Why so much intentional harm?

They should all just leave the whales alone! I can't believe people are sitting around arguing wheather or not they should end a whales life. Taking away a life, human or not, is nothing but human Selfishness and Greed! There is no justified reason for killing any whale. Isn't bad enough that we are already killing them with the filth we pour into the ocean? Or glutonously over fishing their food supply so they starve to death?

Because of overfishing, a whale will be hungry and have to metabolise fatty tissues, where the organochlorines and other toxins are stored. In the whale's bloodstream, they will weaken its immune system, rendering it more likely to get sick (say, from viruses or bacteria in the sewage). A sick whale will be less able to dodge a high-speed boat, or stay clear of a fishing net.

A female often loses her firstborn baby by inadvertently poisoning it with her milk. Whale milk is 40% fat, and toxins such as organochlorines are stored in fat cells. Therefore the first baby may get a very concentrated dose of poison. Many of the bodies found in the last two years have been newborn calves.

It is sickening that people actually want to see these whales killed. It is not only a Makah issue it is a world wide issue. NO tribe or country should harm these magnificent creatures. They need to left alone to live out their lives with their families.

Bravo, bravo! I pray that someday soon it will happen.

Rich

******************************************************* ********************* 'One breath of a great whale contains more than the sum of human knowledge.' Penelope Smith ******************************************************* *********************

Whales don't live in families. They live in herds.

Whales are animals, they are not Disney characters, and they are not people.

Still no reason to slaughter them.

Rich

******************************************************* ********************* 'One breath of a great whale contains more than the sum of human knowledge.' Penelope Smith ******************************************************* *********************

Why do people feel like they have to make a point by focusing on an irrelivant part of the message? I see it happening too much in this group.

lazzlo wrote in the message dated Sun, 27 Jun 1999 19:12:30 GMT

hmm, quite a 'train of thoughts'. Now let us for the discussion assume that we have stopped the overfishing and having 'let the whales alone' for a couple of decades (or longer if it is a large and slow-growing species). Let's see what is happening: oh yes, the populations will grow and consume prey until the prey biomass cannot sutain the now bigger whale poulations any longer. As the populations are bigger, a proportionally larger number of animals will starve and suffer (If not exactly via the fate you outlined). Do you feel this higher number of suffering animals somehow are 'balanced' by the greater number of presumeably 'happy' animals in the stock?

A very weak association you are referring to here. To my knowledge the purported connection between various organochlorides and birth defects or miscarriages in cetaceans is not backed my much 'hard' evidence . But nevertheless, you are pointing to a real and serious problem in a broader context, -the increasing pollution of the seas. In spite of the misapplied focus on whaling (which presently really is a profoundly insignificant environmental issue) much more energy should be tranferrred into solutions for the former problem.

You need to do some homework on the biology of whales. When looking at the net, you should be especially critical to what you see. There is a remarkable lot of crap around on this issue.

Cassanders In Cod we trust

It is sick that people cannot see cetaceans as concious beings, perhaps, even likely, more intelligent than ourselves! I would wager that many of the ignorant humans which carelessly polute and destroy the whales without care go home to a feelingless fish or other small pet and make a horrendous fuss over it. Personally, I feel that many people should pay attention to the emotions of creatures other then themselves, such as cats, dogs, and of course, whales. You would think that after becoming 'civilized' we would have learned from our mistakes and stopped destroying our earth, and our neighbors. Whatever happened to Live and Let Live?

'we have stopped the over fishing and having 'let the whales alone' for a couple of decades (or longer if it is a large and slow-growing species). Let's see what is happening: oh yes, the populations will grow and consume prey until the prey biomass cannot sutain the now bigger whale poulations any longer. As the populations are bigger, a proportionally larger number of animals will starve and suffer (If not exactly via the fate you outlined).'

Are you an evolutionary biologist or a scientist? I would like to know some more information from your research that you have found.

'A very weak association you are referring to here. To my knowledge the purported connection between various organochlorides and birth defects or miscarriages in cetaceans is not backed my much 'hard' evidence .'

So, you are telling me that the marine biologists that I have talked to are wrong? The evidence from the autopsies of the whales that they have studied is not the same diagnosis you got from the whale carcasses you have studied? I would like to hear your conclusions to the research that you have found. I would be interested.

'In spite of the misapplied focus on whaling (which presently really is a profoundly insignificant environmental issue) much more energy should be tranferrred into solutions for the former problem.'

I was saying that the whales are already dying with human interference. Why should we intensify this by slaughtering them as well?

You need to do some homework on the biology of whales. When looking at the net, you should be especially critical to what you see. There is a remarkable lot of crap around on this issue.

I get my information from the direct source, if the marine biologists and evolutionary biologists that I have talked with are wrong, then where else do you suggest I get my information

A book read yesterday said that circa 1850 the Gray whale populations on the west coast were estimated at 25,000. Today they are estimated at 26,000. When Scanlon found the breeding pools in California they slaughtered cows and calves indiscriminately. At one point the population dropped to 200.

That near extinction would have harmed the population by destroying genetic diversity. It is particular important in such a species when even in normal times the numbers are small.

Stop the Makah Whale Sacrifice <http://mindprod.com/whale.html>

If we assume that the East Pacific stock have very little exchange (immigration and emigration) with other stocks, this means that the population may have been trough an 'evolutionary bottleneck'. Now if you want to employ this possibility as an argument that no gray's should be taken at all (in order to maximize genetic heterogenity), you should perhaps look a bit closer on the consequences of a no-take vs a limited take situation (just to avoid confusion: I am talking of sustainable quotas, here). It is entirely plausible result that a genetically non-discriminating hunt (taking whatever animal of appropriate size) is leading to a more heterogenic population (with a wider genetic diversity) than letting 'mother nature' do the selection. In the latter situation, you might realize that particular sub-optimal traits are shared between the ones succumbing to resource stress.

Another issue. While genetic heterogenicity usually is perceived as a 'good' biological 'safety valve', fitness or survival is not allways directly related to heterogenicity. E.G. the Cheetas in Africa have been through a very dramatic evolutionary bottleneck ,and are in fact almost homzygous (They are closely enough related even to accept skin grafts from each other throughout the entire African continent). Still they are presently doing pretty well, biologically speaking.

Cassanders In Cod we trust

Hunters want the biggest healthiest whales. Nature takes the sickliest. Nature I would think would be more efficient from the point of view of selecting the best DNA given the same size populations.

It is an interesting question. Obviously the bigger the population the more genetic diversity can be supported.

If hunting were done with the scientific intent of restoring genetic diversity, you probably could beat nature. However, I doubt that will happen in practice.

Whales are vulnerable to loss of genetic diversity since their natural populations are so small.

We do know that whales managed to get along without humans hunting them for about ten million years. We also know that they managed their genetic diversity quite happily for another 2 million when humans were limited to hunting them with mussel shell harpoons.

Only once modern hunting technology came into play was there any problem. I think it a bit presumptuous of us to say that whales 'need' hunting for their own benefit.

Stop the Makah Whale Sacrifice <http://mindprod.com/whale.html>