California Blue Whales Rebound From Whaling 91
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.
Largest on Earth? (Score:1)
Bigger than that old news, Argentinosaurus? Didn't you just get telling me about the Dreadnoughtus schrani [slashdot.org]?
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? :-)
Thanks to the crew of the Starship Enterprise (Score:4, Funny)
Wessels.
Re: (Score:3)
Those where Humpback whales not Blue whales. Turn in your geek card for making a faulty STOS reference.
DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck (Score:4, Funny)
>> Those where (X) not (Y). Turn in your geek card
Syntax error in query expression.
Re: (Score:1)
Ignored do to being a grammar nazi. Real geeks do not care about grammar.
Re: (Score:3)
It's 'due to' and not 'do to'.
Re: (Score:1)
OH THE IRONIE!
Re:DEFENDED due to grammatical fustercluck (Score:4, Funny)
Irony is like bronzy or goldy, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, attention to minute detail, and getting pedantic little panties a'bunched is one of the hallmarks of geekdom -- second only to a delusional sense of personal exceptionalism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Real geeks do not care about grammar.
Obviously, you've never had to write a compiler.
Re: (Score:2)
Real geeks do not care about non-geek's grammar.
Better?
Re:Thanks to the crew of the Starship Enterprise (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...
Re: (Score:2)
Then why are they [the humpbacks] not bouncing back? The PR departments of today [especially outside tech] are not exactly small!
See?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:See?! (Score:4, 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".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And here's Murphy's douchebag, right on schedule.
Science [sciencemag.org] right [nih.gov] in your face [jstor.org].
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..
Re:See?! (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).
Re: (Score:3)
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 *.)
It wasn't environmentalism ... (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 p
Re: (Score:1)
Environmentalism is responsible for the international endangered species protections, which have been the foremost aspect of whale recovery.
But sure, keep whatever neoliberal fantasies you have. That's not my problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, but the person with the fantasy is you.
Endangered species acts have little chance of being enacted, and little chance of being successfully enforced, when the species has a high economic value. Whales once had a high economic value, then they did not. The environment protections occurred after an enormous drop off in whaling due to economic reasons. These environment protections largely affected those who thought whales tasty.
Want to see the true value of an endangered species act, look at the rhino.
Re:It wasn't environmentalism ... (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.
Re: (Score:1)
Your research is a bit shallow and misleading, for example:
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.
"Today, black rhinos remain Critically Endangered because of rising demand for rhino horn, which has driven poaching to record levels. A recent increase in poaching in South Africa threatens to erase our conservation success. The increase is driven by a growing demand from some Asian consumers, particularly in Vietnam, for folk remedies containing rhino horn."
"“Poaching is a scourge that could wipe out decades of conservation gains made for bl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
That is not true.
The white rhino was saved due to the efforts of a few visionaries who convinced the South African government and Swaziland, if I recall correctly, to allow the commercial breeding of white rhino (which means for profit, in case you don't understand economics 101). The fact that people, including Mericuns, could hunt them for large sums of money, meant that there was money to protect them and breed them. That's what saved them, not some misguided utopian green agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
The white rhino was saved due to the efforts of a few visionaries who convinced the South African government and Swaziland, if I recall correctly, to allow the commercial breeding of white rhino (which means for profit, in case you don't understand economics 101). The fact that people, including Mericuns, could hunt them for large sums of money, meant that there was money to protect them and breed them. That's what saved them
The timing simply doesn't support this theory as sole or primary driver--the huntin
Re: (Score:1)
That's a lot of words to say "I haven't bothered to research this at all and I'm assuming it didn't work because that fits my worldview"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
190 tons of meat and blubber is nothing to sneeze at. If there were no protections, someone would turn them all into economy kitty food or whatever.
We protect things both for feel-good reasons and for economic reasons, so if whales had large economic value they might still have survived much like cows and chickens are doing well despite being tasty.
Re: (Score:2)
I am very happy that they make a comeback. If they recover to a point that they become harvestable resorce, I may get to eat blue whale again.
"Whale meat again, don't know where, don't know when...."
Re: (Score:2)
so if whales had large economic value they might still have survived much like cows and chickens are doing well despite being tasty.
Or perhaps, more like buffalo have survived. Without economic exploitation they'd probably be gone now. That doesn't mean we should do the same to the whales, but it does suggests that it could be possible.
It's a lot harder, because the incentive isn't as direct, due to competition. Nobody is running up on your buffalo ranch, killing a multiple-thousand-pound animal, and running off with it. At least, not on any scale.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I think one could make the case that police and politicians are some species besides human.
Re: (Score:1)
And because I just can't resist you charming little scamps....one could argue that going from over-whaling to NOT over-whaling does indeed constitute a change regardless of the impetus. Would it pick ri
Re: (Score:1)
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!
This is also misleading. Almost all the blue whales are gone, and remain critically endangered.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scie... [bbc.co.uk]
While applauding the success of the conservation efforts in the California region, the scientists are well aware that not all whale populations have managed to rebound. In Antarctica, blue whales are at approximately 1% of their historic numbers.
"California blue whales are recovering because we took actions to stop catches and start monitoring," said Cole Monnahan, "If we hadn't, the population might have been pushed to near extinction - an unfortunate fate suffered by other blue whale populations."
Re: See?! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known dino (Score:2, Interesting)
See the following:
http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2014/September/Dreadnoughtus-Dinosaur/ [drexel.edu]
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/04/world/americas/dreadnoughtus-huge-dinosaur/index.html [cnn.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnoughtus [wikipedia.org]
Re: (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re:Dreadnoughtus schrani now the largest known din (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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/ [drexel.edu]
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/04/world/americas/dreadnoughtus-huge-dinosaur/index.html [cnn.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnoughtus [wikipedia.org]
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...
Re: (Score:2)
hmmm. You're making me hungry, boy. I want to eat me some whale.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just make faces.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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 econ
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Just by coincidence (Score:2)
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?
We're happy :-) (Score:1)