Whaling could it start again?

[Spratman]

I'll agree to the first half. But your point is well taken. Again, I don't know enough about the whaling economy as I do most other things. So, I take it that as long as whaling is done within territorial limits, it's the country that decides? Outside of that is an international authority? Also, as I believe was mentioned previously, there are very few countries that still make a living at this, so why would the international community have a concern apart from endangerment. They are not using the resource, but want to regulate the ones that do use it.... :06:

The majority opinion thing gets sticky when we're dealing with international waters, also known as the "high seas". That's where most whaling activity occurs. In cases where a resource does not legally belong to anyone, but is used by multiple parties, it's the U.N.'s job to find a general consensus, and make everyone stick to it.

 

[archman]

Also, as I believe was mentioned previously, there are very few countries that still make a living at this, so why would the international community have a concern apart from endangerment. They are not using the resource, but want to regulate the ones that do use it.... :06:

You do not have to use a resource to have a voice regarding it. For instance I don't use trains, but my vote counts as a private citizen when bonds for constructing them come up in city ballots. Folks that use trains might object to my inputs, but trains are a community resource, and thus I get a say in them.

International waters are viewed as an international resource. There are international regulations regarding their use, implemented by the U.N.. Whaling is so regulated. Some folks might not want them exploited, period. Others might cater to limited harvesting. A few might favor short-term exploitation. But since the high seas don't "belong" to any nation, but the collective nations, majority opinion rules. If the majority doesn't want whaling, rogue nations shouldn't be allowed to whale within international waters. If the majority approves whaling, that's fine too. But there must be laws, and those laws must be followed.

Countries can pretty much do whatever they want within their own territorial seas, and many countries have. They've depleted their fisheries, polluted their coastlines, and sucked out all the oil. So these nations look to international waters; very often they lease rights to exploit resources within other countries' territorial seas. This happens a lot in tiny countries with a lot of ocean, but little revenue of their own. Eventually they pay the piper.

 

[KOMPRESSOR]

Back to the topic: Should whaling be continued?? Certainly not for the oil as was the case in the past, there are far better substitutes and synthetics. For food?? Well one whale will make a lot of sushi.

I just want to point out that there's no sushi in a whale. Steaks however...

Yes everyone, whale is served! :07:

Maybe I'm upsetting some people now, sorry. But I would really like to have you look at this issue from "the other side". The only whale legal for commercial catch (EDIT: Norway!) is the "Balaenoptera acutorostrata". They are plentyful in our waters, and even more common in the Antarctic. Size is up to 10 meters/10 tons (metric). They bread one calf a year from age 7.

Studies have shown at least 80% of the whales die instantly. 10% need an extra rifleshot to the brain, but Ib is an expressed goal to lower this number even more. Questions please?

 

[jagfish]

Kompressor...you're a sick man, but I find you curiously likeable anyway.

BTW, what the heck is the creature you are holding in your picture...?

 

[archman]

BTW, what the heck is the creature you are holding in your picture...?

Yeah, what is that? It looks like a lungfish, but that would be, uh... silly.

 

[KOMPRESSOR]

Kompressor...you're a sick man, but I find you curiously likeable anyway.

BTW, what the heck is the creature you are holding in your picture...?

Strange, I don't feel sick at all. Actually I feel very healthy, and my blood pressure is a doctor's delight! Perhaps because of the healthy whale meat?! Yes, it is very healthy.

100 g whale meat contain:

Energy: 488kj (116 kcal)
Protein: 23,5 g
Fat: 2,4 g (!)
Carbohydrate: 0,0 g

It also contains iron, vitamine A and just as much vitamines from the B-group as other sorts of meat. The low fat percent makes whale meat healthy. Also, modern research shows whale meat contains stuff that protects your hearth.

So much for my health :07:

Here's a more "americanized" whale burger. I'm not sure about the bread though...

I feel I have the right to put my whale statements "in your face" (no offence!). Since I have lived part of my life in the US, and I know there's just so much information you guys don't have easy access to. In high school classes like math and science had high priority, as well as American History. Language classes where just so and so (I came out best in my Adv. English class, without actually working for it...!), and your World History certainly had a twist to it, not to say it was bent... I graduated in Seattle back in '86. I live in hope it's better now but I don't know. Sorry guys, but the world is bigger than the World Series in Baseball, which is a great game by the way!

The fish in my picture is the atlantic cousin of your wolf eel, which you will find in the NW of the US.

We have three species of this fish:

Flekksteinbit (Anarhichas Minor)
Gråsteinbit (Anarcichas Lupus)
Blåsteinbit (Anarhichas Denticulatus)

The most common is the Anarcichas Lupus, which is the fish in my picture (12 Ibs). The Anarhichas Minor grows up to 80 Ibs in the north...

Steinbit

Our guests at Hitra in October will certainly have steinbit for dinner! Whale meat too

 

[H2Andy]

hey... do you guys eat that ugly fish?

does it taste like whale?

or does it taste like chicken?

or both??

 

[KOMPRESSOR]

hey... do you guys eat that ugly fish?

does it taste like whale?

or does it taste like chicken?

or both??

Wouldn't it be typical to hope something tastes like chicken, huh?!

Steinbit (Wolf eel) taste delicious, at least the one we have (Cannot speak for the Pasific variant though). White meat with a good consistence, excellent for frying and baking, or even on the grill. Expensive in the stores too, but that's not an issue for a Norwegian diver. The name "steinbit" can be translated into "rock bite", so beware!

If you want to taste a really ugly fish, try monkfish. You'd be surprised... They just caught one weighing 60 kilos (140 Ibs?) in a net over here! Just 15-20 years ago the fishermen tossed these critters overboard, cause no one would buy them. No it's prized at NOK 290,-/kilo in the stores, which is equal to USD 22 /Ibs...

Monkfish to the left. My friend Jørgen to the right... This is a small monkfish. We don't kill any smaller fish than this one.

OK, this one's smaller, but the diver didn't know...


Monkfish is probably the best white fish meat there is. My absolute favourite! Tuna steaks are great, but this one's the best!




-And since some might think this fish talk is off topic, I don't think so. It's all about food!

And for the record, whale meat has nothing to do with fish. It's dark meat. Should be treated carefully though, not to be cocked to long.

 

[erichK]

The reason that fish once considered inedible are being caught and eaten is because we've globally decimated fish populations (and European fishing fleets have been among the worst offenders). The destruction of the four hundred year old cod fishery off Canada's Grand Banks is just one of many examples.

The main reason for the suspension of whaling was because certain species were close to extinction. A second is that--as is proving to be the case with sharks--we have only a very limited and crude understanding of their role in the ocean's complex ecosystem. The third, for many of us, is that whales are a highly evolved and intelligent species, with complex social behaviours. When African elephant herds have to be culled because of the shrinking habitat available to them, wildlife officials have found the only humane way of doing so is to surround and quickly kill an entire extended family because otherwise the surviving animals will suffer tremendously from the loss. This is not based on sentimetality but on scientific observation.

We are already stripmining and polluting our oceans and subjecting cetaceans to other extreme stresses ranging from extremely loud sounds and deafening military sonar and communication devices to mechanical injuries. The additional trauma of dragneting and random assassination of family members, whether by quick or slow means could well be the final factor in stressing some whale species beyond endurance.

We have already wiped out many species, and pushed countless others to the brink of extinction. (Apparently there are delicious recipes for "bush meat" including mountain gorillas, too, just as there were for "long pig".) Unless our insight and our ability to control our own appetites and actions finally grows to match our ravenous compulsion to consume and our immense power to destroy, these creatures haven't got a prayer. Some will care little about their tragic demise. They will be less able to ignore the catastrophe that will follow: the death of millions of humans as the ecosystems these species were integral to finally collapse.

The whaling ban, imperfect as it may be, is at least a step in the right direction.

 

[cdiver2]

The reason that fish once considered inedible are being caught and eaten is because we've globally decimated fish populations (and European fishing fleets have been among the worst offenders). The destruction of the four hundred year old cod fishery off Canada's Grand Banks is just one of many examples.

The main reason for the suspension of whaling was because certain species were close to extinction. A second is that--as is proving to be the case with sharks--we have only a very limited and crude understanding of their role in the ocean's complex ecosystem. The third, for many of us, is that whales are a highly evolved and intelligent species, with complex social behaviours. When African elephant herds have to be culled because of the shrinking habitat available to them, wildlife officials have found the only humane way of doing so is to surround and quickly kill an entire extended family because otherwise the surviving animals will suffer tremendously from the loss. This is not based on sentimetality but on scientific observation.

We are already stripmining and polluting our oceans and subjecting cetaceans to other extreme stresses ranging from extremely loud sounds and deafening military sonar and communication devices to mechanical injuries. The additional trauma of dragneting and random assassination of family members, whether by quick or slow means could well be the final factor in stressing some whale species beyond endurance.

We have already wiped out many species, and pushed countless others to the brink of extinction. (Apparently there are delicious recipes for "bush meat" including mountain gorillas, too, just as there were for "long pig".) Unless our insight and our ability to control our own appetites and actions finally grows to match our ravenous compulsion to consume and our immense power to destroy, these creatures haven't got a prayer. Some will care little about their tragic demise. They will be less able to ignore the catastrophe that will follow: the death of millions of humans as the ecosystems these species were integral to finally collapse.

The whaling ban, imperfect as it may be, is at least a step in the right direction.

I could not have said it better.