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.

17 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. Thanks to the crew of the Starship Enterprise by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wessels.

    1. Re:Thanks to the crew of the Starship Enterprise by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      Those where Humpback whales not Blue whales. Turn in your geek card for making a faulty STOS reference.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Thanks to the crew of the Starship Enterprise by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Humpbacks are like the Ocean's PR department. They happily make a huge spectacle of themselves. They do this without any human intervention. No cages or trainers are required.

      They just do it all by themselves...

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  2. See?! by CaptainLard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:See?! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No amount of successes of environmentalism will ever be accepted will ever be accepted by the sorts that think this next measure is clearly unnecessary. In fact, once it works, they'll go back to denying the rather important sciences of the previous ones, if DDT is anything to go by.

      I don't know if it's possible to convince anti-environmental nutbars, but I have every reason to believe some douchebag will show up any second after this post to tell me how "silent spring was propoganda".

    2. Re:See?! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2, Informative

      And here's Murphy's douchebag, right on schedule.

      Science right in your face.

      DDT bans did exactly what they said they would.

      (Also DDT is still in use for malaria control, not that we have that in the US where it's banned).

      I have no delusions that I convinced you of anything. But it's nice to have someone to smack down for being a perfect example when they must have known I had this sort of evidence handy..

    3. Re:See?! by pthisis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're comparing raptors and protozoans, there.

      It could easily be true that both eagle populations recovered _and_ thousands of people died of malaria because of DDT restrictions (especially pre-2006, when the WHO endorsed the use of DDT to fight malaria). It could also be true that DDT can save lives by reducing malaria rates and also has a negative impact on fertility in humans and is carcinogenic and potentially carries other health risks.

      It is true that Carson never advocated for banning DDT and that the anti-malarial effects have been overstated by some, but it's probably also true that negative press surrounding DDT caused many deaths (though nowhere near Michael Crichton's "worse than Hitler" assessment).

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    4. Re:See?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      but it's probably also true that negative press surrounding DDT caused many deaths

      Well no. Press doesn't kill people. People kill people. (See? I can apply that argument to *.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Funny

    >> Those where (X) not (Y). Turn in your geek card

    Syntax error in query expression.

    1. Re:DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck by Talderas · · Score: 2

      It's 'due to' and not 'do to'.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    2. Re:DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Irony is like bronzy or goldy, right?

    3. Re:DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      However, the rest of the world does care about grammar. Perhaps that's why geeks have so little power or influence to start with - social rejects are rejected by society...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  4. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by chubs · · Score: 2

    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.

  5. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by chubs · · Score: 2

    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.

  6. It wasn't environmentalism ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... by pthisis · · Score: 5, Informative

      Want to see the true value of an endangered species act, look at the rhino. It regrettably has a high economic value and it is on the path to extinction despite protective acts.

      The white rhinoceros is one of the biggest success stories in environmental conservation. It was down to about 200 individuals by the late 19th century. Following the imposition of hunting restrictions, populations have rebounded to over 20,000 individuals and it was de-listed as an endangered species under CITES in 1995; limited hunting is now allowed to control population growth.

      The black rhinoceros has recovered significantly as well, from a low of about 2400 to almost 5000 current individuals, and it's been reintroduced into at least 3 countries (Botswana, Malawi, and Zambia) where it had been extinct.

      The Indian rhinoceros has also shown rebounding populations in the wake of conservation efforts.

      The Javan and Sumatran rhinos have seen continuing declines in population, as has the northern white rhino (which is either a separate species or a population of normal white rhinos depending on classification); all 3 are now conservation-dependent. But rhinoceri on the whole have shown remarkable comebacks since the advent of environmental protection laws.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
  7. Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din by jamesborr · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.