[el chupacabra]

Some silly comments from Japan

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/afplifes...BhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

"Japan, which calls anti-whaling campaigners disrespectful of its culture, kills whales as "research" under a clause in a 1986 moratorium."

culture????????

"...It also plans to double its hunt of minke whales and to resume killing endangered fin whales and vulnerable humpbacks..."

"Oh said the restaurant was aware of global criticism over Japan's efforts to expand research whale hunting but argued eating whale meat was part of the country's traditional food and should be treated with respect."

How irresponsible they can be? It wouldn't matter so much if they weren't killing the endangered ones too.

This "tradition" argument is dead. Killing whales used to be part of everyone's "culture" and "tradition"...why do they think they are somehow owed more respect for their "traditions" than the rest of the world? Tradition now days if for barbarians and frat boys. Grow up japan its the year 2005!

When I figure out how to genetically engineer whales I will train them to kill japanese burger flippers for "research"...

[von Wrangell]

Minke whales are nowhere near being in danger anymore. The others could be managed without endangering them and allowed the stock to grow.

The moratorium was supposed to be temporary but unfortunately nations have allowed organisations like Greenpeace to take control of the proceedings. It would be better for the nations that want to start whaling again to just withdraw from the organisation since it's nothing but a forum for anti-whalers with no reasonable arguments today.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

The others could be managed without endangering them and allowed the stock to grow.

They are already endangered... So no you can't manage them without endangering them.

Your write about the mink. Anything that isn't threatened is not so big deal.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

They are already endangered... So no you can't manage them without endangering them.

Your write about the mink. Anything that isn't threatened is not so big deal.

For those species the IWC uses numbers from 1988(humpback whales) and 1969-1989(fin whales). These whales haven't been hunted since then(in any significant way). I'll see if I can get the estimates from the Japanese count.

[von Wrangell]

Oh, and while I'm at it. Here are some of the "great" whaling nations that are members of the IWC.

Czech Republic
Hungary
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Mali
Mongolia
Austria
Slovak Republic

As you can see these nations all have a great history of using the naval resources the earth has given us

[von Wrangell]

Japanese statement:

http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/57BriefingNote.pdf

[von Wrangell]

Links to the Japanese proposal:

http://www.icrwhale.org/Pamphlets-3.htm

[James L]

What does this have to do with nationality? I can think of an American native tribe that hunts whales with .50 caliber machine guns. Many countries, including North American ones, hunt whales.

Fight it, or agree with it... it is all the same to me. I just don't see the point in going after only 1 country.

[nonhuman]

As long as I get to eat whale some day, I don't really care.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by James L

What does this have to do with nationality? I can think of an American native tribe that hunts whales with .50 caliber machine guns. Many countries, including North American ones, hunt whales.

Fight it, or agree with it... it is all the same to me. I just don't see the point in going after only 1 country.

Machine guns?
I'll give you the .50 caliber, maybe...

I have no problems with limited harvests of non-endangered species. But endangered species? That's just ignorant. Kill em now so you can be assured you'll never get any ever...

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Machine guns?
I'll give you the .50 caliber, maybe...

I have no problems with limited harvests of non-endangered species. But endangered species? That's just ignorant. Kill em now so you can be assured you'll never get any ever...

None of these species are considered endangered. Like I said, the IWC uses numbers about 20 years old and in that time no whaling has been allowed on these species.

The current proposal from Japan is about trying to find out more about how they live, what they eat and what their reproductive cycle is. Without knowledge of that any management of future whaling of these species would being useless. And there we have the reson for the IWC opposition to this proposal. They don't want to have more of the science go against them(minke whale for instance should be hunted now without a problem) because what they have left at the moment is just western public opinion.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

None of these species are considered endangered..

WTF? From the original post:

It also plans to double its hunt of minke whales and to resume killing endangered fin whales and vulnerable humpbacks, despite fierce opposition by an alliance led by Australia.

If you need any more proof that the fin whale is endangered, just google it.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

WTF? From the original post:

If you need any more proof that the fin whale is endangered, just google it.

The original post also puts "" around research. Now why do you think that is? Did you check the links I gave you?

Googling for these numbers will send you to such great sites as Greenpeace.org and other. Like I said, the IWC itself uses numbers that are about 20 years old. In that time whaling these species has been forbidden. Look at the links I gave you that mention the increase in the stock at about 5-15%(IIRC). A yearly increase like this would do what to numbers that are 20 year old? I'll let you do the math.

Again, read the links I've provided before trusting yahoo.news making factually correct news.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Again, read the links I've provided before trusting yahoo.news making factually correct news.

OK. So if you say they aren't endangered, and I say they are... Which side would be prudent to err on?

I *did* do some google research, but if every site is biased in one way or the other, shouldn't we err on the side of caution? If everyone can agree that a certain species is thriving, why not harvest it? And of course the exact opposite.

I already stated I have no problems with harvesting whales.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

OK. So if you say they aren't endangered, and I say they are... Which side would be prudent to err on?

I *did* do some google research, but if every site is biased in one way or the other, shouldn't we err on the side of caution? If everyone can agree that a certain species is thriving, why not harvest it? And of course the exact opposite.

I already stated I have no problems with harvesting whales.

I'd side on the side of science every time. And the scientists agree that these three can't be classified as being endangered anymore. And we are still just talking about a scientific catch to be able to better estimate population changes, what they eat etc. We are not talking about commercial whaling here.

Just take a look at the arguments being in Ulsan right now by the anti-whaling commission. It's no longer based on science but on emotional arguments. The science is on the side of those who want to resume controlled commercial whaling. But it seems like they'll have to just withdraw from the IWC to be able to do what they think is best for their countries. The IWC has become a running joke. Which is unfortunate because all nations(with the exception of Norway but they still followed the moratorium) that are members of the IWC wanted just a temporary moratorium to be able to both allow the stocks to recover as well as get better science behind the quotas that would be allowed. None(or at least very few) were seeking a complete ban on whaling just for emotional reasons.

[tie]

I'm opposed to whaling. Just historically, whalers (and fishermen in general) have no ability to manage stock, and they have no credibility in my opinion. Maybe Greenpeace is going the other direction, who knows. It's better to err on the side of caution.

BTW, the US is also killing whales with its high-powered sonar systems.

[Hugi]

Icelandic test whaling has revealed that the population of most species of whale is flourishing in the North Atlantic and I consider those numbers trustworthy. We take the research very seriously and The Icelandic Marine Research Institute is among the most respected in the world, seeing as the Ocean is our primary source of income. It's in everyone's best interest to treat the ocean, it's resources and it's inhabitants with respect.

Unfortunately, many nations on the International whaling commision have no interest in the ocean whatsoever (come on, what are land-locked nations doing there?) and just vote "no" to whaling. It's less controversial and much simpler since they don't have to produce any evidence to support their stance. They gain credit with the greenies for supporting this bogus environmental cause, which they use to increase CO2 emissions and chop down rainforests. It's superficial and hypocritical.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally Posted by tie

I'm opposed to whaling. Just historically, whalers (and fishermen in general) have no ability to manage stock, and they have no credibility in my opinion. Maybe Greenpeace is going the other direction, who knows. It's better to err on the side of caution.

BTW, the US is also killing whales with its high-powered sonar systems.

Sonar or whales. Sonar or some whales. Gee, that's a toughy.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hugi

Icelandic test whaling has revealed that the population of most species of whale is flourishing in the North Atlantic and I consider those numbers trustworthy. We take the research very seriously and The Icelandic Marine Research Institute is among the most respected in the world, seeing as the Ocean is our primary source of income. It's in everyone's best interest to treat the ocean, it's resources and it's inhabitants with respect.

Unfortunately, many nations on the International whaling commision have no interest in the ocean whatsoever (come on, what are land-locked nations doing there?) and just vote "no" to whaling. It's less controversial and much simpler since they don't have to produce any evidence to support their stance. They gain credit with the greenies for supporting this bogus environmental cause, which they use to increase CO2 emissions and chop down rainforests. It's superficial and hypocritical.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

As long as I get to eat whale some day, I don't really care.

A fresh whale, like the minke tastes really great!

I've tasted many different types of whale meat and if it is fresh it is damn fine meat. Even so I do prefer chicken

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Hugi

Icelandic test whaling has revealed that the population of most species of whale is flourishing in the North Atlantic and I consider those numbers trustworthy. We take the research very seriously and The Icelandic Marine Research Institute is among the most respected in the world, seeing as the Ocean is our primary source of income. It's in everyone's best interest to treat the ocean, it's resources and it's inhabitants with respect.

A bit off topic: imo it is incredibly underfunded considering a huge part of the Icelandic income relies on harvesting the life in the ocean. HAFRO is just barely ok. They only recently started using simple mathematical models to predict changes in cod stocks using just 2 variables, which is laughable really. One could just as well make an educaded guess. HAFRO is an important resource for maritime life information but the way it is run now it edges on being useless. Indeed that is reflected in the Icelandic government's regular quota settings, ignoring most if not all advice HAFRO makes.

cheers

W-Y

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I'd side on the side of science every time. And the scientists agree that these three can't be classified as being endangered anymore.

Just take a look at the arguments being in Ulsan right now by the anti-whaling commission. It's no longer based on science but on emotional arguments. The science is on the side of those who want to resume controlled commercial whaling. None(or at least very few) were seeking a complete ban on whaling just for emotional reasons.

Humans are plentiful. Give me a scientific reason why some humans should allowed to be killed. Are there any? The reasons for not killing humans are emotional, philosophical, legal, political, or economic, but definitely not scientific.

Science does not give answers about whether it is right or wrong to kill. It only determines if there are sufficient numbers of the species to ensure its survival.

Science has nothing to do with Japan's desire to expand its killing of whales. Its motivations are strictly profit and appetite: someone wants to make money from killing whales and selling whale meat to people who find it tasty. Not a sufficient justification, in my opinion.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Hugi

Unfortunately, many nations on the International whaling commision have no interest in the ocean whatsoever (come on, what are land-locked nations doing there?) and just vote "no" to whaling. It's less controversial and much simpler since they don't have to produce any evidence to support their stance. They gain credit with the greenies for supporting this bogus environmental cause, which they use to increase CO2 emissions and chop down rainforests. It's superficial and hypocritical.

Weyland-Yutani's post makes me doubt how seriously the research is really being taken. Given the historical mistakes, I'll continue to lean towards caution.

On this point, I am not sure why a land-locked nation has no interest in the ocean whatsoever. I don't see whaling as a bogus environmental cause either, although it may be less serious now than in the very recent past. I don't understand what CO2 emissions or rainforests have to do with this — are you saying they are using environmental political capital gained from opposing whaling to avoid addressing more serious problems?

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth

Sonar or whales. Sonar or some whales. Gee, that's a toughy.

Feel free to exaggerate my point, I don't mind.

(I was only talking about a new, extremely loud sonar.)

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Spliff

Humans are plentiful. Give me a scientific reason why some humans should allowed to be killed. Are there any? The reasons for not killing humans are emotional, philosophical, legal, political, or economic, but definitely not scientific.

Science does not give answers about whether it is right or wrong to kill. It only determines if there are sufficient numbers of the species to ensure its survival.

Science has nothing to do with Japan's desire to expand its killing of whales. Its motivations are strictly profit and appetite: someone wants to make money from killing whales and selling whale meat to people who find it tasty. Not a sufficient justification, in my opinion.

This is another thing that the anti-whaling people need to stop.

Whales are not humans. Whales are animals just like any other animal on this earth that we hunt and eat.

http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Ethics/do-wh-ha.htm

There isn't much profit at the moment in hunting whales. Especially not the scientific hunt. For instance the Icelandic scientific hunt cost the government more than they were able to gain from selling the meat. Eating whale is a big part of the culture of these nations, you(anti-whaling groups) are trying to force your own morals upon these nations and drowning their own culture in your own.

[tie]

The cultural argument is not very strong. These cultures have historically overexploited whales. I don't think a culture based on driving a species to near extinction has any value. It's shameful, not something to be celebrated.

I also don't have a problem forcing my morals on other cultures. Women's rights, environmentalism, anti-terrorism, democracy — I'm not a moral relativist.

The article you link to on the ethics of killing whales really undermines your point. For example,

As a justification for the notion that whales are highly developed beings, it is often stated that they have very large, well developed brains, that they show a high degree of consideration for their congeners and in certain cases also for human beings, and that they possess a system of communications that resembles a true language.

... Furthermore, research on the brains of whales and other animals, their social behaviour and their ability to communicate, has not reached a point whereby it is possible to say anything definite on the issue.

I am not sure how the research on whales not being definite is a good reason to go ahead and kill them!

I also don't think this "science" can be trusted, since my impression is that it is being conducted by a small community with a clear agenda.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by tie

The cultural argument is not very strong. These cultures have historically overexploited whales. I don't think a culture based on driving a species to near extinction has any value. It's shameful, not something to be celebrated.

I also don't have a problem forcing my morals on other cultures. Women's rights, environmentalism, anti-terrorism, democracy — I'm not a moral relativist.

Actually that's wrong. It was the industry whaling from European countries(UK, France etc) that drove the stock to the level of extinction. Not some whalers from Norway and Iceland.

And why is it that when talking about whaling(basically hunting an animal) the anti-whaling people bring up things like women's rights, anti-terrorism and democracy? It's completely irrelevant to this discussion! We are talking about the sustainable hunt of an animal. Not some human rights.

The article you link to on the ethics of killing whales really undermines your point. For example,

I am not sure how the research on whales not being definite is a good reason to go ahead and kill them!

I also don't think this "science" can be trusted, since my impression is that it is being conducted by a small community with a clear agenda.

Research on their "mental" capabilities. Not on the stock levels. And their mental capacity isn't any more complex than any other animal we humans hunt or keep in factory farms to then lead to slaughter. You also skipped this sentence in your post:

The question as to what we actually mean by saying that an animal is highly developed, has far from been clarified.

and this:

On the basis of existing, scientific literature on the subject, there is, however, nothing to indicate that whales, in any relevant context, are any more highly developed than, forexample, pigs or cows.

Both are as important as the sentences you posted.

The conclusion basically sums it up:
Conclusion
Some opponents of whaling claim that it is wrong to hunt whales because whalers violate the rights of whales. Their justification is that we would not be able to accept that human beings were treated in the same manner, and that it is not possible to point out a relevant difference between human beings and whales.

The best answer to this argument is to say that there is a relevant difference between human beings and whales as far as killing is concerned. Human beings have a high degree of self-consciousness and the killing of human beings has terrible consequences for those that survive. To be sure, there are also some human beings that do not have any self-consciousness, but not allowing them the right to life, would have grave consequences.

As regards the right not to be subjected to unnecessary suffering, there are no relevant differences between whales and human beings. Therefore, those wishing to defend whaling, should work towards ensuring that whales are subjected to as little pain and suffering as possible in connection with the hunt and the kill.

And perhaps you missed who wrote this article(since you think he has an agenda) so I'll post it here as well:

"Dr. Phil. Peter Sandøe is Senior Research Fellow and Head of the Bioethical Research Group at the University of Copenhagen, Department of Philosophy. He is also chairman of the Danish Ethical Council concerning Animals."

[tie]

It was the industry whaling from European countries(UK, France etc) that drove the stock to the level of extinction. Not some whalers from Norway and Iceland.

Source? I think that any country which participated in the industrial slaughter of whales has forfeited any cultural claims to hunting whales. But show me the system of quotas drawn up and enforced by Norway, Iceland and Japan to preempt a crisis — or at least some sort of evidence — and I'll reconsider. Native americans certainly have valid cultural claims.

I brought up some cultural values which aren't universally shared but which I still promote, because of your argument about "drowning their culture in my own." These were just some examples, and I included environmentalism — I wasn't deliberately drawing analogies to human rights.

I found the article you linked to (and which yes I did read) extremely unconvincing, in particular because of the sentences I posted. But I didn't particularly think the author had an agenda — that part of my comment was more about the the Japanese whale research (and perhaps also the Icelandic research, but I'm not so familiar with it).

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Oh, and while I'm at it. Here are some of the "great" whaling nations that are members of the IWC.

Luxembourg:

Well, I think Luxembourg is only in there cuz they're intimidated by the whales' sizes.

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

This is another thing that the anti-whaling people need to stop.

Whales are not humans. Whales are animals just like any other animal on this earth that we hunt and eat.

Humans are animals (mammals), just like whales, and both are products of evolution. There is nothing special about us. We're just another form of animal life on this planet. Nature cares not a bit about intelligence or emotions. Animals live and die. Therefore, killing a human is no different than killing a whale.

Killing humans is wrong because we've decided that it's wrong. We created morality to sanction those behaviours we find desirable or beneficial and to condemn and punish those behaviours we find undesirable.

In the past, women and non-whites were excluded from having certain rights. Eventually, they were included. Likewise, non-human animals are excluded from having certain rights (or equal consideration of interests). In the past 30 years, since the publication of Animal Liberation, many philosophers and animal advocates have sought to have certain animal species included within the moral sphere that previous only allowed humans.

So it's entirely reasonable to talk about killing humans and killing whales within the same discussion. One does not exclude the other.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by tie

Source? I think that any country which participated in the industrial slaughter of whales has forfeited any cultural claims to hunting whales. But show me the system of quotas drawn up and enforced by Norway, Iceland and Japan to preempt a crisis — or at least some sort of evidence — and I'll reconsider. Native americans certainly have valid cultural claims.

What makes native americans so special?

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

None of these species are considered endangered. Like I said, the IWC uses numbers about 20 years old and in that time no whaling has been allowed on these species.

I just read your articles and I didn't see that they said 'none of these species are endangered". The best thing the japanese could come with was culture culture culture culture, respect our CULTURE. Culture is not a good argument. Ever. And their research is absolutely silly and trivial at best. They dont need to kill hundreds of whales a year to collect ears for age and ovaries. They used some rhetoric such as "xxxx species is increasing at a rate of 10% a year...) whatever this means nothing if the population is still very low. Common sense tells me the ones that are listed as endangered probably are no where near their original population levels...unless we're just going to assume they all breed like rabbits because we've found a few that do. I would like to know how the Humpback is doing considering how low it was at one time.

[loki74]

whales schmales.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by tie

Source? I think that any country which participated in the industrial slaughter of whales has forfeited any cultural claims to hunting whales. But show me the system of quotas drawn up and enforced by Norway, Iceland and Japan to preempt a crisis — or at least some sort of evidence — and I'll reconsider. Native americans certainly have valid cultural claims.

I brought up some cultural values which aren't universally shared but which I still promote, because of your argument about "drowning their culture in my own." These were just some examples, and I included environmentalism — I wasn't deliberately drawing analogies to human rights.

I found the article you linked to (and which yes I did read) extremely unconvincing, in particular because of the sentences I posted. But I didn't particularly think the author had an agenda — that part of my comment was more about the the Japanese whale research (and perhaps also the Icelandic research, but I'm not so familiar with it).

What is the difference between the native americans and the Icelanders and Norwegians? Icelanders for instance have been whaling since the first inhabitants came there. They have a word, "hvalreki", that means both "beached whale" and "jackpot". That shows you how big a part whaling plays in our culture.

Here ar the catch statistics for Iceland since 1948: http://www.highnorth.no/statistik/icelandwhale.htm

Wikipedia has the history somewhat correct except it forgets one important part that I'll address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Iceland

They forget that they were only able to forbid their own whalers to continue whaling. They weren't fully independent until 1944. Iceland had 5-15 ships at most hunting whales and no factory ship. That means they had to get to shore with the catch as soon as possible. At most they could drag two whales with them to the harbour.

Here's a decent article about the history of factory whaling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_whaling

I understand your concern about environmentalism. That is a concern both Norway and Iceland share with you. Neither of them would start whaling again unless they were 100% sure it's sustainable. The money isn't in this to make any gambles. Like I mentioned before, Iceland lost money on their new scientific whaling.

Of course people against whaling will be against the science produced by pro-whaling nations. But the problem for them is that that is the only real science being made at the moment. The IWC relies on those studies because it doesn't have the guts to resume their own counts. But please take a look at this site: http://www.hafro.is/index_eng.php
They describe very well how they do their science and also publish the results there. For instance they estimate about 44.000 minke whales around Iceland. You think taking about 50-100 will hurt that population?

And how do you propose research is done to establish what the whales eat, how much they eat, at what age they become "adults", etc etc? These are all important factors since these animals eat vast amounts of krill as well as fish and if unchecked they can have a detrimental effect on the economies of Norway and Iceland. Perhaps mostly on Icelands economy as fishing constitutes about 60% of their national exports. Are you really willing to force your cultural morals on a nation like Iceland if that will mean crushing their economy and cause unemployment? Because of a species of whales that are abundant enough to resume commercial whaling?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Spliff

Humans are animals (mammals), just like whales, and both are products of evolution. There is nothing special about us. We're just another form of animal life on this planet. Nature cares not a bit about intelligence or emotions. Animals live and die. Therefore, killing a human is no different than killing a whale.

Killing humans is wrong because we've decided that it's wrong. We created morality to sanction those behaviours we find desirable or beneficial and to condemn and punish those behaviours we find undesirable.

In the past, women and non-whites were excluded from having certain rights. Eventually, they were included. Likewise, non-human animals are excluded from having certain rights (or equal consideration of interests). In the past 30 years, since the publication of Animal Liberation, many philosophers and animal advocates have sought to have certain animal species included within the moral sphere that previous only allowed humans.

So it's entirely reasonable to talk about killing humans and killing whales within the same discussion. One does not exclude the other.

You are probably talking about people like Regan etc. I'm just gonna ask you a few questions before I start talking more about this point of yours. What is it that makes whales any more special than other factory farm animals like cows, sheep, chickens etc? Are we going to stop protecting minorities because they do something that might offend the majority? Meaning shall we outlaw homosexual sex, shall we ban free speech and the list goes on because it might offend the majority of people? What is it about whales that make people put them in the same category as humans? Do the families of whales who die suffer the same emotional crisis as the families of human beings?

I'll let this do for now, but I'll get back to your point when you've answered these questions.

[von Wrangell]

Here's another good article: http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Ethics/an-in-in.htm

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra

I just read your articles and I didn't see that they said 'none of these species are endangered". The best thing the japanese could come with was culture culture culture culture, respect our CULTURE. Culture is not a good argument. Ever. And their research is absolutely silly and trivial at best. They dont need to kill hundreds of whales a year to collect ears for age and ovaries. They used some rhetoric such as "xxxx species is increasing at a rate of 10% a year...) whatever this means nothing if the population is still very low. Common sense tells me the ones that are listed as endangered probably are no where near their original population levels...unless we're just going to assume they all breed like rabbits because we've found a few that do. I would like to know how the Humpback is doing considering how low it was at one time.

It's silly and trivial to do science on what whales eat, how much they eat, when they reach reproductive age etc? Is it perhaps "silly and trivial" because you are afraid of what the results will be?

The increase in the species Japan wants to hunt for science are increasing between 5-15% of a stock that is not in danger. If you take below those numbers(which Japan will do) you are having very little effect on the stock.

Why does common sense tell you that? Because you read it on Greenpeace site?

Here are the numbers I provided before: http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm

And as I've said before, most of those numbers are from before the moratorium(you know, no whaling thingy) was issued. Simple calculations should be able to help you to see what the population might be today. It's not that easy though as there are more factors that take place but you just have to remember that without human whaling very few of these whales have a natural predator. And those natural predators(Orcas) take very few kills per year.

[Busemann]

Greenpeace is at it again..

It's fascinating to see the the high interest in "cute or interesting" animals like whales and seals, as opposed to the low interest in "ugly or ordinary" animals like pig or cow. And the farther away from the whales one live, the most affection there seems to be. It's easy to be anti-wolf yet pro whale, so to speak. Can anyone explain why non-endagered whales should be given immunity while it's okay to harvest other animals?

[Y3a]

Humans(like Whalers) aren't an endangered species so I say start hunting the whalers and cutting them up for shark bait. Everybody knows they don't feel it when they are harpooned because of the thick bone around their smallish brains.

The USA's 'culture' in the early and mid 1940's had the Americans hunting Japanese, which could also be reinstated??

Whaling started before anybody knew how many was 'normal' so any nonsense from hunters should be ignored. As we already know, Greenpeace is to be ignored just on general principles.

The Navy's of the world use subsonic methods to communicate underwater, which is also damaging the whales, and that should be stopped too!

IMHO Whalers are just like buggy whip manufacturers. They just haven't noticed it's over.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Greenpeace is at it again..

It's fascinating to see the the high interest in "cute or interesting" animals like whales and seals, as opposed to the low interest in "ugly or ordinary" animals like pig or cow. And the farther away from the whales one live, the most affection there seems to be. It's easy to be anti-wolf yet pro whale, so to speak. Can anyone explain why non-endagered whales should be given immunity while it's okay to harvest other animals?

Because whales are probably the most intelligent animals on Earth after Humans, Chimpanzees and Gorillas.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Because whales are probably the most intelligent animals on Earth after Humans, Chimpanzees and Gorillas.

Yeah, but they're damn near impossible to have sex with. And have you ever tried to maintain a salt water tank?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by pooka

Yeah, but they're damn near impossible to have sex with. And have you ever tried to maintain a salt water tank?

Don't you have a bath??

[Nicko]

It is a fact that the oceans of the world are becoming ecological deserts. Deep sea fishing, trawling, whatever...all is contributing to a coming collapse.

Just look, sturgeon has been totall banned.

Cod? What cod.
Salmon? Pretty much the only way to eat is now is farming it.

I read a quote in an article once that the 'old men of the sea' are all gone now. That being the really large, older fish --- none left. All fished out.

Protecting whales is like protecting any large species that is at the top of the food chain. IF whale can survive it means that their source of food is also surviving. For example, if all the krill suddenly disapear the oceans will be scewed.

And killing things because somehow its part of their ancient "culture" is no excuse. Just look at china and how their traditional medicine has led to thousands of species to be hunted into oblibion. :/

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Nicko

It is a fact that the oceans of the world are becoming ecological deserts. Deep sea fishing, trawling, whatever...all is contributing to a coming collapse.

Just look, sturgeon has been totall banned.

Cod? What cod.
Salmon? Pretty much the only way to eat is now is farming it.

I read a quote in an article once that the 'old men of the sea' are all gone now. That being the really large, older fish --- none left. All fished out.

Protecting whales is like protecting any large species that is at the top of the food chain. IF whale can survive it means that their source of food is also surviving. For example, if all the krill suddenly disapear the oceans will be scewed.

And killing things because somehow its part of their ancient "culture" is no excuse. Just look at china and how their traditional medicine has led to thousands of species to be hunted into oblibion. :/

Perhaps you shouldn't over-generalise like that.

Cod fishing is still going strong around here. We've got no problems finishing the quotas each year.

The whales we catch (at the moment for science) have a larger population that in a very long time are the most likely reason for cod and other fish disappearing from the fjords. In theearly 80's fishermen (one to two men vessels) just had to stay in the fjords to get enough fish to live on. Today there is very little left.

And don't forget that fishing is not necessarily the main culprit in the diminishing stocks you see in many parts of the world. Another is pollution dumped in the sea (Sellafield one of the greatest threats) and warming oceans. These are also major players in how the fish population has decreased.

Poor management is absolutely a part of the problem. But just because there is poor management in some parts of the world (Canada, mainland Europe and Britain as well as the US) it doesn't mean other parts of the world (Iceland, Norway etc) aren't able to maintain the stock while still allowing fishing.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Because whales are probably the most intelligent animals on Earth after Humans, Chimpanzees and Gorillas.

Define the "intelligence" you are talking about.

[Y3a]

I find it shocking that the "Management" of fishing doesn't require knowing the original numbers required to maintain a species if a catastrophy occurs. Extinctions occur because of the BS instead of facts used in the studies. I'm pretty sure nobody did any counts 100 years ago, or longer, so how can they manage what they don't know? The real probelm is too many people.

[TETENAL]

Greenpeace did put a dead whale in front of the Japanese embassy in Berlin.



Complete slideshow of the action:

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,...Mg_3_3,00.html

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Define the "intelligence" you are talking about.

I won't.

But I will give you some interesting sites to help you understand my point of view:

Louis M. Herman
Cetacean Intelligence

Sea mammals behave inside very complex behavioral rules, with social structures as complex as that of primates. They also demonstrate behaviors reminding caring (cetaceans like the Beluga is reported to carry their dead babies for days after their death, even when it is certain that their sonar can detect inner parts of the body, and its functioning).

Experiences with artificial languages have also demonstrated comunication habilities, but also, habilities to abstract and draw behaviors by using 2 different past behavior, and therefore, show creativity.

Also, the sexual behavior of Great Whales has nothing to envy to human gang bangs, as males, as a group, will strategize to maintain the female close to the surface, but not enough to allow her to breathe, weakening her to better copulate.

Killer whales work as a group and strategize their attack on bigger pray like the Blue Whale, by maintaining the prey to the surface by eating its flukes. They will then attack the thraot to get to the tongue. These behaviors are complez and require a lot of premeditation, and cooperative action.

Finally, dolphins (not whales, I admit), show compassion to other species; stories abound of humans having been rescued by dolphins. The basic placidity of whales with our presence is also showing a lack of aggressivity, and sometimes, playfulness.

I am not saying we should stop hunting them. I am just wondering if we really understand what we are killing.