Genetic Study Provides Estimate of Whale Populations 30
ChopsMIDI writes "Many more whales were hunted in the 18th century than thought, a genetic study of the North Atlantic animals suggests. U.S. researchers say the International Whaling Commission may be underestimating by tenfold the number of whales in the seas before hunting began."
Re:Dear Mods (Score:1)
Re:It was done by whale biologists! (Score:2)
The paper was published in Science, one of the world's most prestigious journals, so you can be fairly sure the science it is based on is good.
BTW you should have written 'ensure' rather than 'insure' - look up the difference. Also I do not believe that the current treaties specify when hunting may resume
Re:It was done by whale biologists! (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030721/030721-14.html (Originally listed below.)
And the International Whaling Commission (based on the signed treaties) forbids whaling until wha
Re:It was done by whale biologists! (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:It was done by whale biologists! (Score:2)
No, publishing in Science doesn't mean that the science is "good", it only means Science editors and peer-reviewers felt that the science was _good_enough_for_now_.
Besides, we're not even looking at a peer-reviewed Science study here, we're looking at an article interpreting the Science study. In other words, this could just be a journalist recopying some anonym
Re:It was done by whale biologists! (Score:1)
Why would I feel threatened? Actually, I made the comment as a kind of in-joke for Futurama fans.
Re:It was done by whale biologists! (Score:1)
Re:Dear Mods (Score:2)
I am in receipt of your letter from Friday July 25, @07:01PM and, though I am not a mod in this case (I couldn't post a reply here if I were), I am, however, a meta-mod, and I agree with your complaint. So, I have used my mad m2 skillz to un-do the erroneous flamebait moderation that was unduly perpetrated on your post.
Unfortunately, until slashdot inmplements the annoying, but at least honest, "-1: your post makes me consider an uncomfortable reality and therefore makes me nervous eno
Re:Bogus Study? (Score:2)
I'm also a meta-moderator and I modded the troll rating of your second post as unfair. Unfortunatly due to the nature of this topic, the moderators of this thread are a self-selected group and their mods are not going to reflect the types of mods you would get from your average Slashdotter.
Have a nice day.
Stephan
Dear Mods by - on Monday July 28, @08:00PM (#6536549) Please learn the difference between flamebait and an opinion. My opinion is that the study is bogus. It is manufactured to c
Results accurate? (Score:1)
But really, in the end, why does it matter how many whales were hunted in the 18th century, when hunting them is already banned? We're not trying to make a case for banning hunting or anything...so I don't understand. Unless we're going to start talking about paying reparations to whales in compensation for their ancestors' loss and hardship. In which case we still have more serio
Why the results matter (Score:5, Informative)
It matters because international treaties were signed that banned whale hunting until whale populations returned to 54% of what they were before mass whaling in the 18th century.
So if this study is correct (and there are severe doubts on its accuracy) then no whaling will be allowed for at least another 50 - 100 years.
If this study is wrong and the current numbers based on the number of whales recorded as killed by whalers is correct then some whales like the humpback may be allowed to be hunted in less than 5 years.
The biggest reason this study's results are called into question is that it uses a new method with unknown accuracy to contradict by an order of magnitude the numbers that can be arrived at by the amount of whale oil sold. the amount of whale oil sold is considered to be a very reliable number.
previously, the population was estimated by using the logbooks from the whalers. these results were generally in line with the amount of whale oil sold.
Re:Why the results matter (Score:3, Interesting)
previously, the population was estimated by using the logbooks from the whalers. these results were generally in line with the amount of whale oil sold.
I'm not going to defend the study's numbers, since I haven't read the study, except to say genetic studies of human populations have come to similar counts using different methods. This is only the first such study of whales so we need some more to have the level of confidence we need in the number. This is especially true considering it's disagreement w
Clueless in Seattle (Score:2, Funny)
How to build up an animal population (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How to build up an animal population (Score:1)
-Some Guy
Re:How to build up an animal population (Score:2)
I can see it now: The Orca Cup, the Bottlenose Trophy.
(I think corporations have done enough to fuck our planet right up it's 900,000 assholes.)
NSU (Score:4, Informative)
Even more years before hunting starts again. (Score:2)
Or maybe Norway; I think they are collaborating on the work.
Whale tastes like fishy beef (Score:3, Informative)
The meat is actually quite lean, I would say a bit leaner than beef, but not as lean as pork.
If I could buy whale meat at the local grocery store, I would. I enjoy seafood, and I love beef.
Why hunt whales? (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as the study goes, it is easy to have suspicions about the motives of the researchers. If the motive is to determine long-ago whale populations so that someone can either justify or prevent future whaling, a study coming from university is likely to be shifted toward the latter. In this case it's Stanford and one of the main researchers (Prof. Palumbi) is a "protected marine reserves" advocate.
If this is junk science I don't really care if it prevents whaling; I'm fairly certain the world will survive without the practice. But extrapolating the history of species through genetic analysis is a young field and it would suck to have it be generally discounted before we see what is possible. The moment the political class decides that the results of research might actually matter politically, the who-what-when-where-why of research gets politicized too.
Re:Why hunt whales? (Score:1)
Placebos.
Motivation for Hunting Whales: Food (Score:2)
Once the government agency catches and dissects a whale for this supposed research, it sells the whale meat to select restaraunts. The meat is expensive and garners a hefty profit.
Here is another example of why human overpopulation is a problem. We
I hope they publish the raw data, too. (Score:1)