Yes, it's interesting that the Asbury Park Press has really good marine issues coverage. It's a coastal city, but it's no more coastal than Boston or New York or any number of smallish cities, and yet the APP covers marine news more frequently, it seems. I don't know why.

On the ages of beings, I don't doubt that large dinosaurs were long-lived. It's a strange thing, though, since large size in animals like dogs and horses generally corresponds with shorter lifespans. It's like their bodies can't keep tending to such large frames - they age more poorly when they become elderly.

You astutely noted a problem with sea turtle conservation. No, we don't know where they go when we can't see them! We have an idea, and we can make educated guesses. But the scientific evidence on their exact range is very limited. Hopefully more information will come with time. It's something Oceana has hoped for.

Aging may be related (via evolution) to the reproductive process. Large mammals that have fairly quick maturing (dogs, horses, cows) have moderate lifespans. Large mammals with slower maturing (elephants) have longer life spans. reptiles (chancy reproduction by eggs with limited nurturing of young) seem to have longer life spans.

To death.  This reminds me of the old nut wing talking point mantra "...needs more study".  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Thanks, Suzannah and KenG, for your comments on the lifespans of animals.  I too had heard that the larger breeds of dog tend to wear out and die sooner than the smaller breeds; I did not know it about horses, but there is no surprise there, if the same phenomenon is at work.  This should remind us that when we have bred the various kinds of domestic animals to favor certain features for our pleasure, we have all too often done so without due consideration for the health and well-being of the individual animals.

KenG,
that certainly sounds right, that lifespan is closely related to the reproductive process of respective animals.  In the unusual case of the quahog clams, their extreme longevity is made possible presumably by a stable and supportive environment, in which nutrients are reliably available, and predators and pathogens are either absent, or few, or easily defended against.  But also, it must be true that the presence and numbers of the old individuals do not endanger the success of at least a few of the young ones.

The genetic need of animals to reproduce and replace themselves with a couple of reproductively successful young, raises some interesting philosophical questions.  Clams, like probably all mollusks, and like most marine animals, produce a huge number of viable offspring, of which only a very much smaller number can be expected to survive to reproductive adulthood.  And the upshot is, countless numbers of individual immature living creatures are expected to be killed, by one cause or another.  

Hence, those thinkers who would argue in defense of atheism, or at least against the concept of a supreme being such as is found in the biblical traditions, and who seek to refute those who think that belief in such a supreme being is compatible with acceptance of the biological theory of evolution, sometimes ask: How can a loving, all-knowing, all-powerful creator-god be responsible for such pointless, futile waste of life?  Could such a god be considered deserving of worship?

It would be interesting to know what those committed workers think about these things, especially the volunteers working with either Oceana or other organizations dedicated in one way or another to animal welfare, who are involved in the conservation of beaches on which the arribadas of sea turtles take place, or in the defense of the hatchlings as they make their way down the slope of the beach to the sea.  As with most reptiles, of course, female sea turtles lay a large number of eggs, many more than the small number needed to replace the individual parents.

And another kind of question, more ethical and less theological, is: Does that mean that baby sea turtles are somehow less precious, individually, than baby whales or baby seals?  Are they less deserving of our sympathy and care?

AMC,
thanks for the news from the Humane Society of the United States on the cooperation of all these seafood distributors in the boycott of Canadian seafood.  Let us hope it has a good effect on policy-makers in Ottawa and the eastern provinces.

Of course, this is a morally complex issue.  Most of the commercial fishermen who engage in the seal slaughter are hardly well-off, nor can they even be said to have a secure livelihood.  Their government does them a great disservice, by indulging them so far as the seal slaughter goes, but not doing anything to wean them to less objectionable kinds of productive labor.

Also, it is ironic that some of us at least who are committed to animal welfare and the ethical treatment of animals can congratulate the seafood distributors for joining the boycott, even as we look for the day when their industry is shut down or radically transformed.  Well, that day is likely to be far in the future, and the struggle leading to it is hardly begun; so meanwhile the cooperation of every one of us, for whatever our reasons may be, is definitely desirable.

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.