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.' "
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
You mean a bunch of Inuits, yeah I guess it is sorta odd that we let old cultures hunt a dwindling population of animals. But hey gotta maintain that good indigenous culture.
You mad
Perhaps someone relatively recently was simply hunting with exotic antique weapons and ammo?
Oldest living mammal - hardly. Since there's evidence that whales live up to 200 years (I actually RTFA'd), I doubt it was the oldest one out there.
As for devine retribution, since the Inuit native religion isn't Christianity, I imagine whatever entitiy waits in the afterlife for them would say "Nice score on that whale! Pull up a chair and have some blubber!", or the equivalent Inuit custom. Even if they are Christian, you don't go to Hell for killing an animal and eating it.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
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.
So, because something lives a long time, you would force your values upon people who have hunted whales for thousands of years? What makes your opinion so much better than their lifestyles?
Their numbers are low and getting lower? I don't know where you're getting your info (you probably should have read past the headline and into the FA, and not relied on your feelings of 'probably' etc...) but from what I've heard in the past, this type of whale--bowheads--are making a pretty decent recovery. That's why native Alaskans are allowed to hunt them.
Some sharks kill whales. Squids have even attacked whales. Should we start killing off the sharks and squids because they might attack whales?
Is anyone else alarmed that "we" (are you really an Alaskan native given a special permit to kill a finite number of whales a year? REALLY?) killed an old whale? If anything you should be glad--it was near the end of what we think their life expectancy is. It mated many times over and probably has countless progeny. I can't say I'm thrilled about it, but it's part of life.
I am more alarmed that we are even killing whales at all, regardless of age. But if that wasn't the base issue I would say that it is far more devastating to the population if young whales capable of reproducing are killed. This is because if you wipe out the base of the population growth you kill the species as a whole. what does an old whale look like anyways?
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Whaling is supposed to permitted by the IWC for traditional hunts by certain indigenous peoples. Perhaps you'd like to tell us what part of using a sophisticated modern projectile weapon is traditional?
The tragedy and travesty is that most of these so-called "traditional" hunts are bogus. Rather than using traditional means and rituals these "natives" are using modern weapons, sonar and a variety of other means to find and kill whales. The catch being often turned over to the Japanese for profit.
There is as much "tradition" in this type of whaling as there is "science" in Japanese scientific whaling. It's all a smokescreen for profit.
So, I agree with the original poster, although "yayhoos" is a very generous word.
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.
It's true, estimated whale populations have been declining, but are estimates really accurate?
People used to think that there were only a tiny amount of Giant squid--maybe in the thousands--worldwide.
When whales eat giant squid, the squid beaks are indigestible and remain in the whales stomach for its entire life (they are relatively tiny).
One day, a rather large whale washed up on a beach (I believe in cali). An autopsy and examination of the stomach revealed not hundreds but thousands of beaks. Magically, oceanographers reversed their view and decided that there are probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of giant squid.
People in general really don't realize just how big the ocean is.
1) Take all the land in the world--every country and every continent (India, China, I mean EVERYWHERE)
2) Multiply times 2.4 to get the ocean's the area of SURFACE
3) Multiply times the average depth of the ocean.
For those who are too lazy, I'll spare you the time: 323 MILLION cubic MILES (1.3 BILLION km^3).
4) Get over it: we know DICK about what's going on in the ocean. Pretending we can project anything whose habitat is as big as a whales is really just jibber jabber.
Yes, I agree, we should probably keep whaling in check. However, to say that we know just how much damage we've done is ridiculous.
Latewire
Ya, but pigs and turkeys are raised on farms where they don't play a role in the surrounding ecosystem. They're also fairly plentiful.
As for the Inuit people, I'm sorry but traditionalism is no excuse for maintaining something that is this destructive. Times change, the Bowhead whale population has significantly decreased, and people have the means to get food elsewhere. There are somethings in the world that are bigger then antiquated hunting practices. Many would argue that the current rate of whaling is still unsustainable.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
"Perhaps you'd like to tell us what part of using a sophisticated modern projectile weapon is traditional?"
The part where they use it to HUNT WHALES.
"Rather than using traditional means and rituals"
Just exactly who the fuck are you to decide how they observe their traditions? What on earth makes you think the tradition has anything at all to do with what weapons are used?
Your entire post displays a gross misunderstanding of what the important parts of the traditions are.
Cultural relativism is always stupid, whether you're talking about something like whaling, or whether you're talking about footbinding, or female genital mutilation...Just because someone has done it for a thousand years, doesn't make it right.
Then you make a completely irrelevant comparison (humans vs squid and sharks), and speculate wildly about it's childbearing years.
I think you're close-minded and uninformed.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Humans most certainly aren't endangered, though. Nor do we run around killing the hundred year old codgers by blowing them up with projectiles...
Other living things are worth protecting precisely because we CAN protect them.
Not all whales no, but there is argument on whether 50 dead per year out of 7800 known living bowhead whales who have a lifespan of 100+ years is sustainable in the long term. Couple that with accident, misadventure, and old age, and it won't take much to make 50 unsustainable.
50 seems like a lot more when you realize that 80 is 1% of the whole population. 100 would probably be close to 1% of the entire bowhead population, depending on what estimates you take...Some people think the total number globally to be as low as 8000. (7800 or so being hunted by your eskimos, with a few other critically endangered groups around the world).
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I live up around this area. There seems to be this romantic notion amongst those living in the lower 48 that these "Eskimos" still live in igloos, travel by dogsled and wear seal skin parkas. The truth is, the Inupiat are American citizens in spite of what they might like to think, they live in houses, they eat their KFC, drink their Budwieser, drive their pickup trucks and watch their satellite TV just like anybody else.
Their approach to preserving this whale hunting "tradition" has so diverged from its cultural roots that its become a fallacy.
To describe what really happens, they race out after this thing in their power boats and fire at it with a very modern, highly accurate harpoon with an explosive tip. Generally they try to blow a hole in the lungs so the whale starts drowning and then they dispatch it with high powered rifles when it surfaces. After it dies, they tow the carcass back to shore and then they tie a rope or chain around the tail and haul it up onto the beach with ATVs or a pickup truck. They then proceed to dismantle the body using their "traditional" chainsaws, as alluded to in TFA.
Now I'm no hippy or environmentalist, but the whole exercise seems to defeat the spirit of the "preserving the culture" concept. Is it really necessary? I think they do it simply because they're permitted to, I'm sure its a kick to hunt a whale, and they get a shitload of free meat and byproducts out of it.
The difference is that I am not trying to justify the killing of an endangered species for "cultural purposes". ...and I'm sorry, but exploding harpoons, sonar and chainsaws is not "slightly more modern technology" than bone spears, seal-skin kayaks, and hide&sinew rope.
It's resulted in overhunting because if you have to risk your damn life in some flimsy hand-made kayak, you quickly figure out just how important that dead whale is to your cultural heritage.
Yes, I read the article too. Which is why I also know that they are killing 255 whales a year when there are only about 8000 left alive at all. This species was not long ago on the very brink of extinction, and we just don't know enough about them to be sure how many is "safe" to take. Why risk it?
Every culture on the face of this earth has had to adapt to changing situations, why are they excluded?
M-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Having grown up in Alaska, with native friends (whose family participated in the hunts) I've got maybe a different view on the whale hunt. This isn't about food, it's about identity. The Inuit who live in western housing, who have electricity and regular groceries, who attend schools (often taught by non-inuits), who get around on motorized vehicles (snowmobiles in the winter, 3-and-4-wheelers in the summer), who receive dividends from their native corporations (these native corporations receive oil royalties) have feet in two cultural epochs- the industrial world and essentially the stone age.
Bridging these worlds isn't easy- their once-rich culture is declining, as the need it fulfilled (sustaining true subsistence hunter-gatherers in an incredible environment) slowly becomes a thing of the past. The Inuit are awesome, beautiful people and I don't envy them their position, nor do I begruge them this tradition. (even though I would never harm a whale or seal or walrus myself). It's the centerpiece of a culture that equated survival with community and cooperation- and their challenge for now is how to translate these values into their modern lives. The hunt is really a big deal- part rite of passage into manhood, part party, it's the time where disparate families and communities would meet, trade, where young adults from separate communities would court each other- imagine your life if suddenly the place where you did all of these things were gone.
We could learn a thing or two from the Inuit, just like they've got some stuff to learn from the rest of the world. This will take time. Maybe they'll replace the hunt with something else to serve all those other purposes. Maybe not. That's their thing, and they'll do it on their terms.
If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
Not all vegans "put the line under all animals"... Nor do all vegetarians. Perhaps a couple of decades ago when the only people *really* living the vegetarian/vegan life were the animal-rights extremists, but not in today's society.
I've been a strict vegetarian (nearly vegan) for about 12 years. But I am fine with people who choose to hunt (I have been one of them in the past) and have absolutely no gripe with people who choose to eat meat or animal by-products. I will even trap and kill animals that I deem to be pests if need be -- for example, termites, or anything (rabbits, raccoons, squirrels) trying to get at my garden.
Animal rights is not the point for my choice to be vegetarian. It's bio-magnification of toxins (herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, etc) and other heath reasons. And no, I'm not some weirdo with a freakish abnormality, it's just that being vegetarian can be a much healthier lifestyle. And after a few years of experimenting and expanding my palette, I found that the menu has quite a bit more variety and flavor than slapping a slab of some random animal on my plate and calling it dinner. I would be fine with eating organically raised animals, but I don't miss it, so it's not worth the extra cost to me.
I know your wasn't really your point. But I really wish people would stop assuming that all vegetarians/vegans are extreme animal-rights freakazoids. Peoples drives are a little more diverse than that.
To put it succinctly, you don't decide what constitutes a faithful continuation of their cultural identity.
...and predominantly Muslim communities should have the right to live under Sha'ria law, if they so choose? Admit it or not, a line has been drawn between traditional practices and the rule of law. You can argue that the line is in the right place, that's your right. However, you can't argue that it exists.
Oh, ok. So the community as a whole decides what is acceptable, not outsiders, correct? So... then you would have no problem with allowing non-consentual female genital mutilation among African immigrant communities in the US, as long as the community is ok with it?
On your second point, there is a long tradition (which you would know if you were a hunter or fisherman) in this country of managing small, sustainable harvesting of species to seek population balance. For quite a few species, there is a lottery to obtain a permit, with preference given to in-state residents. That is the fair way to do it.
Of course, I kind of doubt that there would be many non-indigenous applicants, because western society generally regards the killing of intelligent, long-lived endangered mammals as horrifying, an opinion I share.
Race-based quotas seem horribly backwards.
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
"Modern farming practices are potentially far more sustainable than the more traditional methods.
Sure we could use our very well developed understanding of ecosystem science to make farming sustainable, but what actually happens is that all our fancy science is used to make "food production" profitable. And not even profitable for the farmer necessarily, but profitable to the mass food distribution system conglomerates through high yield monocultures.
Buying local produce from "sustainable practice farms" (I just made that term up, i'm no expert... can't remember the technical term), usually called organic (but you'll want to verify this as the major food conglomerates have moved into "organic mass production") is not only a good way to get tasty food, it's an act of economic protest. Unfortunately, like most protest in the west, it's reserved for the relatively well off.
Does that include the inability to accept that you should change whom you blame for the whales' dwindling numbers... like the Japanese? Nothing against the Japanese, but they(their industry) are the ones insisting that we no longer have a whale shortage and that they should be able to hunt them again. The Inuits aren't trying to make money, they're trying to put food on the table for chrissake, and they were doing this long before we arrived here and they were doing it well within the limits of the reproduction cycles of the whales(and are still doing so considering the dwindling numbers of Inuits requires much fewer whales). But we can ignore the Japanese exploiting the sea because they give us Sony? If the Japanese were to stop and the numbers of whales *continued* to decrease then I'd say you had a point but that's never been the case.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
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"