OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

@farmerman,

No problem, farmer. I have absolutely no intention of even attempting to respond to all the points Robert's raised. I'd be up till dawn! Wink

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

The truth is that whales can be killed instantly and that they are routinely killed instantly. The average time is similar to other big game hunting. A more accurate argument against whaling methods is that the rate of failure to do so is too high. This study [pdf], which happens to agree with your conclusion that whales shouldn't be hunted, states that Norway achieves an 80% rate of instant kills while Japan's rate is 40% and cites different weather and experience levels of the harpooners as the main difference.

Now to me, 20% still sounds like it's too much but there are a couple of reasons I don't find this argument convincing enough, even if it's one of the objective arguments against whaling:

Sorry, but I'm not really convinced, Robert. Sure, it may be possible to kill a whale instantaneously, as the quoted Norwegian whaling research suggests, but the overwhelming experience is definitely closer to what Peter Singer suggests is the case. And, as also stated, there really is "no accurate way to determine precisely the point of death".
But anyway, this is rather like splitting hairs. The document strongly argues that the existing methods are extremely cruel & painful. Quote from the forward:

Quote:

The following pages contain hard scientific dispassionate evidence that there is no humane way to kill a whale at sea.
Dr Harry Lillie who worked as a ship's physician on a whaling ship half a century ago, wrote this:

"If we can imagine a horse having two or three explosive spears stuck in it's stomache and being made to pull a butcher's truck through the streets of London while it pours blood into the gutter, we shall have an idea of the method of killing. The gunners themselves admit that if whales could scream, the industry would stop for nobody would be able to stand it."

The use of harpoons with explosive grenade heads is still the main technique used by whaler's today.

2 Replies

@msolga,

Thanks for the document, by the way, Robert. It's way too long for me to have been able to read it all tonight, but I've bookmarked it & will definitely follow up later. Excellent.

1 Reply

Just a little reminder about where the Japanese whaling activities are taking place taking place .. the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Well worth a look to see what we're trying to protect.. A couple of very nice videos of whales, too!

http://www.asoc.org/AntarcticAdvocacy/CampaignstoProtectAntarctica/StrengtheningtheWhaleSanctuary/tabid/91/Default.aspx

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Whoops. Dunno, what I was thinking?
The IWC moratorium on commercial whaling was in fact in 1986. Not 1994 as I said.
1994 was the date of the establishment of The Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
Got the 2 muddled, sorry.

0 Replies

It is interesting to note that the controversy over the harvesting of whales is similar in several ways to that over the so-called global warming controversy.

In both cases advocates demand that existing (and long-standing) economic activities by other countries be banned or limited in order to achieve certain goals held dear by said advocates. In both cases there is good reason to be skeptical of the ultimate efficacy or worth of both the demands and the goals that presumably motivate them. In both cases the emotional intensity of the advocates appears to exceed reason and common sense -- worse things happen everywhere; far more serious and immediate dangers confront the people of the world; and finally in most cases the advocates themselves will suffer no economic injury if their demands are met, while others will lose greatly. Indeed in some cases the advocates stand to gain personally.

It is also interesting (to me at least) that as the role of religion and theology diminishes in the western world, the religious-like zealotry that so often surrounds issues related to "the environment" and "sustainability" appears to increase. Certainly the jihad being conducted against the Japanese whalers in the Antartic bears these attributes. I suspect there are some psychological factors at work here.

With respect to the recent collision between the Japanese whaler and the batman boat operated by the zealots -- there is no doubt that the tactics employed by the anti whaling folks, so eagerly portrayed in their self-promoting TV shows constitute illegal acts in terms of maratime law and, indeed, even assaults under common law, permitting defensive action. Interesting they appear to believe they are above the law, even while accusing the Japanese of violating some vaguely described terms of the whaling convention.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

It is interesting to note that the controversy over the harvesting of whales is similar in several ways to that over the so-called global warming controversy. ...

Perhaps in "some ways", which you leave unspecified and which ergo must remain unknown to your readers, but not in the most elementary sense of looking after your own kin - whales, dolphins, apes, being the most closely related creatures to us as far as brain structure and wiring goes.

There can be NO parallel to any scam of any kind, starting with AGW. As far as harpooning resulting in "instant death", has anybody here read Moby Dick?!

1 Reply

@High Seas,

PS whales and dolphins are genetically (brain-DNA) our closest cousins. Saving them is obvious even to the Russians, never hitherto concerned with pollution on land or sea. Besides, saving them from attack is of benefit to all of us:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:BBqbSTp6focJ:www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/Puget_Sound_killer_whale/pdfs/petition.pdf+russian+bering+strait+orcas+killer+whales+rescue&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Quote:

Orca Conservancy is dedicated to enhancing public awareness about the plight of the
Southern Resident killer whale, to enable a deeper understanding of the importance &
interconnectedness of orcas, salmon, watersheds, and healthy marine ecosystems. By focusing
on the orca, the Pacific Northwest's beloved & majestic icon....

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

What should the international response be to commercial whaling in a designated whale sanctuary?

They should realize that they declared a whale sanctuary where the Japanese declared a whale hunting zone and that they have no such authority to do so unless the Japanese agree to it.

Quote:

This, apart from everything else, is what upsets many Australians. Personally I think it's outrageous.

Which is pretty funny given how any country influencing you guys at all (even on a matter so small as a diplomatic nicety or procedure) is riled at so much. Now you guys are pissed that another country isn't listening when you tell it what to do.

Quote:

I would argue that the Japanese whaling industry has simply chosen to disregard the IWC's ruling and has continued with business as usual.

And what you don't realize is that they have every right to do so. The IWC has no authority over any country that does not agree to be bound by its treaties. This is how international treaties work. Norway actually ignores them altogether, which is the more noble position for Japan to have taken. They should withdraw from the IWC and ignore it altogether if they wish to continue commercial whaling.

That's what Norway does and it lets them whale commercially without playing lip service to a pretext of "scientific research".

Quote:

And that any "limiting" of the Japanese whale catch (& I'm not sure how limited it actually has been) has been due to the efforts of organizations like GreenPeace, Sea Shepherd & other animal welfare/rights organizations' very effective publicity campaigns on the issue. Not as a result of the Japanese attempting to do "the right thing". They are simply getting away with as much as they can get away with, in my opinion.

That's just not true. Japan is limited by quotas they agreed to, and Sea Shepherd's self-aggrandizing is deceitful. They aren't limiting the catch in any significant way, the quotas are. Japan limits its whaling to around 900 whales due to quotas it agreed to and this has nothing to do with Sea Shepherd getting to play pirates on reality TV.

And as to the IWC ... well it's a toothless tiger, a joke from a conservationist's perspective. It is a body that was set up to regulate the whaling industry & hasn't been at all effective in protecting whales. (Which has been the major contributing factor in the "whale wars" we've witnessed summer after summer in the Southern Ocean. And which led to the US sanctions, too.) As has been said time & time again on the 2 whale threads here, the sooner there's some properly constituted world body with teeth in control of whaling & other issues related to protecting our oceans, the better.

2 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Sorry, but I'm not really convinced, Robert. Sure, it may be possible to kill a whale instantaneously, as the quoted Norwegian whaling research suggests, but the overwhelming experience is definitely closer to what Peter Singer suggests is the case. And, as also stated, there really is "no accurate way to determine precisely the point of death".
But anyway, this is rather like splitting hairs. The document strongly argues that the existing methods are extremely cruel & painful.

I think it is like splitting hairs, but not because of the reasons you do. I think it is so because I know this argument ultimately doesn't matter for your position.

You acknowledge that the meat you do accept that we eat is often treated cruelly. But instead of advocating not eating it you advocate an improvement on the practices.

Whaling practices have been improving steadily (which makes another poster's reference to Moby Dick as evidence of whale suffering a bit comical) but the bottom line is that even if we could kill whales humanely you simply would not accept that we kill whales would you?

If not, then this is really just a red herring to your real position, because your position would not change regardless of whether whales can be killed humanely or not.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Thanks for the document, by the way, Robert. It's way too long for me to have been able to read it all tonight, but I've bookmarked it & will definitely follow up later. Excellent.

I knew you'd like it, I picked one from your side of the argument to avoid suspicion of bias about the data claim.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

It is interesting to note that the controversy over the harvesting of whales is similar in several ways to that over the so-called global warming controversy.

In no way are they even remotely similar. The climate Does show evidence of warming, its just that the causes are politicized. Whales are being removed from the gene pool, and in all cases the agent of population reduction are humans.

Quote:

tactics employed by the anti whaling folks, so eagerly portrayed in their self-promoting TV shows constitute illegal acts in terms of maratime law and, indeed, even assaults under common law, permitting defensive action. Interesting they appear to believe they are above the law,

Where youre wrong is that the seashepherds have stated they will be willing ro "do the time" if they are caught. They feel (and so do many many others, that their cause is just). JUST like WALDEN and the preachings of Dr King, a "little" civil disobedience is often necessqry when good men do n othing to resolve an issue.

The concept of asustainability is one that hasnt even been approached in a correct ecological fashion. Since qwhen does population conservation involve slaughter of large numbers of animals whose breeding and migration habits we are only beginning to learn about?
An example is the elephant herds of Botswana. After many years of illegal hunting and poaching, they managed to determine the "carrying capacity " of Botswana and the populations of the many herds that wander around the Maghadigadhi and Okavango and the edges of the Kalahari.They now allow a small amount tro be harvested under strict permits and hunting licenses. THis ONLY after several decades of real research into what maintains the population. In other African countries, elephants (some are separate sub species, ) are being decimated and the populations are being driven to levels of deep concern.

SAME thing with whales, except, somehow, the slaughtering is preceeding any determination of what sustainability even means. No one here is competent to assess the stresses that Minke whalkes are under due to hunting. Further, several of the SOuthern Populations may represent separate subspecies of theMinke in general. The only data the Japanese use is some bogus number that states there are X hunndred thousand Minkes left. (BTW, the Japanese have abandoned any hope of convincing IWC that Humpbacks or Right Whales are viable targets.

Quote:

It is also interesting (to me at least) that as the role of religion and theology diminishes in the western world, the religious-like zealotry that so often surrounds issues related to "the environment" and "sustainability" appears to increase.

Gimme that ole time religion, when we could take whales for Jesus? What the hell is yer point? Youre beginning to sound like Thomas and his "Sheep and cows is just as smart as whales" argument.

The whaling compact was a document that was hardly arrived at with any honor at all. When landlocked countries with no tradition of the use of whales vote in favor of the "sustainable whaling argument" with no definition of what the term even means, I too wonder where the fix was .

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I suspect the Japanese were - and still are - quite willing to be left alone with catching whales for the explicit purpose of making sushi and using their oil - as they had been doing for many years.

Just as we are trying to stop poaching of grizzly and brown bears for the gall bladders, we still recognize the folk medicine status of these body parts by the Chinese. Does that validate wiping out the species?
Robt and James Craighead, years ago meade some dire predictions re: the decimation and "genetic bottlenecking" of grizzlies world wide, and this is mostly happening. SO why do we just use another part of our brains in the licensing of whale kills?

Since the Japanese are now content with id'ing Minke whales as a target species, why, instead, dont they try their hand at whale farming? Why mess with the planets wild legacy? The Japanese history of whale sushi is of uch a recent vintage that I dont buy anything about thir legacy "rights" to harvest whales. Its just another target species , like Chilean Sea Bass or North Atlantic Cod, that with overfishing, will be driven to extinction. The hell of it is that NO ONE has made any decent argument that extinction WONT be a consequence.

Most all fiheries are crashing with the exception of those tightly controlled or developed as an ag product. We, as a species , ahve never been able to even agree on a policy that will not allow species to disappear. All we seem to do is bend to pressure of one or more of the participant nations.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

They should realize that they declared a whale sanctuary where the Japanese declared a whale hunting zone and that they have no such authority to do so unless the Japanese agree to it

You appear to be saying that it's OK for Japan to conduct commercial whaling in one of the few existing sancturies in the world because it was outvoted at the IWC. I agree with you that Japan should leave the IWC if it refuses to play by it's "rules". But instead, it wants to have the "respectability" of belonging, while at the same time flouting that organization's rulings. Not exactly an honorable position. You know, I couldn't care less how the Southern Whale Sanctuary came into existence. The fact that it exists at all is to be applauded. The Antarctica & surrounding waters are one of the few remaining (fingers crossed!) areas of protected wilderness left on the planet. If the Japanese choose not to respect that, then I believe they're being extremely insensitive. The charge of "cultural insensitivity" is often leveled at any nation that objects to their whaling activities during this whaling moratorium. They also often claim that whaling is a "traditional" Japanese activity to justify their position. However, whaling the waters surrounding the Antarctic was not one of their traditional hunting grounds. They are there because they have depleted their own immediate marine resources by over-fishing. Something that doesn't give many of us a great feeling of confidence.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

This, apart from everything else, is what upsets many Australians. Personally I think it's outrageous.

Robert said:

Quote:

Which is pretty funny given how any country influencing you guys at all (even on a matter so small as a diplomatic nicety or procedure) is riled at so much. Now you guys are pissed that another country isn't listening when you tell it what to do.

By "you guys", I assume you're talking about Australians, Robert? I don't know whether, on the issue of whaling, we are so much, "riled" as appalled. You can accept this or not, but it is a very important issue for many Australians. And it's not all knee jerk emotive reaction, either. It wouldn't surprise me at all if, as a general population, we actually knew more about whaling issues than the general populations of many other countries. Our newspapers & the media a full of articles & information on whaling. That's where I find most of the information I post here. But in a nutshell, I guess we don't support illegal whaling in an area that we're supposed to be protecting.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Why do you keep bringing up the extinction argument but that is one that is accepted in principle (though the sustainable levels will be argued over) by the Japanese and your interlocutors.

But you yourself said that you don't want whales to be killed regardless of this point, so why is this the central argument you keep coming back to? I for one agree that humans should avoid hunting/fishing any species into extinction. And if Japanese whaling threatens species I agree that it should halt. Of course people can disagree about whether that is so in practice but in principle preservation of the species is something everyone here seems to agree on.

The part where there is disagreement has nothing to do with conservation, but with the special earth mascot status you've given to whales, but you spend all your time arguing this on the basis of the species conservation where we don't have disagreement.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

I think it is like splitting hairs, but not because of the reasons you do. I think it is so because I know this argument ultimately doesn't matter for your position.

With all due respect, Robert, I think you're patronizing me. My reasons for my position are just as valid as yours for your position. I do not constantly question your reasons for your beliefs & I'd prefer it if you didn't question my reasoning/motives. Without any doubt the method of killing whales is extremely cruel & extremely painful. Whether this argument "matters" or not to you is beside the point. It matters to me & it is not just some purely emotive reaction arrived at with without other relevant information being taken into account.

Quote:

You acknowledge that the meat you do accept that we eat is often treated cruelly. But instead of advocating not eating it you advocate an improvement on the practices

This thread is not about the pros & cons of vegetarianism. It never was.
It is possible, you know, to support whale conservation without being a 100% vegan. So often opponents of the anti-whaling /anti-conservation side play the gotcha! card when they are arguing their case with a person who eats meat. Really, I think this is just game playing & easy point scoring.

The point has been made, time & time again on these 2 "outrage" threads that there's a difference between domestically bred animals for the purpose of human consumption & animals in the wild, in their natural environment. (I know this is not the Peter Singer position, which is an advocacy of vegetarianism, on ethical grounds. But I believe it's a valid position anyway.)

That said, I totally support the humane & ethical treatment of domestically bred animals. I strongly believe they should not suffer unnecessary cruelty during their lives & at the time of their deaths. Yes, it is very hard to ensure that the product one is consuming has been produced by ethical means. But one does one's best on the information available.

That said <sigh> there are some absolutely abhorrent animal "farming" practices in my own country. Battery chickens, battery pigs, live sheep exports to the middle east, hideous death rituals for some animals stemming from antiquated religious beliefs ...... Yes, it all happens. So one applies whatever pressure one can realistically apply to avoid those products, to canvas the agencies who should be protecting those animals, to haranguing governments about their inadequate laws & policing procedures .... One does what one can.

1 Reply

Extract from today's editorial from the AGE newspaper.
There has been a lot of pressure on the (Rudd) Labour Government on this issue (again) in the past few days. A commitment to whale conservation was part of its election platform.
Oddly, the previous Liberal (conservative) government was much more proactive regarding whaling.:

Rudd may soon have to sue Japan over whales
January 9, 2010/AGE editorial

Quote:

....Japan appears to have abandoned the smokescreen that its hunting is for ''scientific research'', a claim that gave it a technical loophole with which to escape the international ban on commercial whale-catching. Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said this month, ''We should try to discuss this issue in a calm, not emotional way. Because our ancestors - we have a tradition in Japan where we have been eating whalemeat. It would be a different story if it were an endangered species … on the verge of extinction. But if not, I think the average Japanese would like to consume whalemeat into the future.'' He also appeared to be digging in on the issue when he said, ''We do not think there is a need for a policy review.''

The Federal Government might be privy to diplomatic progress that it is not yet sharing with the rest of the nation. Australia has a close and complex relationship with Japan, and there are many issues currently on the joint agenda, including nuclear disarmament and emission reductions. It may be that various cards will be played off against each other in what is shaping up as a significant year in the relationship. Cards have also to be played in Japan. The Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, has been examining government accounts with a view to eliminating the kind of government subsidies and perks for retired bureaucrats involved in sustaining whaling. He has also said publicly he does not like whale meat, which undermines the romantic view of it as central to Japanese cultural identity. It is possible he is looking to wind down whaling, citing domestic budget reasons, a strategy that would allow him the dignity of choice rather than the appearance of capitulation to foreign pressure.

If substantial progress is not made by mid-year, however - the next IWC meeting is in June - diplomacy has failed and the issue must be pursued in the courts. Mr Rudd made the promise before the last election; he should keep to it before the next one.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/rudd-may-soon-have-to-sue-japan-over-whales-20100108-lysq.html

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

You appear to be saying that it's OK for Japan to conduct commercial whaling in one of the few existing sancturies in the world because it was outvoted at the IWC.

No, I'm saying that there is no real authority for 5 countries to declare a whale sanctuary and that calling out violations of this sanctuary ignores its nature.

For example, if I decide today that Australia is a sheep sanctuary you wouldn't think it were much of a "violation" if an Australian farmer killed a sheep because you know I have absolutely no authority to do so.

Same with this whale sanctuary. It is declared by 5 members of an organization whose membership is voluntary and whose charter happens to forbid this kind of thing. This organization's charter says it is supposed to protect whaling interests and create such sanctuaries based on scientific evidence that it is needed to protect an endangered population.

This sanctuary was declared in what is as hypocritical a twisting of the IWC mission as the "scientific research" pretext the Japanese are guilty of. Dr. Douglas Butterworth said it is a "transparent attempt to prevent the resumption of whaling on the 750,000 strong Antarctic Minke population for reasons which have nothing to do with science."[1] His argument isn't very revelatory, this is clearly a way to try to extend the moratorium on whaling to cover non-endangered whale species.

The IWC refuses to perform an analysis of the legality of the sanctuary because there is no procedure to do so, and because under its charter its would be tough to defend.

So the bottom line is that a voluntary organization declared a sanctuary that Japan claims violates the very groups charter (and quite frankly, they have a strong case for this) and that they quite reasonably believe was made specifically to try to prevent them from whaling the Minke population regardless of the sustainability of doing so. I know you say you don't care about these details but it matters. This is an arbitrary sanctuary that 5 countries decided on specifically to try to prevent the Japanese Minke whaling. This kind of thing does matter when it's later bandied about as if it were a sanctuary with any real authority.

Quote:

I agree with you that Japan should leave the IWC if it refuses to play by it's "rules". But instead, it wants to have the "respectability" of belonging, while at the same time flouting that organization's rulings.

I don't Japan is not in the IWC because of "respectability" but because of economic pressures and the fact that sustainable fishing and whaling is very much in their interests given their dependence on the seas for food resources.

Quite frankly, it's probably a public relations positive for them to withdraw altogether and eliminate all legal claims against them. That way there would be even less basis for the vigilante claims of stopping "illegal" whaling and they'd get to drop the science pretext. There's really no respectability in it for them to be a part of the IWC. And this is one of my qualms with the more inclusive anti-whaling positions, it makes the middle ground position less attractive to Japan and undermines the more straightforward species conservation positions.

Quote:

Not exactly an honorable position. You know, I couldn't care less how the Southern Whale Sanctuary came into existence. The fact that it exists at all is to be applauded.

I get that completely, it's a goal you share so you like it. It's origins don't matter on that level. But I'm sure you can also understand that the process though which authority is granted can't be so whimsical. It can't just be because you like it and agree with it's principles.

For example, the genesis of the Great Australian Sheep Sanctuary in 2010 has such little claim to authority that it isn't a very good legal instrument to try to enforce restrictions on the behavior of others.

And that's what it ultimately is, and it doesn't matter if you like it or the Japanese don't so much as it matters that it's simply not a legal instrument that can achieve the goals you want due to the way it came about. You can agree all you want with the principles, but the way it came about is hugely relevant to the basis on which other countries will ignore it.

Quote:

The Antarctica & surrounding waters are one of the few remaining (fingers crossed!) areas of protected wilderness left on the planet. If the Japanese choose not to respect that, then I believe they're being extremely insensitive.

I think the Japanese are being hugely insensitive. The public relations cost to them and their culture is already too high for this to be worth it to them in my opinion. Unfortunately there are some principled reasons that make them reject this, and I think they have a good point. It's like a free speech argument to me where I find the content of their speech offensive but happen to agree with their right argument. And essentially it's that you need better reasons than really liking an animal to demand that another country give up a food resource.

Species conservation was such a good reason, they signed on. Now the sanctuary was created to prevent Minke hunting, which isn't a conservation goal as much as your no-whaling goal.

They aren't violating some natural preserve, they are violating a rule that was made specifically to prevent them from whaling Minke there. The sanctuary was created as a legal instrument to prevent whaling of a thriving Minke population. That is the be

Quote:

The charge of "cultural insensitivity" is often leveled at any nation that objects to their whaling activities during this whaling moratorium. They also often claim that whaling is a "traditional" Japanese activity to justify their position. However, whaling the waters surrounding the Antarctic was not one of their traditional hunting grounds. They are there because they have depleted their own immediate marine resources by over-fishing. Something that doesn't give many of us a great feeling of confidence.

Yeah, but I don't really care about the cultural sensitivity thing that much in cases like this. If they were whaling endangered whales and had a billion-year history of doing so I'd still have no compunction about calling for its end on the basis of that argument.

I do care very much about over-whaling. But you and I both know that this is not what is happening now, and is not what you are actually opposing here. That's a goal that the IWC has actually worked well for and that annual quotas would continue to be able to control. This is very much about taking an organization that was founded to "make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry" and turn it into an organization with the aim of opposing the eating of whales.

That these moratoriums and sanctuaries are the result of a couple of countries deciding that whales are an inedible mascot is hugely important to Japan's ability to continue to ignore the strident opposition. If you get enough support to make better legal instruments (e.g. UN resolutions) you'll have a way to bludgeon Japan into stopping. Otherwise a hi-jacked whaling organization and a couple of Western states deciding what to eat is probably not going to fly.

[1] Institute of Marine Research (1988). A Programme to Study and Monitor Northeast Atlantic Minke, 1988-1992. Paper SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE/40/Mi7. Presented to the SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE in 1988. (unpublished).

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

By "you guys", I assume you're talking about Australians, Robert?

Specifically, Australians on this site who have expressed resentment at outside pressures (e.g. one nation telling another not to receive the Dalai Lama, American pressure on Australia etc). I'm being a bit of a bastard and pointing out that most people strenuously object to foreign meddling until they happen to agree with the goal.

Quote:

I don't know whether, on the issue of whaling, we are so much, "riled" as appalled. You can accept this or not, but it is a very important issue for many Australians.

No, I completely get it. I have my own animals like that, I feel such a strong objection to the eating of cats and dogs that I completely understand being appalled by a food on that kind of level. But I just can't accept this kind of "ick factor" as the only argument against it.

Quote:

And it's not all knee jerk emotive reaction, either. It wouldn't surprise me at all if, as a general population, we actually knew more about whaling issues than the general populations of many other countries.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this is an informed position, and I have never meant to imply otherwise. When I speak about it's emotional nature I'm talking about the perception I have of it as being ultimately based on an affinity with whales that makes eating them appalling.

I get that completely, we can easily humanely kill dogs, they are not endangered, and they don't really fit any of the anti-whaling arguments at all but due to the bond that humans have with dogs I find that appalling. And last year, in New Zealand, a man ate his pet dog with impunity even though the whole country was appalled.

There's no law there against what he did. And the animal was killed humanely, but it was offensive due to the emotional attachment they have with dogs. I reference what I believe is a similar emotional attachment to whales that many people have.

The problem I have with this is that I know millions of people have an emotional attachment to cows, but millions more won't stop eating them. I want to know what objective criteria is used before removing the rights of others to their food sources.

Quote:

Our newspapers & the media a full of articles & information on whaling. That's where I find most of the information I post here. But in a nutshell, I guess we don't support illegal whaling in an area that we're supposed to be protecting.

If you want to call it "illegal" then it really does matter how it came about msolga and the legal challenges need to proceed. Otherwise I'm going to talk about your "illegal" eating of meat (I just declared the Great Australian Meat Sanctuary).

But on a more serious note, you sometimes seem to ponder aloud about what can be done to take "action" and make Japan follow the law. And actually making it a law would be a good first step there. A gang of 5 nations hi-jacking a whaling organization isn't going to pass legal muster if Japan doesn't agree to their decisions, but something with more teeth is actually possible through the UN if you can gain more consensus than that.

And if it really just boils down to the affinity, I'd even accept a consensus-driven law against whaling by the way. At least that is a democratized ick factor and less arbitrary than a culture clash between a couple of nations.

0 Replies

OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know