OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

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.

But it was an official IWC decision, Robert! That is what the majority of members decided!

So it was won by 5 votes. So what?

In any case, I'm in total support of a whale sanctuary in the Southern Ocean, regardless of whatever the IWC shenanigans decide.

But, I've go to ask. What do you have against the notion of a whale sanctuary & all countries respecting it? What is so wrong about that?

And finally <sigh> sheep & whales are two entirely different kettles of fish. Though both should be treated humanely within their own circumstances, in my humble opinion.

2 Replies

@msolga,

Isn't Japan part of that organisation?

I thought if you were a member, you would expect to abide by its decisions?

2 Replies

@dlowan,

Well yes, it is.

And yes, you'd expect so.

But ......

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

With all due respect, Robert, I think you're patronizing me.

I don't mean to patronize you. I am just trying to say that you have a declared objection to killing whales even if they could be killed humanely so arguing about how often they can be killed humanely doesn't seem to make much of a difference to our disagreement. We are in agreement to the extent that if whales can't be killed humanely they should not be killed and our disagreements lay elsewhere.

Quote:

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.

I certainly hope you question the reasoning behind my beliefs and I really can't agree with not questioning yours. As a compromise perhaps I can just try my best to be as respectful as I can of your reasoning/motives?

Quote:

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.

I'm certainly not trying to imply that whether it matters to me supersedes whether it matters to you. Frankly this is the argument against whaling that most matters to me after the extinction concerns. It does matter to me.

But we happen to disagree on whether or not this is the case. Your initial claim was that whales can't be killed humanely. I cited an anti-whaling study that portrayed a more nuanced picture showing that Norwegians were able to kill 80% of their whales humanely.

Now we are, as you quite rightly pointed out, "splitting hairs" over what is a humane kill rate. Unless there's a threshold at which you'd find it acceptable it's not worth quibbling over to me. But I'm game if you feel like I'm brushing this angle off. I'm quite interested in a discussion about what is an acceptable level of suffering for food, it's a tough and interesting dilemma to me.

Quote:

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.

Well it matters to me. ;-)

And the reason is because it matters to logical consistency. If you are peddling moral outrage about what someone else eats based on arguments that also apply to what you eat I think this matters. So if you say that whales shouldn't be eaten because they are intelligent then it matters because pigs are intelligent (plus your argument is encroaching on my bacon) and so on and so forth.

Quote:

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.)

So under this criteria do you refrain from eating fish that are not farmed? Do you want Japan to strike that off the menu too? This just happens to be a food criteria that Japan simply doesn't have the land for, which goes a long way towards explaining their obdurate position on what was an important food resource to them after WWII when cheap whale meat was a strategic resource given their few options. Let them eat dirt?

Quote:

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.

I don't bring up this to try to play gotcha on you. I know you care and I know you do what you can. Quite frankly you and dlowan are some of the people most conscious about such things as I know of. It's admirable, if a bit alien, to me to see how much you guys care about the food you eat.

I bring this kind of thing up because you are apparently willing to accept a scenario where you know the animals will suffer to some degree but one just does their best to be as humane as possible. But you don't accept such compromise about suffering with whales. They are just too magnificent to eat and even if the Japanese found a breakthrough way to kill whales instantly and painlessly you'd still oppose it.

So my question is why there is an acceptable threshold of pig suffering but not an acceptable threshold of whale suffering to this position? And why are cows, who are regarded as magnificent by many millions of people, acceptable food to you?

I don't like the idea of eating whales either. I certainly don't feel as strongly as you do about it, and feel much more strongly about dogs, cats, dolphins, and monkeys but I know that one man's meat is another man's poison and I'd like to reconcile this conflict with objective reasons before I join the bandwagon of taking away someone else's rights to a food resource (they may one day come for my bacon). And if I were to do something like selectively apply the arguments (intelligent pigs can die, intelligent whales must live) it doesn't strike me as being honestly applied.

This is why I bring up what we do eat when the arguments against whales match up against the arguments for vegetarianism. If I ignore those arguments when I eat my bacon upon what basis would I be able to apply them to whales?

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

But it was an official IWC decision, Robert! That is what the majority of members decided!

So? The official whaling industry decision was to ignore it.

Quote:

So it was won by 5 votes. So what?

I prefer more consensus, a quorum for food rights deprivation if you will.

Quote:

But, I've go to ask. What do you have against the notion of a whale sanctuary & all countries respecting it? What is so wrong about that?

It's not wrong if you just assume you are right about whales not being suitable food, but that happens to be what we are disagreeing about. And predictably, if I don't agree with you on this matter I won't automatically agree that an arbitrarily declared sanctuary is a good thing.

Quote:

And finally <sigh> sheep & whales are two entirely different kettles of fish. Though both should be treated humanely within their own circumstances, in my humble opinion.

The point is that such declarations must pass legal muster for things like "illegal" to have real meaning and declaring a sanctuary doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal.

In my case, my Sheep Sanctuary was not legal because I lack authority, which was more of my intended point than a comparison between whales and sheep.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

Isn't Japan part of that organisation?

I thought if you were a member, you would expect to abide by its decisions?

The decision violates it's founding convention, which requires such a sanctuary to be declared on the basis of scientific evidence toward its necessity to protect endangered whale species and requires that the whaling industry be considered (remember, this organization's purpose was to develop sustainable whaling). Given that the Minke whale that constitutes over 90% of Japanese whaling is not endangered this sanctuary won't pass legal muster and the IWC has refused to put it to the test.

The convention requires such things to be scientific, and not based on popular opinion. But the chairman of the Scientific Committee, Phil Hammond resigned in disgust, saying "What is the point of having a Scientific Committee if its unanimous recommendations ... are treated with such contempt?"

This organization was founded for reasons that this sanctuary contradicts:

"Whales are special, even token animals for the general public in many countries. However, CITES was not set up to promote the particular cultural preferences of urban societies nor to ban trade in charismatic species. CITES is a conservation body, the object of which is to ensure international cooperation on "the protection of certain species ... against over-exploitation through international trade" (CITES Convention)."

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

I am just trying to say that you have a declared objection to killing whales even if they could be killed humanely so arguing about how often they can be killed humanely doesn't seem to make much of a difference to our disagreement.

I'd argue, like the David Attenborough (sp?) document you posted, Robert, that they can't be killed humanely.

But why would anyone want to kill such a magnificent creature to eat, anyway?

Thanks for your posts, Robert. I've gotta say I'm sorta wiped out here, by heat & a really bad night's sleep last night. I'll take another look tomorrow, when I'm (hopefully) more alert.

A thought: Whales have been a part of aboriginal Australians' dreamtime myths & stories . In a very different way, it's just possible that they've become part of contemporary white man's/women's dreaming. This wouldn't surprise me at all.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

I'd argue, like the David Attenborough (sp?) document you posted, Robert, that they can't be killed humanely.

This is a compelling argument to me if true. And I happen to agree that current methods are not humane enough. But I really do believe that it's not outside of the realm of possibility for the methods and technology to be developed to do so, which makes it matter whether this is a core reason or a supporting reason because even if it were

Quote:

But why would anyone want to kill such a magnificent creature to eat, anyway?

I can't eat seafood, so there's certainly no appeal to me. But there are people who feel that way about cows, and others who feel that way about all animals, regardless of their charisma. Because I'm not going to stop eating beef, pork and chicken I need something I can feel logically consistent about to agree with a ban on a conceptual level.

Quote:

Thanks for your posts, Robert. I've gotta say I'm sorta wiped out here, by heat & a really bad night's sleep last night. I'll take another look tomorrow, when I'm (hopefully) more alert.

I talk way to damn much, so please feel perfectly free to fast forward. ;-)

But I learn a lot from each of these discussions and the copious amounts of reading that they spur, so thanks for spurring fits of learning! My positions also do evolve, this round I've grown to accept that current methods are not humane enough (though that is of little help because I don't believe that is an unsolvable technological problem) but more importantly I think I could find a fair democratic consensus acceptable as the way to decide on such matters.

Something like a two-thirds majority in the UN general assembly would be a quorum enough for me and with economic sanctions it could be enforceable so I wonder if the anti-whaling community has tried to get an enforceable ban with a real global consensus.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

But I learn a lot from each of these discussions and the copious amounts of reading that they spur, so thanks for spurring fits of learning!

What he said, Msolga.

You guys have great discussions.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

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.

Because the argument seems to be totally ignored b y YOU and George ob. I find it central to the scientific position of even regulating whaling as an industry. Minkes are well under 1/2 of their historical population and yet, even without ANY real data on population ecology and possible genetic bottlenecking, sveral nations are "killing for science".
You and I know that the methods of the Japanese are cynical and non scientific means for "huning/gathering" with no concern over real numbers. They will be removing over 1% of the Southern Minke population each hunting year and the gestation period of a minke overshoots that. So, the JApanese alone are removing more than can be replaced by normal breeding patterns. Hows that for sustainability? On top of that , we have other countries engaged in whaling and the fact that up to 1% of whale populations succumb to collisions with boats, are lost to diseases and beaching and are now making adjustments in responses to changing stream thermal signatures.

I believe that Im unambiguous about my position in accepting , as you call, "The special earth mascot" of whales. Weve wiped out the AMreican Bison so far that what weve got left, are these genetically weak much smaller animals that need constant care by National PArks in order to maintain the population.
The passenger Pigeon was an example of your logic , when, in the late 1800's people said that, "There are so many passenger pigeons that we can hunt the **** out of them forever at no appreciable loss of stock"
What happened with the Passenger was to remove just enough animals from their need to have a dense breeding mass that enabled the population to be maintained. Passenger pigeons were selective about mating so that not all of these birds actually mated and huntin removed just enough so that the entire population was eased into extinction by "lack of information" as much as wanto slaughter.

As I will continue to state, if the whale sushi industry wants to maintain the reataurants in Tokyo and provide freshh wjhale meat, let em try their hand at Minke Wrangling and not interfere with the wild herds of animals. Just as weve done with the Bos animals, weve nanaged to create genetic variants that dont even exist in nature , and these are animals with big meaty frames, perfect for steaks and ribs. Weve invested lots of reserch and husbandry into developing thee animals and we dont need to remove wild herds of native cattle from existence (Actually , in the US, we have NO evidence of ANy wild herds of Bos cattle besides the Bison existing after the Pliocene) ALL cattle were brought to the US by the Spanish, French, and English and everything weve got now has been man reared. SO, Ill challenge the JApanese to try their hand at farming these animals (That at least would engage them in research well more advanced than mere tagging and sampling of DNA.

Everything , In my mind, that the Japanese have espoused to continue their "reserach" is bogus logic. They dont respect ANY limits to their fishing grounds

They dont respect the SOuthern Sanctuary

They wont **** with the US Navy in our coastal whale claims and continental shelves, They merely head for an area that is pretty much the Somalia of ecosystems.

The JApanese are , in my mind, mere PIRATES of resources and are planning to be the agent of herd decimation in a manner that even their own research cannot yet predict. That is outrageous when viewed in itself.

I feel that the US should immediately raise our prices of all the seafood resources we provide the JApanese. STuff that doesnt hit our plates buit is big time eatin in JApan, (stuff like roe , herring, roe, sea cucumbers, lampreys,etc) and apply some of the excess fees to support honest to God real cetacean research (especially a crash program on Minke populations So that the numbers that represent species sustainability can even be documented).

Japanes fishing, has been solely resposnisble for driving several species to the brink, so Ive got no confidence that they are "doing the right thing".

Those of you who support a free market approach on this have yet to answer someones earlier question of "If the Jqapanese can poach whales in the SOuthern Oceans, and they arent linked to that ecosystem, what is our fair shgare of the Southern Ocean ecosystem so that we can divvy up our ahare of whales ?
I think thats a fair question because an annual haul of 1% of a species population is kinda large in my mind.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I find it central to the scientific position of even regulating whaling as an industry. Minkes are well under 1/2 of their historical population and yet, even without ANY real data on population ecology and possible genetic bottlenecking, sveral nations are "killing for science".

Very interesting post....especially:

Quote:

I find it central to the scientific position of even regulating whaling as an industry. Minkes are well under 1/2 of their historical population and yet, even without ANY real data on population ecology and possible genetic bottlenecking, sveral nations are "killing for science".

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Because the argument seems to be totally ignored b y YOU and George ob. I find it central to the scientific position of even regulating whaling as an industry. Minkes are well under 1/2 of their historical population and yet, even without ANY real data on population ecology and possible genetic bottlenecking, sveral nations are "killing for science".

Farmerman, I've said over and over that I consider the preservation of the species to be a perfectly valid reason to forbid hunting the species. Your discussion with me started at this very point. My argument is against the position that says that regardless of the conservation argument whales should not be killed.

I'm all for the conservation argument but if applied the data would show a safe and sustainable quota for the Minke species (there's simply no way you could argue that a quota of 50 Minke whales out of a population of 600,000 to 700,000 threatens their species).

But the whaling debate has long moved past conservation. I have no qualm with the conservation argument. I'm arguing against the anthropomorphic mascot positions exclusively.

Quote:

They will be removing over 1% of the Southern Minke population each hunting year and the gestation period of a minke overshoots that.

The Minke has never been considered endangered. But if this is really the basis of your concern would you support a quota of 50 Minke whales per year out of well over half a million (600K-700K Southern Minke population)?

Quote:

So, the JApanese alone are removing more than can be replaced by normal breeding patterns. Hows that for sustainability?

If whaling were reduced to sustainable levels (and there is such a thing for the Minke population) would you still object to it? If so, that's why I avoid this quibble, if not that's actually a very interesting branch of this discussion that I've not found an interlocutor for on able2know.

Quote:

I believe that Im unambiguous about my position in accepting , as you call, "The special earth mascot" of whales.

But what does that mean in practice? Do you reject the killing of whales on principle (the farming challenge doesn't sound like it, except for the part where it's impossible)? Would you accept whaling at sustainable levels (at lest in theory, if you disagree about those levels in practice)?

If so, I have little qualm with how the mascot gig works in practice, if it means that its the basis of declaring whales off limits regardless of conservation then this is the kind of position I argue against.

Quote:

The passenger Pigeon was an example of your logic , when, in the late 1800's people said that, "There are so many passenger pigeons that we can hunt the **** out of them forever at no appreciable loss of stock"

You are putting words in my mouth. I have never advocated having no concern about species conservation.

Quote:

As I will continue to state, if the whale sushi industry wants to maintain the reataurants in Tokyo and provide freshh wjhale meat, let em try their hand at Minke Wrangling and not interfere with the wild herds of animals.

Just as weve done with the Bos animals, weve nanaged to create genetic variants that dont even exist in nature , and these are animals with big meaty frames, perfect for steaks and ribs.

A good indication that you aren't being reasonable is when you demand the impossible. Japan simply does not have the land to subscribe to your ideal of raising their own meat. They depend on wild seafood as a food resource.

Quote:

SO, Ill challenge the JApanese to try their hand at farming these animals (That at least would engage them in research well more advanced than mere tagging and sampling of DNA.

Hey, first you criticize them for hunting Minke without enough data on genetic bottling, but then at the same time dismiss their DNA sampling?

Quote:

Everything , In my mind, that the Japanese have espoused to continue their "reserach" is bogus logic. They dont respect ANY limits to their fishing grounds

I know of examples of limits Japan has respected in regard to fishing. I don't think you can substantiate your claim.

Quote:

They dont respect the SOuthern Sanctuary

Which has no legal basis. The Australians don't respect my Great Sheep Sanctuary either. I'm going to go ahead and declare the US a Great Beef Sanctuary. Enjoy your soy burgers or respect my sanctuary.

“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.” " Dennis the Peasant

Quote:

They wont **** with the US Navy in our coastal whale claims and continental shelves, They merely head for an area that is pretty much the Somalia of ecosystems.

The US Navy has no legal mandate to interfere with whaling and would not do so. And for reasons I'll explain later this is an odd saber to rattle.

Quote:

The JApanese are , in my mind, mere PIRATES of resources and are planning to be the agent of herd decimation in a manner that even their own research cannot yet predict. That is outrageous when viewed in itself.

If you make up the laws, I guess you can work yourself up into a lather and call them pirates. But it's the nuts that you support in Sea Shepherd who are attacking and boarding ships and breaking real laws. They are staging fake hostage scenes (they dump a guy on the ship and take off in their boats to claim he'd been taken hostage), staging fake shootings, trying to sabotage the ships, and causing collisions. But in your mind, the whalers who have every legal right to whale, are the pirates. It's awful convenient, if not the least bit objective.

But let's just say the Japanese are breaking the laws, according to farmerman:

Quote:

Sometimes a bit of anarchy is needed to get things corrected.

Quote:

I feel that the US should immediately raise our prices of all the seafood resources we provide the JApanese.

You know, US Alaskan natives take a catch of about 50 whales (of a population of 10,000) a year which is a lot greater a percentage of a population than the Japanese Minke catch (850 of over 600,000) but you defend their rights to whale for some odd reason. Why are you fixated on the Japanese Minke whaling?

Anyway, Reagan already used something similar, when he suspended Japanese fishing rights in the US economic zone in 1988 and it didn't stop Japanese whaling. But maybe something like this would work.

Kevin Rudd keeps promising[1],[2] that legal action is right around the corner if diplomacy fails, but I don't actually think he's doing much more than preaching to a domestic choir.

Australia cares the most and they haven't been willing to really rock the economic boat over it. I don't think enough people in America feel the way you do for America to do it either.

Quote:

Japanes fishing, has been solely resposnisble for driving several species to the brink, so Ive got no confidence that they are "doing the right thing".

You really could use some historical context for perspective. Little more than 50 years ago, the US of A built the Japanese whaling industry.

Quote:

It was General MacArthur, as military governor of Japan in 1945, who revived the practice of large-scale whaling to feed millions of Japanese who were on the verge of starvation after World War II.

[..]

Looking for a food stock for a nation used to eating fish, General MacArthur restored the deep-water whaling operation: the Japanese got the meat and the US got millions of dollars worth of oil.

You forget your country's role in this so very quickly and talking tough about our Navy is weird given that US naval officer, Lieutenant David McCracken ran the first Japanese whale hunt(which was also observed by an Australian).

Two decades later and the US is already calling them barbaric for this, and getting haughty with the nationalism? Serious perspective is in order.

Quote:

Those of you who support a free market approach on this have yet to answer someones earlier question of "If the Jqapanese can poach whales in the SOuthern Oceans, and they arent linked to that ecosystem, what is our fair shgare of the Southern Ocean ecosystem so that we can divvy up our ahare of whales ?

I actually like that proposed system of universal quotas (and the US can choose to spare theirs, Australia theirs etc) very much, it's the best idea I've heard yet in regard to overfishing. Such a system would be a lot better than the current one where a couple of Western countries arbitrarily make up rules about the whaling industry they just finished starting.

Quote:

I think thats a fair question because an annual haul of 1% of a species population is kinda large in my mind.

I am all for a whale conservation. If you want to discuss what is an acceptable catch I'm actually very interested. Japan would actually accept quotas for the resumption of whaling, what they object to is the hi-jacking of the whale conservation cause for the whale as a sacred cow cause. But use science to establish a sustainable quota and they'd accept it. Because of the sacred cow folk taking over the IWC the organization won't do so, so Japan issues their own quotas.

I have read of other whale populations growing at over 3% per year (the one I have in mind is the Bowhead population I cited earlier that US Natives hut), I don't know if 1% is unsustainable for the Southern Minke population.

I also don't actually think Japan will reach 1%, but what would you consider a safe quota?

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

When we accurately know what sustainable populations mean, and not just some arbitrary "well theres a lot more Minkes than we could kill to adversely affect their population" Is the same statement made about Passenger pigeons and Barren Ground Grizzlies.

Yes I say that 50 Bowheads is way too many but , the Innuit have a cultural argument for killing them. Will they slip to extinction? probably and I am saddened by that. HOWEVER, Im sure you know that pointing out one bad practice is a poor argument to try to support another.

IWC members (and non members)have internally fought with their own available scientific data. Its the old "Smoking doesnt cause lung cancer" except that "Whales can bve hunted in a manageable fashion and theres plenty of them to allow a limited harvest.

Hunting before adaption of any reccomendations based on sound science seems to be the practice out there in the Southern Oceans. BY the way, the original target for Minkes by the Japanese, wasnt 50 whales but 900 annually. Thats the number Im speaking of. From a purely business pov, 50 whales would require a capitolization that couldnt be recouped in the sushi market. AS far as oil, theres no whale oil that cannot be produced synthetically, even Spermacetti can be synthesized from a series of mercaptans and complex esters.

The target for Minkes WAS 900, and last year only 650 were taken due to Greenpeace and the Shepherds. GO SHEPS!!.

They also targeted the Minkes larger cousins of Finbacks at 50 of these species. No information re: sustainability nor any indication of where Japans numbers come from .

Remember, theres at least 2 other nations that are whaling , and no numbers of population losses due to ship collisions, parasitic disorientation , and accidental beaching are considered by any of the whaling countries

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
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.
Because the argument seems to be totally ignored b y YOU and George ob. I find it central to the scientific position of even regulating whaling as an industry. .....

It just occured to me that George OB has strong views on the subject because his shop has been mightily harassed by dolphins-and-whales activists objecting to the deployment of new sonars interfering with the inertial navigation sensors in the brains of these intelligent relatives of ours. There is considerable scientific evidence that the new sonars - the British and Australian navies are also supposed to be getting them - cause internal hemorrhaging, judging from autopsies of beached dolphins, or at the very least disorientation. The Navy is, however, making an effort not to turn on the sonars anywhere near any "biologicals"; I don't know if it's possible to adjust their operating frequencies so there's no overlap with marine mammals.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

When we accurately know what sustainable populations mean, and not just some arbitrary "well theres a lot more Minkes than we could kill to adversely affect their population"

I have no problem with that position in theory.

Quote:

Yes I say that 50 Bowheads is way too many but , the Innuit have a cultural argument for killing them. Will they slip to extinction? probably and I am saddened by that. HOWEVER, Im sure you know that pointing out one bad practice is a poor argument to try to support another.

I'm not convinced either is a bad practice. The Bowhead population is reportedly growing at a faster rate than it's being hunted by the Innuit. Frankly I am not swayed much at all by cultural arguments. If the action is not sustainable I want it to stop.

Quote:

IWC members (and non members)have internally fought with their own available scientific data.

The IWC was a whaling organization. Then countries that can't stand whaling joined and started using it to oppose whaling. In 1993 the head of the science department quit because they don't care about science (as it relates to conservation), they want no whaling.

The bad science is largely due to the opposition to whaling no longer being based in conservation science at all.

Quote:

Hunting before adaption of any reccomendations based on sound science seems to be the practice out there in the Southern Oceans. BY the way, the original target for Minkes by the Japanese, wasnt 50 whales but 900 annually.

Actually, it is 825 with 50 sperm whales, and it's a limit not a target. I used the 50 as an obviously sustainable number. If you object to 50/year then we aren't really quibbling over sustainability and conservation anymore.

Quote:

Thats the number Im speaking of. From a purely business pov, 50 whales would require a capitolization that couldnt be recouped in the sushi market.

As a strategic food resource Japan's government is willing to subsidize loss till profitable scales are sustainable, so it lacking profitability isn't going to stop them that easily.

Quote:

AS far as oil, theres no whale oil that cannot be produced synthetically, even Spermacetti can be synthesized from a series of mercaptans and complex esters.

Yup, and this is a big reason that the US switched sides.

Quote:

The target for Minkes WAS 900, and last year only 650 were taken due to Greenpeace and the Shepherds. GO SHEPS!!.

This is absolute nonsense on Sea Shepherd's part. Those self-aggrandizing liars who admit that deception is part of their strategy like to portray themselves as useful and claim they are the reason Japan doesn't reach their "targets". That is complete bullshit, these aren't "targets" they are self-imposed limits.

The Norwegians don't reach their self-imposed limits either, and those serial liars at Sea Shepherd are probably willing to take credit for that too. But all of this ignores that these limits are not targets and that there is often no such intention of catching the limit.

Quote:

They also targeted the Minkes larger cousins of Finbacks at 50 of these species. No information re: sustainability nor any indication of where Japans numbers come from .

In 20 years (from 1988 to 2008) they caught 13 of these whales. I think you are thinking of their yearly sperm whale quota but they only caught 45 sperm whales in the same 20 years.

Quote:

Remember, theres at least 2 other nations that are whaling , and no numbers of population losses due to ship collisions, parasitic disorientation , and accidental beaching are considered by any of the whaling countries

These are all valid conservation concerns. But I'm still not completely sure of your position at it's core. Do you accept sustainable whaling (with the obvious caveat that we may not agree if it is sustainable at specific levels) in principle?

0 Replies

There's been so much to respond to over the last couple of days. Bit by bit we might just get through it all!

But for now, some news I meant to post yesterday.:

Sea Shepherd lodges piracy complaint over Ady Gil ramming
January 9, 2010 - 2:01PM/SMH

Environment lobby group Sea Shepherd has lodged a piracy complaint in the Netherlands against the captain and crew of a Japanese ship that collided with one of its vessels.

"We have lodged a complaint of piracy with the Dutch prosecuting authority against the captain and crew of the Japanese vessel," Sea Shepherd legal representative Liesbeth Zegveld told AFP.

Quote:

"This was close to murder. It was such an extreme act that if no-one takes action now, we may have an even more serious incident in future."

The New Zealand-registered Ady Gil, a high-tech protest boat of the Sea Shepherd group, sank on Friday after being badly damaged in a collision with a Japanese ship, the Shonan Maru 2, two days earlier.

Both parties blame each other for the crash.

Zegveld claimed the collision was "an act of violence" and said the damage was close to $US1 million ($1.09 million). One of the crew suffered broken ribs.

Piracy enjoys universal jurisdiction, the lawyer said, and "any state is competent to deal with this case".

The Netherlands was chosen since one of the crew was Dutch and the Sea Shepherd's main ship, the Steve Irwin, is registered in the Netherlands.

"We want the crew of the Shonan Maru 2 to go to jail," Zegveld said. "We will bring a civil suit later to recoup the financial losses."

Prosecution spokeswoman Marieke van der Molen confirmed that a complaint had been received on Friday.

"There will be an initial examination before we decide whether or not to open a full investigation," she said.

Sea Shepherd claims to have saved hundreds of whales by chasing the Japanese whaling fleet.

AFP

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/sea-shepherd-lodges-piracy-complaint-over-ady-gil-ramming-20100109-lz90.html

1 Reply

@High Seas,

No that issue doesn't motivate me much. Besides the Navy will just pretend to comply. Moreover, modern detection techniques mean they don't use the active sonar that often. If they need it, law or no law, they will use it.

My concerns have more to do with individual freedom and the new wave of orthodoxy, this time based on illogical selections of "scientific" issues, being imposed on the world by the ever-present cadre of folks who are sure they know what's good for the rest of us and are always willing (even eager) to impose their prejudices on us. Religious intolerance is now being replaced by pseudo scientific intolerance.

There has been some good and, as well, a great deal of harmful nonsense done under the mantra of the Endangered Species Act here in the USA. Some of the most productive agricultural land in the country - the southern San Joaquin valley- is now barren as a result of a recent action under this law. More harmfully ,it has become a very useful tool for anti development interests who cynically use it to prevent beneficial human economic activities.

Here I should acknowledge that it can be turned against the orthodoxy as well. At Rocky Flats the EPA wanted us to haul away the top two meters of soil from a 2 x 2 mile area (and take it to a landfill in Nevada) because there was detectable plutonium in the soil (at extremely low levels). Never mind the fact that the local concentration of naturally-occurring thorium, which is also an alpha emitter and which behaves similarly chemically and in its biological pathways, was more than 10,000 times that of the plutonium - and itself constituted no real hazard. We tried many arguments to dissuade them from mandating this gigantic task (hundreds of thousands of big truckloads) including the likelihood that, based on NTSB statistics more people would die in the "remediation" than would be even be exposed over eons if it was left in place. Nothing worked - until one of my natural resources noted the then recent classification of the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse as a separate sub-species. Rocky Flats was one of its few remaining habitats on the Front Range ! We went to court, setting the Fish & Wildlife Brueaucrats against those of EPA and won ! (That was one of my most satisfying professional experiences.) About eight years later I read in a tiny article of some environmental journal that further study had revealed that the sub species designation of the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse had been rescinded - it wasn't that different from its cousins after all. "Never mind old friend", I thought, "you did your job".

There are many problems out there in the world, some more important and urgent than others. However the interests of organized issue groups generally don't consider relative risks and benefits and usually ignore the side effects of their advocated remedies altogether.

0 Replies

@msolga,

Meanwhile, back in Oz ....

Can't stand the man, but I agree with him on this one. (This could be a first! Surprised

) Oddly, the previous (conservative) Howard government had a much more proactive approach toward the goal ending whaling. It's minister for the environment even became a convert to the cause! Our current the Labor government, which promised to act as part of it's pre-election platform, appears to have done very little, if anything, & is getting a lot of flack from a variety of quarter at the moment.:

Abbott slams 'gutless' whaling investigation
Posted 9 hours 31 minutes ago
Updated 6 hours 25 minutes ago
ABC online News

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201001/r495892_2594946.jpg

Lost at sea: the Ady Gil sank after it was struck by a Japanese whaling vessel (Sea Shepherd: Glenn Lockitch)

Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says the Government's claim to be gathering evidence for legal action against the Japanese whaling industry is a lie.

Attention has turned to the Government's response to Japanese whaling after the Sea Shepherd's high-tech speedboat sank in the Southern Ocean yesterday morning.

Quote:

The Ady Gil's bow was sliced off on Wednesday by the Japanese security ship the Shonan Maru 2 and each side has blamed the other for the incident.

The Government says the Oceanic Viking is used to observe whaling and that its observations will be used as evidence in the International Law Court should diplomacy fail to stop the hunts.

Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard said yesterday the Government was taking action by collecting evidence about the killing of whales and putting diplomatic pressure on whaling countries.

"Well, before you can go to court, you have got to collect the evidence and we have done that as a Government," Ms Gillard told the Nine Network.

"The first thing we did is we got the Oceanic Viking out during a whaling season to collect the evidence."

But Mr Abbott says the Oceanic Viking has been specifically tasked not to go to the Southern Ocean where the whaling is taking place.

"There will be no credible third party evidence collected by the Rudd Government because they're too gutless to send the Oceanic Viking to the precise spot where the evidence could be gathered," he said.

"The Oceanic Viking, which is available for deployment to the Southern Ocean and which could go to the area of confrontation between the Japanese Whalers and the protesters has been specifically tasked to avoid that spot."

The Government has been accused of allowing Japan's importance as an export market to cause it to break a promise made before the 2007 election to take international legal action over the issue ...<cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/09/2788895.htm

1 Reply

Robert, Of the 6 populations of Bowheads, only the Chuckchi-Bering Sea population is seemingly stable. However, the entire popukation is about 60% gone from its pre-whaling population size. The estimates from IWC and (as reported in Wiki) vary all over the map. Several populations, including the Greenland Spitzbergen population, ARE hunted by Innuit and this population is facing extinction. We must look at the numbers freom all populations since the associations of the peripheries of each population represents the genetic diversity of the species.

The Minke numbers themselves , however, have NOT been agreed to by any representative of IWC. In this fact the IWC is being truthful and not acting under pressure. SOmething has taken the overall Minke populations down from its historical size. Like thye Northumberland Beluga whales, could they be also be affected by climate change and/ or pollution? Ive seen some reports that state that endocrine disrupters from simple products as DETERGENTS are affecting all marine populations and some to the extent that they may not recover.
Id like to see some good science and some peered consensus on just how large the whale populations really are before we swing the term "sustainabile harvesting "around for all to see.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Id like to see some good science and some peered consensus on just how large the whale populations really are before we swing the term "sustainabile harvesting "around for all to see.

Yes, indeed.

Good morning, farmer! Smile

0 Replies

OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know