Springer et al. (2003) contend that sequential declines occurred in North Pacific populations of harbor and fur seals, Steller sea lions, and sea otters. They hypothesize that these were due to increased predation by killer whales, when industrial whaling's removal of large whales as a supposed primary food source precipitated a prey switch. Using a regional approach, we reexamined whale catch data, killer whale predation observations, and the current biomass and trends of potential prey, and found little support for the prey‐switching hypothesis. Large whale biomass in the Bering Sea did not decline as much as suggested by Springer et al., and much of the reduction occurred 50–100 yr ago, well before the declines of pinnipeds and sea otters began; thus, the need to switch prey starting in the 1970s is doubtful. With the sole exception that the sea otter decline followed the decline of pinnipeds, the reported declines were not in fact sequential. Given this, it is unlikely that a sequential megafaunal collapse from whales to sea otters occurred. The spatial and temporal patterns of pinniped and sea otter population trends are more complex than Springer et al. suggest, and are often inconsistent with their hypothesis. Populations remained stable or increased in many areas, despite extensive historical whaling and high killer whale abundance. Furthermore, observed killer whale predation has largely involved pinnipeds and small cetaceans; there is little evidence that large whales were ever a major prey item in high latitudes. Small cetaceans (ignored by Springer et al.) were likely abundant throughout the period. Overall, we suggest that the Springer et al. hypothesis represents a misleading and simplistic view of events and trophic relationships within this complex marine ecosystem.

Counts of migrating whales depend on accurate sightings data. In this study, teams of shore‐based observers independently tracked whale pods during the southbound migration of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) while a routine (“standard watch”) census was underway. A comparison of sighting records showed that time and location accuracy was limited to 45 s, 3° (magnetic) horizontally, and 0.0057° (0.2 reticles) vertically. Of 242 attempts to track whale groups, 72 failed, 120 were “good tracks,” and 83 qualified as “best tracks” because they had ≥8 sightings/pod, ≥16‐min observation time, and unequivocal matches to sightings in the standard watch during uncompromised visibility. Between paired tracking teams, 39 attempts to conduct concurrent tracks resulted in 21 “good tracks” with complete agreement in 71% of the cases. Of 133 comparisons between trackers and the standard watch, 43% of the pod‐size estimates were the same, but the standard watch overestimated 10% of the pods and underestimated 47%. Thus, according to results from tracking teams, pods recorded as size 1 by observers on the standard watch should be corrected by +0.6; pods of 2 by +0.5; pods of 3 by +0.8; and pods >3 (4–10) were overestimated and should be corrected by −0.6.

No abstract

No abstract