Whaling new thread...

[demonic_death]

First, thanks to Mr. X for creating a new thread, as the previous one was closed.

Again, as I have said in the previous thread, let us keep the discussion ON TOPIC here. Let us not drag deer, cattle and other animals that are obviously not endangered in this thread shall we?

Come on people. Nobody is saying that you should not hunt deer. As long as you do not kill an extreme number of ( 1,000++ perhaps? ) deer for profit each hunting season, then nobody is jumping at your throat. If you kill one or two with your kids and eat the meat afterwards, most people here find nothing wrong with that.

Next, the IWC exception was pretty clear, and as lawyers usually do, they exploit any form of legal loophole to gain what they need to.

Kim, the other closed whaling thread had raised some valid arguments in Norway's whaling industry. They do not kill the humpbacks, but only the Minke whales ( at least, that is what kompressor had said, or I could have misread him ) for food. They take some whales, but not thousands of these that will deplete the current number.

Personally, I think most people will agree that hunting NON-ENDANGERED ( and they have to have evidence that these are not endangered ) animals responsibly is OK.

In my opinion, the IWC needs to change the exception. Maybe they can state the law more concretely so as not to allow for abuse?

Peace everyone.

 

[Tigerman]

First, thanks to Mr. X for creating a new thread, as the previous one was closed.

Again, as I have said in the previous thread, let us keep the discussion ON TOPIC here. Let us not drag deer, cattle and other animals that are obviously not endangered in this thread shall we?

Come on people. Nobody is saying that you should not hunt deer. As long as you do not kill an extreme number of ( 1,000++ perhaps? ) deer for profit each hunting season, then nobody is jumping at your throat. If you kill one or two with your kids and eat the meat afterwards, most people here find nothing wrong with that.

Next, the IWC exception was pretty clear, and as lawyers usually do, they exploit any form of legal loophole to gain what they need to.

Kim, the other closed whaling thread had raised some valid arguments in Norway's whaling industry. They do not kill the humpbacks, but only the Minke whales ( at least, that is what kompressor had said, or I could have misread him ) for food. They take some whales, but not thousands of these that will deplete the current number.

Personally, I think most people will agree that hunting NON-ENDANGERED ( and they have to have evidence that these are not endangered ) animals responsibly is OK.

In my opinion, the IWC needs to change the exception. Maybe they can state the law more concretely so as not to allow for abuse?

Peace everyone.

First; Saying that hunting one non-endangered species is not ok IS related to wether or not you find it ok to hunt other non-endangered species. If one is ok, but not the other, youre working on obvious double standards and conservatism is NOT your real argument.

Second; Yes, norwegian whaling is for minke whales and yes, it is SOLD as food in the same way as fish is. Some is exported to iceland and faroe islands and some is sold in the shops here.
Norway registered an objection to the IWC commercial whaling policy and is not bound by it and as of 1993 the norwegian whaling is concidered commercial and it is legal.

In 2006 the norwegian whale catch was ~550 minke whale out of a quota of ~1000, so just above 50% of the allowed whales was actually caught.

 

[demonic_death]

To tell the truth, I have never went hunting for anything in my whole life. Not even spear fishing.

Yes, I meant that it is ok IMO to hunt non endangered species as long as the hunters do it responsibly. And, just because it is non-endangered doesn't mean it is alright to kill an extremely huge amount. Say for example, killing over 1000 deer in 1 hunting season.

I don't know the exact number of deer killed in the USA per hunting season, but I am sure that people over there do not say that they are hunting deer for scientific research, kill thousands of deer in one season alone or do both. But this is off topic already.

A poster from Norway ( Kompressor ) in the previous whaling thread made Norway's stand on whaling clear. According to him/her, the Norwegians hunt Minke whales, not humpback whales. And like you said, the whales are eaten and they don't take an absurd amount.

 

[Kim]

Interesting link to a US paper:
TWO RECIPES FOR WHALE - News - The Stranger, Seattle's Only Newspaper

 

[MikeFerrara]

I thank everyone for their responses.

I'll answer a few questions. The sustainability issue is gray for me because cetaceans are not truly localized. They’re not clumped in one country, as are terrestrial resources. The whale #'s game has been manipulated in the past to argue one point or another. At best the #'s are very crude estimates with huge spreads from the median. Naturally, tracking large numbers of whales in a vast ocean is close to impossible.

That's unfortunate but true.

Kim, you're not getting my point. Your erudite POV is getting in the way. You've yet to state whether you've been lucky enough to have that type of special encounter with a whale – small, or large. It does change how one feels.

It does. Lots of animals are plesant to be around. It can change the way you look at your food.

I've spent many hours watching largemouth bass underwater but they're also my favorite fish to fish for. The rabbits and squirrels in my yard are very entertaining to watch but they are also my two favorite animals to hunt and two of my favorite to eat. Some might see a conflict here but I don't. The hawk, fox, coon, coyote, wildcat and man all prey on those animals. Of the lot, man is the only one able to appreciate them as more than a meal of oportunity. It's all as it should be.

I feel the villagers are butchering sentient animals. The various videos (time and again) show dolphins in excruciating pain and obvious fear. It’s very hard to believe that these folks are treating the dolphins with any degree of respect, as would a hunter taught to respect nature and the necessity of making the kill as painless as possible.

Sport hunters generally (not all of them) try to take game as cleanly as possibly though it doesn't always go as planned. Nature doesn't even try. Watching animals prey on eachother is probably the quickest way to get a feel for the harshness of it. The realities of nature would probably seem pretty brutal to many people.

Commercial harvest or slaughter is probably designed more around economics than improving the experience for the food animal. I definately would not say that they are treated with respect.

I'm afraid that with ecotourism and more people growing up and living in cities most people are clueless about how all this really works. Maybe even some people who think dolphins are "nice" might change their mind if they knew more about them. Reading about Infanticidal behavior in dolphins does not make them sound "nice" at all...very un-Disney like. I can't help but think that those who would use such terms to describe any wild animal are just completely clueless and should see to their own education before presuming to be in a position to dictate how other live.

Mike - You’ve brought up Sea Shepherds before. My avatar represents Paul Watson when he was with Greenpeace. I have mixed feelings about some of the tactics the Shepherds use.

I don't think I ever hear of Paul Watson or Sea Shepherd until recently. When I did, I did some reading up on them. Assuming what I read is accurate, I can't come up with any way to view their tacticts other than criminal.

While I have my opinions on what types of things should be legislated and what shouldn't, within that legal/political framework everyone is free to persue their pet issues. Once someone resorts to physically preventing the free movement of another or the damage of private property it's best described by terms like unlawful restraint, assault, larsony, vandalism, endangerment and piracy. It's one thing to try to change peoples minds or to take part in our political process. It's another to impose your will on others by force.

You mentioned how those Japanese fishermen acted toward other people. I'd assume the other people you are refering to are the ones who tried to physically interfere as they headed off to work. I'm not sure what I would do if a bunch of people tried to block my way to work but I tend to think that I would be fairly aggressive about asserting my right to go to work unmolested. I doubt it would make me look like a nice guy.

 

[MikeFerrara]

So I've made my decision and thrown in with the "terrorists"
I presently financially support Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd Foundation and in the past have supported Manta.org and the WWF - among others.

I just e-mailed my congressman in support of Greenpeace's efforts to stop the whaling. I also signed the anti-shark finning petition circulated here recently and e-mailed McDonalds to stop the selling of sharkfin soup in their overseas operations.

Does that make me a terrorist by definition? If so, that's a position I'm proud to be associated with.

If Paul Watson can save even one Humpback by interceding with his boat in the whaling operations, I will consider my money very well spent.

Some things are just worth preserving...

Disclaimer: Anything posted here not clearly stated as fact is my opinion. Agree or disagree it's your prerogative. Just be nice about it...

As far as I can tell most terrorists believe their cause to be just and they are not ashamed of their actions. I think that's part of what makes them so dangerous. I have to say that in this day of extreme non-violent sentiments and "tolerance" I'm surprised that there are people advocating acts of violence over such things.

The use of the term "terrorism" is getting more interesting by the day. A friend of mine helped fix up an orphanage and start a burn center in a south American country. Sounds nobel enough but under the Patriot act he has been identified as one who is subject to outside political pressure. He is also the trustee of a trust left by his grandfather. I should say "was a trustee" because that trust fund has been frozen until he finds a way to sort this out.

I'd be careful these days. Your liable to stop by the bank one morning only to find out that your assets have been frozen after it comes to someones attention that you are funding terrorist organizations.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I'm afraid it's simply opinion, not fact.

The Japanese conduct "scientific hunting" under a provision in the convention that permits it:

... and what are the results of all this research? Have they published any findings?

Reminds me of a loophole on octopus hunting that's exploited locally. It's legal to hunt two octopus per day for "personal consumption". But who can eat 100 lbs of octopus per day? I'm sure it's "persons" who are eating them ... but they're certainly being harvested and sold.

I think that the Japanese are defining what the meaning of "is" is ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[diversteve]

As far as I can tell most terrorists believe their cause to be just and they are not ashamed of their actions. I think that's part of what makes them so dangerous. I have to say that in this day of extreme non-violent sentiments and "tolerance" I'm surprised that there are people advocating acts of violence over such things.

The use of the term "terrorism" is getting more interesting by the day... I'd be careful these days. Your liable to stop by the bank one morning only to find out that your assets have been frozen after it comes to someones attention that you are funding terrorist organizations.

I'll take that chance. Especially since I don't bank in Japan.
There's an anonymous donation option if you're interested...

Couple of new developments on the SS website this week to read about:

Sea Shepherd Will Not Ram Any Japanese Ships

Despite inflammatory statements to the contrary and misrepresentations from the public relations flaks for the outlaw Japanese whalers, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has no intention of ramming any Japanese whalers on the high seas.

Political Victory for the Whales

The Labor Party of Australia has won the election and they have won by a landslide and this could be wonderful news for the whales of Antarctica.

Why?

Because Peter Garrett, two weeks ago as the former Shadow Minister for the Environment said that his government if elected would send a naval vessel to the Southern Oceans to monitor the Japanese whaling fleet. Mr. Garrett also promised to take a much more aggressive position against Japanese whaling activities.

The former Liberal government were outspoken against whaling but did very little to actually stop the Japanese from continuing with their illegal activity.

I've always liked the Australians...

 

[MikeFerrara]

I'll take that chance. Especially since I don't bank in Japan.

I meant to imply that, with the patriot act, the danger is in banking in the US.

There's an anonymous donation option if you're interested...

Couple of new developments on the SS website this week to read about:

Sea Shepherd Will Not Ram Any Japanese Ships

No thanks. I'm not surprised to see that there's another side to the story but I still don't think that SS is the kind of outfit that I would ever support.

 

[Kim]

... and what are the results of all this research? Have they published any findings?

Yes they have. Archman provided a whole list of various papers that they have published a few whale threads back......

They're peer reviewed as well by all accounts.

The Institute involved has a web site here:
http://www.icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm