Slashdot Mirror
Weapon Found in Whale Dated From the 1800s
LABarr writes "AP and CNN are carrying a story that has forced scientists to re-evaluate the longevity of mammals. A bowhead whale caught off the Alaskan coast last month had a weapon fragment embedded in its neck that showed it survived a similar hunt over a century ago. 'Embedded deep under its blubber was a 3½-inch arrow-shaped projectile that has given researchers insight into the whale's age, estimated between 115 and 130 years old. The bomb lance fragment, lodged in a bone between the whale's neck and shoulder blade, was likely manufactured in New Bedford, on the southeast coast of Massachusetts, a major whaling center at that time. It was probably shot at the whale from a heavy shoulder gun around 1890.' "
... my whales under 50 and without their own hardware, thank you very much.
do people catch whales a lot? and then they did neck surgery on it before they let it go? or maybe - instead of 'catching' a whale, it should read - killed a whale? I'm just wondering.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
We need immediate laws to license and regular spear guns. Oh won't somebody think of the children?
Here's to you, Lou.
Captain Ahab ALWAYS gets his whale... Eventually.
That a bunch of Yayhoo's killed an animal over a century old?
Yarrr!
The 'weapon' was also patented. As a result the RIAA has dispatched a flock of attorneys and intends to bring to court not only the tribe that killed the 100 ~ 200 year old beast, but anyone waiting in line for a hunk of blubber.
Reason? Reports of singing by tribe members have come in and without a doubt, multiple infringements have occured and will continue to occur until the bringers of justice step in and halt all misuse.
You've been warned.
...to have spent a century with a piece of metal embedded in one's neck, of all places. Poor animal.
This isn't the first time this has happened. I believe in one of Bill Bryson's books - probably 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' - he mentions a whale being found with a hand-thrown inuit spearhead embedded in its blubber. Or something along those lines... Anyway, it put the age of the animal well over 100 years.
A-Bomb
It hasn't caused scientists to reevaluate the longevity of mammals. Whales have been known to live for up 200 years, long before this evidence supporting a 100+ age for whales.
Nothing proves that man is who rules the Earth like taking animals that are 130 years old, killing them, and then hacking them up with a chainsaw. Keep showin' them animals who's boss, oh brave hunters.
YOU'RE NEXT, TURTLES
It was one of a 255 whale quota issued to villages of Native North Americans. These people eat the whale and use its parts for good use.
It ain't pretty, but it wasn't going to a bunch of sport hunters for trophies.
My very first thought when I read the headline was, 'If whales live so long, we should not be hunting them. They probably have a very finite rate of reproduction, their numbers are low and getting lower, and we're even killing the old ones.' I wish we would stop killing whales.
Ships injure and kill whales, whalers kill whales, sonar from U.S. Navy submarines kill whales and ruin their hearing. What we're doing is unforgivable.
Is anybody else alarmed about the news that we just killed an old whale?
Best regards.
Now why would you call native people yayhoos? This is not a story of some hayseeds out for a good time. This whale was harvested by a group of people that are monitored by the IWC and practice whaling as part of their indigenous culture. Did you read tfa? This is a major source of food for these people. Oh, because it's a 100 year old animal you have feelings for it? They can't eat because of your values? How nice of you. Don't bother to think of all the wood and lumber products in your life that are from trees that were FAR older than 100 years old when harvested.
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
Congrats, guys. You just killed the oldest living mammal! ... Let's you and I have a little talk about that whale. No, wait. Let me get God on speakerphone."
Someday that fisherman will be at the gates of Heaven and Saint Peter will say, "We've been waiting for you
Whales live indefinitely, and their master race 'swims' the universe in large cylinders. Everyone has known this since the historical documents were released in 1986.
Click here or here.
When reached for additional comment the scientists replied "Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
Every time it would rain, the poor whale can be heard for miles singing the complaining song of old whales. Roughly translated from whale song as he was talking to younger whales, "Aye! My neck is killing me! Years ago, some son of a bitch human shot me right in me neck! Yarrr. It 'urts every time a storm is ah brew'n. Yarrr. Take note young'ns"
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Perhaps someone relatively recently was simply hunting with exotic antique weapons and ammo?
The device exploded and probably injured the whale, Bockstoce said.
"It probably hurt the whale, or annoyed him, but it hit him in a non-lethal place," he said. "He couldn't have been that bothered if he lived for another 100 years."
The whale harkens back to far different era. If 130 years old, it would have been born in 1877, the year Rutherford B. Hayes was sworn in as president, when federal Reconstruction troops withdrew from the South and when Thomas Edison unveiled his newest invention, the phonograph.
The 49-foot male whale died when it was shot with a similar projectile last month, and the older device was found buried beneath its blubber as hunters carved it with a chain saw for harvesting.
You think there'd be a more humane way of killing any animal than to insert (i.e. shoot) a bomb inside its body.I would have to say that's one of the best stories I've heard in a long time. Next they're gonna tell ya that that found Jonah. More likely that they'll find Jimmy.
What?
1) We're better at killing whales than we were 100 years ago. 2) Seafood (i.e. krill) is good for you.
"That a bunch of Yayhoo's killed an animal over a century old?"
Why? Jack Kavorkian use to do the same thing.
Lets kill it!
Must be all the seafood. I say, if you're jonesing to hunt creatures that old, at least take some poetic license and beat them to death with a walker, Rascal, or can of Metamucil.
I am sympathetic to the plight of peoples whose culture have been so heavily influenced by outsiders, and their way of life being so changed. I do appreciate the cultures of indigenous peoples, especially peoples with lifestyles that are so closely tied to the environment. But I'm now wondering if we shouldn't be promoting the idea that they might want to catalog their cultural artifacts and rituals, but that they need to move on. The need to stop the whaling.
Go ahead, flame me, but I'm serious. We humans are having a profound effect on the planet and we need to change our behaviors. If you're wondering, yes, I have been modifying my behavior to lessen my impact for a long time; recycling, composting, reducing my energy usage. I'm near the practical limit of what I can do alone. Some new public policy to assist my efforts would help. Investment is solar cell technology, better and more public transportation, etc.
But back to the whales and the Inuit, the Norwegians (or whomever is hunting them), I'd like to see it stop.
Best regards.
No one cares because it was the wild natives that killed it. See, they don't have to abide by no stinkin' treaties like the civilized world does. They can de-populate endangered species at will and all the lefties will applaud them.
Rather than adopting to modern life, it is more important to the lefties for these folks to maintain their primitive culture - at any cost. Its an interesting battle - rights of endangered majestic beasts vs. rights of hunter/gatherers who refuse to modernize. Its just another example of lefties ensuring that we protect the survival of the un-fittest. In this case, its tribes of uneducated primitives who cannot or will not adapt to changing circumstances.
When nearly all the whales are dead, the lefties will probably concoct a scheme to stock the areas around the primitives' villages with the last remaining whale babies.
If whales are livening longer than we thought and yet their numbers are still lower than they should be Who knows what the reproductive life of a whale is and it could mean many of the living adults dont breed anymore
Is firing chronometers into whales instead of exploding spear points. Preferably ones that can be read without a chainsaw.
I certainly would not be interested in eating a sea creature that has had over 100 years time to accumulate all sorts of man-made chemicals and heavy metal pollutants into its flesh.
(As I sit here eating my tuna fish sandwich for lunch. Mercury, Yumm! It's not just for breakfast anymore! Why is my hair falling out?)
who's to say it wasn't just someone using an old weapon in the last 50 years? That was my first thought.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
Like killing an intelligent (they sing songs and adapt them as needed)harmless mammal. Yes, I know it was part of the eskimo's culture, but ... why haven't the eskimos learned to adapt to new realities, or can't they adapt? My ancestors did this, why can't I? Well, my ancestors scalped white men, so can I go do that too? Of course, we still have other Nations hunting them to extinction for no better reason than 'that is what they do' Oh well, I guess my grandchildren will have to watch movies and read books to see alot of species that are going to be disappearing soon.
I never pictured whales as having necks, or shoulder blades for that matter. They've always appeared to me to be one big body, with the head being at the front of the body. I usually associate shoulders with arms or legs as well, and since the whale doesn't have any arms or legs, I wouldn't know where the shoulder on a whale is.
From TFA: Whaling has always been a prominent source of food for Alaskans, and is monitored by the International Whaling Commission. A hunting quota for the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission was recently renewed, allowing 255 whales to be harvested by 10 Alaskan villages over five years. I find some hope that there is at least a little oversight in these hunts.
All the worlds indeed a
This one lived over an extra hundred years after twice being suddenly and instantly called into existence by some hunters improbability drive, only to be splattered after impacting the ground. The time line of whales life still is under scrutiny....
"the whale's age, estimated between 115 and 130 years old" ...
"It was probably shot at the whale from a heavy shoulder gun around 1890."
So the whale was somewhere between a newborn and 3 years old when they tried to explode it.
Unlike the poachers who killed one of the last two White Rhinos, who were living in a "heavily protected" sanctuary. http://www.znbc.co.zm/media/news/viewnews.cgi?cate gory=9&id=1181243151 and according to CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/31/rhino.d eath.ap/index.html there maybe as few as 13 left in the world
The whale wasn't "caught", it was killed. It's really disappointing to think that people still killing rare, intelligent mammals that can live to over 150 years old.
And before people start telling me that whale hunting is part of Inuit tradition, I'd like to point out that TFA mentions that this whale was killed with an mechanically-launched explosive projectile. That's about as traditional as a Lakota shooting a buffalo with an AK-47.
How did it taste?
Deleted
I mean how do they not know the whale was 100 when it got shot 100 years ago?
The issue I have is if the animal is domesticated or not domesticated.
I have no problems eating pigs, cows, chickens, and other domesticated animals. Truth is these animals would never survive in the wold today in their present form. You really think if you let bessie loose in the wilderness she'd last more than a day before being eaten by a wolf? She has no speed, no defenses, she just STANDS THERE.
These animals have been bread by humans for centuries to provide us food. They live because we let them. That is it.
WILD animals however (including wild counterparts of above animals, like wild hogs and wild turkeys) - I do not agree with killing and eating these animals, unless you're doing it with nothing but a knife. A hunter with a rifle vs. a deer or moose is not a fair fight.
Fish are a bit in between for me - I don't mind eating them because fish have little to no intelligence. But I do not agree with over-fishing.
For a long time if I saw an interesting Slashdot story, I knew it was inevitable that it would end up on the frontpage of Digg.
This is the first time I've seen it in reverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_roughy
When fisheries began to be depleated, they started scouring the bottom of the ocean and what did they get? A great new big fish. Only after a while did they realize that they might live as long as 150 years.
I doubt that even the natives should have a quota on any whales. Just leave them the fuck alone for christsakes. Claiming that they need to hunt whales to support their heritage reminds me of the lumberjacks here in Northern California that claim that they _need_ to kill old-growth redwoods to save their jobs. It also reminds me of oil... and how urgently humans consume resources that are essentially non-renewable.
what's the point. i say give every NRA member a nuke and let's get this show over with.
hope everyone enjoys explaining to their children and grandchildren that we slaughtered a whole group of mammals that live in the sea because it was easy money. i also hope everyone enjoys trying to explain how similar to humans the large primates _were_ once they're all dead. i can't wait to hear all the funda-christians denying that the great apes were anything more than monsters.
Yes, Offensive! Hate Speech! KKK Nazi! (After all, the current liberal definition of "hate speech" trumps any law.)
And how DARE he challenge moral or cultural relativism?!?! We androgynous Libs fought for years to wedge this into the Social Studies curriculum of 1st graders on up. We thought our brainwashing program was complete.
Rule #1: A 1st-world predominately white Christian culture CANNOT judge the evil doings of a more primitive culture, no matter how vile and no matter how it affects the rest of the world or even if it obliterates endangered species from the face of the Earth.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
People have been assholes for a long time!
Evolution. They are mammals. Yes.
Why don't you post from an account instead of posting as an AC?
I am aware that Inuit were doing the hunting. So what? Inuit have other choices. Fishing for salmon would be a good example.
I do value the Inuit culture, but at a certain point clinging to old ways becomes a Luddite reaction to change. They don't need to hunt whale, and their continuing hunts of whales endanger their future ability to hunt whales.
Mankind needs to move on. Lingering in old ways does not exalt the past, it mocks the past.
Best regards.
Or the whale could have impaled itself with the thing last week...
[alk]
It was headed right for us!
I used to hate whale hunting...until I had my first whale steak. Amazing! I do prefer mine without a bomb lance though, as you can break a tooth.
Now if only they could find a shark with a TRS80 inside, that would be something...
You can't escape us! We'll catch you eventually, even if it's after a 100 years.
Live as we do.
Pray as we do.
Stop hunting and gathering.
Become like us, the only one true way.
It will make your life and the world a better place.
And this coming from a person, who probably lives in a city, has running water, electricity, and a computer. And walks to the compost pile wearing an iPod.
Fucking pathetic.
"I suggest that you engage in repeated games of 'one of these things is not like the other'"
It's funny that you said this after you had already said this
"This whale was harvested by a group of people that are monitored by the IWC and practice whaling as part of their indigenous culture.
YOU: Europeans used to set people with warts on fire as part of their indigenous culture. And yet we frown on that today."
Will you be joining him in Kindergarten?
All they do is eat bamboo, there's no fat in there, they'd be lean and tough. Try eating some beef from a cow that's been raised on 100% grass. Tough and bland.
Don't Kill the Whale Lyrics
Artist: Yes
Album: Tormato
(Jon Anderson/Chris Squire)
You're first I'm last
You're thirst I'm asked to justify
Killing our last heaven beast
Don't hunt the whale
In beauty vision
Do we offer much
If we reason with destiny, gonna lose our touch
Don't kill the whale
Rejoice they sing
They worship their own space
In a moment of love, they will die for their grace
Don't kill the whale
If time will allow
We will judge all who came
In the wake of our new age to stand for the frail
Don't kill the whale
Word!
---
Aging Whales: Evidence of Age
Marine researchers now believe that the Arctic Bowhead whale may live 180 years or longer making it the longest lived mammal on earth. Back in the early 1990's, biologists weren't sure whether to trust these estimates, that is, until they stumbled on an important clue. I'm Jim Metzner, and this is the Pulse of the Planet, presented by DuPont. Jeffery Bada is a Professor of Marine Chemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at La Jolla, California.
"During the annual harvest by the local Inuit hunters, the biologists that were observing this found that there were stone harpoons imbedded in some of these whales. And these stone harpoons were no longer used by the local hunters after about 1870. Stone harpoons in a whale that was killed in the 90's implies that it is over a hundred years old, and this provided independent confirmation that we indeed were onto something really interesting."
What proved equally as interesting to Jeffrey Bada and the other researchers, was the fact that the oldest whales taken during the harvest were all males.
"I don't think it necessarily implies that the males of the species live longer than the females. It has more to do with their behavior. These hundred year plus old whales were survivors of the great slaughter of whales that took place in the late nineteenth century. And males in this species of Bowheads, tend to be solitary animals, where as the females group together in these big pods of whales, and as a result, they were probably more easily hunted. It may be that the solitary males survived, whereas the females were more heavily exploited."
We'll hear more about the long-lived Bowhead whales in a future programs. Pulse of the Planet is presented by DuPont, bringing you the miracles of science for 200 years, with additional support provided by the National Science Foundation.
---
[ above from: http://pulseplanet.com/archive/Feb02/2602.html ]
I think what we can all take away from this experience is that the environmental sciences are too boring for *most* Slashdot readers to get through the entire article.
Ok, maybe that's a little harsh, but I mean really, most of the comments make it clear that no one read the article. I feel like I'm in high school English class where the teacher would give a pop essay on the short story we were supposed to read the night before.
What's worse is that the poster did not even read the CNN article. Or perhaps didn't pay attention. The post says "AP and CNN are carrying a story that has forced scientists to re-evaluate the longevity of mammals". This is completely false. The linked-to CNN article says "It's rare to find [a whale] that has lived more than a century, but experts say the oldest were close to 200 years old."
Finally, the AP carried this story on Tuesday and CNN picked it up on Wednesday. Old news.
I'm kvetching (sp).
The whales are not getting extinct because 'nature does not need them anymore' but because some greedy humans earn money with killing them. The same goes for rhinos, elephants, tigers etc. Their place in the ecosystem has not been filled by other species, they are just slaughtered on behalf of a few boneheaded egocentric idiots who think it's cool to have a tigerskin or who don't care about the consequences of eating whale-meat.
It's not just about saving a species, it's about the whole ecosystem a species fits in that is destroyed because of the actions of forementioned idiots.
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
Mankind needs to move on. Lingering in old ways does not exalt the past, it mocks the past.
Inuits do value advanced culture,but at a certain point clinging to new ways becomes a selfish reaction to stability. They don't need Internets to eat, and their continuing industrialization to sustain
Mankind needs to back up. Impassioned pursuit of new ways does not exalt the future, it mocks the future.
Upshot: those who say "I value cultue X, but
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
...pigs and turkeys are raised on farms where they don't play a role in the surrounding ecosystem...
Uh, dude? *We* *are* the surrounding ecosystem!
--
phunctor
So let's let them use a machine gun. Or maybe a cannon? How about a fucking RPG. After all, it's the hunt that's important, right?
Sorry, but a large part of tradition is the methodologies used. If there's a tradition that involves a long trek through the woods in order to learn self-survival skills and commune with nature, then packing a dozen rifles on an ATV doesn't fall with tradition.
If they want to keep with traditional events or ceremonies, use traditional equipment.
Little Inuit kid at the table: "Gah, this meat tastes like a rusty harpoon!"
Mother of Inuit Kid: "You'd better eat it, or you won't get any blubber for dessert!"
We are still hunting whale this day in age?
Are you the same plunge who spent an astonishing amount of time patiently refuting a creationist? I was always impressed by that, and have tried to live up to the standard of reasonably debating unreasonable people that was set there. (On creationist blogs, that is; I clearly don't follow those rules of decorum over here.)
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Whales are mammals.
Take a look at this picture. You can very clearly see the neck, shoulder blades, and even most of the parts a human arm/hand has in it.
Sam
It's not. None of what you just said applies to anything I just said, so why reply?
Boise, Idaho. (Actually Meridian, Idaho on the Boise town line.)
Living on an acre. Garden, apple trees. Wednesday a raccoon woke me up with his horsing around on the back porch, he gave me the stare-down when I spoke to him. We've been feeding Mallards for years and they nest in my yard. Today was irrigation day. I opened the gate on the ditch and flooded my yard.
It's just a coincidence, but all of our power in Idaho comes from renewable sources; hydro, wind, geothermal.
My car is 20 years old. I walk to work when I can. I drive less than 5000 miles a year.
I'm not perfect, but I try to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. But all this is beside the point. A tech worker in the city can be just as environmentally gentle with recycling, public transportation, choices in recreation. I moved here from Seattle and I was just as hard-core a recycler then as now.
Best regards.
Sorry, but I feel your sentiments are being directed in a direction counter to your goals and towards people who probably have less total influence on whale survival than you do, even if their influence is more direct.
As a side note, this is interesting because they can date the manufacture of the spearhead very well. There have been other, probably older, examples of traditional ivory spearheads found recently in some of these whales. This is confirming what these natives have traditionally claimed about these whales; that they live for about as long as 2 human lifetimes.
In the latter case, Europeans were very culturally attached to a practice that we, in modern times, abhor. In the former, the group of Alaskans in question are very culturally attached to a practice that we, in modern times, abhor. In both cases, "but it's our culture!" isn't a valid excuse. I've explained why these things are like each other; if you disagree, it's up to you to explain why they're different in a way that affects the conclusion I've drawn.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I got hit by a 1957 Chevy, therefore I must be at least 50 years old.
word.
Um, because a person isn't a whale, any more than a whale is a tree.
Honestly, why bother defending an obviously indefensible comment? You said something stupid and now you're trying to pretend whaling is equivalent to burning people.
But it's not. And you know it.
By the way, you never once posted anything proving they're the same, you just insisted it was so. Saying something is true is not the same as something actually being true. I see now that you have a problem with drawing correct comparisons.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The comparison isn't dependent on a whale being equivalent to a person. Read again. Here, I'll repeat myself.
We frown on burning people alive today. We frown on killing whales today. We may not do so for the same reasons, but "it's my culture!" isn't a defense in the first case, and you've failed to explain why it's a defense in the second. I don't have to prove that they're "the same", whatever that means by your lights; I'm merely showing that the situations are analogous in that we don't accept "it's my culture!" as a defense for prohibited behavior.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
If the well was down to a month's supply of water, it would be sort of stupid to rush out and fill the swimming pool out of spite just to make a point.
I contrast the situation of endangered species with that of livestock. If one wants the benefits of harvesting animals is makes no sense to rely on nature to sustain UN-natural consumption rates. We don't depend on nature for fowl or eggs, we raise fowl and have a renewable supply of both.
If we want to harvest, we should farm or otherwise artificially support the populations we use.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Unfortunately Japan did not like the whaling ban and has continually harrassed and bullied other nations unsuccessfully attempting to get the whaling ban overturned. The Japanese are using desperate tactics such as bribing land-locked third-world countries to support them: "When allegations of vote-buying by Japan were aired at the London IWC meeting in 2001 by the New Zealand delegate to the commission, Sandra Lee-Vercoe, the Japanese delegate, Mr Masayuki Komatsu, unsurprisingly denied the allegations, 'If Japan was buying votes, you would see 150 nations in the IWC and as a consequence the unnecessary moratorium would have been lifted years ago.'"
In 1986 Japan decided to ignore the IWC whaling ban, re-started commercial whaling under the marketing badge of so-called "scientific whaling", which is effectively identical to commercial whaling.
The Japanese whaling ship methods are notoriously cruel and horrific. Unlucky whales (often the nursing mothers because they are the slowest ones) are attacked with exploding harpoons. Many whales are not immediately killed by the harpoon. The whalers deny this. They claim the whales are killed instantly. But you can see the whales are definitely still alive because they are breathing, moving and their eyes are still rolling around. The whales are then hauled by steel cable winches onto the ship's deck. There, the fate of the unfortunate whales is certain slow death. The Japanese crew members use massive wiresaws to skin the animals alive and to cut them into little chunks and to skeletonize them. The killing process can take anywhere up to 45 minutes. The whalers of course claim that any live whales are killed by the first few cuts, which is plainly not true. A live whale which is being cut up on deck is a pitiful and disturbing sight. The whale shakes and writhes as much as it can within the limits imposed on it by the steel cables pinning it down. We cannot know whether such a whale dies in agony, but it looks like it does (even the whalers themselves will sometimes admit it).
Because of widespread concerns over the serious health risks of eating whalemeat and because whaling is increasingly being criticized by younger Japanese people, the Japanese industry often sells the whalemeat not openly as whalemeat but labelled as "tuna" or as any similarly dark colored fish. Japan's so-called "scientific" whaling is obviously nothing of the sort.
It used to be possible to get observer status on Japanese whaling ships and monitor what actually happens on the Japanese whaling ships. But the Japanese whalers did not like having observers because the observers had a nasty habit of telling the truth and explaining how slowly and awfully the whales were actually being killed, often documented with clear video footage as evidence. So, the Japanese whalers now only allow "friendly" observers - people who will agree not to criticize the whaling in any way.
If only Nature would stop producing egocentric idiots she could save herself!
You'd think something smart enough to build a Platypus would not be getting outwitted by idiots, but you sure do seem to know what you are writing about.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
"The comparison isn't dependent on a whale being equivalent to a person"
Really? REALLY? Then why did you say
"There, I suggest that you engage in repeated games of 'one of these things is not like the other'"
Whales are not like humans. If you meant something else, you should have said it, instead of trying to twist your previous stupid statement into a new statement (which is also stupid, but I'll leave it).
YOU said it. Now you're trying to pretend what YOU said wasn't really what you said, but was something else entirely.
No, sorry, just own up and stop making ridiculous excuses. You sound like a politician after he gets caught with a hooker.
Maybe Nature is feeling suicidal?
They are threatened with extinction. Comparing them to turkeys is a bit daft.
Protecting some atavistic culture is not an excuse for tolerating whale extinction. Natives everywhere are destroying intelligent species and I see no good reason for taking a laissez-faire stance on the issue whether it's great apes being slaughtered or whales or elephants.
Children aren't allowed to blindly wreak havoc on their environment, and primitive cultures ought to be restricted in similar fashion.
It's a case of "When you build something that is more idiot-proof, nature starts building better idiots". Nature has decided itself idiot-proof, so.....
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
Actually, I didn't say anything about it.
I'm sort of deferring to "the experts" on this one who seem to think 50 per year is sustainable. Okay, it's all the fault of the Europeans and Japanese. True. Great. So, go kill a thousand of 'em a year and after seven years it won't matter who thinks this hunt is just a quaint little bit of antiquity and who thinks it is an enduring tribal tradition because it will be over for good no matter what you think.
...gotta nuke something.
People in bamboo houses shouldn't throw pandas...Jesus said that! -Ninja
Think Tony Soprano's dead? You may be right!
I, for one, welcome our new heartless overlords... oh, wait..
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
...it's black, a little smelly, and tougher than beef with a taste very similar. I imagine Bowhead is probably different, though.
Now HORSE meat is where it's at! Mmmmm...basashi (aka. sakuraniku)
Dolphin is too greasy for my tastes, though...
what does it actually taste like? Like chicken... can u find whale in your 'fish sticks'?
Which are actually German Spitz dogs. The name changed during WW-I, due to everybody hating Krauts and all things German.
[and for the record, my ancestors were German, so I'm allowed to call myself a Kraut per the Geneva Convention]
The first argument--whaling is okay because it's part of their indigenous culture--was dealt with by pointing out that "it's part of their indigenous culture" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. The second argument--if you care so much about whales, why don't you cry about the trees--is dealt with by pointing out that whales are not the same as trees, a point which shouldn't need to be laid out in full to be understood, because it's rather intuitive.
However, the fact that whales are different from people--which, as you point out, any idiot knows--has no bearing on the strength of the first argument as made; the point of the first argument is that, again, "it's part of their indigenous culture" isn't an excuse. If you're stuck on the point that the comparison happened to use people, it's entirely possible to replace the argument with one not involving humans; for instance, it was traditional to control the animal population by putting extra puppies and kittens in sacks weighted with rocks, and throw them in the river. We frown on that today.
Now, note that the strength of the rebuttal of the "but it's their indigenous culture" argument is the same, demonstrating that while humans and whales are different, this doesn't affect the point I was making. In contrast, the point that whales and lumber are not the same is central to the point that I was rebutting.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Man kind has never been in balance with nature. We have always sought the advantage required to kill animals or other people without getting ourselves killed in the process. A spear, arrow, gun, sling, or any other invention aimed at more efficiently killing was not designed to give the target a sporting chance. The limitations of the tools abilities were tied to the limitations of the technology. Before animals were hunted with bows and guns, they were chased off cliffs, herded into traps, or killed in hibernation... not very balanced or sporting.
Would you prefer that they used the traditional tactics of piercing the animals lung so that if suffocated while towing them along behind it? Most ritualistic or ceremonial hunts are conducted using only slightly modernized tools, but using modern weapons to dispatch the animal after the fact. Generally the animals are still harpooned, but to prevent the animals suffering and endangering the people involved they kill it with other means.
I do not believe it is necessary to conduct ritual hunts in modern society, but I also do not believe it is the place of close minded individuals to impose their will on an entire peoples way of life. They are conducting themselves in a responsible manor, feeding their people, and preserving a tradition.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
One Tukwila, Two Tukwila, Three Tukwila, Floor !
You chastised that other guy for making a comparison between two things that are dissimilar. YOU DID EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Save the ridiculous attempt at justifying why your two different things are valid to compare while his aren't.
"The first argument"
Where did I even address this? YOU are the one stuck on that. Get it in your head, I'm after you because you did something then attacked someone else for doing it. You are a hypocrite. WHY you are a hypocrite doesn't matter one whit. WHy you think your comparison is valid doesn't matter either.
What matters is YOU did something then told someone else not to do EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID.
So when you reply, stop telling me why you think your "first argument" matters and admit you're a hypocrite. I honestly don't give a fuck about anything you're going to say apart from that admission.
Apparently PET studies etc have shown most of the 'excess' brains they have are used for processing sonar information.
Most 'whales' taken by Japan etc are really overgrown dolphins (Minsk whales) which are not even threatened.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How asinine to think whales live that long. Clearly, whale hunters from the 1800's are still alive
The 10 villages are limited to 255 whales over the next five years.
You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
Didn't they ban cloning?
Like what I said? You might like my music
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Navy_Marine_Mamm al_Program
OH NOES! Has the world gone EMO!?
Spam Thwart: Anti-Spam Collective
Other than absolutely proving it was a arrow from 1800's, and actually fired during that period, couldn't someone say in the last few years, fire a weapon from that time period at the whale?
It just seems a stretch that, a fragment, of an arrowhead, from the 1800's, managed to stay wedged in it's skin for over a century. Aside from that, I always figured some species of whales were long lived, I mean some turtles live well past one hundred years, why not a species of whale?
Aw Frell this
Humans are as much a part of nature as any other species, if nature wanted whales to live, nature (which indeed is a being, and wants things to be in certain ways) would have given them lazers.
No. Well there's your answer.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Smart enough to build a Platypus? Have you ever seen a platypus? It's a lot closer to 'stoned enough to think a platypus would be a really good idea.'
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
It's not that interesting that they found that weapon. It's far more fascinating that those whales gwet that old.
One more reason to stop than killing for 'research'.
Privacy is terrorism.
I'd like to see the results of your PET study.
How do they know when that weapon was fired? The methods of storing weapons from that time included wrapping them in oil cloth, and could preserve the things for a good long time before they had to be used. Just because it was manufactured in the 1800's doesn't mean it was fired then.
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
To put this tradition in context, imagine if it was ruled that the American tradition of owning firearms was deemed not only inappropriate and unnecessary, but also detrimental to society and the environment.
This isn't about weapons it's about what's done with the weapons and how it affects wildlife.
Imagine if it was ruled that the American tradition of hunting game was deemed not only destructive if taken to too large a scale, but that Americans, who have traditionally lived off the land, were capped on the number of wild animals they could take, were told they could only hunt them in certain seasons, and were generally directed to figure out a way to domesticate animals and come up with a system to get themselves food from a supermarket instead of the woods.
Thank goodness we have a couple hundred million deer taken from the woods each year instead.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
We don't really know how long bowheads live, so who is to say whether or not this example is an senior whale or not.
It is however a sexually mature whale, which is at least better than culling pre-pubescent individuals, and although I do not agree with whaling because I believe they are sentient creatures, the Inuit populations in the area do rely on whaling as a food source and it is an important part of their culture historically.
We cannot look at an aspect of their culture and say 'oh that is barbaric' and attempt to take it away or condemn it. Anthropologically, this has never been successful unless the so called 'barbaric practice' is replaced with another culturally significant practice. In this case one would also have to replace the food source as well.
-Magdalene --"there are 10 types of people in the world, those who read binary, and those who don't"
That would be you, with your whaling permit. What a lucky ungrateful bastard you are, with your racially discriminatory special rights.
Yay. Way to go. Being both fish-l33t and jerk at the same time.
Who cares about you when you obviously has no concept of civility? Have you had so few times were you were right, that you have to be such a jerk when correcting another?
Fuck off. No, lets ban all fishing and whaling. Thatll show pompous asses like you.
In a few years we'll finally be able to sail around without bumping into those large, unproductive animals.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Now, not wanting to be a spoilsport, some people (including some on the forums) seem to think that whales are whales, and all whales are in danger of extinction, being hunted by cruel people, and they are really smart, like from a Disney cartoon. Lets take it from the start. There are over 60 different main species of whale. Some are in danger of extinction, others are not. The whale in the referenced article was a Bowhead whale, of which around 10.000 exist. That may sound like a big number, but it isnt. Its classified at "lower risk" for extinction and 67 animals are hunted each year by natives in Alaska. The whales hunted by the Norwegian and Icelandic are mostly Minke whale, of which more than 450.000 are believed to exist, therof around 150.000 in the North Atlantic. That one is not considered in danger of extinction, and those countries try to act responsibly about ALL their hunting and fishing, as mistakes made by all North Atlancic countries in the past have been shown to have a real consequence. Iceland also catches 9 Fin whales (endangered, 50.000 total, sustainable catch around 200 pr.year according to IWC) Japan is also aiming for some Bowhead whales (lower risk) and 50 Humpback whales (vulnerable) All in all, Japan hunts around 1000 whales a year, Norway also around 1000 and Iceland between 40 and 60. These numbers are approximate and are not just one type. The largest numbers are Minke, followed by Bowhead, Humpback and Fin whales. All three countries are behaving in a responsible manner, understanding the consequences of overhunting. One of the problems is that the IWC (International Whaling Commission) is controlled by people who only listen to political pressure and environmental pressure groups (which may or may not have the environment as their primary concern) instead of listening to their own scientists. In 1989 the IWC put in place a ban on whaling. Whales were not hunted commercially because the conditions were not right. The main whaling countries all took part in this. Later, conditions changed. Some species of whales were shown to be in abundance. A few of the countries tried to have the IWC change their rules, so that if whaling were commenced again, it would be done responsibly. The IWC had at that time been taken over by lilly livered politicians who favor pressure groups over science (the Americans spring to mind). The result is that three countries hunt whales, each trying to do so responsibly, but the commission which was founded to ensure that whaling is done responsibly is so out of the loop that there is no coordination. Whales are beautiful creatures, but so are many others we hunt, eat and use for the products we can make from them. As to their intelligence, that is fiercely debated. Those stating whales to be extremely intelligent are mostly doing it from the heart (I mean, they ARE beautiful), those stating that whales are probably no more intelligent than any other mammal living in the wild are mostly scientists. Whales do have large brains, but intelligence pretty closely correlates with the ratio between total mass and brain mass in all other animals. By that reasoning, whales are decently clever, beautiful, and, if cooked correctly, pretty tasty (like Bambi, with a hint of ocean) As for the cruelty of the hunting method, military bullets are often ful metal jacket, which means they do not balloon or disintegrate when penetrating their target. This is to injure and hurt rather than to kill, these are illegal for hunting in most places. Regular hunting bullets penetrate their target, balloon due to deceleration (they widen or flatten) and rip out a big chunk where they exit. Kill almost instantly if aimed well. An exploding tip harpoon penetrates and explodes, hopefuly killing the animal swiftly. I dont see a big difference. In general the whalers are just regular guys, they dont want the animal to suffer (unlike greenpeace which has been known to pay hunters to treat animals badly to show on video), they just want to do their jobs well, and get home to their family. No int
Now, not wanting to be a spoilsport, some people (including some on the forums) seem to think that whales are whales, and all whales are in danger of extinction, being hunted by cruel people, and they are really smart, like from a Disney cartoon.
Lets take it from the start.
There are over 60 different main species of whale.
Some are in danger of extinction, others are not.
The whale in the referenced article was a Bowhead whale, of which around 10.000 exist. That may sound like a big number, but it isnt. Its classified at "lower risk" for extinction and 67 animals are hunted each year by natives in Alaska.
The whales hunted by the Norwegian and Icelandic are mostly Minke whale, of which more than 450.000 are believed to exist, therof around 150.000 in the North Atlantic. That one is not considered in danger of extinction, and those countries try to act responsibly about ALL their hunting and fishing, as mistakes made by all North Atlancic countries in the past have been shown to have a real consequence.
Iceland also catches 9 Fin whales (endangered, 50.000 total, sustainable catch around 200 pr.year according to IWC)
Japan is also aiming for some Bowhead whales (lower risk) and 50 Humpback whales (vulnerable)
All in all, Japan hunts around 1000 whales a year, Norway also around 1000 and Iceland between 40 and 60. These numbers are approximate and are not just one type. The largest numbers are Minke, followed by Bowhead, Humpback and Fin whales.
All three countries are behaving in a responsible manner, understanding the consequences of overhunting.
One of the problems is that the IWC (International Whaling Commission) is controlled by people who only listen to political pressure and environmental pressure groups (which may or may not have the environment as their primary concern) instead of listening to their own scientists.
In 1989 the IWC put in place a ban on whaling. Whales were not hunted commercially because the conditions were not right. The main whaling countries all took part in this. Later, conditions changed. Some species of whales were shown to be in abundance. A few of the countries tried to have the IWC change their rules, so that if whaling were commenced again, it would be done responsibly. The IWC had at that time been taken over by lilly livered politicians who favor pressure groups over science (the Americans spring to mind).
The result is that three countries hunt whales, each trying to do so responsibly, but the commission which was founded to ensure that whaling is done responsibly is so out of the loop that there is no coordination.
Whales are beautiful creatures, but so are many others we hunt, eat and use for the products we can make from them. As to their intelligence, that is fiercely debated. Those stating whales to be extremely intelligent are mostly doing it from the heart (I mean, they ARE beautiful), those stating that whales are probably no more intelligent than any other mammal living in the wild are mostly scientists.
Whales do have large brains, but intelligence pretty closely correlates with the ratio between total mass and brain mass in all other animals. By that reasoning, whales are decently clever, beautiful, and, if cooked correctly, pretty tasty (like Bambi, with a hint of ocean)
As for the cruelty of the hunting method, military bullets are often ful metal jacket, which means they do not balloon or disintegrate when penetrating their target. This is to injure and hurt rather than to kill, these are illegal for hunting in most places. Regular hunting bullets penetrate their target, balloon due to deceleration (they widen or flatten) and rip out a big chunk where they exit. Kill almost instantly if aimed well.
An exploding tip harpoon penetrates and explodes, hopefuly killing the animal swiftly.
I dont see a big difference.
In general the whalers are just regular guys, they dont want the animal to suffer (unlike greenpeace which has been known to pay hunters to treat animals badly to show on video), th
worthless pieces of shit. same mindset which is exhausting rainforests to the extent that theres less o2 for anyone on the planet. destroying irreplaceable values for pathetic amounts of personal gain. japanese, russians, norwegians and icelanders ... and these are counted as "civil" nations in the earth ! my butt is much more civil then all of you combined.
Read radical news here
It was killed by Inuit (aka Eskimo) hunters.
They eat whales. And use every other part for other stuff, wasting nothing.
Not quite the same as a Japanese whaler slicing it up for dog food and perfume.
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
is this a matter of "scientific research" that japans trys to constitute its believed-right on to hunt down thousands of whales every year ? .. whats the clue to kill a mammal , just to tell "hey its been hunted before , and yes its older than me and my parents together" .. stop killing animals - or be so !!
I can't believe enough people tagged this story as 'mobbydick' --I really wonder what books are considered 'essential-reads' in schools today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby-Dick
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Thanks for the comment. /. should consider giving access to firehose only to the mentally stable and willing to read people out there. I'm pretty much tired of reading old bullshit again and again on the main page
just existing or doing the same thing for 1000 years does not mean what is done is right or acceptable by modern civil standards.
"ethnicity" or "tradition" or "world heritage" does not justify allowing continuance of brutal traditions.
if anyone comes forth and says otherwise, i will rightaway start defending cannibalism tradition in many african tribes - after all they have a right to maintain their "traditions" too.
noone is telling or forcing inuits to live where they live. they live in developed countries, and they are in numbers enough to easily be relocated and accommodated elsewhere.
get a load of that - some tribesmen killed a 130 year old whale. frigging 130 year old.
Read radical news here
...because it was a response to an even more spurious argument (essentially "It's not my fault, I'll do what I want," which isn't the point here).
Is this a pun I don't get, or is /.'s readership just freaking illiterate?
you had me at #!
Sorry about being partially off-topic, but why on Earth do Americans use the term "the 1800's" to refer to anything else but the first decade of the 19th Century? Why doesn't it say "Weapon Found in Whale Dated From the 19th century?"
Disclaimer : I'm french and I'm pretty sure that in french we would have said "XIXème siècle" for "the 1800's"
You just got troll'd!
*shudder*
The doctor will only let me see the headlines these days. Does the article say anything about inscriptions or the like?
sigs are hazardous to your health
"They're not my traditions, but I still have to live on the same planet, and it still affects me when whales end up extinct."
Except these hunts don't effect the population at all, and the population has been steadily increasing. How stupid does your point look now.
"How about traditions that involve female circumcision, or marrying 13 year-old to 40 year olds, heck, how about if it's a tradition in my family for the man of the house to beat our wife when they get out of line?"
How fucking stupid are you that you compare hunting a whale to beating a wife, or mutilating a child? How moronic are you that this comparison makes sense in your little pea brain?
Stop posting until you're less stupid and can come up with a better argument than "BLAAAH!! I don't want whales to be extinct!!! BLAAHHH!! EVEN THOUGH THEIR POPULATION IS INCREASING!!""
God you're fucking stupid.
"Repeatedly, you fail to understand when someone is using a gross analogy to illustrate a point."
Analogies are both inaccurate and petty. They are tools for people too stupid to lucidly illustrate what they mean in plain language.
"You are taking people's words far too literally"
I take them for what they TYPE. Nothing more, nothing less. They're free to clarify their thoughts, but seeing as how they generally rely on analogy, they're most likely too stupid to do so.
"You so completely miss the point of the post you are responding to in every post you make"
No I get the points, I just reject them and the baseless reasons they are founded on. It's not your fault you're not bright enough to tell the difference.
"I gotta wonder if you even want to understand what other people are trying to say."
Let me try then. In your post here, you're saying you're stupid and have nothing of any value to contribute whatsoever. How'd I do?
What the fuck are we conserving it for then?
Yeah, you hate that I'm right and you have no argument.
I'll stop posting my correct assessment if you stop breathing. Deal?
I don't know about a population increase, but according to my research the bowhead species of whales is in fact still endangered
They also don't reproduce very often, although they do live a long time (if they survive). According to wikipedia, females can bear young about every 3-4 years.
However, the wiki article also states that the current hunts are not having an overly negetive effect upon the whale population. Given that, I would currently have no person objection (not that it makes a difference if I do) to the current hunts so long as the whale population isn't further endangered by them.
As for the other "traditions," yes, perhaps I went a bit far. However, the problem is that humans by nature also tend to go to far based on a few other concepts of our nature:
a) We use tradition, or "this is the way we've been doing it, so why should we stop", as a reason to continue doing something
b) We tend to use the "I want to do so, and I can, so I will" methodology, paying more attention to what we can do as opposed to why we shouldn't or why it was done a particular way previous.
c) We are ever-increasing in our ability to consume resources, and overwhelm nature.
Actually This comment said it pretty well.
Again, I perhaps went a bit far in what was meant to be a cautionary comment. Just because they can hunt due to tradition - with increasingly modern technology - doesn't mean that it's right. However, at this point it doesn't mean it is wrong either, so long as the intent is preserved. In opposition to both of our previous comments, the intent/tradition is neither "to hunt" nor "to hunt in a particular way," but rather to provide and acquire sustenance. So long as it doesn't go beyond that, keeping in mind future survival (not depleting the food resource), it would seem to be acceptable in its current form. A bit sad to cause the death of a century-old creature, but death is a part of life, it's the slaughter we should try to avoid...
I'm guessing that whatever I write here will receive a flame or insulting reply, however. Going by your previous comments you tend to take your stances for the opportunity to use profanity and insults. Perhaps that's it's just your style to be insulting, but you'll get more useful response if you toned it down a bit (and less downmods too)
I've explained my point--the difference between what I chastised the original poster for and what I did--three times now. If there's something about it you don't understand, please specifically state what it is, rather than declaring it invalid because you're enjoying your self-righteousness too much to actually read.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca