each station, is the average. In a year, with three boats only, one station got 100. That is to say, two boats generally get from 50 to 65.
527. How many whales were caught last year from your Irish stations ?-Sixty-five.
528. At Arranmore?-No, from Blackaod, and 12 less from Arranmore-53 I think. These numbers I am not sure about.
529. I only wish to know approximately. Might I ask whether there was a loss or a profit on these figures at each station ?-On the station where we caught 52 or 33 it was neither u lose nor profit that particular year, but during the six years they have been in opera- tion they have worked through a capital of 14,0001. I think, and the shareholders did not get a penny divi. dend.
530, Which station was that?-Arranmore,
531. How about the Blackwod Station P-The Black-
Bod was formed with more capital; they had 20.0007. to begin with, and they paid 5 per cent. the first two years and wrote off, I think,
per cent. The third
year we had a bad loss; we got hardly any whales at all as a result of the weather being so bad; so that we cannot count that year. We had only 34 whales I think with two boats, and we lost about 2,0007, in the third year. In the fourth year, that is last year, we may have made up within 3007, of the 2,000, we lost the year before, but that account is not ready yet.
532. So that on the whole it is not a very profitable enterprise at either station ?—No.
553. Do you work under the restriction of not killing the mother whale or calf?—Yes.
534. Is that under your licence P-It is under the British laws I think, so far as I know.
535. I have not been able to find it in the Irish Act of Parliament, and I thought possibly it might be a condition of some licence or permit which you have from the Irish Department?-No, I always thought it was the law. I do not find it in the Whale Fisheries (Ireland) Act.
(Mr. Holt.) There is nothing about it in the Aot; it is left to Captain Bruun's good sense.
530. (Mr. Baker.) That is what I want to find out. (To the witness.) You think that is not done; you think, in fact, that the mother whale and calf are not killed from your stations -No.
537. Would you look on it as quite a useful pru. vision? Certainly both from the humane point of view and from the industrial point of view, because the
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.
Captain L BRUUN.
23 February 1914.]
mother with a whale which sucks it is of very little value.
538. Is it possible to distinguish the calf as a rule P Is the calf distinctly smaller than the adultF-So long as he lives on the mother. You can see that. They behave differently; they go on each side of the mother and come up here and come up there and act quite differently to what they do when they begin to food themselves.
539. (Mr. Darnley.) Could you give any instance where the whaling industry has become unprofitable by destruction of whales and where the whales have subsequently regained their former numbers, or some. thing like them?-The business is too new for that; it is only 30 years old.
540. I do not necessarily mean now, of course; the new method of hunting is only 30 years old, but how about the Greenland whale, for example ?-1 cannot tell you that
541. Am I correct in supposing that the Greenland whale has hardly increased for many years back?—Yes. 542. It is still very scarce ?—Yes, I know very little about it, but I believe that is so.
543. Is it not a case of severe reduction due to whaling P--Certainly, but if you will allow me to say so, there is a great difference between the Greenland whale and others in this respect, that the Greenland whale was worth 2,000, and you could keep on catching them, sending out one ship and bringing home one whale with profit, but these whales that I am speaking of are worth probably only 1001.
544. That makes a great difference?An average of 1501. is a good price for each one and that, certainly, makes a difference.
You
545. How about the Biscay whale, which is not quite so valuable!They were absolutely distinct. know better than I do, when the big fishing was in 1820. Sooresby writes about this in his book “ Än Account of the Arctic Regions." They were not seen then for a number of years.
540. (Chairman.) I think, as a matter of fact, we have had evidence on that point of the reappearance of the Biscay whale?-I can give you the reappearance all right, but what I was looking to see was the year the big fishing went on. It is in this book, which I have here by Johan Hjort, but I cannot find it.
547. You can fill that year in afterwards when you have the proof of your evidence to correct?—Yes. It was not seen for a number of years and then they got a few off Iceland, I believe, altogether more than a dozen. That was in 1890, I should say. Then they appeared in 1908 or 1907, in rather great numbers off the Harris Islands. The company there got as many as 26 of them one year, and they said they saw great numbers of them. That went on for two or three years, but during the last few years they have absolutely disappeared again. The same thing occurred in Ireland; we used to see some there for some years, but last year we did not see any. That is the only reappearance I can speak of.
548. (Mr. Holt.) You were speaking of the unfortu- nate Arranmore Whaling Company and the fact that it had got through a capital of about 14,000l. I think we know apart from the scarcity of whales it had many other misfortunes ?--Yes.
549. So that the absence of whales would not wholly account for it —No, but it has not been much better at Blacksod, and there has been plenty of capital and everything there, and really most of the share. holders are trying to get me to stop it. They have been at me, and I get letters every day about it. If Arranmore had had better facilities on Iniskes island, they would have been more on the right side, but it would never have been a business, I am sorry to say.
550. They have had a good many whales, if they could have handled them?-Yes; in the beginning they would have got on all right, and probably would have continued to-day if it had been better conducted, but the business has been badly worked by the natives.
551. The islanders are a little difficult to deal with? -Yes.
552. Perhaps you could tell us the truth about the prohibition of whaling in Norway at some greater
[Continued.
27
length than you have mentioned. It had nothing to do with the protection of whales ?—No, nothing at all. The author of this book, Johan Hjort, writes an article on it here, and he says that in recent years, during the whaling at Finmarken, there was a great number of seals, and the seals drove the fish from the coast, you know, the grampus (the killer we call it) is a dan- gerous animal for the seals, and at the same time it is a dangerous enemy for the whales. They always appear, as a rule, together with whales. Now, one of the fishermen's points was that the whales bring the killers to the coast, and the killers kill the seals, and if there are no more whales to bring the killers to the coast, the killers will not drive the seals away. That was one of their strong arguments, but I think it is a very weak one, and Mr. Hjort says that you see the killer and the whale coming peacefully together very often. The whole thing is a very bad argument.
553. Is the idea that the killer follows the dend whale, trying to pull bits out of it -That has hap- pened.
554. Is that their argument?—No, that was not the argument, but the killers sometimes kill whales alive; we have seen that
555. I do not myself see exactly how whaling would attract live whales to the coast-I mean to say that it is a very stupid argument.
556. I did not suppose that it was your argument -No. I could say much more about it, because I remember it very well. My father had a whaling sta- tion there, and he never made a peany out of it, and they all talked about the nice compensation they were to get from the Government for their stations, and the whalers did not work very hard against it; they let the thing go. There was no agitation against it, and there was only a majority of one vote in Parliament against it. Further, speaking of the northern inhabitante of Norway, this is not the only thing they have raised objection to. There are different things, about trawl- ing, and so on; we have not got control over them. It is very much the same with you and the inhabitants of Iniskes; it is too far away, and it does not pay the Governinent to keep them in order, because it would be too expensive. They got it into their heads that this whaling was injurious to their fishing.
557. I think you said that it would be a reasonable thing to enforce the consumption of every particle of the whale at every whaling station P-Where they could work up the whale, yes.
558. I wondered whether they had special conveni- ences P-Where they have convenience for doing it. I do not think it could be done altogether in the floating factories.
559. Do you not think it is an unreasonable waste of whales to kill them and use only a bit of them ?— Certainly it is; I will admit that, but there are hun- dreds of whales similar to that round the world.
560. We are always worrying you if you leave half a pound of blubber on the beach, and you do not acem to regard it as unreasonable?—No, because there I have the convenience for treating it, and then you can- not compare these businesses altogether, oue in the north and one in the south.
561. I know the difficulties are much greater.- They are only there three months of the year, and they have only a ship to work with; they have no station.
562. You do not think it would be unreasonable then to allow them to go on in the same way as they are going, killing a large number of whales and utilising only a part of them--I do not think so.
563. Your reason is probably that you do not think the whales are in actual danger there; that is to say, in the way of becoming seriously reduced P-Certainly. When they start to get fewer whales they will stop the fishing, and you must also remember that every busi- ness to a certain ortent regulates itself. The whalers in Norway will send men down to the South Shetlands now to see if they can dry guano. They have two experts there experimenting this year; they are putting on more plant every year, and I think it is quite reasonable that they should be left at peace a little bit. 564. (Chairman.) May I put in one question there? On this point of the whales protecting themselves, so