A humpback whale breaches off near Iguana Island, Panama, Sunday, July 14, 2024.
| Photo Credit: AP

Southern right whales have lifespans that reach well past 100 years, and 10% may live past 130 years, according to our new research published in the journal Science Advances. Some of these whales may live to 150. This lifespan is almost double the 70-80 years they are conventionally believed to live.

North Atlantic right whales were also thought to have a maximum lifespan of about 70 years. We found, however, that this critically endangered species’ current average lifespan is only 22 years, and they rarely live past 50.

These two species are very closely related – only 25 years ago they were considered to be one species – so we’d expect them to have similarly long lifespans. We attribute the stark difference in longevity in North Atlantic right whales to human-caused mortality, mostly from entanglements in fishing gear and ship strikes.

We made these new age estimates using photo identification of individual female whales over several decades. Individual whales can be recognized year after year from photographs. When they die, they stop being photographically “resighted” and disappear. Using these photos, we developed what scientists call “survivorship curves” by estimating the probability whales would disappear from the photographic record as they aged. From these survivorship curves, we could estimate maximum potential lifespans.

Twenty-five years ago, scientists working with Indigenous whale hunters in the Arctic showed that bowhead whales could live up to and even over 200 years. Their evidence included finding stone harpoon points that hadn’t been used since the mid-1800s embedded in the blubber of whales recently killed by traditional whalers. Analysis of proteins from the eyes of hunted whales provided further evidence of their long lifespan. Like right whales, before that analysis, researchers thought bowhead whales lived to about 80 years, and that humans were the mammals that lived the longest.

In the years following that report, scientists tried to figure out what was unique about bowhead whales that allowed them to live so long. But our new analysis of the longevity of two close relatives of bowheads shows that other whale species also have potentially extremely long lives.

Why it matters

Understanding how long wild animals live has major implications for how to best protect them. Animals that have very long lifespans usually reproduce extremely slowly and can go many years between births. Baleen whales’ life history – particularly the age when females start breeding and the interval between calves – is strongly influenced by their potential lifespan. Conservation and management strategies that do not plan accordingly will have a higher chance of failure. This is especially important given the expected impacts of climate disruption.

What still isn’t known

There are many other large whales, including blue, fin, sei, humpback, gray and sperm whales. Like bowhead and right whales, these were also almost wiped out by whaling. Scientists currently assume they live about 80 or 90 years, but that’s what we believed about bowhead and right whales until data proved they can live much longer.

How long can these other whale species live? Industrial whaling, which ended only in the 1960s, removed old whales from the world’s whale populations. Though many whale populations are recovering in number, there hasn’t been enough time for whales born after the end of industrial whaling to become old.

It’s possible, even likely, that many other whale species will also prove to have long lifespans.

What other research is being done

Other research finds the loss of older individuals from populations is a phenomenon occurring across most large animal species. It diminishes the reproductive potential of many species. Researchers also argue this represents a real loss of culture and wisdom in animals that degrades their potential for survival in the face of changing conditions.

What’s next

We want to better understand how whaling affected the number of old individuals in current whale populations and predict when the number of old individuals will recover to prewhaling levels. Preliminary results suggest it may be another 100 years before whale populations truly recover, even for species whose populations now number as many as there were before whaling.

For North Atlantic right whales, our research shows that even when the population was increasing, the management actions taken were insufficient to prevent these whales from dying far too young.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here.

Tokyo:

Japan has expanded its commercial whaling to include fin whales, the second-largest animal species on the planet, a decision criticised by Australia’s government on Thursday.

One of only three countries to hunt whales commercially, along with Norway and Iceland, Japan added fin whales to a catch list that already includes minke, Bryde’s and sei whales.

“Essentially, our rationale is that there are sufficient resources” of fin whales, a fisheries agency official told AFP on Thursday of the plan to hunt 59 of them this year.

Fin whales are deemed “vulnerable” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Japan’s decision, mooted by authorities for months but only made official on Wednesday, has alarmed animal rights activists.

Australia is “deeply disappointed”, environment minister Tanya Plibersek said in a statement.

“Australia is opposed to all commercial whaling and urges all countries to end this practice,” she said.

It comes as international drama surrounds prominent anti-whaling activist Paul Watson, who was arrested in Greenland last month.

Watson, the 73-year-old American-Canadian founder of the activist group Sea Shepherd, was detained under an international arrest warrant issued by Tokyo.

Denmark’s justice ministry — Greenland is an autonomous Danish territory — said on Thursday that it has received a formal extradition request from Japan for Watson.

He was arrested after docking to refuel in Greenland’s capital on the way to “intercept” Japan’s new whaling factory vessel in the North Pacific, according to the Captain Paul Watson Foundation.

The Kangei Maru, a 9,300-tonne mothership that set off from Japan in May, processes whales caught by smaller vessels and stores their meat for consumption in Japan.

Japan has hunted whales for centuries and the meat was a key source of protein in the years after World War II.

It carried on hunting whales for “scientific” purposes after an International Whaling Commission (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling, killing hundreds in the Antarctic and North Pacific.

However, after years of tensions that took a toll on its international reputation, Japan quit the IWC in 2019 and resumed commercial whaling inside its territorial waters and exclusive economic zone.

Japan killed 294 whales last year, a number it says is sustainable.

A panel of experts commissioned by the agriculture ministry said in June that Japanese fishermen should be able to hunt fin whales.

Agriculture minister Tetsushi Sakamoto at the time called whales “an important food resource”.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

In a groundbreaking declaration earlier this month, Indigenous leaders of New Zealand and the Cook Islands signed a treaty, He Whakaputanga Moana, to recognise whales as legal persons. Image for Representation.
| Photo Credit: AP

In a groundbreaking declaration earlier this month, Indigenous leaders of New Zealand and the Cook Islands signed a treaty, He Whakaputanga Moana, to recognise whales as legal persons.

Aotearoa New Zealand has already granted legal personhood to a river (Te Awa Tupua Whanganui River), land (Te Urewera) and a mountain (Taranaki maunga), but He Whakaputanga Moana differs from these earlier processes. It is based in customary law, or tikanga Māori, rather than Crown law.

The declaration seeks to protect the rights of whales (tohorā) to migrate freely and to use mātauranga Māori alongside science for better protections. It also aims to set up a dedicated fund for whale conservation.

But a core concept of legal personhood is the idea that the “person” (in this case, whales) can sue to protect their rights.

The declaration was signed by King Tuuheitia Pootatau Te Wherowhero VII of the Kiingitanga movement, Lisa Tumahai who chairs the Hinemoana Halo Ocean initiative, and the Cook Islands leader Kaumaiti Nui Travel Tou Ariki.

It recognises traditional Māori and Pasifika ideas about the importance of whales as ancestral beings. King Tuuheitia described it as “a woven cloak of protection for our taonga”, noting the presence of whales “reflects the strength of our own mana”.

While He Whakaputanga Moana is not a pan-Māori declaration, mana is a shared core concept of tikanga Māori, representing authority and power.

What is legal personhood?

Over the past few hundred years, legal personhood has been developed for companies as a way for individual shareholders to avoid liability. This means a company can go to court, rather than its shareholders.

In the past decade, Aotearoa New Zealand has led the way in developing legal personhood for things in nature into a tool used as part of settlements under Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. It is important to note that these ideas have been recognised and implemented by the Crown in partnership with Māori.

As part of the signing of the Tūhoe settlement in 2014, the former national park Te Urewera was granted legal personhood. In 2017, legal personhood for the Whanganui river was also part of a settlement. And last year, this idea was extended to Mount Taranaki. The Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill passed its first reading in parliament last week.

These natural features are now not owned by people or the Crown, but by themselves.

Legal personhood has been praised in New Zealand and overseas by people interested in using it to protect the environment.

Tikanga key to unlocking legal power

There is currently a shift in the legal system to recognise tikanga as a key source of law alongside statute and common law (the kind of customary law New Zealand inherited from England).

In the recent case of Ellis v R, the Supreme Court recognised and applied ideas about mana. In deciding to overturn the conviction of Peter Ellis posthumously, the court held that Mr Ellis’ mana was affected by the convictions, even after his death.

He Whakaputanga Moana is based on customary concepts like mana rather than being a Crown-drafted piece of law. It is likely it could be recognised by the courts as part of the growing wave of tikanga jurisprudence.

Marine mammals in New Zealand’s territorial waters are protected absolutely by the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 (as has recently been highlighted when the Sail GP regatta was held in a marine sanctuary and races were delayed because dolphins were present).

But He Whakaputanga Moana recognises legal personhood above and beyond that legislation.

Whales in court

So what if whales went to court? What if whales sued for plastic pollution in their habitat, the dumping of waste in the oceans or climate change causing warmer waters and depleting their food stocks?

In this case, He Whakaputanga Moana could potentially give a human interest group, perhaps the Kiingitanga, the legal standing to sue on behalf of whales.

In addition to recognising tikanga as a source of law, the Supreme Court has also opened the door to climate change focused litigation, such as the case of Smith v Fonterra.

Here, activist Mike Smith has sued seven major New Zealand polluters for their greenhouse gas emissions. The defendants said the claim could not succeed and applied for a “strike out”, but the Supreme Court has allowed it go to trial.

Among other findings, the court found the litigation should proceed, as it might involve ideas of tikanga and tikanga-based loss that should be tested at trial. This suggests that if the courts were to recognise the validity of He Whakaputanga Moana in customary law, this case might allow those representing whales to run a claim against ocean polluters.

A ruling in favour of whales could have significant ramifications for the health and wellbeing of our oceans, and perhaps the very existence of their species.