Breaking news from the whale wars
- Thread starter cdreamer
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Considering its after 2am here i'm going to avoid a long winded response here.
Ok clearing I did say no results. We seem to have a bit of miscommunication here to me if there is no meaningful and productive results its the same as no results.
Starting with your statement of less then 1,000 minke whales a year. This number is not correct its 1,000 minke whales collected by the Japanese each year in the Arctic area, not total. Whaling takes place in a number of locations around the world. The grand total take per year world wide is much higher. Korea and Norway also actively take minke whales. That count is also the reported totals not the actual, a killed whale and a taken whale are not the same thing. A whale which is killed but never collected is not included in that count.
Based on your logic If I decided I wanted to start eating people I could kill off 90,000,000 humans each year and although you may not be morally right it would still be sustainable. Granted killing off 90,000,000 people a year would certainly decrease the worlds need to feed off the environment.
Regarding your response to non-lethal collection means. Really are you serious? You need me to explain to you how to take tissue samples by non-lethal means? How do you think we study humpback whales, sea turtles, polar bears, and a large number of other animal populations.
Regarding the dumping of unusable whales I'm sure your video gathering resources on the internet extend past the IWC website. You seem to be a smart enough person that I dont need to waste time finding links for you.
So from what your saying you see killing an animal to determine if there is enough of them to kill for food to be productive? You don't seem to get the part that killing an animal to determine if there is enough of them to kill for food and then turning that same animal into food makes absolutely no sense at all.
Ok clearing I did say no results. We seem to have a bit of miscommunication here to me if there is no meaningful and productive results its the same as no results.
Starting with your statement of less then 1,000 minke whales a year. This number is not correct its 1,000 minke whales collected by the Japanese each year in the Arctic area, not total. Whaling takes place in a number of locations around the world. The grand total take per year world wide is much higher. Korea and Norway also actively take minke whales. That count is also the reported totals not the actual, a killed whale and a taken whale are not the same thing. A whale which is killed but never collected is not included in that count.
Based on your logic If I decided I wanted to start eating people I could kill off 90,000,000 humans each year and although you may not be morally right it would still be sustainable. Granted killing off 90,000,000 people a year would certainly decrease the worlds need to feed off the environment.
Regarding your response to non-lethal collection means. Really are you serious? You need me to explain to you how to take tissue samples by non-lethal means? How do you think we study humpback whales, sea turtles, polar bears, and a large number of other animal populations.
Regarding the dumping of unusable whales I'm sure your video gathering resources on the internet extend past the IWC website. You seem to be a smart enough person that I dont need to waste time finding links for you.
So from what your saying you see killing an animal to determine if there is enough of them to kill for food to be productive? You don't seem to get the part that killing an animal to determine if there is enough of them to kill for food and then turning that same animal into food makes absolutely no sense at all.
But he doesn't need to he has already agreed to the the fact that 19/20 of every minke killed is not used for research at all but commercial sale.
He has also stated very clearly that he doesn't understand the content of the research gathered.
He has also stated clearly that he see's the killing of an animal to see if there is enough of them to kill as being a logical practice.
There is no need for him to provide links proving any thing he has already basically said he agrees with us he just thinks from a moral perspective that its all perfectly fine.
Its not a issue of research he admits he doesn't understand it, its not a matter of collection practice he clearly is cool with the 19/20 portion, and its not a matter of killing to see if killing is ok hes cool with that to.
The end all be all is that although he is a diver and enjoys the wonders the oceans have to offer he has absolutely no care for the health or well being over it if it infers with his ability to have his whale soup.
My humble appologies to Geoff and everyone else on here that I may have offended.
For the sake of brevity, I read each and every title of the research list that was shared with us.
To answer the specific hypothetical (maybe even rhetorical...sorry if the question were rhetorical) qustion of how many of the research studies could have been conducted with radio transmitters, there is maybe one potential paper/study. The papers that address DNA or radiation exposure due to feeding all require killing of the specimens being studied. I think the epidermal paper may also require killing, but it may also just require sedation and biopsy sampling. So maybe there is a potential for two of the papers not requiring killing.
Yes, I was constrained to my personal allocation budget of time I was willing to devote to the reference list. But the titles do reveal something about the research summarized in each.
Although someone can bash me for being a hyprocrit, my boooo post still stands and is appropriate, thank you very much.
I don't eat whale, not drink whale soup (are you confusing whale soup with shark fin soup?)
You say much higher. Please quantify this.
I was referring to the numbers of whales taken in the Southern Ocean vs. the estimated population of the Southern Ocean, in order to be logically consistent. Obviously the population is higher if you count other populations.
Let's see your figures.
I don't think I need to bother to refute this, eating whales and eating humans are not alike in my book.
I can find any number of video's on the internet, but I like cold hard FACTS rather than making my decisions based on emotions. Obviously there is a big difference to this happening to 5 whales or 5,000 whales a year. Which is it?
You don't seem to get that harvesting 0.1% of a population a year is unlikely to be unsustainable.
azchipka:
And really that is the one thing that I just don't get. We as divers should posess a love for the ocean more that the average joe. I can go down the street from my house and watch wales when they migrate and for about six weeks last summer there were two adults and two calves in the bay by where I live. I would take my kids down the street and watch them with binoculars, it was a really cool experience and we want to enjoy it again next year.
I teach my children to love, respect and preserve the ocean and to enjoy it as their playground. I just don't understand why someone who dives and presumably has such an intimate relationship the sea doesn't feel the same way.
How do you figure both are living creatures that are both proven to be intelligent and have a social network. When you kill a whale that is with this caff are you not leaving a juvenile alone in the world to fend for itself? What makes the human race so much more worth of protection then any other animal?
Oh im not just comparing the killing of whales to the killing of people. I'll keep right on going with it if I walked into your house and killed your dog or cat you would be pissed but hey from a sustainability standpoint killing a dog or cat should be perfectly fine as long as I was going to use it for something.
The human race has evolved to a point where most of us have figured out we are not the center of the world and that our destructive habits on the planet and the other life forms on it have non-reversable effects.
Of all the life forms on this planet the human race is with out question the most destructive life form on it.
Killing whales for food would be one thing if there was nothing else for you to eat. But that is simply not the case. The rest of the life on the planet should not be forced to suffer as a result of our destructive self involved lifestyles.
And yes before anyone asks I do eat meat. Which yes I am fully aware that makes me a hypocrite.
Similar threads
