It's all a matter of perspectives & ideologies. I do not believe in the ole' perspective that everything was placed on earth for humans to utilize. Having traveled a bit, you'll find that a lot of the world doesn't believe, nor understands that egocentric, Western POV.
I guess I can empathize with the Japanese in this area. I hunt and fish for lots of reasons but I don't much care what the rest of the world thinks about it.
I also recognize the fact that culling (hunting) needs to occur as a direct result of humans screwing around, or subsistence needs. Hunting pig, or deer is typically a matter of culling in the United States. If deer, or pig numbers were low you would not see too many hunters out in the forest with their little orange jackets blasting away.
Hunting can be an effective management tool but it's also a business. In the US, states make a ton on the sale of licenses and quite a few areas of the country rely heavily on hunting or fishing tourism for their income. The money paid by hunters and fisherman also goes to purchase and manage many public lands, many of which are off limits to hunters. In other words, when it comes to conservation, hunters are amoung those who put the most money where their mouth is.
Conversely, the harvesting of cetaceans falls into different categories (in my book):
1. There is little to no point harvesting animals which have high levels of pollutants in their bodies making them unfit for consumption. If deer, or pig had the same levels of pollutants hunters would quit huntin' with the exception of those who enjoy the pleasure of the kill. This is similar to what I saw in Canadian High Arctic where wealthy American trophy hunters came to bag endangered game like Polar bears.
Personally, I don't hunt anything that I'm not going to eat. However, not all "game animals" are generally eaten. In any case, I have never met a hunter who doesn't enjoy the hunt. "The kill" and the meat is only part of it.
Also, as far as I could find out polar bears are not listed as endangered.
2. It's ludicrous to hunt animals that are clearly endangered under the pretense of scientific research. It's almost like saying let's hunt Mountain gorillas and orangutans for research purposes. Their numbers are too low for this type of vivisectionist-based research.
I agree. I see no sense in hunting a species into extinction. Of course, watching habitat disappear with urban sprawl saddens me and farming practices that don't leave any habitat are also disturbing.
BTW I do like the fact that some folks try to paint me into a corner as a tree-huggin, Birkenstock-wearing hippie. It's amusing. It's also projecting.
A lot like the
with their little orange jackets blasting away
corner you paint others into?
Sure, I spent some time in Santa Cruz & Berkeley doing quantitative marine research, but let me assure you that I don't look like one and that my understanding about whales comes as a direct result of having working with them in captivity and diving with them in the wild. I bet the most vociferous pro-whalers on this thread have never had a first-hand encounter other than at some shabby oceanarium at the Yucatan. Very easy to speak off the top of ones head when you don't have first-hand knowledge, or understanding.
I don't think I've seen any pro-whalers here in this thread. Personally, I'm a vociferous pro-leave the next guy alone if he isn't bothering you-er.
Saving whales, or sentient critters (humans included) is not a matter of being an internet accountant.
X
Which brings us back to my original line of questioning. I think we need to seperate conservation concerns from value judgements. The former being something that can effect everyone and can be agrgued with numbers and science. The later being a personal issue of no particular interest to anyone but yourself.