If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Anchorage Daily News)   Alaska wants humpback whales removed from pesky endangered species list, proposes re-classifying them as "North Pacific Oil-Tanker Speedbumps"   (adn.com) divider line 44
    More: Stupid, Pacific, Alaska, humpback whales, chemical tanker, Marine Mammal Protection Act, International Whaling Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service, Center for Biological Diversity  
•       •       •

2871 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Feb 2014 at 2:22 PM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-27 01:29:30 PM
Fine, if you want this up your ass then go ahead.

www.startrek.com
 
2014-02-27 01:40:56 PM
Double dumb ass on you, Alaska!
 
2014-02-27 01:43:59 PM

i2.cdn.turner.com


PIZZA SEASON!                                         WHALE SEASON!



/dated, but so are they
 
2014-02-27 02:02:22 PM
They are a least concern species.  Plenty of them (over 80,000), they haven't been classified as "endangered" since 1988, and they've made a great come-back since the Soviet Union is no longer whaling them illegally, claiming to have caught just 2,710 when in fact they killed 48,721 of them.

Everyone points the finger at Japan, but the real crime was Soviet whaling.  At least the Japanese were honest.
 
2014-02-27 02:25:41 PM
The headline: State wants humpbacks struck

Stopped reading there.
 
2014-02-27 02:29:28 PM
I thought "North Pacific Oil-Tanker Speedbump" is what we called a lost shipping container that's floating just beneath the waves...
 
2014-02-27 02:29:31 PM

Mugato: Fine, if you want this up your ass then go ahead.

[www.startrek.com image 320x240]


done in one
 
2014-02-27 02:30:51 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

Uh...huh huh. You said "hump".
 
2014-02-27 02:33:07 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-27 02:33:16 PM

dittybopper: They are a least concern species.  Plenty of them (over 80,000), they haven't been classified as "endangered" since 1988, and they've made a great come-back since the Soviet Union is no longer whaling them illegally, claiming to have caught just 2,710 when in fact they killed 48,721 of them.

Everyone points the finger at Japan, but the real crime was Soviet whaling.  At least the Japanese were honest.


The whale whores could bully the japanee for their scam.

If that guy tried it with the russians, they'd be crab chow.
 
2014-02-27 02:55:48 PM
Has anybody asked the whales?

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-27 02:56:38 PM
They used to be endangered.  They aren't endangered any more, so the state wants to remove them from the endangered list.

I guess the stupid tag is for subby.
 
2014-02-27 02:56:55 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
Incredible book, relevant
 
2014-02-27 02:58:46 PM

keypusher: They used to be endangered.  They aren't endangered any more, so the state wants to remove them from the endangered list.

I guess the stupid tag is for subby.


Reading comprehension: It's not just for children anymore.
 
2014-02-27 03:33:37 PM
Wiki says humpbacks are least concern in terms of endangerment.

Is there something else to this or are we working off some "people thought Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth" tier conventional wisdom?
 
2014-02-27 03:37:20 PM

super_grass: Wiki says humpbacks are least concern in terms of endangerment.

Is there something else to this or are we working off some "people thought Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth" tier conventional wisdom?


I believe the usual thinking goes:

1) These are whales.
2) We've always heard about whales being endangered because whaling.
3) If we take these whales off the endangered list, we'll run out of whales, again because whaling.

They forget that whaling isn't controlled by the endangered species lists. Taking humpbacks off doesn't mean we'll have a small fleet of whalers heading out there to score some sweet whale oil to sell back home. There just isn't a market for whale-based products anymore, hence the general lack of whaling.
 
2014-02-27 03:46:21 PM
NASA must be running out of whale oil.
 
2014-02-27 03:46:44 PM
Nuke the whales!

/gotta nuke somethin...
 
2014-02-27 03:52:31 PM

akula: super_grass: Wiki says humpbacks are least concern in terms of endangerment.

Is there something else to this or are we working off some "people thought Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth" tier conventional wisdom?

I believe the usual thinking goes:

1) These are whales.
2) We've always heard about whales being endangered because whaling.
3) If we take these whales off the endangered list, we'll run out of whales, again because whaling.

They forget that whaling isn't controlled by the endangered species lists. Taking humpbacks off doesn't mean we'll have a small fleet of whalers heading out there to score some sweet whale oil to sell back home. There just isn't a market for whale-based products anymore, hence the general lack of whaling.


In addition, whaling doesn't suddenly become legal because they are not endangered.  Whaling is either prohibited or severely restricted by law and international treaty in most countries.  Even the Japanese claim they are really conducting "research".
 
2014-02-27 03:57:26 PM
A friend of a friend always said that when the navy hits an aquatic animal; they always say that they hit a shark. Apparently, sharks don't give anybody the "warm fuzzies".
 
2014-02-27 04:05:16 PM

rkiller1: The headline: State wants humpbacks struck


If you know what I mean.
 
2014-02-27 04:11:29 PM
Probably already worked out a deal with Japan
 
2014-02-27 04:18:18 PM

akula: There just isn't a market for whale-based products anymore, hence the general lack of whaling.


Not yet, maybe:

static4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-02-27 04:29:05 PM

Mugato: Fine, if you want this up your ass then go ahead.

[www.startrek.com image 320x240]


This, and Scotty and Bones aren't around to help bail your asses out.
 
2014-02-27 04:31:37 PM

dittybopper: They are a least concern species.  Plenty of them (over 80,000), they haven't been classified as "endangered" since 1988, and they've made a great come-back since the Soviet Union is no longer whaling them illegally, claiming to have caught just 2,710 when in fact they killed 48,721 of them.

Everyone points the finger at Japan, but the real crime was Soviet whaling.  At least the Japanese were honest.


Soviet Union?
 
2014-02-27 04:37:23 PM
How about no? Does no work for you?

"This subpopulation, it's time to delist it," said Doug Vincent-Lang, director of the state Division of Wildlife Conservation.

O rly? I sense someone put in charge of "conservation" who's not really all that big on conservation. Let's see...

Yup. That was easy.

He replaced the previous director, a GOP political appointee who was indicted. He was appointed by the Commissioner of the Fish and Game department, a former commercial fishing lobbyist with a degree in education.  Before this, Vincent-Lang has pushed to remove protections for beluga whales and polar bears.

Then there's Alaska's governor, Parnell, whose administration came up with this gem:

In February 2011 the Parnell administration told a judge that Cook Inlet beluga whales didn't need special protection under the Endangered Species Act because the state would protect them with our coastal management program. Then Parnell and the Alaska Legislature let the state's coastal management program expire on July 1.

How about when it comes to wildlife conservation decisions, the federal government tells the Alaska state government to go fark themselves? That'd be nice.
 
2014-02-27 04:39:17 PM
akula:
There just isn't a market for whale-based products anymore, hence the general lack of whaling.

Then why do the Japanese kill so many of them?
 
2014-02-27 04:44:28 PM

patrick767: akula:
There just isn't a market for whale-based products anymore, hence the general lack of whaling.

Then why do the Japanese kill so many of them?


Those oriental bastards are always going after wildlife to fix some imaginary dong-related issue.

And of course, the whale war of aggression against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 
2014-02-27 04:47:34 PM

super_grass: Wiki says humpbacks are least concern in terms of endangerment.

Is there something else to this or are we working off some "people thought Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth" tier conventional wisdom?


Pretty much.  Whales = endangered, whatever your fancy "science" might say about how many whales actually exist in reality.

The PETA folks argument goes something along the lines of "well, the species as a whole might be plentiful, but the sub-population in this particular geographical area is pretty small, and whales don't migrate or anything, so we still need to call them endangered anyway".

...of course, by this logic, rats are endangered -- at least the sub-population living within 10 feet of where I'm sitting is pretty small.  And for that matter, the sub-population of humans living within my home is pretty tiny, so I guess Homo sapiens should be on that endangered list too.
 
2014-02-27 04:51:28 PM

super_grass: patrick767: akula:
There just isn't a market for whale-based products anymore, hence the general lack of whaling.

Then why do the Japanese kill so many of them?

Those oriental bastards are always going after wildlife to fix some imaginary dong-related issue.

And of course, the whale war of aggression against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Exactly. Someone over there will find a way to turn it into a penis-fixer-upper and six months later no more whales.
 
2014-02-27 04:55:38 PM

patrick767: How about when it comes to wildlife conservation decisions, the federal government tells the Alaska state government to go fark themselves? That'd be nice.


Because the state is in charge of managing most wildlife within its boundaries?  There are exceptions, but that is the general rule.

Plus you point is basically an ad hominem that does not address the realities of their current population characteristics or their "least concern" IUCN status.  There is no reason to have a viable and sustainable species that has been 'recovered' on the Endangered Species List.

The same wailing and gnashing of teeth with prophecies of extinction was put forth when the wolves were delisted and they are still here.
 
2014-02-27 04:59:50 PM

patrick767: How about no? Does no work for you?

"This subpopulation, it's time to delist it," said Doug Vincent-Lang, director of the state Division of Wildlife Conservation.

O rly? I sense someone put in charge of "conservation" who's not really all that big on conservation. Let's see...

Yup. That was easy.

He replaced the previous director, a GOP political appointee who was indicted. He was appointed by the Commissioner of the Fish and Game department, a former commercial fishing lobbyist with a degree in education.  Before this, Vincent-Lang has pushed to remove protections for beluga whales and polar bears.

Then there's Alaska's governor, Parnell, whose administration came up with this gem:
In February 2011 the Parnell administration told a judge that Cook Inlet beluga whales didn't need special protection under the Endangered Species Act because the state would protect them with our coastal management program. Then Parnell and the Alaska Legislature let the state's coastal management program expire on July 1.

How about when it comes to wildlife conservation decisions, the federal government tells the Alaska state government to go fark themselves? That'd be nice.


Yeah, how dare Alaska ask the federal government to take a sub-species that isn't endangered off the endangered species list?

I guess the stupid tag isn't only for subby.
 
2014-02-27 05:11:27 PM
You guys mostly are pretty damn ignorant. I live in Hawaii and have been educated about the whales by friends who are marine biologists. Let me tell you a little about the whales (which are hanging out here now).

The IUCN cites humpback whales as "least concern" because if you add up the numbers of all humpbacks it's pretty good. However, the northern and southern populations don't meet or mix. The southern population is more healthy. The sub population that vacations (breeds and gives birth) here in Hawaii is much recovered compared to the 1950s or 1970s. However, as with all wildlife, there is a shifting baseline - what we call "healthy" is relative to our experience. There almost certainly were many more whales before whaling. The whales are still listed in part because they are not as common a they were before whaling.

Now, with a much healthier population, there is an argument to be made that they should be delisted, but consider the source - fisherman and the oil industry. Also, look to what happened to the wolves when the states were allowed to declare them "recovered" - their populations have fallen significantly as they were turned into just another trophy for hunters. Delisting would also affect other cetacean species which get better protection because people are out there watching over the whales (I mean literally there are people on the hills who count whales and will report you to NOAA and the Feds if you mess with the whales).

At some point, they should be delisted - if it's clear that their population is fully recovered. Otherwise, no, it's not time yet. Let's not hurry to give nature less protection while we are still in the middle of a human-caused mass extinction.
 
2014-02-27 05:21:24 PM

adamatari: At some point, they should be delisted - if it's clear that their population is fully recovered.


What -- in exact, quantitative terms -- would you consider to be "fully-recovered"?

adamatari: Also, look to what happened to the wolves when the states were allowed to declare them "recovered" - their populations have fallen significantly as they were turned into just another trophy for hunters.


1) Citation Required
2) Whether whales are considered "endangered" or not, the US is party to treaties that would essentially prohibit whaling, regardless of classification ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commission ).  This is not the case with wolves, so the analogy is fatally-flawed.

Also, the North Pacific population of Humpback Whales is estimated at 18-20,000 ( http://wildwhales.org/2008/05/humpbacks-make-a-splash-in-the-north-pa c ific/ )  -- so they're in no danger of even local extinction unless large-scale whaling were resumed.  ...and I have a hard time imagining Exxon-Mobile resorting to whale-oil production anytime soon.  Which, of course, would be illegal by treaty (IWC) in any event.
 
2014-02-27 05:24:22 PM

adamatari: Also, look to what happened to the wolves when the states were allowed to declare them "recovered" - their populations have fallen significantly as they were turned into just another trophy for hunters.


No they haven't.

Hey Al, next can you tell us about how endangered the polar bears are?
 
2014-02-27 05:26:22 PM

Callous: adamatari: Also, look to what happened to the wolves when the states were allowed to declare them "recovered" - their populations have fallen significantly as they were turned into just another trophy for hunters.

No they haven't.

Hey Al, next can you tell us about how endangered the polar bears are?



More-so than humpbacks, actually ("Vulnerable" status, as opposed to "Least Concern").
 
2014-02-27 05:29:20 PM

dittybopper: Everyone points the finger at Japan, but the real crime was Soviet whaling.  At least the Japanese were honest.


"Scientific research" is honest?
 
2014-02-27 05:35:15 PM

jshine: Callous: adamatari: Also, look to what happened to the wolves when the states were allowed to declare them "recovered" - their populations have fallen significantly as they were turned into just another trophy for hunters.

No they haven't.

Hey Al, next can you tell us about how endangered the polar bears are?


More-so than humpbacks, actually ("Vulnerable" status, as opposed to "Least Concern").


I was merely refuting adamatari's assertion that the wolf population has "fallen significantly" since being de-listed.  It hasn't fallen at all according to US Fish & Wildlife Service.
 
2014-02-27 05:35:15 PM

adamatari: You guys mostly are pretty damn ignorant. I live in Hawaii and have been educated about the whales by friends who are marine biologists. Let me tell you a little about the whales (which are hanging out here now).

The IUCN cites humpback whales as "least concern" because if you add up the numbers of all humpbacks it's pretty good. However, the northern and southern populations don't meet or mix. The southern population is more healthy. The sub population that vacations (breeds and gives birth) here in Hawaii is much recovered compared to the 1950s or 1970s. However, as with all wildlife, there is a shifting baseline - what we call "healthy" is relative to our experience. There almost certainly were many more whales before whaling. The whales are still listed in part because they are not as common a they were before whaling.

Now, with a much healthier population, there is an argument to be made that they should be delisted, but consider the source - fisherman and the oil industry. Also, look to what happened to the wolves when the states were allowed to declare them "recovered" - their populations have fallen significantly as they were turned into just another trophy for hunters. Delisting would also affect other cetacean species which get better protection because people are out there watching over the whales (I mean literally there are people on the hills who count whales and will report you to NOAA and the Feds if you mess with the whales).

At some point, they should be delisted - if it's clear that their population is fully recovered. Otherwise, no, it's not time yet. Let's not hurry to give nature less
protection while we are still in the middle of a human-caused mass extinction.

You guys mostly are pretty damn ignorant.


Go piss into a fan.

Now, with a much healthier population, there is an argument to be made that they should be delisted, but consider the source - fisherman and the oil industry.

Who do you expect to push for delisting? Greenpeace?  The Society for the Impartial and Apolitical Enforcement of the Endangered Species Act?  Life doesn't work like that.

The IUCN cites humpback whales as "least concern" because if you add up the numbers of all humpbacks it's pretty good. However, the northern and southern populations don't meet or mix. The southern population is more healthy.

This whole article is about the northern population, which is counted separately for purposes of the ESA.  That is why the article talks about a "subspecies."  The northern population may not be as "healthy" as the southern, but it isn't you know, endangered.  Which is a pretty good reason not to have it on a list of endangered species.

For further reading.  I think marine biologists may have been involved in the drafting.

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/08/29/2013-21066/endang er ed-and-threatened-wildlife-90-day-finding-on-a-petition-to-delist-the- north-pacific#h-19
 
2014-02-27 05:47:51 PM

adamatari: Also, look to what happened to the wolves when the states were allowed to declare them "recovered" - their populations have fallen significantly as they were turned into just another trophy for hunters.


In some places that was the damn point.  The were reintroduced with a goal of 300 wolves in the 3 state area. We blew by that back around 2002  and that "shifting baseline" was basically a moving of the goalpost to further their agenda and to keep them on the ESA as long as they could.

Wolves were having an impact on both big game and livestock and control over them was sorely needed.  And by the way, we still have more wolves here than the goal set by the state (Wolf Management Plan was needed as a condition for desisting).
 
2014-02-27 06:30:34 PM

jshine: adamatari: At some point, they should be delisted - if it's clear that their population is fully recovered.

What -- in exact, quantitative terms -- would you consider to be "fully-recovered"?

adamatari: Also, look to what happened to the wolves when the states were allowed to declare them "recovered" - their populations have fallen significantly as they were turned into just another trophy for hunters.

1) Citation Required
2) Whether whales are considered "endangered" or not, the US is party to treaties that would essentially prohibit whaling, regardless of classification ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commission ).  This is not the case with wolves, so the analogy is fatally-flawed.

Also, the North Pacific population of Humpback Whales is estimated at 18-20,000 ( http://wildwhales.org/2008/05/humpbacks-make-a-splash-in-the-north-pa c ific/ )  -- so they're in no danger of even local extinction unless large-scale whaling were resumed.  ...and I have a hard time imagining Exxon-Mobile resorting to whale-oil production anytime soon.  Which, of course, would be illegal by treaty (IWC) in any event.


I don't believe the concern in de-listing them is that they will be once again harvested...the concern is that there will be less oversight on industry that operates in areas of the ocean that the whales live, feed, and breed in... which in turn could increase the likelihood of some kind of human caused environmental stressor which could adversely affect the well being of the whales.
Oil exploration and extraction should be held to rigorous standards, as mishaps are devastating to the entire food chain. The Exxon Valdez spill is still felt in southeast AK, some fisheries have still not recovered.

/Alaska fisherman
//save those big fat funky whales!
///shoot the seals
 
2014-02-27 07:29:17 PM

dittybopper: They are a least concern species.  Plenty of them (over 80,000), they haven't been classified as "endangered" since 1988, and they've made a great come-back since the Soviet Union is no longer whaling them illegally, claiming to have caught just 2,710 when in fact they killed 48,721 of them.

Everyone points the finger at Japan, but the real crime was Soviet whaling.  At least the Japanese were honest.


Dont you know tree huggers dont beleive in science when it comes to endangered species? Anything they think is cute is "endangered " regardless of whether science says it is or not. Look at how many treetards think white tail deer are endangered when they are actually over populated.
 
2014-02-27 09:42:35 PM
Those whales have had it far too good for far too long!
 
2014-02-28 03:21:58 PM

HeadLever: patrick767: How about when it comes to wildlife conservation decisions, the federal government tells the Alaska state government to go fark themselves? That'd be nice.

Because the state is in charge of managing most wildlife within its boundaries?  There are exceptions, but that is the general rule.

Plus you point is basically an ad hominem that does not address the realities of their current population characteristics or their "least concern" IUCN status.  There is no reason to have a viable and sustainable species that has been 'recovered' on the Endangered Species List.


Funny, I think pointing out that the people in charge of "wildlife conservation" in Alaska consistently don't give a flying fark about actual conservation is a relevant point.

They do what their turbo conservative state government tells them to do, which is to side squarely with business interests. This is a state government that decided when they assign state employed scientists to serve on research panels, those scientists are not allowed to voice their own views on the research being done. They must echo whatever the administration's position is and only that. The state's biologists got kicked off a federal research panel that was designed to "stick to science and not represent the political stance of any stakeholder group, including their agency or organization" as a result.  See the link in my previous post.

Based on their recent history, they can't be trusted because they have no interest in actual conservation. That's my point.

Wolves were having an impact on both big game and livestock and control over them was sorely needed.  And by the way, we still have more wolves here than the goal set by the state (Wolf Management Plan was needed as a condition for desisting).

I have some sympathy for livestock issues. Are you actually one of those people who complains about wolves killing big game though? Why? They're apex predators. They're supposed to have an "impact" on large herbivore populations. It's a big positive for the ecosystem. They're not driving the big game to extinction at all.  They're just lowering the numbers somewhat, which means there aren't as many around for people to kill. That's the objection to wolves killing big game. Waaaaahhhhhh! That means fewer for us to shoot! It's disgusting. Hopefully I'm misunderstanding you on that point.

To anyone and everyone who makes that complaint, I say go fark yourselves, you horrible pieces of shiat.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report