“The Thortons and a group of their friends had traveled to the Dominican Republic to swim with whales in a sanctuary off the coast. On the last day of their week-long trip, they were snorkeling near a sleeping mother and her calf. Mother whales push their calves to the surface to teach them to breathe, so the calf was above the adult.
“We had gotten extremely close, closer than we had been all week …
“But the ocean current pushed the group even closer than they had intended, directly over the sleeping calf.
“It surfaced right underneath us,” Randall Thornton said. “The calf got spooked. It startled the mother, and all hell broke loose.”
“A whip of the mother whale’s tail sent Gwen Thornton flying 20 feet, knocked another woman unconscious, and broke Randall Thornton’s leg.”
Thanks to Ann Novek for the link to this story at ABC News.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
And I was reminded of the story of the woman knocked unconscious after a dolphin leapt into a boat: http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Leaping-dolphin-injures-woman-in-NZ/2006/12/27/1166895326571.html
A couple a days ago , a Japanese fisherman who participated in a sperm whale rescue was killed during the rescue efforts as well.
Powerful forces when it comes to the whales. It might indded be very dangerous with various rescue efforts.
On another point.
How wise and ” animal-friendly” is it with swim with programmes?
Perhaps Libby can enlighten us more on this issue?
Eco-tourism is spreading rapidly throughout the world and NGOs are keen on to promote such tourism and unfortunately the drawbacks are not mentioned much IMO.
I’m thinking about carbon emissions , disturbances of wildlife, wear and tear of the landscape etc. etc.
Ann,
IMO more people need to experience nature close-up and also different cultures and different environments.
… even if it does involve generating some carbon emissions and risks to personal safety.
Yes, I can agree with you Jennifer, but some activities need more regulation IMO.
Thinking about some dolphin watching tours. It seems like the dolphins can never rest due to all tourist activity and this has caused an increase in dolphin deaths due to shark attacks.
On a bit different point. This media hype currently on polar bears has made that researchers have increased their activity in Arctis, with possible consequences that polar bears might be disturbed. This was highlighted in an editorial in a Norwegian paper.
I’ve seen some of the video of the encounter with the mother and calf. The group are alongside the mother, but it’s hard to see where the calf is. However, it is a video, and I was not there, nor was I in the Southern Ocean two years ago when a collision between two ships occurred, so I can’t comment much on what happened.
I am not aware of any animal-orientated organisation that openly supports swim-withs. There is little known about the effects of swim-withs, and virtually nothing on whale swim-withs. In Tonga I have seen people jump on the backs of whales and pull calve’s tails. I have seen guides encourage people to dive down and try and touch the animals even though both actions are against guidelines. The company I guided with was incredibly strict. It is recommended that people do not swim with mothers and calves as they need rest whilst on the wintering grounds.
I assume there was a guide with the people in the Dominican Republic, and they should have been very much aware of what the currents were doing. It can be hard to judge what animals will do, and you should be aware of their presence at all times. A photographer I was with was trying to photograph a calf. He knew full well not to get between it and its mother, but he was too busy looking through the lens to be aware the calf had actually moved, so he was now between mother and calf. The mother very gently tapped him on the back of the shoulder, and he quickly got out of the way. She didn’t have to be so delicate in her contact with him. I saw a young woman get hit with a pectoral fin as a whale passed by. She had been told to remain still as the whale had made a very close approach. She didn’t, the animal then couldn’t see her, and she was hit. An underwater film-maker in Australia had his back broken by a southern right whale many years ago due to what could be called poor-judgement. In just about every negative encounter humans have with animals, fault lies with the humans, often due to a lack of understanding about animal behaviour, or plain stupidity.
The death of the Japanese man with the sperm whale occurred when the whale upturned the boat and the fellow was thrown in the water and drowned. They had been banging on pipes to encourage the whale to move, but had possibly disturbed the whale with such noise, causing it to respond with lashing out. A fellow in NZ was killed a few years ago when he tried to disentangle a humpback in NZ. The whale was again possibly frightened by the attention, however well-meaning.
I hope you have recovered from your injury Ann.
Thanks Libby( btw I’m OK)!
We also want to know what George thinks about the killer whale swim-withs in Norway !
I have a large tree that was once molested by a female tree hugger. The tree said no but the feral wouldn’t listen and had her way with it. And to top it all off she had the nerve to accuse the person who discovered her in the act of breaching her privacy. That is, until she was reminded that she was trespassing.
The poor old tree now has fits of rage and low self esteem. It keeps a stock of dead branches at the ready to drop on would be molesters that now seem to be everywhere.
I guess it knows how the stingray felt.
Have you considered that the whale was trying to punish man for Anthropologic Global Warming? I would say “April Fool’s,” but the “consensus” might defend that statement.
Gaia-lovers will doubtless be disappointed that such all-natural creatures would do this.
Or is this the “Revolt of the Whales?”
Perhaps Greenpeace has been dropping leaflets on them.
This post is not on topic sorry Ann, but I feel I have to add this:
The last three posts illustrate how some regular contributors to this blog will seize on any opportunity to express their negative sentiments about environmental groups and ideas. They contribute nothing and instead drag a topic off into a slanging match. What did Jennifer mention about Luke trying to ‘convert’ people? If someone takes the time to post a thread here, at least show the courtesy that if you don’t know anything about it – shut up and contribute to something you do know something about.
Back to the issue of close encounters with wildlife…
>IMO more people need to experience nature close-up and also different cultures and different environments.
… even if it does involve generating some carbon emissions and risks to personal safety.
I agree to a point. There should be virtually no risks to personal safety. Risks should be minimal if everything is carried out responsibly. Accidents usually have the effect of casting a negative light on the animal that is involved, and do nothing to enlighten people about nature. Close encounters can have negative impacts on individual animals and populations. Regulation is needed, preferably with studies on the impact some tourism activities have on populations before and during implementation. Seeing nature close up is fantastic, but it should provide the viewer with an educational and safe experience and hopefully be beneficial to observer and observed.
Travis,
You still don’t get it.
This *could* be an interesting, reasoned, evidence-based discussion. But the fact is, there are environmentalists who won’t call themselves that anymore, because the neo-Marxist eco-freaks have taken the name for themselves.
And they don’t care anything for facts–they just say things like:
“shut up”
“risks should be minimal”
“negative impacts on individual animals”
“Regulation is needed, preferably with studies”
In short, they say things like you, Travis. And it’s not accidental that you ask for regulations first, and studies later.
Travis, there are actually people who care about the environment who aren’t neo-Marxist über-elitists who want to micro-manage the globe on the pretext of green benevolence.
Go figure.
Travis,
You still don’t get it.
This *could* be an interesting, reasoned, evidence-based discussion. But the fact is, there are environmentalists who won’t call themselves that anymore, because the neo-Marxist eco-freaks have taken the name for themselves.
And they don’t care anything for facts–they just say things like:
“shut up”
“risks should be minimal”
“negative impacts on individual animals”
“Regulation is needed, preferably with studies”
In short, they say things like you, Travis. And it’s not accidental that you ask for regulations first, and studies later.
Travis, there are actually people who care about the environment who aren’t neo-Marxist über-elitists who want to micro-manage the globe on the pretext of green benevolence.
Go figure.
Travis,
You still don’t get it.
This *could* be an interesting, reasoned, evidence-based discussion. But the fact is, there are environmentalists who won’t call themselves that anymore, because the neo-Marxist eco-freaks have taken the name for themselves.
And they don’t care anything for facts–they just say things like:
“shut up”
“risks should be minimal”
“negative impacts on individual animals”
“Regulation is needed, preferably with studies”
In short, they say things like you, Travis. And it’s not accidental that you ask for regulations first, and studies later.
Travis, there are actually people who care about the environment who aren’t neo-Marxist über-elitists who want to micro-manage the globe on the pretext of green benevolence.
Go figure.
Schiller,
This was an interesting, reasoned, evidence-based discussion before people started with their own personal biases.
Schiller writes at 10:53
>In short, they say things like you, Travis. And it’s not accidental that you ask for regulations first, and studies later.
After Travis had written at 9:29
>Regulation is needed, preferably with studies on the impact some tourism activities have on populations before and during implementation.
You have actually cherry-picked what I said to suit your own agenda. I am amazed at the lengths you will go to, but maybe I shouldn’t be when I think about all the other odd-ball things you have written over the months.
Would you like me to provide you with some facts and figures regarding marine mammal tourism activities? If it is facts you want Schiller, go away and do some work yourself to back up the rubbish you constantly make us endure. And try and understand what people have written, or at least when you are repeating it, do so accurately (and I am not the only one on this blog who has pointed this out to you).
Travis, this is not a thread on how to mix urban dropkicks with wildlife as you seem intent on making it. It is about human interaction with nature. And as with so much of life, the people who have most interaction with nature already have a healthy dose of common sense to guide them.
Farmers and landowners interact with nature almost every day so they don’t have a need to gather for exercises in group molestation. They recognise that all interactions will have a mix of risks and rewards, positives and negatives. And above all, they recognise that the most important part of any relationship is minding one’s own business and letting each other be.
Metrocentrics, on the other hand, need to have heros who deliver voyeristic molestation by media. And this produces a need to deliver greater and greater intrusion into the lives of their wildlife victims.
By far the greatest buzz of all comes from serendipidy, the chance meeting with nature, as two parts of that environment, man and animal, note each other’s presence and calmly go about their business.
But the consumers of “nature as superstar”, or “nature as victim”, may well go on from such expeditions with the equivalent of an emotional full stomach but it is junk food none the less and the hunger will be back all too soon.
Ian,
Forgive me. I thought this may have been about ‘how to mix urban dropkicks with wildlife’. Silly me. Is it about human interaction with nature, which is very broad, or is Ann aiming to make it more about organised tours and nature? Judging by what she has written so far, I thought it was more about the latter.
What do farmers and landowners do with any spare time they have? Do they all stay on their properties and interact with nature that way, or do any go to NZ or the Great Barrier Reef or Canada? Are you telling me there are no country dropkicks mixing with nature?
I agree that the most rewarding encounter is one by chance, where something is exchanged and understood and you go back about your business. But how many urban dwellers have that opportunity? Like it or not, there are people who live in cities, and some of them would like encounters other than with Indian Mynahs, house-spiders or the neighbour’s wandering cat.
It is true too that many people want an ‘experience’ but get very bored once that experience is occurring. They may go whale watching, see a whale and then be horribly bored for the rest of the trip as they have seen what they have paid their money for. Even zoo visitors will wander past exhibits getting frustrated if they can’t see the harassed tiger, bored with the endless enclosures of little brown birds (who cares if they are endangered?) or fed-up with educational shows when all they want to see is a tiger jumping through a hoop. How do you accomodate these people, is it a ‘problem’, or is it all about the diversity of human reactions?
There are many people in the western world Ian who do not fit the category of ‘the people who have most interaction with nature already have a healthy dose of common sense to guide them.’ This is a very real issue facing urban dwellers who want to get outside the Discovery Channel box, wildlife managers, and the wildlife itself.
Neil would be a great one to comment here.
http://www.bluevoice.org/sections/dolphins/save.shtml
sounds like a case of “mess with the bull you may get the horn”
these are wild animals after all. i work in alaska as a fishing guide. i see brown bears all the time up close. three things you never do. 1) don’t mess with their food. 2) don’t mess with their young. 3) don’t disturb them when they are sleeping. looks like there was a violation of #2 and #3.
My issue with so-called ecotourism is that so much of it has incorporated political ideology into the product line in a way that has minimal relationship with the facts.
A good example of this was the whale wanking operators who had the gall to suggest that the Japanese taking 50 mixed non-minke whales posed a direct threat to mankinds capacity to avail themselves of his megabuck generating industry.
As if 50 missing animals from the 8000 making the coastal pilgrimage each year spelt the death of his livelihood and a $1.5 billion hole in the tourism market. Excuse me while I barf.
If the same guy made similar exaggerations in the other parts of his marketing strategy he would be up for a stiff fine under the trade practices act. But all this kind of crap makes up the background clutter in the policy process and before long we have policy developed by the overkill of spivs on the make.
And as for their customers? They are trying to consume nature, they “do” whales, rainforest or whatever and end up with the quality of experience that is commensurate with the effort they put in to get it, ie not much.
What Jen said:
“IMO more people need to experience … different cultures and different environments.”
And preferably at as young an age as possible. I think there would be fewer bigots in the world if humankind could continue to make steps in this direction.
“As if 50 missing animals from the 8000 making the coastal pilgrimage each year spelt the death of his livelihood and a $1.5 billion hole in the tourism market. Excuse me while I barf.
Are these 50 animals from this apparent 8000 stock Ian?
Ian you are as bad as Schiller. You froth at the mouth preaching like an expert about things you know very little about, and end up looking like an idiot.
>A good example of this was the whale wanking operators who had the gall to suggest that the Japanese taking 50 mixed non-minke whales posed a direct threat to mankinds capacity to avail themselves of his megabuck generating industry.
If you knew about whale migration you would not make such dumb and insensitive comments, but it seems to be an innate ability you have.
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/03/10/utah-tourists-recount-whale-attack-near-dominican-republic/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc4.com%2Fmostpopular%2Fstory.aspx%3Fcontent_id%3D7282994f-8c90-4471-a1e5-a74286b62089&frame=true
If you can get past the commercial excrement!
This might be better:
http://www.abc4.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoId=60340