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?
Captain Ahab ALWAYS gets his whale... Eventually.
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
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."
I think laws should be put in place that would require these guys to use 'period weapons' to hunt these ancient animals. I wonder how many whales they'd catch if all they had were gun power and some rusty spearheads. I suspect they'd value their catch a lot more after having to go through all that work.
Error:
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.
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?
First, that "bunch of Yayhoo's" was a group of native Americans with the legal right to hunt whales for food, just like they've done for a very long time.
Second, how the hell were they supposed to know how old the whale was? And why should it matter? Is it a little less unethical to kill younger whales in your eyes?
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
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.
Disgusting...
"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!
Judging from the article those yahoos are First Peoples/Native Americans who went on to eat the whale, and who have a limit of 255 whales per 5 years. These whales are slightly endangered though, with 8,000-9,200 individuals worldwide. Personally I think it was OK to kill it in this scenario and for their reasons.
The number of whales killed is already monitored and regulated, so that's hardly an issue.
How do you figure the right historical period at which to freeze whale hunting technology? What makes late 19th century methods acceptable in comparison with pre-gunpowder methods while 20th century methods are unacceptable?
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
Because a 130 year old animal probably has the stringiest, gamiest meat imaginable. Not to mention 130 years' accumulation of heavy metals and other toxins. They'd probably have much more satisfying dining if they got a cheap deal on a bulk order a few sides of beef.
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.
You watch your mouth, Cadallin. The Native Americans were raped of their land and resources by white people like us!
Mmmm.. Donuts
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
The bowhead whale population is growing, not dwindling.
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!
Please note... that was intended as sarcasm.... I think I failed rather miserably.. damnit.
You mad
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....
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 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.
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.
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.
Wiping out another species WOULD be in keeping with Inuit culture. The Inuit's ancestors wiped out 95% of the large mammals in North America within a few thousand years of arriving here.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Whaling is very closely monitored and restricted with the intention of growing the population while at the same time meeting the needs of human cultures.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
"Disgusting" is making excuses for hunting endangered species.
Tradition is not sufficient justification for anything, much less killing.
I suppose you support slavery and hunting your neighbors for food, because people did that for thousands of years, too.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
People have been assholes for a long time!
Nope. As long as they're not endangering the whale population, I don't care how they interpret their traditions. What seems silly is an outsider telling them what their traditions are supposed to be.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
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!
Yes, because prolonging an already long and no doubt agonising death by using outdated technology is the answer.
Most of the criticism of current whaling practices is that it is inhumane to make an animal suffer for so long.
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.
"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.
Scalping white men isn't necessary for survival (these days, anyway). The Inuit live in a place where it's difficult to find or grow other abundant sources of food, so whaling is nearly a necessity. (Although I'm reminded of Sam Kinison screaming, "You live in a f*cking desert! Move!" about the Ethiopian famine--if only it were that easy). And as for the other countries harvesting whales, you'll generally find there's a strong profit motive behind it. Not so much for the Inuit.
---
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 ]
If you claim that you need to do something because of "tradition" when you happily alter that tradition willy nilly in lots of other respects, THAT excuse really IS rendered sort of silly.
Good point regarding the technology. But I disagree with your implication that whale hunting, in any form, is reasonable as long as the number killed is monitored. I'm not a whale-hugger, but I do take every chance I have to remind folks that there is a difference between "not endangered" and "flurishing." I wonder what would happen to the oceanic ecosystem if we radically increased the total number of whales we allow to live in our oceans?
Error:
The yayhoos are an endangered native culture. The whales are an endangered species. If they time it right, they'll both go extinct at the same time. Ideally the last guy from that culture and the last whale kill each other off in an epic battle. It'd make a good opera. Except I think Wagner already did something like that...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I would like to see laws put into place that allows whales to harvest 255 humans every year for their sadistic pagan rituals.
The tradition is the hunt itself. The mechanics of that hunt are irrelevant.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
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).
I am all for that. Let the whales make their case at the UN.
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
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?
I think if you're going to limit the technology, you should limit it at the point before the "white man" came and introduced technologies to these cultures. That means no gunpowder, no snow machines and motor boats, and no heated homes with computers and TV. It seems to me that if you're looking to maintain you're culture, you shouldn't be able to decide what stays and what goes. The people who should be allowed to hunt animals they did to preserve their culture should have to live the way their ancestors did. There's no reason for you to be hunting whales if you're using modern technology.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
It's the endangered part. If it was the killing part, I'd have said "killing" or "murdering" instead of "hunting".
I think they just might take big bags of money into account when they approve just how many whales can be killed per year, and I dare to presume that they have seen more big bags of money than you or I.
I also think you are incredibly naive, and I'm surprised you haven't been taken in by a 419 or similar scam to the extent that you can't afford internet access yet.
Your sigh is not an insightful, cutting, witty remark, mostly because you are wrong. It is not about tradition. I don't care about the lives of individual animals. Your making of unfounded assumptions does not affect me, it only makes you look like a schmuck. What I care about is biodiversity, which makes the bio- part of the biosphere robust. Diversity is the enemy of fragility.
Think about this for a second; literally some 75% of the medicines that we use today are derived from plants or animals. They are either extracts of them, or synthetic reproductions of same. Aspirin, the most popular medication in the world today, was originally a derivative of the willow tree (and you can make willow tea from the bark, IIRC, and get the same effect.) Penicillin is a naturally occurring organism. Et cetera. Every organism we destroy is one less that might produce a cure for cancer, or herpes, or... well, you get the idea. So even from a purely pragmatic standpoint, genetic diversity is highly desirable.
Like Samuel Jackson said, "Don't make assumptions. It makes an ass out of you, and umption." But attacking straw men doesn't get you anywhere against me.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
...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!"
Actually, it is. There are a lot of skills and ceremonies bound into the equipment used for a tradition. The pain and effort put into crafting the appropriate tools, the self-sacrifice, and the possibility of failure can be a big part. The appreciate and understand of performing a traditional action in the traditional way should not be underestimated, nor should the balance with nature that historic technology offered in comparison to modern technologies.
We are still hunting whale this day in age?
Completely unproven.
A distinct possibility, of which there are many.
But again, completely unproven.
No Comment.
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
I'm not quite sure what I said that touched such a nerve, but whatever it is, I apologize--I think you took my post way more personally than it was ever intended given the number of ad hominems. Regardless, I'm sorry if I offended you.
;) It's funny how that works...
I'll respond in general--the Whaling Commission is _bitterly_ fought against--mostly by countries like Japan and Norway who want more commercial whaling. I'm not sure it can be argued that they are a corrupt organization--if you have any proof of your allegations, I would be glad to see it. You wouldn't be making an assumption, would you?
In any case, the issue at hand is NOT commercial whaling, nor the alleged corruption of the commission--the issue is LIMITED native hunting rights. Furthermore, limited native hunting for species which, as far as I know, are not otherwise commercially hunted. I'm not even sure where these big bags of money would be coming from!
The commission claims the populations hunted by the native Alaskans are growing--even with the sustainable hunt that is allowed. Again, if you have any evidence to the contrary here--perhaps other than calling me a schmuck, or insulting me--I would be glad to hear it! Until then, you've just been making assumptions.
Incidentally, the whaling commission DOES allow whaling for science--so maybe one day the next miracle drug will be from a whale...
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.
It's actually every 5 years, not every year. I don't know of any whale attacks, but over the past 5 years, 2500 people have been killed by elephants.
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?
...gotta nuke something.
People in bamboo houses shouldn't throw pandas...Jesus said that! -Ninja
The Inuit seem to get modern clothing, technology and stuff just fine. They have land cruisers, ski-doo's and all manner of mechanical equipment (along with fuel, oil etc). If they can get all that surely they can get the same food anyone else gets delivered. They do not need to kill rare whales to survive.
They can shove their 'tradition' up their collective arses, they no longer respect it. Reality is they want the best of both worlds, they want the convenience of the modern world and perks of their protected status. Hence you have them 'traditionally' hunting whales with explosive harpoons from sonar equipped vessels. If it was 2 men in a row boat, with a sharp stick you could maybe sympathise more...
I, for one, welcome our new heartless overlords... oh, wait..
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
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'
Now you're really getting ridiculous. So 2000 years from now when they are exploding whales with space-guided lasers from starships you're still going to be buying the "we must respect and preserve traditional culture" excuse for why they can't just stop doing something?
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
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
So I assume you put candles instead of electric lights on your Christmas tree?
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
I actually had the chance to try some genuine Inupiat bowhead muktuk. It tasted something like a cross between a rubber boot and home heating fuel. It's either a seriously acquired taste or the Inupiat are using "meat" as an excuse to go on exciting whale hunts.
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.
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.
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
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?
I guess the same thing we're conserving whales for.
http://www.mhall119.com
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