OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

@msolga,

Quote:

Sometimes, Robert, I honestly believe you are splitting hairs, making large small side issues (in my opinion) as if they are of far more import than they actually are, for the purpose of argument.

any times Robert engages in issue avoidance by nuanced diversionary tactics. Im glad someone called him on it.

1 Reply

very good thread, I have learned information that I did not previously have.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

any times Robert engages in issue avoidance by nuanced diversionary tactics. Im glad someone called him on it.

That's just nonsense farmerman. My arguments are not intended as "diversions", even if you don't find them compelling (I didn't find many of yours compelling, but I don't try to portray them as intentional diversions).

For different people different things matter. I am not moved much at all by the historic culture angles of this debate, and when they came up I'd say as much and move on. But I don't then accuse you of using it for diversion "tactics" just because it didn't resonate with me, I think you bring it up because it means something to you, if not as much to me.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

So have I, but I still have one question: quite apart from everything else, why can't we support a fellow intelligent creature on purely esthetic grounds? Orcas (aka killer whales, though they're just large dolphins) are surpassingly beautiful:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/images/cetaceans/orca_spyhopping-noaa.jpg

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/killerwhale_photos.htm

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

So have I, but I still have one question: quite apart from everything else, why can't we support a fellow intelligent creature on purely esthetic grounds?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My objection to the magnificent whale angle (and I don't call it that to deride it, just as shorthand) is that this all depends on who gets to pick the mascot. If you let Australians pick it, we can't eat whales. If you let Indians pick it, we can't eat cows.

This particular round of this whaling debate opened my eyes to a way I can accept this argument though: consensus. My main qualm is with a couple of cultures being able to unilaterally dictate the food morality on subjective criteria. But my objection to the subjectivity largely goes away with democratization of the process.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

Quote:

very good thread, I have learned information that I did not previously have

Thank you. That's good to hear, dys. I hope you weren't alone in that.

Like Robert, I was often driven to much Googling for research purposes, to fill in newly discovered gaps in my own knowledge. Quite a number of farmer's posts required the same. I've learned a lot from farmer.
There were times, over the years of these two lengthy "whaling" threads & the resultant debates, that every single comment, every single opinion, required a link or quote for back up. Just to be sure one got one's facts straight. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, I suppose? Wink

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Cows aren't endangered, most whales are - and anyway nobody's forcing Indians to kill and eat cows.
Besides, I know you really think of whales and dolphins as beautiful - wasn't it you who once posted this picture?
http://seawayblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/close-encounters-of-whale-kind.html

http://www.sea-way.org/blog/Right_Whale_1.JPG

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

That's just nonsense farmerman. My arguments are not intended as "diversions",

Then I remove the term "nuanced". My comment was made in agreement with someone elses, not as my own (even though Ive been imporessed with many of your points herein that were simply funny. (For example you stated that much was learned from killing whales and the reearch was important to the effort. WHen we look at what the research report contains , this section contains information as to "How to kill whales effectively". If that misses the point of your argument I dont know what does. Kill whales to show that killing whales can be acomplished more effectively" misses the entire point of trying to show (YOUR ARGUMENT NOT MINE) that we are killing whales in a sustainable manner.

Ive agreed that the sustainability point may be my arguments "line in the sand". I may have to regrettably allow hunting of whales as an industrial practice .However, I will hold these nations in favor of the activity, to show us that what they target is truly a number based upon sustainability. Right now, We dont know and the IWC actually waffles its way by including my claims in its own charts of species tallies over 30 years.

Our use of the whale as " a planetary mascot" is an attempt to cutely deride the anti-whaling movement. I, however embrace it as a teachable motto that started as an attempt at derision. (WHen artists like Pisarro,Cezanne and Monet got the last laugh on the French Art establishment when they were derisively called "Impressionists").

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

Cows aren't endangered, most whales are - and anyway nobody's forcing Indians to kill and eat cows.

Bingo. The Indians (Hindu culture) accepted the status of Aditi because it was the BASIS of the original Indian culture. The milk, dray purposes of cattle, and uses of other products besides meat were, it has been said, so important that it overrode the cows use as meat. A large portion of the Hinu culture practices vegan lifestyles and so cattle were really not important as a food source. WHALES , as High Seas has said, are populationally stressed worldwide and that fact calls for us to not stress species even more by claiming that the Japanese are killing sustainably.
Thats just totally untrue and the IWC is engaged in running species "Lincoln Index " studies on as many species as they can because sevberal species are (even though not hunted) are disappearing from othger environmental stresses. Hinds also respect rats and monkeys (Hanuman). These species lik cows are being used for bushmeat in Africa , Asian Subcontinent, and SOuth AMerica. NAture Conservancy and others ARE trying to limit the killing of these and many other species on land, and Manatees in estuarine waters. So its not a choice of who selects what animal for snactuary. We are a curious species. We kill just about any species and will drive many species to extinction and meanwhile were beating our gums on these diversionary discussions as to what species are being hunted "Sustainably"

We produce, worldwide, an amount of cattle that also is not sustainable. These populations are maintained at levels waay higher than an areas ecological carrying capacity. Lets deal with whales on their own terms as species that are stressed, some are under hunting pressure, and gifted with a relatively long gestation period, need to be watched and hunting stopped and only after we determine the replacement numbers for whale species (Under present environmental condition sans hunting), then I guess Id have to accept an argument for "Sustainable hunting" . We are not there by any means.

PS, the title of Msolgas thread is, after all "OUTRAGE OVER WHALING"

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Cows aren't endangered, most whales are...

The problem is that the endangered argument doesn't achieve the goals in this thread of ending all whaling. Everyone here in this thread accepts that we should not kill endangered whales but not all whales are endangered so the issue for the whaling beyond those concerns remains.

Quote:

Besides, I know you really think of whales and dolphins as beautiful - wasn't it you who once posted this picture?

Yes, I love whales and dolphins and don't see their value as food myself (or any seafood for that matter) but I would like more than just that to tell others who don't feel that way what to eat. At least, a consensus on the beauty thing if we are going to use that.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Kill whales to show that killing whales can be acomplished more effectively" misses the entire point of trying to show (YOUR ARGUMENT NOT MINE) that we are killing whales in a sustainable manner.

But that was not my argument. My point was about the context of the research clause and the charge of duplicity in the nature of Japanese research. The value of the research is very different, of course, with different goals in whaling.

It was probably a point not worth making on this thread, which is why I recognize my pendantry, but I'm interested in the minutiae of this issue and am not intentionally trying to divert the discussion. To different people different facets of an argument matter to differing degrees.

Quote:

Our use of the whale as " a planetary mascot" is an attempt to cutely deride the anti-whaling movement.

For me it really isn't, it's just shorthand to distinguish between conservation arguments and the position that holds that regardless of conservation issues they are too special to kill at all. I think the offense caused by eating something is a completely valid part of a moral debate on it. The tricky part is in legislating between offenses objectively.

I find eating dogs very offensive in much the same raw emotional way that people find eating whales offensive.

Quote:

I, however embrace it as a teachable motto that started as an attempt at derision.

I've told you several times now that it is not an attempt at derision, so I think you embrace derision a wee bit too much.

Anywho, I'm going to try to discuss this topic on other threads so if you have more to say about me or my arguments on whaling I'd like to move them there. I'm going to start a food ethics thread right now for that.

Edit: and here it is.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

I'm going to start a food ethics thread right now for that

KEWL, My bushmeat is your pet

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
But should our lack of data necessarily preclude ALL harvesting of whales in the interim?
Im surprised that you cannot answer to the affirmative, after you made that eloquent discussion about anthropogenic climate change you seem to have closed off your own ears to the strong case you made to conclude that, indeed, the evidence supports a natural causation for climate change.

Wasnt that the very point you made? I thought , by presenting that side of Climate Change, you were somehow seeing my original point that sustainability must be based upon some strong evidence.

I agree that the sustainability studies you noted should be completed as a matter of priority. However, I don't believe that, in the absence of one, we should attempt to prohibit all whaling. Further I don't wish to see authoritarian rule by anyone ... not religious leaders, not scientists and not even Democrats or Republicans. We all share the same human nature and history provides numerous examples of the mischief almost always done by self-appointed elites with power.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

You appear to be a believer in allowing unfettered free reign to business interests to do as they choose with the world's natural resources, George. I don't share your view at all. I believe there are excellent cases for a bit of proactive intervention, so we don't find out, too late, that the harm done to a species, or to the environment, simply can't be "fixed". We have far too examples of that already & we really should know better by now.

1 Reply

@msolga,

I'm not advocating the abandonment of the existing limits on whaling.

It seems to me that the various nations of the world - Japan included - have been rather extremely "fettered" in their harvesting of whales. My impression is that the levels at which whales are being harvested now are precisely those thast accepted by the signatories of the applicable convention and are therefore reasonable.

I believe the essential question here is who gets to establish the limits others must abide by, or to use your metaphor, who gets to apply the fetters. You have one opinion, the Japanese evidently another. Japan is an advanced nation and itself does rather extensive studies of marine biology. They too have an interest in the preservation of the species in question. Does their opinion count for nothing in your view?

I run an environmental company that does rather extensive consulting for both government agencies and litigators under our Endangered Species law. I can tell you that there is usually very little agreement among the parties, natural science types included, as to what limits should be applied in various circumstances. Moreover we frequently encounter the most unscientific misuse of these laws (and sometimes even the "scientific data") by both claimants and occasionally regulators - all designed to achieve unrelated but foreordained outcomes. Indeed, I provided you with an example of my own knowing misuse of the law to achieve an unrelated outcome that I thought desirable.

Science only rarely provides us with clear unambiguous answers to such questions. Other usually subjective judgements are required regarding issues ranging from (1) how much risk or uncertainty in the desired outcome (preservationof the species) is acceptable; (2) what side effects on other species or human economic interests are acceptable; (3) and many others. These areas are usually where the real (and often unstated) disagreements lie. Resolving these kinds of issues is a political matter, not a scientific one.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I'm not advocating the abandonment of the existing limits on whaling.

It seems to me that the various nations of the world - Japan included - have been rather extremely "fettered" in their harvesting of whales. My impression is that the levels at which whales are being harvested now are precisely those thast accepted by the signatories of the applicable convention and are therefore reasonable.

In summarizing then, we are at a bit of a loggerhead. Weve "fettered" the Japanese because they havent yet determined the carrying capacity of the environment and what a sustainable catch is. Killing the whales and declaring that the catch is sustainable is just junk science and you are buying into the premise that the Japanese are "correct" in defining their catch limit. I reject that logic as totally specious, (outwardly appearing correct but actually laking in any rigor).

IWC on it technical sites, has presented the schedule in which they feel that the determination of replacement numbers for minke whales (And others) is actually occuring in the seas, so that we dont "fish" them into extinction.
The numbers of harvest sound small, and thats the error in many people accepting Minke catches from the Japanese sushi fleet.
The Japanese were doing DNA studies of killed whales and then, for some reason, quit. Im cynical enough to believe that their own DNA data shows the beginnings of a "bottleneck" in the Southern Minke communities. When the genetic diversity begeins to erode this is an early indicator of overfishing. Im still searching for genetic studies information in web data bases on the subject and have come up fairly MT.

Quote:

I run an environmental company that does rather extensive consulting for both government agencies and litigators under our Endangered Species law. I can tell you that there is usually very little agreement among the parties, natural science types included, as to what limits should be applied in various circumstances.

Then you are familiar with the level of evidence under DAubert for our courts. SUch is not the case for the IWC's determinations. The Japanese have, in essesnce ignored the initial population numbers, have declared unilaterally that the Minke catch is sustainable, and have ignored the concept of the SOuthern Snactuary. Were this taken to court in the US under US environmental and"Natural resource damage" claims, they Japanese would be hefting a tidy fine and judgements against them.
Its as if they have made NO case but are acting in a cavelier and ignorant manner and are expecting the cifilized world to "buy in" on an argument that is indefensible at this time.

Now, if your argument is that certain species protection criteria are overscoped, perhaps. However, even the presence of such target species as Bog Turtles or pup fish, do not discount a project from going forward, ESA requires a certain "setback" for the species in order to allow them to at least survive. In the case of the Minke whale, there is no decent batch of research that even hints at what a sustainable catch is.

Sorry fpr sounding like the recess bell but that is a fact of the matter and it keeps getting buried under eloqeunt arguments to the contrary.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I don't claim that the question of the sustainable catch of Minke whales has been determined finally. Though I know much less about the specifics on this matter than you, I certainly favor continued study of the question by all parties, and acknowledge that nations that do engage in whaling have an ethical obligation to support and participate in these studies and share their results with others.

As you have implied in your reference to generic "bottlenecks" in some whale communities, the objective criteria by which a "sustainable" catch could be determined are themselves open to some dispute and discussion. This illustrates my point that the determination of limits that may be applied by international agreements (among soverign nations) is an issue that goes beyond merely the biological progress of the species in question, and one that cannot be settled by scientific analysis alone. It is a political issue involving how communities of human beings choose to live together peacefully.

It does appear from your remarks that the Japanese have been less than fully cooperative and open in their dialogue with opponents on this issue. However, I must concede that I have not heard or read of the Japanese perspective on the matter, and I'm not willing to concede that they should have no voice in the resolution.

As you know there is also a substantial record of the knowing misuse of the law and the science behind it by both regulators and activists seeking more regulation and less economic development - the Spotted Owl controversy in the Pacific Northwest and the many cases of the doping of rubbing post data by regulators come quickly to mind here. (I'm even more personally familiar with the lies and quack science put forward in opposition to nuclear power.) I'm not suggesting that the environmentalists are uniquely evil, misguided or guilty of bad behavior; -- only that they, in pursuing their interests are, and have proven themselves to be, just as subject to self-delusion, selective rigging of data, and narrow-minded ignoring of inconvenient side effects as have their opponents in pursuing theirs.

That's why I consider this a political issue.

0 Replies

Quote:

Greens call for whaling surveillance
Posted 13 minutes ago/ABC online news

Sea Shepherd says its ship the Bob Barker was rammed by Japanese whaling ship the Yushin Maru 3. (Institute of Cetacean Research )

The (Australian) Greens say the latest incident between environmentalists and the Japanese whaling fleet reinforces the need for the Federal Government to send a surveillance boat to the Southern Ocean.

The Sea Shepherd group says its ship Bob Barker was rammed by a Japanese ship during a confrontation on Saturday afternoon, but the Japanese whaling fleet says it tried to avoid the collision.

Greens leader Bob Brown says the Federal Government should send the Navy to the area to film the whaling activity and any further clashes.

"Inevitably the presence of a surveillance ship will lower the tempo and make it safer for both the Sea Shepherd and the Japanese whalers, who should be getting a constant reminder that it's their job to leave and go back to Tokyo," he said.

Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt echoed Senator Brown's comments.

"It is time now finally to send a vessel to observe what is going on," he said.

"To be on hand in case of emergency, and to capture and chronicle for the world the slaughter of whales in Australian waters by Japanese whalers." ... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/07/2812630.htm

2 Replies

@msolga,

Perhaps Australia could simply sink a few of the whaling ships, or consider declaring war on Japan.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

That's a useful suggestion, George.

1 Reply

OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know