[eklipse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3128863.stm

A 'scientific catch' or 'using science to camouflage its real desire to resume commercial whaling'?

If increasing the fish stocks is all this is about - I don't see too much of a problem, but, is this the only way to do it?

Discuss�!

[Logic]

ps. I'll elaborate on this later..........

[daimoni]

.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by daimoni:
At least they're not starving any more now that they finally learned how to fish.

"Give a man a whale and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to whale and he'll eat for a lifetime. Unless he lives in Missouri or something." Aristotle (384-322 BCE)

[Spliffdaddy]

Whoa. Dubya obviously has a long lost third brother who's in charge of Iceland.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by zigzag:
"Give a man a whale and he'll eat for a day....

Only a day? He must be some hungry guy!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Whoa. Dubya obviously has a long lost third brother who's in charge of Iceland.

Not only that, but Jeb is talking about resuming manatee hunts.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Not only that, but Jeb is talking about resuming manatee hunts.

Thank goodness.

The cost of manatee on the black market is rather prohibitive. Takes a lot of gas to spin those boat propellers for hours on end - hoping to 'accidentally' shred a napping manatee.

Remember the Floridian that had his personalized license plate revoked? It was one of those Manatee-themed plates on which he requested the words "EAT EM". Somebody took offense. Apparently they've never eaten a manatee sandwich. mmmmm...good.

[Logic]

Seems like most here are ok with this.......

I'll wait a bit longer.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Not only that, but Jeb is talking about resuming manatee hunts.

I sincerely hope this is satire.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Logic:
Seems like most here are ok with this.......

I'll wait a bit longer.

no, I just remember last time I said I didn't care for whaling. I've no desire to stir that hornets nest again on an issue that does not really directly affect me, landlocked in the midwest as I am.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Thank goodness.

The cost of manatee on the black market is rather prohibitive. Takes a lot of gas to spin those boat propellers for hours on end - hoping to 'accidentally' shred a napping manatee.

Remember the Floridian that had his personalized license plate revoked? It was one of those Manatee-themed plates on which he requested the words "EAT EM". Somebody took offense. Apparently they've never eaten a manatee sandwich. mmmmm...good.

I've always had a deathly fear of manatees. I won't step foot in Florida. I hear they've become quite aggressive of late - even taking a few babies. And not just any babies - I'm talking about cute, cuddly, gifted babies.

It's a menace and I'm glad Jeb is on top of it. I only hope they do the humane thing and use clubs instead of propellers.

[lil'babykitten]

Heh I'm not OK with this!

I'm not convinced this is purely a 'scientific catch'. How can they be sure that such endangered animals would not have an impact on the species status?

It also looks as though the costs of this program would outweigh any benefits, especially the economic impact it could have on tourism in Iceland.

Is it worth it and is killing them the only way to do this?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
no, I just remember last time I said I didn't care for whaling. I've no desire to stir that hornets nest again on an issue that does not really directly affect me, landlocked in the midwest as I am.

Ah, yes. I had forgotten

Don't worry I'll keep my calm.

But might I ask you one thing? I know you are against whaling but I don't recall if I asked you this in our earlier debate on this issue.

Are you just as much against whaling as any other hunting? Do you think whaling is as bad as hunting reindeer?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Logic:
Ah, yes. I had forgotten

Don't worry I'll keep my calm.

But might I ask you one thing? I know you are against whaling but I don't recall if I asked you this in our earlier debate on this issue.

Are you just as much against whaling as any other hunting? Do you think whaling is as bad as hunting reindeer?

I'm no hunter, if that helps you.
and yes, you did ask me respectfully last time for my reasons, which I answered respectfully, and then the fur flew. No desire to do that again.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Logic:
Seems like most here are ok with this.......

I'll wait a bit longer.

No, you're just doing it wrong.

First of all you hafta get everybody's attention with a catchy liberal headline. "Iceland to resume whaling" simply doesn't invoke a knee-jerk response. May I suggest this alternative headline?

Icelandic corporations exploit endangered species to satisfy demand for whale oil

Secondly, you'll want to include a picture of a dead, bloody, skinned whale hanging from a pole and surrounded by crying children. Children are the key focal point of liberal propaganda. If a conservative supports the legislation, naturally that means somewhere children are dying because of it. If a conservative breathes too heavily, a child dies. remember that.

Maybe you could note that whales are 'drilled' for their oil - and casually link that notion to the fact that Dubya has a lamp that burns whale oil in the oval office.

frankly, your post lacks any mention of America or Dubya - which explains the lack of interest.

[Logic]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Heh I'm not OK with this!

I'm not convinced this is purely a 'scientific catch'. How can they be sure that such endangered animals would not have an impact on the species status?

It also looks as though the costs of this program would outweigh any benefits, especially the economic impact it could have on tourism in Iceland.

Is it worth it and is killing them the only way to do this?

There are two main reasons for this. One is that very little is known about the ecological impact large whale populations have on other species like cod, herring and capelin. And the other is a mix of frustration for being forced to stop whaling by organisations like Greenpeace and the IWC as well as not being allowed to use our natural resources like we want to(as long as we don't endanger the nature/ecosystem).

Minke whale is not endangered in our territory and some estimate that the population is even bigger than it has ever been before.

The tourism can be a problem, but it all depends on how people are informed about this. If Greenpeace et al handle the "education" it will hurt our economy(like it did before), but if people listen to the scientific reasons people will probably be OK with it. It all depends on how informed you are on this subject and also this emotional attachment some have to whales(they are intelligent, beautiful and all that BS).

But what it basicly comes down to is that about 60-70% of Icelands income comes from the fishing industry(even if that number is slowly getting smaller). Therefore it is very important for us to gather as much information about the ecosystem we have established to keep it in the growth it has been for the last couple of years.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I'm no hunter, if that helps you.
and yes, you did ask me respectfully last time for my reasons, which I answered respectfully, and then the fur flew. No desire to do that again.

OK


(see, I still calm)

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

Icelandic corporations exploit endangered species to satisfy demand for whale oil
.......Maybe you could note that whales are 'drilled' for their oil - and casually link that notion to the fact that Dubya has a lamp that burns whale oil in the oval office.

frankly, your post lacks any mention of America or Dubya - which explains the lack of interest.

LOL!!

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
No, you're just doing it wrong.

First of all you hafta get everybody's attention with a catchy liberal headline. "Iceland to resume whaling" simply doesn't invoke a knee-jerk response. May I suggest this alternative headline?

Icelandic corporations exploit endangered species to satisfy demand for whale oil

Secondly, you'll want to include a picture of a dead, bloody, skinned whale hanging from a pole and surrounded by crying children. Children are the key focal point of liberal propaganda. If a conservative supports the legislation, naturally that means somewhere children are dying because of it. If a conservative breathes too heavily, a child dies. remember that.

Maybe you could note that whales are 'drilled' for their oil - and casually link that notion to the fact that Dubya has a lamp that burns whale oil in the oval office.

frankly, your post lacks any mention of America or Dubya - which explains the lack of interest.

You are correct. Now where is my napalm?? There it is!

The US has been hunting whales throughout the moratorium. Infact they are among the nations that kill the most whales annually. At the same time they are trying to force other nations to stop whaling and infact threaten smaller nations that are considering to resume whaling with sanctions.

1. this is true

2. is this enough to get people interested?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Logic:
But what it basicly comes down to is that about 60-70% of Icelands income comes from the fishing industry(even if that number is slowly getting smaller). Therefore it is very important for us to gather as much information about the ecosystem we have established to keep it in the growth it has been for the last couple of years.

I am torn both ways! Since the reasons for doing so would seem quite... reasonable, the fact that I don't like the whole hunting, killing of animals for scientific research, plus the emotional BS I have towards whales, (and kittens, as you see) I still don't like this idea.

ps. You and Lerkfish got in to an angry flaming match? was it with fire, flame suits and flame repellant as well?!

[thunderous_funker]

I guess I don't understand what they hope to discover. This doesn't sound scientific to me at all.

They seem to be suggesting that the minke population is too large and might be hurting other fish populations (and it's impact on commercial fishing). Why would there be an "unnaturally" large minke population? Do minke have natural predators that have been wiped out?

I mean, if something had been done that led to unnatural population growth (like killing predators in North America has led to unnatural deer populations) then you have to manage them by allowing some hunting. But what kills minke? Or the other species they are talking about?

Or are they suggesting that thining the whale population a little would boost other commercial fishing operations that compete with whale's food source. Well, that sounds to me like they have a problem with unsustainable commercial fishing, not with unnaturally large whale populations.

Not to mention that whale's migration patterns are often misunderstood and underestimated. Thinning the herd in Iceland might be decimating the part of that herd that migrates to certain southern waters during other seasons.

Am I missing something? Sounds fishy to me. (couldn't resist)

[Logic]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I am torn both ways! Since the reasons for doing so would seem quite... reasonable, the fact that I don't like the whole hunting, killing of animals for scientific research, plus the emotional BS I have towards whales, (and kittens, as you see) I still don't like this idea.

ps. You and Lerkfish got in to an angry flaming match? was it with fire, flame suits and flame repellant as well?!

I think whales are beautiful creatures just as most here do, but I also feel that reindeers and lambs are beautiful creatures. So I think it is ridiculous when people get so emotionaly attached to whales. But that is of just my opinion.

As I said, this basically comes down to getting to know the ecosystem we base our lives on better and years of frustration after the world listened to Greenpeace instead of reason and science. Icelanders view Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd(founded by the same guy that founded Greenpeace) as terrorist organisations. They blew up several of our whaling boats as well as a communications center and thereby threatened the lives of our sailors. Now, I'm not trying to compare Greenpeace with Al-Qaida or anything. It is just frustrating that organisations like that are able to control and manipulate nations and people into hurting our economy.

People also tend to think that whaling is performed like it was showed in Moby Dick. People tend to believe that a couple of boats harpoon the whales and then let the whale tow the boats until he simply dies of bloodloss and fatigue. That is just one of the lies Greenpeace sold the world. Whaling is simply performed with a harpoon that explodes on impact. By exploding it tears apart the spine and the animal dies instantly. This might sound terrible but if you compare it to slaughterhouses I think most would prefer this way of doing it.

And yes, fire, flamesuits and flamerepellants were used in our fight. And luckily Lerk bowed out of that fight first. Like we say on Iceland: The wise man backs first.(almost direct translation and might not at all sound wise in english)

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:


frankly, your post lacks any mention of America or Dubya - which explains the lack of interest.

I have to state here that I'm categorically opposed to pre-emptive whale...er, ummm.... [/kneejerk response]

No Dubya, oil, Cheney, Iraq, war, WMD's, Dems, Kobe, flat economy...

Am I in the right Forum?

[thunderous_funker]

But hasn't the massive restrictions and moratoriums on whaling basically wiped out the economics of the practice? Once upon a time whale oil, blubber, meat were all very lucrative commodities but I thought that had all shrivelled up and died. Are we talking about reviving that market because people don't want to do something else? Or are there serious and legitimate reasons that whale products are vital, essential, practical, sustainable, etc?

I guess what I'm saying is it even a practical business to be in any more?

[Logic]

I'm going to do a zimph here. Sorry.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I guess I don't understand what they hope to discover. This doesn't sound scientific to me at all.

It might be since no news agency cares to talk to the scientists about this for some reason. What they are going to try to find out is this: What do these whale species eat? How much of this do they eat? Other physiological aspects. They will finance the research by selling the meat and blubber. But the revenue from that will not result in profit since these kind of research costs increadible money. My fiancee went on a three day research trip on the biggest research ship Iceland has and that trip costed about 200.000$. 200.000$ for three days. So there will be no profit from this, at least not in money.

They seem to be suggesting that the minke population is too large and might be hurting other fish populations (and it's impact on commercial fishing). Why would there be an "unnaturally" large minke population? Do minke have natural predators that have been wiped out?

One predator is the killer whale(Keiko or Free Willy for those who don't know). The killer whale population was severly diminished in the 30's-60's by European nations fishing around Iceland. Iceland has never hunted killer whale. So the population of the most important predator is below "natural". Not to mention that humans have been hunting whales since the 1700-1800.

I mean, if something had been done that led to unnatural population growth (like killing predators in North America has led to unnatural deer populations) then you have to manage them by allowing some hunting. But what kills minke? Or the other species they are talking about?

There are few natural predators of the commercial fish except humans and whales. Not only do whales eat the same food as cod and other species but some whale species also eat fish. So an unnatural growth of the whale population can have a big impact on the fish population.

Or are they suggesting that thining the whale population a little would boost other commercial fishing operations that compete with whale's food source. Well, that sounds to me like they have a problem with unsustainable commercial fishing, not with unnaturally large whale populations.

Iceland is probably one of the few nations that actually have a sustainable commercial fishing industry. We have been able to increase the amount of several species. One example of the impact the moratorium has had and how it affects the sustainable fishing industry: small villages used to be able to fish cod in the fjords and thereby making a living for the small community. It only took half an hour to get to the fish. The last years the cod has almost disappeared from the fjords and the villages have lost their income. Only now they are seeing minke whales frequent the fjords. A logical explanation would be that the minke whales are either eating the food the cod needs or that the minke whale is eating the cod. This is one thing that they want to explore.

Not to mention that whale's migration patterns are often misunderstood and underestimated. Thinning the herd in Iceland might be decimating the part of that herd that migrates to certain southern waters during other seasons.

The minke whales migrate differently after where they are. One example is that the South African minke whale doesn't migrate at all, while the minke whale around Brazil migrates some. But minke whale isn't one of the big "movers". The Icelandic minke mostly stays in Icelandic waters. It depends on the amount of food they can get and the Icelandic waters are a good source of food all year. But to understand this better you must catch a few to better understand the migration pattern(if there is one in the Icelandic minke population).

Am I missing something? Sounds fishy to me. (couldn't resist)

Perhaps now you understand this better. Oh, and stop reading Greenpeace newsletters would help

[Developer]

You do not hunt animals that are endangered to become extinct.

[thunderous_funker]

Thanks for the clarification. And n: on the Greenpeace cheapshot. My opinion is not shaped by Greenpeace on this. In fact, I honestly can say I don't have an opinion on it which is why I asked for some clarification.

Well, if the whale population is unnaturally large because of the decline in killer whale populations, then the only thing you can do is allow managed hunting to try and restore some balance. That is perfectly sound and reasonable. I was unaware of that which is why I asked.

If they honestly have no idea how much whales are impacting cod or other commercial fish, I would say its completely reasonable to conduct a study. The article seemed to suggest they were merely curious about what whales eat, not that it might help them manage cod populations. AT least, it seemed that way to me.

Obviously endangered species should be protected. But if the whale population is healthy (or even too healthy causing an imbalance) I'm perfectly willing to say there should be reasonable and managed hunting.

I would, however, be somewhat sketpical about the positives of commercial whaling. If they have to manage the whale population with some hunting, any proceeds should go towards paying for the research, marine management ministries or helping coastal communities migrate away from whaling-based economies. Maybe that is just my natural distate for commercial hunting of all kinds, but I guess I see whaling as a somewhat unnecessary industry for such a modern, educated nation. I'm not against hunting per se, just commercial hunting.

[Logic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
But hasn't the massive restrictions and moratoriums on whaling basically wiped out the economics of the practice? Once upon a time whale oil, blubber, meat were all very lucrative commodities but I thought that had all shrivelled up and died. Are we talking about reviving that market because people don't want to do something else? Or are there serious and legitimate reasons that whale products are vital, essential, practical, sustainable, etc?

I guess what I'm saying is it even a practical business to be in any more?

It didn't shrivel up and die, but the moratorium stopped the commodity getting to the consumer. Some nations listened to Greenpeace et al and forbade any whale products. Other still want to buy the products though. So yes, this is still a practical business to be in. But as I said in my earlier post this isn't commercial whaling but only scientific whaling(or whaling for research don't know the correct term).

But let me ask you this. Shouldn't a nation be allowed to use their natural resources as long as they don't threaten the stocks or other species? Shouldn't a nation be allowed to use their national resources as long as they don't threaten the nature or the balance of the ecosystem? Also, if there is no potential business in this isn't it better to let the market decide if this should be done? That is as long as the whaling doesn't threaten the ecosystem and doesn't threaten the species.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
No, you're just doing it wrong.

First of all you hafta get everybody's attention with a catchy liberal headline. "Iceland to resume whaling" simply doesn't invoke a knee-jerk response. May I suggest this alternative headline?

Icelandic corporations exploit endangered species to satisfy demand for whale oil

Secondly, you'll want to include a picture of a dead, bloody, skinned whale hanging from a pole and surrounded by crying children. Children are the key focal point of liberal propaganda. If a conservative supports the legislation, naturally that means somewhere children are dying because of it. If a conservative breathes too heavily, a child dies. remember that.

Maybe you could note that whales are 'drilled' for their oil - and casually link that notion to the fact that Dubya has a lamp that burns whale oil in the oval office.

frankly, your post lacks any mention of America or Dubya - which explains the lack of interest.

Well, I saw spacefreak's thread whining about partisan-bitch-fests and thought I'd give Dubya the day off - but what can you do?

On the topic of catchy headlines, how's this?:

[Logic]

Originally posted by Developer:
You do not hunt animals that are endangered to become extinct.

I agree.

But the minke whale is not close to beoming extint. The minke population in the northern atlantic is about 70k and of that population about 40k is in our territory. Of those ca. 40.000 minke whales we are going to catch 38 to begin with. So you don't have to worry about the minke becoming extint by this.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Logic:
It didn't shrivel up and die, but the moratorium stopped the commodity getting to the consumer. Some nations listened to Greenpeace et al and forbade any whale products. Other still want to buy the products though. So yes, this is still a practical business to be in. But as I said in my earlier post this isn't commercial whaling but only scientific whaling(or whaling for research don't know the correct term).

But let me ask you this. Shouldn't a nation be allowed to use their natural resources as long as they don't threaten the stocks or other species? Shouldn't a nation be allowed to use their national resources as long as they don't threaten the nature or the balance of the ecosystem? Also, if there is no potential business in this isn't it better to let the market decide if this should be done? That is as long as the whaling doesn't threaten the ecosystem and doesn't threaten the species.

Again, I was just looking for clarification. Like most Americans, I have absolutely no context for whaling. Its like some relic of the past that doesn't seem to make much sense now in a modern world. That's just by own cultural blinders.

Like I said before, I'm not against good management. In many cases, we have to fix what we broke in the first place (like north american deer populations). But even so I wouldn't be in favor of commercial deer hunting. It just seems like an unnecessary industry with lots of potential problems requiring a lot of oversight and controversy. Instead, we sell licenses to subsistance (and sport) hunters that serves the purpose of managing the resource and generates revenue that can be used for conservation efforts (and the costs of management).

[Logic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Thanks for the clarification. And n: on the Greenpeace cheapshot. My opinion is not shaped by Greenpeace on this. In fact, I honestly can say I don't have an opinion on it which is why I asked for some clarification.

Sorry for the Greenpeace part. It was meant as a joke and I didn't mean any harm. I apologise if it sounded otherwise. Icelanders have become used to hearing the Greenpeace numbers and rethoric too often so it sometimes seems to us that they do all the "teaching" in the western world about this. But as I said, it was meant as a joke and not a cheapshot. Sorry.

Well, if the whale population is unnaturally large because of the decline in killer whale populations, then the only thing you can do is allow managed hunting to try and restore some balance. That is perfectly sound and reasonable. I was unaware of that which is why I asked.

Don't worry about this. I actually want to inform people about this since I want them to take an informed decision on this. Feel free to ask if there is more you want to know.

If they honestly have no idea how much whales are impacting cod or other commercial fish, I would say its completely reasonable to conduct a study. The article seemed to suggest they were merely curious about what whales eat, not that it might help them manage cod populations. AT least, it seemed that way to me.

We have some idea on what minke whales eat, but not enough. By getting more information about what they eat the better we understand our ecosystem. And by knowing the ecosystem you make your living on you are better able to take good decisions on how to use it. That is what this is about. We want to know what effect one aspect of the ecosystem is having on the rest.

Obviously endangered species should be protected. But if the whale population is healthy (or even too healthy causing an imbalance) I'm perfectly willing to say there should be reasonable and managed hunting.

I completly agree with you here. There are some species I would not want to hunt, but minke is not one of them. I actually would want a commercial whaling program on the minke whale but if Iceland did that we would be punished by other nations. We have already gone through that and we have no interest in going through that again.

I would, however, be somewhat sketpical about the positives of commercial whaling. If they have to manage the whale population with some hunting, any proceeds should go towards paying for the research, marine management ministries or helping coastal communities migrate away from whaling-based economies. Maybe that is just my natural distate for commercial hunting of all kinds, but I guess I see whaling as a somewhat unnecessary industry for such a modern, educated nation. I'm not against hunting per se, just commercial hunting.

And I can respect that position. I on the other hand would like to see commercial whaling but I don't think it would be good for my nation for several reasons. Until then I think that the step the Icelandic government took today is a good one.

Again, I'm sorry about the Greenpeace comment. I have seen how education about whaling is in Sweden and I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same in other parts of the world. My mistake.

[Logic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Again, I was just looking for clarification. Like most Americans, I have absolutely no context for whaling. Its like some relic of the past that doesn't seem to make much sense now in a modern world. That's just by own cultural blinders.

This is just cultural differences and they can be hard to overcome. And that is why the internet is a good place to discuss things like this.

Like I said before, I'm not against good management. In many cases, we have to fix what we broke in the first place (like north american deer populations). But even so I wouldn't be in favor of commercial deer hunting. It just seems like an unnecessary industry with lots of potential problems requiring a lot of oversight and controversy. Instead, we sell licenses to subsistance (and sport) hunters that serves the purpose of managing the resource and generates revenue that can be used for conservation efforts (and the costs of management).

Again, I agree with you. The only problem is that you can't pay sport hunters to go and hunt whales

But as I said, this is more about us being able to understand and manage the ecosystem we live in rather than greed(or because we enjoy killing beautiful animals like I have heard some say).

[lil'babykitten]

OK, I've made up my mind, Iceland can kill as many whales as they want.........as long as it's Halal.

(I just want to see how they achieve this)!!

[MikeM33]

My ex -wife moved to Iceland?

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week. Enjoy the buffet.

MikeM

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Logic:
This is just cultural differences and they can be hard to overcome. And that is why the internet is a good place to discuss things like this.

Again, I agree with you. The only problem is that you can't pay sport hunters to go and hunt whales

But as I said, this is more about us being able to understand and manage the ecosystem we live in rather than greed(or because we enjoy killing beautiful animals like I have heard some say).

When you open your whale-burger franchise, let me know. I'm curious to try it.

[Logic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
When you open your whale-burger franchise, let me know. I'm curious to try it.

Whale Steak

4 portions
4 slices of whalemeat @ 150 - 180 g
Salt and pepper, preferably freshly ground
4 onion rings
2 dessert spoonfuls of finely diced green or red peppers
1 dessert spoonful of finely diced parsley
1 dessert spoonful of finely diced gherkins

Carve the meat into slices of about 1.5 to 2 cm thick, beat them with your hands and press them into shape. Preheat the frying pan and melt some butter in it. Brown the butter before adding the meat. Fry the steaks on both sides. Whale meat should be fried for about 4-5 minutes on each side. The steaks taste best when they are medium rare, but they should be warmed right through and not eaten raw. Serve the steaks on a plate, place an onion ring on each of them and fill it with peppers, parsley and gherkins. Potato scallops taste good together with the steaks. Serve with a bowl of good, crisp lettuce and salad



Grilled Whale

For 4 servings:
800 g whale in 1 cm thick slices
1 red onion
� squash
1 yellow pepper
2 tomatoes
melted butter for basting

Cut the meat into slices about 1-2 cm thick.

Baste with melted butter and grill the meat 2-3 minutes on each side.

Use your fingers to test if the meat is cooked. Raw meat is squashy, medium done is a little firmer, and well-done is firm.

Remove the whale steaks from the grill while still a little squashy, it will continue to cook itself and is juicy and tender while still a little red in the middle. Whalemeat can quickly get dry if it cooks too long, so good heat and short cooking time are important.

And this is how raw whale meat looks like


Yummmieee!!!!

[daimoni]

.

[thunderous_funker]

Wow, I had no idea what whale meat looks like. Looks like really rich Tuna. What's the taste?

[Logic]

Originally posted by daimoni:
But it always wasn't that way. And I see no point in going back to the old ways now.

Your point being?

Since we expanded our territory to 200NM we have been able to keep up a sustainable commercial fishing industry. The problem wasn't Icelandic trawlers but English, Canadians, Norwegian, Danish and others who showed the ocean no respect.

But please elaborate on your post.

[Logic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Wow, I had no idea what whale meat looks like. Looks like really rich Tuna. What's the taste?

Depends on how you treat it. The best way is to keep it in milk for about one day or so(IIRC) because of the fish-liver oil taste and smell.

Have you tasted fish-liver oil? Here is what it looks like and you should take one spoon a day. Makes you healthy and strong.


If well prepared whale meat tastes kind of like beef, only better. It's the best meat I have ever had.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Logic:
Your point being?

Since we expanded our territory to 200NM we have been able to keep up a sustainable commercial fishing industry. The problem wasn't Icelandic trawlers but English, Canadians, Norwegian, Danish and others who showed the ocean no respect.

But please elaborate on your post.

Touchy touchy

Wow. I guess we found Logic's hot-button issue to trigger his nationalism.

daimoni's comment seemed harmless enough--let's not go back down the road of irresponsible commercial fishing. I think he was making a very general statement we can all agree with, not trying to villify anyone.

[Logic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Touchy touchy

Wow. I guess we found Logic's hot-button issue to trigger his nationalism.

daimoni's comment seemed harmless enough--let's not go back down the road of irresponsible commercial fishing. I think he was making a very general statement we can all agree with, not trying to villify anyone.

Me!?!??

I agree with him, but....... I took it as he was implying the step Iceland took today is a step back to the irresponsible fishing policies that once were common in Europe.

But yes. The claims made about our whaling and fishing policies is one of my buttons You can try to find out more if you want to

[thunderous_funker]

Flat-footed, harpoon-chuckin', ocean-depleting, fish-gut stinkin' bastards!!!

No wait, I can do better....

Sons of flat-footed, harpoon-chuckin', ocean-depleting, fish-gut stinkin' bastards!!!

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Flat-footed, harpoon-chuckin', ocean-depleting, fish-gut stinkin' bastards!!!

No wait, I can do better....

Sons of flat-footed, harpoon-chuckin', ocean-depleting, fish-gut stinkin' bastards!!!

: Ducks outta the way of the flames:



[homer voice] mmmm Whale Meat [/homer voice)

[Logic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Flat-footed, harpoon-chuckin', ocean-depleting, fish-gut stinkin' bastards!!!

No wait, I can do better....

Sons of flat-footed, harpoon-chuckin', ocean-depleting, fish-gut stinkin' bastards!!!

Yep, that pretty much sums up Icelanders today.

Want some halibut?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Flat-footed, harpoon-chuckin', ocean-depleting, fish-gut stinkin' bastards!!!

No wait, I can do better....

Sons of flat-footed, harpoon-chuckin', ocean-depleting, fish-gut stinkin' bastards!!!

Wouldn't that make it their last "name"?

As for the whale meat like tuna: don't confuse color and habitat with type of meat. That meat looks nothing like tuna except that they're both red. Whale = mammal so it stands to reason that the meat would be more like pork or beef. Judging from Logic's post, beef-like it is. And, considering the conjectured evolutionary background of whales, it makes sense that their muscles would be bovine-esque.

BlackGriffen

[daimoni]

.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
As for the whale meat like tuna: don't confuse color and habitat with type of meat. That meat looks nothing like tuna except that they're both red. Whale = mammal so it stands to reason that the meat would be more like pork or beef. Judging from Logic's post, beef-like it is. And, considering the conjectured evolutionary background of whales, it makes sense that their muscles would be bovine-esque.

BlackGriffen

Hey, whatyaknow!?! When you actually apply simple science to the question, it makes perfect sense! Thanks, science-guy!



I told you BG deserves his own PBS show (in the appreciation thread).

I could be the stupid sidekick who asks dumb questions.

"But science guy, the bowling ball weighs more! Of course, it will fall faster than that ping-pong ball!"