[The Godfather]

Japan whalers 'scattered and ran' - CNN.com

For once I am with Greenpeace.

If you need to eat some endangered animal, start farming them.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

Japan whalers 'scattered and ran' - CNN.com

For once I am with Greenpeace.

If you need to eat some endangered animal, start farming them.

Greenpeace supporting MacNN'ers: Can you never get your facts straight?

Not all whale species are endangered.....

[nonhuman]

I, for one, as neither Japanese nor a member of Greenpeace, would like to eat whale at least once.

[Eug]

Sometimes I just don't understand the Japanese.

[nonhuman]

Is that the haul after their latest whaling expedition?

[chris v]

This is going well.

[BadKosh]

I'd rather hunt whaling SHIPS! The Japanese whale hunters can just float on the water until eaten by sharks.


The Asians sure do have an issue with fertility, and all the folklore surrounding it.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by chris v 

This is going whale.

Fixed.™

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

If you need to eat some endangered animal, start farming them.

The difficult with whale farming is getting the snorkels on the horses at round-up time.

[Cipher13]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Greenpeace supporting MacNN'ers: Can you never get your facts straight?

Not all whale species are endangered.....

Yet. They reproduce very slowly (and expensively), and have long lifespans. Their population cannot sustain this kind of hunting.

Not to mention the other impacts of removing whales from the ecosystem (whales play a significant part in moderating their prey populations).

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Not all whale species are endangered.....

...because a moratorium on killing them was implemented a few decades ago.

Failing that moratorium, had whaling continued as it had for the preceding decades, there would – with all certainty – have been effective extinction of some whale species by this point in time, and far more species would be endangered.

Take it for what it's worth...*shrug*

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

On a separate note...has anyone else here ever seen whales?

Pretty incredible creatures, especially when they get playful and starting jumping. There's quite a few visit off the northwest coast of Newfoundland where used to spend a lot of time, so I've seen quite a few; I was crossing the Straits of Belle Isle once when we saw a herd of humpbacks jumping, followed by a school of porpoises leaping about, followed by an enormous amount of seals bobbing up and down in the water, followed a little later on by some killer whales. An eventful afternoon under the sea I'm guessing!

I was also standing on a wharf in Labrador once when a killer whale cruised right alongside the pier underneath me – trolling for easy food I guess. Scared the **** outta me I must say; seagulls and fish-heads are usually what you expect to see in the water by a fish plant, not a killer whale about 15 feet away....

greg

[chris v]

I've seen pods of either humpback or grey whales, (not sure which, though probably Grey) migrating along the Oregon coast on two occasions. Absolutely awe-inspiring, both times.

[cjrivera]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

The difficult with whale farming is getting the snorkels on the horses at round-up time.

I would have guessed that trying to brand the whales with a hot iron underwater would have been the biggest obstacle....

[Kerrigan]

The worst part is when the dolphins try and mount you.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

Yet. They reproduce very slowly (and expensively), and have long lifespans. Their population cannot sustain this kind of hunting.

BS. The minke whale population for instance can easily sustain this amount of whaling. The fin whale population also.

You as a biologist should know this.

Not to mention the other impacts of removing whales from the ecosystem (whales play a significant part in moderating their prey populations).

You mean like the declining cod stocks in areas where whales are not hunted?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

...because a moratorium on killing them was implemented a few decades ago.

Failing that moratorium, had whaling continued as it had for the preceding decades, there would – with all certainty – have been effective extinction of some whale species by this point in time, and far more species would be endangered.

Take it for what it's worth...*shrug*

greg

It was in 1985-86. Which isn't that long ago.

And in that short time the minke whale and fin whale populations have improved drastically. Meaning a controlled hunt won't put them in danger again.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

It was in 1985-86. Which isn't that long ago.

And in that short time the minke whale and fin whale populations have improved drastically. Meaning a controlled hunt won't put them in danger again.

Well, your facts are incorrect. The IWC has had a ban on hunting fin whales since the mid-60s, and those are some of that harder whales to hunt.

Nevertheless, there's no question that some specific populations have returned to a level where sustainable harvesting could be practiced. Whether this can actually be maintained, however, is another question....

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

BS. The minke whale population for instance can easily sustain this amount of whaling. The fin whale population also.

Your argument falters because it's not "this" amount of whaling that's being considered. Japan is conducting this whaling under the loophole guise of "scientific whaling" – which is a fancy way of saying they study some of them, but mostly use them for food. (It would take a lot of scientists to study the 1000+ whales they catch every year.... ) This is what they do with a whaling ban in affect; currently only them and Norway allow such whaling. How many will they catch if they accomplish their objective and end that ban on some of these whales? How will quotas be policed, especially once other countries join in? "This amount of whaling" will increase dramatically by all accounts.

For example, from what I can find the fin whale has an estimated population of 60k on the high side. Individual calves believed to be born every 3-4 years; gestation is 12 mos, weaning is 6-8 mos, sexual maturity reached from 6-10 years. Man, that's a pretty damn slow regeneration rate.

You mean like the declining cod stocks in areas where whales are not hunted?

As opposed to...human cod fishing? I'm betting the numbers aren't even close....

greg

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Greenpeace supporting MacNN'ers: Can you never get your facts straight?

Not all whale species are endangered.....

Who cares? They're extremely intelligent; show some respect.

[Kerrigan]

Sayf-Allah:

Why is your sig the icon for the Gawker.com newsfeed comment section?

Exclusive: The Cruise Indoctrination Video Scientology Tried To Suppress

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base..../feed_icon.png

This strikes me as very strange.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Who cares? They're extremely intelligent; show some respect.

About as intelligent as your average mammal if not less.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well, your facts are incorrect. The IWC has had a ban on hunting fin whales since the mid-60s, and those are some of that harder whales to hunt.

Nevertheless, there's no question that some specific populations have returned to a level where sustainable harvesting could be practiced. Whether this can actually be maintained, however, is another question....

greg

I'm sorry, but you are wrong on that. The IWC banned whaling on fin whales in the southern hemisphere in 1976, northern Pacific in 1976 as well and then in the Northern Atlantic 1987.

See.... you continue to have your facts wrong.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Who cares? They're extremely intelligent; show some respect.

So, do you eat pork? Pigs are a heluvalot smarter than whales for instance. (Pigs are smarter than dogs.)

[osiris]

People still eat dog too... and horses.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by osiris 

People still eat dog too... and horses.

Horses aren't particularly smart animals. Dogs are pretty smart, but not as smart as pigs.

I'm not sure how much that matter though.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Horses aren't particularly smart animals. Dogs are pretty smart, but not as smart as pigs.

I'm not sure how much that matter though.

It probably doesn't matter at all. Neither animals are near extinction.
I think the point of the CNN article was that the Japanese were hunting rare whales under questionable circumstances.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by osiris 

It probably doesn't matter at all. Neither animals are near extinction.
I think the point of the CNN article was that the Japanese were hunting rare whales under questionable circumstances.

Oh I agree. I just think that the argument that people should not eat whales because of the whales' intelligence makes no sense.

P.S. After I met Daisy the pot-bellied pig at a petting zoo (she's so smart!), once in a while I feel a tad guilty for eating pork. But it tastes so damn good I quickly get over it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

I'm sorry, but you are wrong on that. The IWC banned whaling on fin whales in the southern hemisphere in 1976, northern Pacific in 1976 as well and then in the Northern Atlantic 1987.

See.... you continue to have your facts wrong.

You're right. That doesn't negate my correction of your point, when you stated that fin populations had recovered sufficiently from the 1985-86 ban.

greg

[red rocket]

It's my considered opinion that whales aren't for eating.

If I were some kind of starving Eskimo shipwrecked on some barren island, I might consider eating a whale, but that would obviously entail making good use of the rest of the animal, as well. Use parts for fuel, build a boat out of it, something like that. Butchering some humongously venerable beast just to make sushi and cosmetics from it strikes me as callous and disrespectful. What's the whale ever done to me that I have the right to treat him as a lump of food? The way I see it, there are plenty of humans on this planet that deserve being used as food far more than the majestic creatures of the sea.

[Apemanblues]

I think whales are for hugging. Like trees, but wetter.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Apemanblues 

I think whales are for hugging. Like trees, but wetter.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You're right. That doesn't negate my correction of your point, when you stated that fin populations had recovered sufficiently from the 1985-86 ban.

greg

What correction except that I was one year away from the correct year?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

The difficult with whale farming is getting the snorkels on the horses at round-up time.

Best response. Ever.

When a few boats went out and caught a few whales, eating whales as a delicacy was perhaps defensible. When fleets started going out and killing scores of whales each, it stopped being defensible-just as fleets of gill-net fishing boats scooping up everything in the water, killing tons of "bycatch" fish in the process, is not defensible at all. This is not ethics or a discussion of morals, it's simple economics-you cannot pull in so much of a species that it can't replace what you take without hamstringing your own efforts. In other words, it's "dumb" to do it at all. Get past dumb and then we can start talking about ethics and morals.

[chris v]

It reminds me of the logging debate in the Pacific northwest.

Logger: "There's so many trees we could never cut them all down!"
Environmentalist: "Then you won't mind if we make a park out of this old-growth stand over here, right?"
Logger: "Make a park? You'll throw us all out of work! There'll be nothing left to cut!"

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

This is not ethics or a discussion of morals, it's simple economics-you cannot pull in so much of a species that it can't replace what you take without hamstringing your own efforts. In other words, it's "dumb" to do it at all.

Actually, economically speaking, it's "smart" to harvest resources as quickly as possible, even to the point of extinction.

With the high rate of return on investments in the modern world, getting the maximum return ASAP and then investing that return is a better economic choice than longer-term, smaller harvests.

Of course that sounds contrary to what most environmentalists will tell you about sustainability and whatnot, but it seems to be true to some extent. I once read an article doing such calculations on the great whale harvests of the 20th century, and sure enough it concluded that the practice of maximum harvest until population crash would give a better rate of return.

greg

[tie]

Okay, I'm skeptical. Need to see the article.

Update on the whaling standoff: Report: Australia steps into whaling standoff - CNN.com

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well, think about it. Let's say there's a whale population of 60k, and a sustainable harvest is 6000 whales a year (I don't know, just making it up). Assuming $1000 a whale, you'll make 6 mil a year for, say, 50 years.

Now let's say someone just goes out and harvests them almost to extinction, say 55k in 5 years. You'll make 11 million a year for 5 years, totaling $55 million. If one guestimates 7% interest rate (which seems conservative given that amount of money), you can make close to 4 mill a year just in interest, let alone other money-making ventures.

Of course, it's important to note that I'm talking only about the whaling companies themselves, or those making direct profits. The losses to other parties, or as a whole, might be greater as a result of whale extinction, but that's irrelevant; to those doing the harvesting, quicker and faster is financially beneficial.

By all this I mean; the article was from a course pack I did on a course about the history of environmental protection; it was from an "environmental economist". I don't remember his name, or the name of the article though.

greg

[The Godfather]

Then, whalers should go out and say it: "We are out to maximize profit, to match supply with demand", instead of "the whales we whale can sustain any whaling amount we can give".

Too bad that whales are not part any other rich nation's way of life, otherwise whalers would be calling war on themselves.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well it's not that outright; it's more of an environmental "invisible hand" or something. I don't think people think of the industry in such terms, but it's just an unconscious economic outcome that influences behaviour.

greg

[tie]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The losses to other parties, or as a whole, might be greater as a result of whale extinction, but that's irrelevant; to those doing the harvesting, quicker and faster is financially beneficial.

But this phrase already makes the argument not so interesting, since the people doing the harvesting today won't be the ones doing it fifty years from now. If this is your criterion, then you need to shorten the horizon to maybe five or ten years in the sustainable harvest case, and then the answer is obvious and a standard tragedy of the commons.

[PaperNotes]

Whales are a menace, consume too many resource and stink. They're the redneck truckers of the seas.

How come Greenpeace don't go bullying and using scare tactics against pig, sheep and cow farmers?

When are Greenpeace going to admit it is mostly their fault millions of children have died from malaria due to the ban on DDT?

[CaptainHaddock]

The Japanese only hunt a few hundred non-endangered whales each year, and it's enough to supply the entire Japanese market. (Most Japanese don't like whale, but there are some who do.) I don't really see what the problem is. There are far more important things to get worked up about.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock 

The Japanese only hunt a few hundred non-endangered whales each year, and it's enough to supply the entire Japanese market. (Most Japanese don't like whale, but there are some who do.) I don't really see what the problem is. There are far more important things to get worked up about.

You're wrong. Check your facts.

greg

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You're wrong. Check your facts.

greg

You might be too if you ever believe a thing Greenpeace says. They use scare tactics to get the money flooding into their donation box and then fill their pockets with the loot. Not too different from Michael Moore and his stock market manipulation movies (his share buying has in the past included the likes of Halliburton and a number of oil and medicine companies). Someone has to be the mug and it's normally those who throw their money at people who act like they care about the world.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

You might be too if you ever believe a thing Greenpeace says. They use scare tactics to get the money flooding into their donation box and then fill their pockets with the loot. Not too different from Michael Moore and his stock market manipulation movies (his share buying has in the past included the likes of Halliburton and a number of oil and medicine companies). Someone has to be the mug and it's normally those who throw their money at people who act like they care about the world.

Sigh.

The Japanese only hunt a few hundred non-endangered whales each year, and it's enough to supply the entire Japanese market.

From the International Whaling Commission's scientific permits site:

JAPAN

Japan has issued scientific permits every year in recent years. In the current year, permits are for the JARPA II programme (850±10% Antarctic minke whales, 50 fin whales and 50 humpback whales) and the JARPN II programme (220 common minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales, 100 sei and 10 sperm whales). Further details are given below.

The 2004/05 Antarctic season was the final year of the 16-year 'JARPA' programme, following a 2-year feasibility study. After completion of the JARPA programme, Japan initiated a JARPA II programme, initially as a 2-year feasibility study, for 850±10% and 10 fin whales in the Antarctic. This year, the full JARPA II programme commenced and the current permit (2007/08) is for 850±10% Antarctic minke whales, 50 fin whales and 50 humpback whales. Japan has subsequently agreed to delay the take of humpback whales under this programme until at least until after the June 2008 Annual Meeting.

After completion of the JARPN programme in the North Pacific, Japan initiated a JARPN II programme, initially as a 2-year feasibility study, for 100 common minke whales, 50 Bryde’s whales and 10 sperm whales in the western North Pacific. In 2002, a full JARPN II programme was proposed involving the take of 150 common minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales, 50 sei whales and 10 sperm whales. The current permit (2007) is for 220 common minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales, 100 sei and 10 sperm whales.

As can be seen, it is a blatant, boldface lie to say that Japan "only hunt a few hundred non-endangered whales each year." Their catch limits are considerably more than that figure. (Whether those limits are acceptable or not, and the number of endangered whales caught, is another matter entirely.)

greg

[PaperNotes]

The IWC does a good enough job of keeping stocks fresh without Greenpeace's fascist meddling. I don't give a **** about whales anyway and the only reason anyone does is because they watch too many movies where the animals can talk. I want a big ****ing whale steak right now and someone please find out how to make sharks, snakes and mosquitos extinct soon.

[PB2K]

Good day sir, I am speaking on behalf of all the Japanese people : Yes, we must east whale.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I don't give a **** about whales anyway and the only reason anyone does is because they watch too many movies where the animals can talk.

...or because they've sat in a boat and watched these insanely huge creatures have fun and said "**** son, these things are cool enough that we should not kill them all."

That's a pretty good reason too.

greg

[JohnM15141]

I, as a westerner who has actually eaten whale, "damn that whale was good" says its okay to eat whale! But be sensible, if you eat them and they are gone, don't eat so many...

Originally Posted by PB2K 

Good day sir, I am speaking on behalf of all the Japanese people : Yes, we must east whale.