|
20 Jan 06 - 01:07 PM (#1652085) Subject: BS: Whales in the Thames! From: MMario for the first time since records began to be kept in 1916. So who has seen them? |
|
20 Jan 06 - 01:12 PM (#1652086) Subject: BS: Whale in the Thames From: Sooz Todays news item about the whale in the Thames reminded me of the time we had a porpoise in the River Trent about five years ago. It was swimming up and down the stretch opposite the pub where Gainsborough Folk Club used to meet. Until we had Lester Simpson as our guest and he played his bagpipes with the window open! It was never seen again. |
|
20 Jan 06 - 01:14 PM (#1652091) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: the one sign of rhe times. |
|
20 Jan 06 - 01:19 PM (#1652093) Subject: RE: BS: Whales in the Thames! From: Janice in NJ 1916, eh? That ain't no whale. That's an IRN submarine out to repay the damage inflicted on Liberty Hall and the GPO when His Majesty's Gunboat Helga steamed up the Liffey. It's been 90 years a-coming, but who's counting? :-) |
|
20 Jan 06 - 01:24 PM (#1652096) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: TheBigPinkLad Don't you know any other songs? |
|
20 Jan 06 - 01:24 PM (#1652097) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: McGrath of Harlow As Stephen Foster nearly wrote: Tis a sigh that is wafted Across the troubled wave, Tis a whale that is heard upon the shore... |
|
20 Jan 06 - 01:26 PM (#1652099) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: John MacKenzie If only some people would try to get a grip on reality instead of constantly re-living the past, then things in NI might move forward. G. |
|
20 Jan 06 - 02:11 PM (#1652122) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: McGrath of Harlow It's not worth getting all ruffled up by a passing quip... And a passing whale is much more interesting. The experts seem to think this is quite a young one, and his Mum is said to be hanging round off-shore at Southend, no doubt in a rare old panic. There could be a movie in this - call it Big Nemo. I hope it'll turn out to have a happy ending. |
|
20 Jan 06 - 03:27 PM (#1652189) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: Rapparee The news here is saying that the critter is probably sick. Well, duh...swimming in the Thames?? I should think so! |
|
20 Jan 06 - 03:44 PM (#1652199) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: Liz the Squeak The Thames is nowhere near as bad as it was... now if you fall in they don't pump your stomach as a matter of course. LTS |
|
20 Jan 06 - 03:47 PM (#1652200) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: MMario The latest I saw says young, apparently healthy, strong (has been handling the tidal flow under some bridges that it probably couldn't if ill) |
|
20 Jan 06 - 03:48 PM (#1652202) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: open mike ah perhaps the youngster has read the book Humphrey the wayward whale about a humpback that swam up the river from the golden gate in the S.F. Bay (book was by Ernest Callenbach) |
|
20 Jan 06 - 04:05 PM (#1652226) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: Mr Red McGrath of Harlow People expecting the heckle usually sing - Tis a Whale Herd upon the shore (all together) Thar she blows........... |
|
20 Jan 06 - 04:05 PM (#1652227) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: nutty According to the broadcasts, it reached 40 miles inland before turning round. Although heading back out to sea the experts think it may be to weak to make it on its own (suffering from lack of food and a fresh water environment). They are suggesting some sort of barge with a crane on board to give it a lift. |
|
20 Jan 06 - 04:14 PM (#1652233) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: McGrath of Harlow Incidentally, the records go back to 1913, not just to 1916. |
|
20 Jan 06 - 04:20 PM (#1652239) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: MMario A whale herd upon the shore? Now that would be exciting - I thought the last of the land whales went extinct in the late 1500's when the last known specimens were slaughtered on Guam by the Magellan expedition of 1521. |
|
20 Jan 06 - 05:48 PM (#1652311) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: The Fooles Troupe Whale oil beef hooked! |
|
20 Jan 06 - 06:30 PM (#1652325) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: Folkiedave Going back to sea? Whale meet again? What's for illegal tea? Whale meat again? I'll get mi coat. On the other hand it could be the result of: four whiskies, three airline-size bottles of wine, about three glasses of port and a glass of sparkling wine. http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/18/nrob18.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/18/ixnewstop.html and some seroxat. |
|
20 Jan 06 - 06:43 PM (#1652337) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: GUEST, Jos Whether 1913 or 1916, what surprises me is that someone at that time decided to keep a record of whale sightings in the Thames, and people have kept up these records of 'no whales' for some 90 years. It just shows you should never give up. |
|
20 Jan 06 - 07:21 PM (#1652369) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: frogprince Our mate was up in the crow's nest high with a spy glass in his hand "Oh a whale, oh a whale, oh a whale fish," he cried "And he blows at every span, brave boys, and he blows at every span" |
|
20 Jan 06 - 08:11 PM (#1652428) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: McGrath of Harlow In fact it was "the London Eye" which fits into the line pretty well, Number six in this BBC picture sequence shows the hero of the hour, storming in on his own to stop the big lad beaching himself. Latest news is that it looks as if the whale may have worked out which way to go, and is headed towards the sea and his Mum (perhaps) down at Southend. Touch wood... Media interest here is comparable to when Diana got killed. Quite right too. (I bet there'll be a headline about the Prince of Whales...) |
|
21 Jan 06 - 05:19 AM (#1652650) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: Zany Mouse I see that British Divers Marine Life Rescue are involved! I hope this doesn't follow their previous track record. Sadly, BDMLR aren't known for success. Rhiannon |
|
21 Jan 06 - 05:39 AM (#1652655) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: David C. Carter Having seen Southend,I would have thought that the whale would have had more sense than to keep going on towards London.Then to end up outside Parliament!I thought these whales had a built-in sense of direction....and smell! Whale Meat Again... |
|
21 Jan 06 - 06:53 AM (#1652685) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: GUEST A man on a radio show asked why they don't drop a trail of its favorite food in (deep sea squid) and hope it will follow the trail to the sea. But maybe whales only like live squid. A fascinating but at the moment sad tale. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 09:22 AM (#1652731) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: Rasener So they have captured the whale in a pontoon which will be taken out of the thames awaiting medical results. If the results aren't good, they will have to use Euthenasia. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 10:46 AM (#1652775) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: Charley Noble I was wondering when the "Prince of Whales" might drop in. And then why not add those charming lines from the old ballad, as one raven croaks to his mate: Whale meat, whale meat, me own true love, Won't ye sit ye down by me, While we feast on what the Gods have drug From the briny sea? Here's hoping for a better end to this tale. Who's got the screen rights? Charley Noble |
|
21 Jan 06 - 11:24 AM (#1652803) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: GUEST,Art Thieme Very sad... ...a whale that is hurt upon the shore. Funny, you're a girl who likes whale meat, That's an important thing, Funny, I'm a guy who likes whale meat, Small world isn't it! Art |
|
21 Jan 06 - 11:32 AM (#1652809) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: John MacKenzie Blubber come back to me. G. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 03:21 PM (#1652974) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: GUEST The whale died about an hour ago. I t went into convulsions while being transported and never recovered. I wonder if the natural history museum are hoping for it to exhibit? |
|
21 Jan 06 - 03:58 PM (#1653002) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: Stilly River Sage They'll probably do an autopsy, but they still seem to know so little about whales it's probably a shot in the dark to find out what was wrong. It's handlers probably gave the poor thing a heart attack. SRS |
|
21 Jan 06 - 04:53 PM (#1653040) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: RoyH (Burl) Huge respects to all the volunteers who worked so diligently in hope of saving the whale. They failed, but not through lack of trying. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 04:59 PM (#1653042) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: John MacKenzie It was a doomed effort from the word go, if they'd taken the initiative immediately, and shipped it out then and there, they may have stood some chance of saving it. Giok |
|
21 Jan 06 - 05:47 PM (#1653073) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: open mike http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4635874.stm poor baby.. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 07:11 PM (#1653121) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: McGrath of Harlow "Shipped it out then and there" - meaning they could have got have got this whole complicated operation underway? A team of knowledgeable volunteers in the water, pontoons, barges, all ready by low tide within a few hours so of their first knowing the whale was trapped up river, with a feasible plan for rescuing it? It was only 8.45 on Friday morning that it was seen from the London Eye. And remember the whale was a much more lively animal to handle at that time. Trying to confine it would have been potentially fatal for humans and whale. And there was even a fair chance it might have found its own way out the way it came. This was a miracle of improvised organisation, and the people who set it up deserve to be congratulated. Longshots don't always come off, and sadly this one didn't. That doesn't mean it wasn't worth trying. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 07:28 PM (#1653127) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: Zany Mouse I used to be involved with British Divers Marine Life Rescue and we were taught that one of the biggest dangers in the rescue of a stranded marine mammal happens AFTER the capture. An animal that is normally supported in water has severe problems with gravity when there is no water to support it. Sadly this means that internal organs compact/compress/collapse. It is sad news but not entirely unexpected. BDMLR are a dedictated team of divers but they are really fighting a losing battle on most strandings. This isn't the first, or the last, mammal we will lose in this way. Luckily that won't stop them trying. It was worth a shot as it would have died in the Thames anyway. What I find very sad indeed is that they managed to get the poor thing so far out before it died. If only it could have hung on a short time longer. Rhiannon |
|
21 Jan 06 - 07:37 PM (#1653132) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: McGrath of Harlow What they really need to be able to do is to lower the whole creature, with its support sling and so forth, into an appropriate sized container containing water, to buoy it up and take the weight. Not practical in a case like this, I'm sure, but in principle it ought to be possible in many cases. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 08:15 PM (#1653143) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: GUEST,Art Thieme Long after the Watergate scandal, here in the U.S., Richard Nixon was getting large gatherings whenever he'd show up in public. Some were amazed at that happening. We always said, "Hell, it isn't surprising at all.-----Even a dead whale on a flat car draws crowds!!!" I just remembered that... Art |
|
22 Jan 06 - 07:25 AM (#1653347) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: ard mhacha A valiant effort by all concerned, it was worth the try. There are humans honoured for being responsible for the deaths of thousands, all of those people involved in trying to rescue the unfortunate animal are the real salt of the earth. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 09:25 AM (#1653397) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: GUEST I think it was the shock of being handed a bill for the congestion charge that did it. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 09:46 AM (#1653412) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: Alba Och poor wee whale. Natural law of selection won this time inspite of all the help. Open Mike's Link Jude |
|
22 Jan 06 - 10:15 AM (#1653426) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: Keith A of Hertford Or un-natural. Evidence is mounting that powerful military sonars are behind the rising incidence of whale strandings. Re earlier comment, initially it was worth trying to refloat it, but to lift it they needed it beached. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 11:20 AM (#1653449) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: GUEST According to the news reports I heard, if the veterinary reports showed it to be sick they were going to help natural selection along by bumping the poor creature off anyway. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 11:31 AM (#1653458) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: GUEST,Arnie Had the military stepped in, they could have had it back at sea in about 20mins slung in a harness under a heavy-lift helicopter.However, no doubt the MOD beancounters would be worried about the aviation fuel costs involved. We can always find a use for military helicopters when prince Harry need to be somewhere in a hurry but obviously not for animal rescue purposes..... |
|
22 Jan 06 - 01:32 PM (#1653562) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) What a shame. I used to live near the Thames in West London and when I heard about the whale being sighted I was pessimistic from the start. Marine mammals do occasionally appear in the Thames estuary (mostly seals and porpoises) and when it happens the prognosis usually isn't good. The last time I remember a seal being sighted in Isleworth (which is almost at the limit of the tidal river) it had to be put down due to being too weak to make its way back out to sea. This was in the autumn of 1995 and there have probably been other incidents since. The Thames is a long, narrow and in parts fairly shallow tidal river and unfortunately, it's no place for a creature that belongs in the ocean. Simple as that, I'm afraid. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 10:04 PM (#1653906) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: McGrath of Harlow Helicopters which could have lifted it were in fact available, I understand. The people running the operation decided that wasn't the best option from the point of the whale. I can't imagine the authorities in this instance refusing to cooperate with the rescue effort, even if they wished to. The political cost when it came out would have been too great. After all, this is England. You might survive lying to Parliement or starting an illegal war, but there are limits to what you can get away with here. |
|
23 Jan 06 - 04:24 AM (#1654009) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: GUEST The cheering from the watching crowd apparently distressed the poor thing enough. Helicopter noise would have no doubt been very risky. |
|
27 Jan 06 - 11:16 AM (#1656492) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: Wolfgang In 1966, there was a beluga whale swimming up the Rhine, much further from the sea than this one. The crowd along the Rhine went mad like this time. We called the commotion 'Carnewhale' (it loses a bit in the translation). They couldn't catch it and it swam back to the Northern Sea after a month (!) in the Rhine. All that was left was a (horrible) song: Was will der weiße Wal im Rhein / (what is it the white whale is looking for in the Rhine) Er hat gehört im Rhein soll Wein statt Wasser sein / (they told him there was wine instead of water in the Rhine) Was will der weiße Wal? / (what is he looking for, the white whale?) Das wissen wir genau: / (we know it exactly) Der weiße Wal wär gern einmal / (the white wahle would love to be just once) so richtig blau. (really blue/drunk; "blau" menas both blue and drunk) Wolfgang |
|
27 Jan 06 - 11:22 AM (#1656505) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: Paco Rabanne I've eaten shark, but never whale. Whats it like? |
|
28 Jan 06 - 09:42 AM (#1657042) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: kendall It likes squid. The poor thing was sick to begin with. Something goes wrong with their navigation sustem and they are like a blind man in a strange house. It happens all the time here on the coast of New England, mostly to baby seals. Most of them die anyway. Sometimes a moose will wander into downtown Portland and cause a rukus. It's due to an inner ear infection that causes it to not know where it is. Not to be too pedantic, but autopsies are performed on people, not animals. Necropsy is performed on animals. ( I learned a few new words in the Fish&Wildlife service) |
|
28 Jan 06 - 12:28 PM (#1657108) Subject: RE: BS: Whale in the Thames From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Whale meat again, don't know where, don't know when... |