[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by 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...

Yeah, don't be like the Decapodians! I like my anchovy pizza!

[Tesselator]

I live in Japan. Have for 20 years. I'm from So.Cal. though.

Just to offer a little focus to the discussion the whale they eat here in Japan is the Minke Whale:

.
I've met several of them (I like the ocean and was raised not 100 meters from the shore)
and eaten some. IMO they are basically a sea-cow. I'm not going to say that they aren't
anything special because even cows (bovine) are special! But if you want to say it's a bad
thing to eat them then you have to give equal time to eating beef.

It's about the same thing.. Only one is wetter that the other.

This is different than other whaling countries which hunt whale for only blubber or over fish
the system. Japan is pretty strick and Japs are pretty good about following the rules even
without any enforcement

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by 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...

I try to limit myself to three whales a week.

My problem with Japanese whaling is that they claim it's "scientific research" which, as far as I can tell, is limited to biting them to find out which ones are the tastiest. Doesn't seem terribly "honourable" to me.

[Tesselator]

Yeah.. hehee, if you don't lie to the American government they don't know how to handle it and you end up getting invaded.

[JohnM15141]

The Japanese really really like whale!

I think its fine if they eat whale as a food source, albeit as a delicacy and not a main source of sustenance.

Whaling as an industry was finished a long time ago we have far better substitutes for whale oil and food. Its unnecessary for us to hunt whales.

But countries like japan that evolved on a diet mainly from the sea have a right to it. Just because we in the west over hunted and slaughtered the worlds whale population for our early industry have no right to penalize countries that rationally hunted whales as a survival resource.

We over hunted the whale(Europe and America) and in order to save the whale we, are banning the countries that where never guilty of this crime, from hunting the resource that they once depended, on seems unfair.

I say let them have it. I don't want to eat whale, they do. Hunt them sensibly, so that the population doesn't recede to a critical level and all is well.

This is just another example of "Zero Tolerance" out of control!

[Tiresias]

Nuke the whales.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

Japan is pretty strick and Japs are pretty good about following the rules even
without any enforcement

What does "strick" mean? Or do you mean strict?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by JohnM15141 

This is just another example of "Zero Tolerance" out of control!

Nonsense. It's not "zero tolerance out of control"; it's an implementation of "zero tolerance" because harvesting was out of control. Again, had strict zero-tolerance policies not been implemented when they were, by this point at least several species of whale would almost certainly be effectively extinct. A mere prohibition on those certain species was not considered to be enough; after all, this is an industry which is very hard to police, and this is a problem when it's also an industry that faces inherent difficulties in being selective.

That's what tends to happen when we realize we're killing off entire species; "zero tolerance" gets implemented. It generally seems to be the best (perhaps only?) method of ensuring species at risk of extinction are able to recover.

Originally Posted by Tesselator

Just to offer a little focus to the discussion the whale they eat here in Japan is the Minke Whale:

Out of curiosity, would you happen to know much of the history behind this choice? For example, the minke whale is considered one of the most populous - perhaps because to my (limited) knowledge, it was actively hunted the least (being the smallest and thus least economically viable baleen whale). However, a history of whale hunting will show a steady pattern; the biggest whales are caught first, in huge numbers, which slowly trail off as stocks become depleted, and then the next-largest species is hunted, in the same pattern down the line...

So I guess my question is, has the Minke whale always been "they whale they eat in Japan", or is it only considered such now because the formerly more populous species have been over-harvested?

greg

[Helmling]

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.

Oh, give me a break. Show me one person who's gotten rich in Greenpeace.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Nuke the whales.

Shave the whales.

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Out of curiosity, would you happen to know much of the history behind this choice? For example, the minke whale is considered one of the most populous - perhaps because to my (limited) knowledge, it was actively hunted the least (being the smallest and thus least economically viable baleen whale). However, a history of whale hunting will show a steady pattern; the biggest whales are caught first, in huge numbers, which slowly trail off as stocks become depleted, and then the next-largest species is hunted, in the same pattern down the line...

So I guess my question is, has the Minke whale always been "they whale they eat in Japan", or is it only considered such now because the formerly more populous species have been over-harvested?

As far as I can tell, yes, Minke is the only whale they hunt - as in for food or profit. Historically that
seems to be the case as well - by talking to me 82 year old granny-in-law and by asking the same of
my favorite sushi chef. I eat at the same shushi bar here about 3 times a week for 12 years or so.
There are some new policies and actions going on here in Japan in the last 2 or 3 years but I
don't know what they are exactly.

Why only Minke? I dunno. But knowing Japanese it probably has a little bit to do with respect. But
mostly to do with taste, the size of the boat and equipment (so convenience) and like that. Jap eating
habits are very economical - they try to use all parts of an animal (or fish) and from what I understand
most parts of most whales are not usable. Right? Isn't the grey and hump back hunted for it's
blubber and teeth only - or something like that? Japan is not naturally like that left to their own.

There was a period from 1900 ~ 1950 or so where they participated in the "commercial" whaling
industry but that died out rather quick and was just about completely gone by 60's. That's according
to a wise old sushi chef and verified by me little old granny. Anyway they were well finished with
it before the 1st commercial ban came along in the 80's but other governments still laid huge
blame on the jap-dudes.

Poor jap-dudes... they get the blame for lots of stuff they didn't do. Sneak-attacking Perl Harbor,
Whaling the seas dry, making the best electronics...

Anyway, that's about the sum total of my knowledge on the topic if you wanna know more just do a
search. I'd take allot of what you find with a grain of salt tho. It seems to be a very politically charged
topis and is often used as an excuse to levy tariffs - so especially official sites (wiki) and government
related sites (wiki!) are going to fudge the facts a bit. Culturally oriented sites should give a little
better (more accurate) picture.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Oh, give me a break. Show me one person who's gotten rich in Greenpeace.

Show me one full time Greenpeace member who can get a real job in the real world and for each one you show I'll show you 1000 African children who have died from malaria because of Greenpeace's ongoing actions against humanity in the name of ****ing trees and whales.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Please give me the disputed link between trees and whales and DDT!

kthxbye!

[chris v]

I don't think it was Greenpeace that outlawed DDT. I think the EPA did that before Greenpeace existed. Besides, DDT isn't illegal in most of the third-world countries where malaria is really a problem. It's been banned worldwide on foodstuffs because it kills people but is still used for pest control. Furthermore, Nixon signed the EPA into existence, so if you want to hurl blame indiscriminately at large groups of people, blame the Republicans.

[PaperNotes]

If you want to believe that then go ahead. I'm not one to waste energy in convincing people of something which is well known and of which there is much easily available material. Let's just say if it was white people dying of malaria then there would probably be lots more outrage against Greenpeace. Yes, I'll play the race card. After all, it's ok for white people to eat whatever they want but as soon as an Asian wants to eat a sea cow (that his ancestors have been eating for thousands of years and never made extinct) it becomes a terribly evil act and a discussion thread has to be started about it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

So... in other words... you have nothing to back up your statements, and you're too lazy or afraid of what you'll find to attempt to do so... but you'll make wild accusations and race-based claims, anyway.

Personally, I'm shocked. But glad we got things straightened out.

greg

[PaperNotes]

No, you want to debate Green-piece and their actions we can start a thread about it. I just got bored of the subject of whales and if I go too off topic I'll get one of those annoying messages from a mod saying I am off topic. Why waste their time......

Anti-DDT Campaign and Resurgence of Malaria
Along with the Environmental Defense Fund and the WWF, Greenpeace has long supported the ban of DDT, even though much of the Third World depended on DDT to control Malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Since 1955 the World Health Organization widely used DDT to control lice-carried Typhus and malaria mosquitoes. In Europe, North America, Northern Asia parts of South America DDT use was widely credited with nearly eradicating Malaria.[4] DDT furthermore is widely held by the medical and chemical community as safe for even prolonged use on humans. Allegations that DDT is a carcinogen and can cause reproductive harm, were the subject of conflicting clinical studies that have yet to strongly prove either allegation but turned western public opinion against the chemical. By 1973 growing concerns over DDT's effect on wildlife and especially birds lead to a full ban on the use of DDT in America. Pressure worldwide to stop DDT usage grew in the 1970s, with Greenpeace one of the most passionate advocates of a worldwide ban.[5]
From 1973 onwards US and the UN mounted incredible pressure on Foreign Aid recipients to reduce or eliminate DDT spraying or risk reduced aid.[6] The suspension of the use of DDT to control mosquito populations resulted in explosions of malaria victims in the Africa and South Asia. Some estimates place the death toll for malaria since the first bans against DDT in 1973 as high as 50 million.[7] in 1996 South Africa banned DDT spraying and saw a 1000% increase in malaria cases with deaths climbing from 20 a year to over 240 until DDT spraying was resumed in 2000.
"Since the early 1970s, DDT has been banned in industrialised countries and the interdiction was gradually extended to malarious countries...because of environmental concerns... Despite objections by notable malariologists...the move away from spraying houses was progressively strengthened by WHO's malaria control strategies of 1969, 1979, and 1992...were adopted even though published WHO documents and committee reports have consistently and accurately characterised DDT-sprayed houses as the most cost effective and safe approach to malaria control...assistance from industrialised countries was often specifically contingent on not using DDT" [8] Dr. D.R. Roberts in the 2000 The Lancet
Currently, Greenpeace has members serve on boards for the Stockholm Convention of Persistent Organic Pollutants, a UN-sponsored body that pressures countries to stop using environmental toxins such as DDT. [9]Although the convention technically allows DDT to be used for Malaria control, the permit process has been so elaborate that up to 85% of USAID toward Malaria control is spent on environmental consultants needed to comply with the convention.[10] Even as late as 2001 Greenpeace has been lobbying to shut down the last major DDT factory in the world located in Cochin, India, even persuading the Indian government to shut down the factory by 2005. [11]
On April 25, 2005 the Ugandan minister of health Jim Muhwezi declared: "DDT has been proven, over and over again, to be the most effective and least expensive method of fighting malaria...malaria kills between 70,000 and 110,000 children every year[in Uganda]"[12]
On September 16, 2006 the Director of the WHO's Global Malaria Program Dr. Arata Kochi announced with Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah Assistant Director-General that they would promote the spraying of DDT to control Malaria in Africa. Dr. Kochi said "One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT."[13]
Famous Critics of Greenpeace's DDT campaign include Michael Crichton[14], Ralph Nader, Patrick Moore (environmentalist) and Penn Gillette

We can keep going off topic and really throw some darts at Greenpeace if you wish. They are a little fascist organisation who have done nothing constructive and mostly resort to using violence and financial influence to distrupt the developing world.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

If you want to believe that then go ahead. I'm not one to waste energy in convincing people of something which is well known and of which there is much easily available material. Let's just say if it was white people dying of malaria then there would probably be lots more outrage against Greenpeace. Yes, I'll play the race card. After all, it's ok for white people to eat whatever they want but as soon as an Asian wants to eat a sea cow (that his ancestors have been eating for thousands of years and never made extinct) it becomes a terribly evil act and a discussion thread has to be started about it.

DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[PaperNotes]

You can't exonerate Greenpeace's actions with that or any effort.

Back on topic. We should bear in mind what happened in one US state when buffalo hunting was outlawed. Within 2 years the number of buffalo multiplied massively and the beasts overgrazed the land they lived on. The result was the buffalo population almost entirely starved to death. The reintroduction of hunting kept the buffalo population levels controlled and healthy. The same thing would happen if whaling was outlawed. If you know how much fish a whale must consume to stay alive it becomes very obvious what would happen if whale numbers climbed. Not enough fish for them or us.

You can't argue against it. Almost hypocritically, those liberal Greenies who argue against hunting also argue that human overpopulation is a danger on to itself. Same rules apply to whales and other beasts.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Oh my, it's the "whales eat too much fish" problem. Never saw that one coming.



greg

[chris v]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

If you know how much fish a whale must consume to stay alive it becomes very obvious what would happen if whale numbers climbed. Not enough fish for them or us.

How did all those fish survive against such insurmountable odds against the swarming hordes of voracious whales for all those millions of years before we started hunting them? I'm stumped. And what about baleen whales? WILL SOMEONE THINK OF THE KRILL!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yeah. The funny part is, he's only got a point if you consider that the fish are also facing massively declining population numbers...because we're hunting them so much, of course. Thus, we can't let the whales start breeding indiscriminately; they might take away the remaining fish that we need!

But hey...I bet he doesn't give a **** about fishes, either.

greg

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by chris v 

DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I no longer trust wikipedia as a credible news source. It's ok for tech referencing but wiki can't be used as a reliable source of political, historical, or social information. Unless you care to believe thousands of slanted data entries that fly in the face of what our own government, history books, and public record has to say.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

I no longer trust wikipedia as a credible news source. It's ok for tech referencing but wiki can't be used as a reliable source of political, historical, or social information. Unless you care to believe thousands of slanted data entries that fly in the face of what our own government, history books, and public record has to say.

I'm not going to go against your assessment of Wiki, but your trust in "government, history books, and public record" is often, perhaps even usually, misplaced.

Attempting to find objective and credible historians often gives a pretty good viewpoint, but government/public record is usually as slanted and biased as they come...towards that government, of course. Similarly with any information expounded by parties with any interest in the debate.

I say this because I noted earlier that you said

Culturally oriented sites should give a little
better (more accurate) picture.

This is rarely (if ever) true. "Culturally oriented" sources have an inherent bias; they also rarely use or have available the kind of objective techniques employed by "real" historians (e.g. good research, written records, balanced input, etc. etc.).

Such "culturally oriented" sources are great for expanding the historical record. (It's been especially important here over the last 50 years as "white Western Civilization" has come to realize that the commonly, and often still-accepted view of European colonization of the Americas is chock-full of lies and inaccuracy.) However, to say that they are a "better" or "more accurate" source than research based on objective scientific principles is just plain wrong. Such sources have a personal stake in the issue at hand, and thus are inevitably biased.

greg

[Tesselator]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I'm not going to go against your assessment of Wiki, but your trust in "government, history books, and public record" is often, perhaps even usually, misplaced.

Yeah, true enough. Depends what it is though. I mean for example take the Gulf of Tonkin
incident now today in it's current state of release. We have the Public record which had several
pilots and a few survivors that said the USA refused to dispatch a nearby carrier, that Israeli
fighters were ordered to fire on and sink the USS Liberty, and USSR statements at the time
that claimed the USA and Israel worked together to attack their own (US) ship in order to
blame Egypt and start a war with them. Now 40 years later we have the CIA declassified
documents (government) that not only spell out that exact plan but that also contain a
recording of LBJ himself giving the orders not to help and saying he "wanted that god
damned ship at the bottom of the ocean" with no survivors left alive.

Heh... just like 9/11 if you ask me.

Anyway in that case as in most cases the public record stood true and later the government
admitted to it in full. So I meant it like that. Of course the US Gov. at the time denied it which
is more what you mean I think. I really wasn't talking about government propaganda like we're
currently getting about 9/11, Iraq, Iran, and etc.. You can tell when the gov. is coming clean
because all the evidence (with explaination and documentation) is laid out and little or nothing
is left to speculation.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Nuke the whales.

Nuke the Japs. Some more that is.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

I no longer trust wikipedia as a credible news source. It's ok for tech referencing but wiki can't be used as a reliable source of political, historical, or social information. Unless you care to believe thousands of slanted data entries that fly in the face of what our own government, history books, and public record has to say.

It's not my job to bludgeon you with facts. Follow some supporting links, if you'd like. I'm well aware that people sneak distortions into Wikipedia, but they usually get caught/corrected. I hope you're not saying "DDT isn't dangerous, simply because Wikipidea says it is." Despite the errata, gainsaying is pointless.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

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

Asians love eating anything endangered, the more endangered the better. They think it gives them magic powers.

china is worse than japan for most this stuff... What a horrid country

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by chris v 

How did all those fish survive against such insurmountable odds against the swarming hordes of voracious whales for all those millions of years before we started hunting them? I'm stumped.

I don't really wanna side with what he is saying, but this seems like a dumb statement to me. Were there 6.5 billion people competing for food then?

[chris v]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I don't really wanna side with what he is saying, but this seems like a dumb statement to me. Were there 6.5 billion people competing for food then?

There might be better ways of shepherding our resources than killing off the competition. Of course, that's the kind of thinking that gets me branded COMUNISS around here, so I guess I'm done for now.