Slashdot Mirror
California Blue Whales Rebound From Whaling
vinces99 writes: The number of California blue whales has rebounded to near historical levels, according to new research (abstract) by the University of Washington, and while the number of blue whales struck by ships is likely above allowable U.S. limits, such strikes do not immediately threaten that recovery. This is the only population of blue whales known to have recovered from whaling – blue whales as a species having been hunted nearly to extinction. Blue whales – nearly 100 feet in length and weighing 190 tons as adults – are the largest animals on Earth and the heaviest ever, weighing more than twice as much as the largest known dinosaur, the Argentinosaurus. They are an icon of the conservation movement and many people want to minimize harm to them, according to Trevor Branch, UW assistant professor of aquatic and fishery sciences. California blue whales, most visible while feeding 20 to 30 miles off the California coast, range from the equator to the Gulf of Alaska. Today they number about 2,200, according to monitoring by other research groups, which is likely about 97 percent of the historical levels.
Wessels.
Its totally possible to make changes in human behavior to minimize or reverse destructive impacts on ecosystems. Obviously every scenario will be different but lets keep it up!
Bigger than that old news, Argentinosaurus? Didn't you just get telling me about the Dreadnoughtus schrani?
Now, 59 metric tons is no 190, I'll warrant you that. But buoyancy is a factor for little boy blue here? Isn't it? :-)
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
See the following:
http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2014/September/Dreadnoughtus-Dinosaur/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/04/world/americas/dreadnoughtus-huge-dinosaur/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnoughtus
If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law;
>> Those where (X) not (Y). Turn in your geek card
Syntax error in query expression.
As has already been pointed, out, 190 tons > 65 tons. The author of the summary could well have done his research today, and said "wow. This new article claims that the Dreadnoughtus schrani is roughly 65 tons. If only it had been 2 tons lighter, I could have claimed the blue whale to be 3 times the size of the largest dinosaur, rather than just "more than twice much".
Yes, it's the largest creature to ever walk on land, but that's only because no whale has ever walked on land.
hmmm. You're making me hungry, boy. I want to eat me some whale.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Yes, it's the largest creature to ever walk on land, but that's only because no whale has ever walked on land.
Disclaimer: I have not done any research to substantiate this claim, and I realize it's impossible to prove a negative, but I'm fairly certain there are no documented cases of walking whales.
No, I'm afraid you'll see that they were. The creature the summary was talking about is a dinosaur of unconfirmed mass, which likely got a bigger than the new one.
The dreadnoughtus weighs in at 65 tons.
The Argentinosaurus weighs in at somewhere in the range of 90-110.
So your correction doesn't work. Sorry.
Yes, it's the largest creature to ever walk on land, but that's only because no whale has ever walked on land.
Disclaimer: I have not done any research to substantiate this claim, and I realize it's impossible to prove a negative, but I'm fairly certain there are no documented cases of walking whales.
Unless, of course, you count the Vancouver Canucks mascott
It's not at all impossible to prove a negative. For example, straightforward observation will prove that as of right now you don't have three hands.
Whale? there ftfy...and no.
#include bier;
The author of the summary is not up to date on the recent release of info on Dreadnoughtus schrani, now believed to be the largest creature to ever have walked on land.
Not quite
Note from the Dreadnoughtus article (emphasis added):
It is one of the largest of all known terrestrial vertebrates, possessing the greatest mass of any land animal that can be calculated with reasonable certainty
From the Argentinosaurus article it sounds like the estimates range from 60-90 tonnes, most likely the Argentinosaurus is heavier but we're more confident about the weight of the Dreadnoughtus.
I stole this Sig
How about someone pointing out that your romantic notion of environmentalism changing American business is bogus.
American business gave up on whaling for economic reasons, because they could make more dollars elsewhere. Whaling declined in the US due to two major factors. The industrial revolution gave investors and workers more options than going to sea chasing whales, and petrochemical based products replaced whale based products.
Look at those who are most enthusiastic about whaling today. Its primarily people who think whales are tasty, or one of the few available local foods (very northern latitudes). Americans never developed a real taste for whale, which probably contributed more to the survival of whales species than every environmentalist video put together.
So while the videos were not necessarily propaganda, many did contain a somewhat accurate portrayal of whaling, they were not terribly important. Americans are not terribly sympathetic about the suffering of animals we think tasty, fortunately for whales we did not develop the taste.
But what about flying whales? (or should that be falling ones)... Another thing that got forgotten was the fact that against all probability a sperm whale had suddenly been called into existence several miles above the surface of an alien planet. And since this is not a naturally tenable position for a whale, this poor innocent creature had very little time to come to terms with its identity as a whale before it then had to come to terms with not being a whale any more.
The economics are changing back. Whaling ended because the big whales were pretty much wiped out; hunting them became too expensive when there weren't any to hunt.
Japan has just now announced they're resuming whaling for "scientific research" in defiance of a UN ban. They're after minke whales, and a smaller number of fin and humpback whales, not blues... but the timing is odd. Maybe they think Sea Shepherd will be confused, and think they don't have to show up?
The author of the summary is not up to date on the recent release of info on Dreadnoughtus schrani, now believed to be the largest creature to ever have walked on land. See the following:
http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2014/September/Dreadnoughtus-Dinosaur/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/04/world/americas/dreadnoughtus-huge-dinosaur/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnoughtus
Damn Whales, walking on land everywhere. Oh what's that, they swim? And they way three times as much as the Dreadnoughtus? The author of this comment is not up to date...
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Let me be more specific then: no blue whale has ever walked on land. Again, this claim is made without any research done by me.
Whale oil was a superior lamp oil--less smoke. It was also used in cosmetics. We have electricity for light, and the cosmetics industry does fine without whale oil. Baleen was used for corsets. That's just a marginal fashion/fetish now. Once again, it does fine without whale products. There are plenty of other examples. We've been doing without for a real long time now. Switching back to an unsustainable, controversial resource doesn't make sense when you've got something else. I don't see the economics switching back. I'm much more concerned about what might happen to the forests when we run out of oil. When we had steam trains but no oil, the forests were stripped. Guerneville, CA was called stumptown. All the redwoods were cut down for railroad ties. They're mostly back now, but 2nd growth isn't as spectacular as old growth. It's still a tempting target though. When it's a choice between freezing or not, I can see even Californians chopping and burning.
I'll just make faces.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
http://www.seashepherd.org/
Whaling ended because the big whales were pretty much wiped out
No. It ended because there were better alternatives. Norway and Japan do commercial whaling today and these operations are not even close to profitable. Never will be. The product isn't attractive enough to fetch a price making it profitable.