This is a truly sad story. Last week a baby humpback whale, informally dubbed "Colette," was found alone in the waters off Sydney, Australia. The baby was in desperate need of fat-rich mother's milk, nuzzling boats in its attempts to find sustenance, but no surrogate mother came to the rescue. Force-feeding the young whale was not attempted and efforts to lead it out to sea (where there would at least the chance of a mother whale passing by) failed, and Colette was euthanized on Friday.
Many people were outraged, but it seems that euthanization was the only viable option. Colette was suffering, becoming increasingly weaker from the lack of food and sustaining injuries from a shark attack. An Aborigine "whale whisperer" claimed that Colette was fine and others proposed mechanisms to try and feed the baby, but despite such good intentions I think the conservation officials made the best choice is a heartbreaking situation.
I find our relationship with whales a bit strange. When whales are slaughtered by Japanese whalers there is a great public outcry (and rightly so), yet we often turn a blind eye to the animals that suffer in marine parks and aquariums. We are heavily concerned about the welfare of wild whales, but all sorts of justifications are made to keep some of the most intelligent animals on the planet in concrete and glass enclosures where boredom and stress take their toll on the whales. Much is done to provide the illusion that the animals are happy, healthy, and well-adjusted, and it seems that many people easily buy into it.
Even beyond such paradoxes it is strange that so many people feel connections with whales at all. The are among the most alien of mammals, adapted to an environment in which our own species is uncomfortable and ungainly. Why do we admire them so?
Life Science
Comments
I read this post just a day after the chapter on killer whales (orca) in William Stolzenberg's so-far excellent "Where the Wild Things Were." I was thinking about this idea, that we love orcas in SeaWorld, but the reality of their viciousness in the wild is glossed over.
It's easy to love individual whales, infant or adult, because the media can anthropomorphize at will. Same thing with human children in difficult circumstances- we will rush to save a "Baby Jessica" at the same time forgetting famine-ravished Africans.
Locally, a black bear wandered into a neighborhood and was tranquilized. When it died from a reaction, there was an uproar. However, the same bear had been captured & released 50-100 km away and was a habitual "rogue" in human areas. The awareness of danger presented by this "teenage" bear (as the local news called it, though it was 3 yrs old) was, and remains, zero. Bears are not cute when they tip garbage cans or when they attack and eat household pets. They are certainly not cuddly when their claws can eviscerate an adult man. But, the media could anthropomorphize the poor bear, especially when it was "needlessly killed."
Posted by: brewdog | August 25, 2008 1:43 PM
Really nice blog, btw.
Posted by: brewdog | August 25, 2008 1:47 PM
Personally, I think people admire whales primarily for their size. Humans tend to be far more interested in the mass of something than just about anything else. Whales are amazing creatures with a rich evolutionary history, but the public only pays attention when you describe how big they get. That's true with a lot of things; the universe, dinosaurs, you name it.
As for anthropomorphism, I think its one of the most vile and unfortunate practices undertaken by the media and the general public. Why? Because it essentially tells people which animals to revere and which to hate. Mice cause all sorts of problems for human health and agriculture, but because of cartoon characters like Mickey Mouse, people deem that the species is 'good' and that anything which eats them (particularly snakes for some inexplicable reason)is 'bad'. Unfortunatley, anthropomorphism has absolutley no benefits with regards to its victims because the popular culture which creates it changes constantly. For instance, the timber rattlesnake was nearly the emblem of our nation during the late eighteenth century, but now the species (along with most other rattlers) is disgraced by the mind-numbingly moronic practice of 'rattler round-ups'. Several centuries' worth of pop culture anthropomorphism has told people that snakes are essentially 'evil' and deserve to die. So, people think this is justification for a specicide which, due to natural selection, is acutally making a group of venomous reptiles even deadlier by honing in on and eliminating the individuals with louder rattles. But heaven forbid we should have a roundup of anything "cute and furry"! It's like George Carlin said during his 'sanctity of life routine'; the living things for which humans feel life is 'sacred' are part of a very exclusive group! Its sad when any organism dies, but anthropomorphism tries to dictate which species we should mourn.
Posted by: Mark Mancini | August 25, 2008 3:26 PM
Sorry, that last sentence should have read 'Its sad when any organism dies unneccesarily'.
Posted by: Mark Mancini | August 25, 2008 3:28 PM
Ha - revisionist history in action. The whale was actually dubbed "Colin" by the newsgroups - they didn't find out it was a female until it was put down.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | August 25, 2008 9:07 PM
I find it interesting that more wasn't done to try and prevent the un-natural death of a "wild" whale. Perhaps it wasn't our place to step in at all, though it would be hard to overlook something like that. If man is going to play God in such situations, I would have liked to hear that "God" was able to keep the creature alive. Just my two cents.
Posted by: Me | October 6, 2008 11:30 PM