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.' "
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.
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.A single whale can sustain an entire village for many months; a chainsaw might seem inhumane, but it's pretty hard to suggest the way we kill other sources of food (cows, etc.) is humane. We're both guilty. The problem for most people with a story like this is that they view a whale as cute, entertaining, and not as a source of food, while they view a cow as dinner on the plate. Same thing goes with rabbits, etc.. it's a matter of how animals were portrayed to you. There's nothing wrong with killing a whale for the purposes of survival.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
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.
Rather, it puts the age of the spearhead at well over 100 years. Isn't is possible--perhaps not likely, but possible--that the spearhead went unused for decades after being produced?
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.
To imply this has anything to do with survival is absolutely absurd. There are plenty of ways to survive, even in Alaska, without hunting the Earth's whales (or any animal for that matter).
Also,
We're both guilty.No, we're not.
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.
I dunno, but if your whole argument for whale killing is that its preserving an ancient tradition, don't you think that arguments starts to look a little silly when you go out and do it with machine guns and sonar.
Amazingly enough, there are other sources of meat in these modern times. Even in Alaska.
Oh, they're doing it for cultural reasons? Then let them use hand-thrown harpoons to kill it and whale-bone knives to carve it up. You can't have it both ways. I suspect that vast factory ships with explosive harpoon heads and gas-powered chainsaws are not culturally consistent.
I'm sure that killing Mountain Gorillas is culturally consistent for some African tribes, yet no one complains when they are protected.
I agree that maintaining cultural identity is important, but where do we draw the line? To my mind, the law is there to be followed, for everyone. Double standards are racist and backwards. If killing whales is acceptable to our society, then make it legal. If it is unacceptable, make it illegal. The law should not be different because of who your parents were, or what the color of your skin is.
M-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
I'm willing to bet that their lives have less of a negative global impact than your life.
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
How are they to change? The regions these people live in are too cold to support enough land based agriculture to survive, and shippping food up from warmer climates is terribly expensive. Without a local export economy, the people there can't AFFORD food grown elsewhere. No company is going to relocate its manufacturing base north of the Arctic Circle, so these people either have to exist as hunters, or exist as welfare recipients. They choose to maintain some dignity and keep their native culture operating.
The Intuit whale take is below the species replacement rate, so they aren't putting the bowheads survival in any danger.
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I am sorry, but I cannot agree.
Although the general argument goes along the lines that allowing indigenous people to hunt whales makes it harder to put pressure on Asians, I think that this argument is deeply flawed. We have stopped hunting whales with modern weapons because we realize the harm we are doing to the environment. Unless the Japanese and others come to a similar realization, we will not be able to stop them.
One important (even priceless) posession is that of cultural heritage and living tradition. I recognize that many in the world today, having lost a sense of heritage and tradition, fail to appreciate its value, but telling native peoples which traditions they can or cannot do (or even should or should not do) is simple imperialism and tramples on this priceless posession.
The danger of extinction for a species due to traditional practices only comes from two sources. If we recognize this, we can allow people to continue with their heritage and still avoid damage to the environment.
The first is due to technological advancement. This is what lead to the extinction of the Aurochs in Europe (the development of firearms used in hunting wiped out this animal very quickly. Arguably, the rise in higher technology weaponry nearly caused the extinction of many species of whales as well.
The second is due to explosion of demand. This is usually linked to either population increase or more likely more efficient methods of hunting (see the previous paragraph).
Before people suggest that it is still immoral to hunt whales just because they are whales (and absent from sustainability issues), let me say one thing. Every time you eat the standard chicken you get at the supermarket, every time you eat a hamburger, and every time you eat a boiled egg, unless you go out of your way to do otherwise, you are contributing to a system which imprisons animals in ways which are far more unethical.
Personally, I try my best to eat only free range or organically raised meat wherever I can. I go to the length of buying a side of beef once a year from a farmer who raises the cattle locally and humanely. But to suggest that it is unethical for Native Americans to hunt whales while contributing to this gross mistreatment of livestock is not only imperialist, it is also hypocritical.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
Right, except that there are hundreds of millions of cattle, and they only live for a few years at most, whereas bowhead whales number slightly over 8000 at best estimate, and may live over 200 years, making them the most long-lived mammals on the planet.
It isn't because they are cute, it is because they are rare, unique and irreplaceable. When they are gone, they are gone for good.
M-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Goddamnit. So I guess I can assume you're vegan, right? And that you only consume things you've grown and produced yourself? Otherwise shut the fuck up and stop acting like a fool hippocrite. I can almost guarantee you that your actions and lifestyle have a far greater negative impact on the environment and on other living things than these Inuit.
The Inuit were hunting whales long before anyone else populated this continent. If not for commercial whaling in various parts of the world, they would not be endangered now. So basically you want the Inuit to stop because you and your ancestors and everyone else fucked up.
Somehow, I don't think you really have a leg to stand on.
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?
One important (even priceless) posession is that of cultural heritage and living tradition.
This is always brought up, implying that human tradition is so sacrosanct. Subsistence hunting is one thing, but many traditions and heritages are steeped in ridiculous mysticism, bigotry, and pseudoscience.
I mean, I know that I wholeheartedly support movements that seek to stop equality for the sexes, because it's so important to my culture to treat women like shit. Or how about those traditions of imperialism, wanton slaughter of natives, poisoning the environment.
The greater whole of humanity and the environment should always trump any cultural tradition. The real reason small indigenous groups can continue their subsistence hunting is because their impact is negligible.
Talking about culture as if it is some static thing is ridiculous in of itself. Culture changes as science progresses and social revolutions occur. Once the majority of whites realized that colored people weren't a bunch of savage slightly intelligent monkeys, most of them woke up and started treating them with some modicum of dignity. The only "culture" true to humans is that we adapt and change. Everything else is aesthetics (the clothes we wear, art we fashion, things we pray to, dreams we have).
They are preserving the rituals of the hunt, no different than modern (Catholics/Protestansts/Jews) preserving the rituals of the host/communion/sabbath. Now you can argue that these people should not use modern appliances to cook their bread or modern preserving technology to protect their drink, but I am sure they would explain to you that it is the ritual act itself, not the means, that is important.
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
I should point out - their 'heritage' now apparently includes rocket-propelled harpoons and chainsaws.
If they want to preserve their ancient ways, fine. Hunt whales from small canoes with bone spears. But don't use a chainsaw and claim you're 'preserving your heritage'. Heritage is not a buffet. Either do it as your ancestors did to keep in touch with your past, or man up and move on.
Yeah, and at some point in the past they upgraded from bone to stone hewn tools to metal. At some point in the past they have made improvements to the designs of their boats. Exactly which revision of their "heritage" are you saying they have to stick to for it to satisfy you?
Unless one of their cultural traditions is "technological statism" then I don't see the problem. They didn't "man up and move on" when they invented a better harpoon; it was considered the natural continuation of the same heritage. Because there's a lot more to the underlying cultural heritage than a specific hunting technique.
Or do you think the plains natives should have stopped their traditional bison hunts after they aquired the horse from European settlers? I think in both cases the spiritual and cultural significance of the hunt was not fundamentally erased just because they figured out a new and better way to do it.
The enemies of Democracy are
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."
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.
I agree that maintaining cultural identity is important, but where do we draw the line?
To put it succinctly, you don't decide what constitutes a faithful continuation of their cultural identity.
Double standards are racist and backwards. If killing whales is acceptable to our society, then make it legal. If it is unacceptable, make it illegal.
It's not as simple as "acceptable" or "unacceptable" to kill in general. There is the issue of sustainability. Whale populations were annihilated by commercial whaling last couple centuries (and this had nothing to do with the Inuit btw!). Large scale whaling is unnacceptable. Small-scale whaling that will not endanger the whole population is acceptable. Allowing everyone to whale is not small scale. We cannot allow everyone to whale. We can allow a small number of people to kill a handful of whales.
So the question then is: If only a small number of people can whale, which people will we allow? That's where the cultural ties to whaling are significant. It's not a double standard -- the standard is small-scale limited whaling, period. But under that standard we by necessity give preference to someone and the Inuit are the obvious choice.
The enemies of Democracy are
I couldn't agree more. First, this:
... every time you eat the standard chicken you get at the supermarket, every time you eat a hamburger, and every time you eat a boiled egg ... you are contributing to a system which imprisons animals in ways which are far more unethical
telling native peoples which traditions they can or cannot do (or even should or should not do) is simple imperialism and tramples on this priceless posession
Yes! Like when the evil brits forced native Indians (I mean, Indians in India) to stop burning their wives alive on the pyre of dead husbands! This was a priceless possession of the Indian people and for the brits to say that burning women alive is barbaric, well that's just cultural imperialism.
And now this:
it is still immoral to hunt whales
I've been saying this for so long: there is nothing at all which makes a chicken different than a whale. There is absolutely no reasonable way to differentiate a chicken or a cow from an whale. Some people might say, oh, but whales are highly intelligent and chickens are, well, bird brained, or that whales produce music and live in societies, while cows just fart and chew cuds. Yes, indeed, you sir, parent poster, are truly brilliant, in your rejection of any nuanced look at the differences between species.
Now I'll turn off the sarcasm.
Everything you said is crazy and wrong: "free range" chickens are, legally, just the same as other chickens, with the difference that their coops have windows so the chickens can see the outside world. Yes, that is true. A window from the outside into the coop is the legal distinction between regular and free range chicken. If you think that makes a big moral difference, that makes you an idiot. There are almost no chickens that are allowed to range freely over a big area, almost certainly not the ones you buy. The words "free range" are marketing bullshit, which you have bought, literally. Furthermore, organic foods are lower quality and more expensive than regular foods, and put market pressure on foods which raise the overall price, meaning that the world's poor can't afford the nutrition they need. So, what I'm saying is, by buying free range chicken and organic vegetables, you are first of all wasting your money on marketing bullshit, and second of all making it even more difficult for the world's poor to afford life-saving nutrition. In my opinion, that makes you a supreme asshole, because in my opinion, food should be safe, inexpensive, and available to all humans. It's okay for you to disagree, and think that the world's poor should fuck off and die, but me, I have more compassion than that, for both the humans and the whales -- but not the chickens or the cows.