9
   

IWC, Whaling & Japan. Is whaling illegal? Is whaling wrong?

 
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 08:28 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
The problem with this is that you can't just make up laws and hope a case is brought up against it in this imaginary court. It's one thing to say whaling is wrong, but claiming it is illegal based on "natural law"
Youre parsing again RG. I was responding to Georges comment that implied that no laws are broken when these laws arent written by a single sovereign nation. (At least thats what I discerned from his statement)

Quote:
Wrong. The basis of my argument is the complete hypocrisy of people from Australia trying to tell other countries what to eat. I think them doing so is far more untoward than I find whaling.
. That is a component (although not the sole one. "Telling " a country what not to eat is more to the point. Often, we have to engage in some civil disobedience to gain a point. In this case the determination of whose actually being civil disobedient (The whalers or the SeaShepherd) is in hot debate.

Quote:
Minke whaling is sustainable, and there is no scientific evidence against that, which is why the IWC will have to capitulate or become a different organization.
Dont you think the burden of proof is on the party who wishes to do the extraction ? As there is no scientific data in SUPPORT of Minke whale taking, and the IWC has asked for separate reports on each of the populations of Minkes, I believe that they are looking more"long term" (which, in my book , is one of the precepts of "sustainable")
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 11:42 am
@Ionus,
You'll have to be more clear, Ionus.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 11:44 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
I guess Ill have to write a bigger check for more cement for the Sea Shepherds


Keep on supporting terrorism, FM, all the while condemning others for more justifiable actions. The hypocrisy is noted.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 01:10 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Keep on supporting terrorism, FM,
So far, the only ones whove been physically assaulted are Watson himself, and his crews. Hed recently been shot in the chest.

The Japanese are responsible for eco terrorism and robbery of resources and international treasures.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 01:14 pm
@Ionus,
No response to my question? Ok, my point is interested in where you get your point from? The harp seal population crashed in the 1970s till an international moratorium (similar to the IWC's) on harp seal allowed the population to rebound. Now the harp seal cull is based upon food uses by Innuit and the hunt is limited to weaned individuals and is governed by seasons and limits. NOW the Cull IS sustainable based upon some panic science and a moratorium.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 02:04 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
So far, the only ones whove been physically assaulted are Watson himself, and his crews. Hed recently been shot in the chest.


You know that that's simply not true and yet you state it as fact, Farmer. That group is actively engaged in criminal activity meant to impede a completely legal operation.

Quote:
The Japanese are responsible for eco terrorism and robbery of resources and international treasures.


Because they buy products from US fisherpeople, sanctioned and encouraged by US state and national governments. [rising intonation denotes a question]
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 05:13 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
No response to my question?
According to my math you gave me 5 hrs to respond. This assumes a great deal on very little evidence.

Now as to your question...harp seal hunting has neither decreased nor increased before it was stopped. The greenies over stated everything (they have never done that before have they ? ) to get guilt money. Harp seal hunting has been carried on for hundreds of years, but the red blood on the white snow was a huge money earner in the days of colour television. If it wasnt sustainable we wouldnt have harp seals. Greenpeace and others did not want the harp seal hunt to stop, they wanted to milk it. If this was not the case, why all the bullshit about kangaroos as soon as it stopped ? We now have more kangaroos then ever because of the increase in grasslands. In places, they are a man made plague. They wanted to milk the poor little cutesie kangaroo...ohhhhh...isnt that lovely....but they backed the wrong horse.

Quote:
Now the harp seal cull is based upon food uses by Innuit and the hunt is limited to weaned individuals and is governed by seasons and limits.

Limiting harp seal killing to native hunters is a bad idea. We tried that with the dugong and a group of aboriginees went out with high powered rifles in a speed boat and killed several for the fun of it, not eating a single one.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 05:18 pm
@JTT,
I have found that a lot of people who "support" animal rights have difficulty with humans. Whilst they might say it is terrible to lock up an animal, they insist on locking up people. They sympathise for an animal that has to perform for its food, but not for a prostitute.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 05:28 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
As there is no scientific data in SUPPORT of Minke whale taking, and the IWC has asked for separate reports on each of the populations of Minkes,
Surely you can see why they did that ? Each population will have numbers so small as to argue there should be no hunting for each individual population. You can do the same with anything. Some wanted to stop hunting all kangaroos whilst they investigated the "plight" (note the emotional term rather then a term like numbers) of the red kangaroo. The red kangaroo is not in grasslands used by farmers. The common kangaroo is. So despite hunting only common roos, they wanted to stop all hunting to save the red which wasnt in danger anyway. They will do the same with minkes.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 05:30 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
In this case the determination of whose actually being civil disobedient (The whalers or the SeaShepherd) is in hot debate.

You know the rules of the sea, I take it from your sailing interest, so who was wrong in the recent collision ?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 09:20 am
@Ionus,
Dont know, didnt see that one. LAst years was def a Japanese fault in that they cut power and rode the swell to damage the Mowat , which was turning port at last minute. YA NEVER CUT POWER or youll lose steering .

I didnt see this latest one. Know where I can find a view (these guys are always taking movies for their insurance companiies)
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 05:24 pm
@farmerman,
At the time the news had several videos from both points of view. The stealth boat was on the starboard of the whaler and both were pointed to intersecting paths. The stealth was motoring slowly and the whaler maintained speed to pass in front of the stealth, steering to port. The stealth did not alter course to avoid a collision. It appears the stealth sped up to go in front of the whaler, as they had done many times in the past, but for reasons known only to those commanding the stealth, they maintained a course and speed that collided with the whaler. This is the equivalent of changing lanes and speed repeatedly in front of a truck and when it hits your vehicle despite swerving you claim it was the trucks fault.

I havent found a full version of the video, which included the whaler, the stealth and the Sea Shephard but if you google it look for the collision dated about a month ago.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 05:29 pm
@Ionus,
Oh, I thought there had been a more recent collision.
Im not sure of the actual event but the guy on starboard has the OW. This was probably a collision that "was in the planning stage". Im sure the Japanese werent going to yield ROW and they had the mass on their side.
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 05:35 pm
@farmerman,
Ok, I just looked at the video of the most recent. In that case the Whaler had the ROW so the Bob Barker was at fault. But, the Japanese boat didnt attempt to avoid collision either so, for insurance purposes, Im not sure they could stand on any soapbox of morality flakes.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 06:13 pm
@farmerman,
The point I was leading up to is that if you have some yahoo racing across your bow all day you are going to collide, it is just a question of when. The primary responsibility of any captain is to not endanger his vessel. From one aspect the whaler is at fault for not steering behind the vehicle to its starboard, but the final moments show the stealth making no effort to avoid a collision, and it made no effort to avoid a collision before when it saw the whaler trying to pass in front. It's wake suggests it powered up to pass across the bow of the whaler, but for some reason it didnt. I wouldnt be surprised if it had developed steering problems and meant to swerve away from the whaler.

One video showed the crew on the stealth laughing and one of the crew said "ohhh here comes the whaler...I am sooo scared..(laughter) ". Obviously not a mature attitude to the risks at sea.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 10:42 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Youre parsing again RG. I was responding to Georges comment that implied that no laws are broken when these laws arent written by a single sovereign nation. (At least thats what I discerned from his statement)


No, I'm not "parsing" (whatever that deflection is supposed to mean) you have repeatedly called this activity "illegal" and I'm just pointing out that there's no legal basis upon which to do so.

Quote:
That is a component (although not the sole one. "Telling " a country what not to eat is more to the point. Often, we have to engage in some civil disobedience to gain a point. In this case the determination of whose actually being civil disobedient (The whalers or the SeaShepherd) is in hot debate.


Opposing whaling obviously doesn't have to have law on its side to be moral, in that I agree but there is simply no "debate" about whether whaling is illegal. There is inflated rhetoric that it is, and Australian politicians making promises to take nebulous legal actions, but beyond that all serious parties are pretty clear on what the actual laws are and there is little confusion in this regard.

Quote:
Dont you think the burden of proof is on the party who wishes to do the extraction ?


No, I don't. I think we should have the right to pursue our choice in food and that our choices should only be limited by social contracts (preferably democratic in nature) and that the burden of proof should be on the folks trying to tell others what not to eat, not vice versa. If they claim it's because it's endangered then they should substantiate the claim. Especially when the claim is just a song and dance and when they really wouldn't accept the science anyway.

But it doesn't really matter what I think, the law in this regard agrees and according to the IWC's founding legal instruments any sanctuary is supposed to be created on the basis of scientific evidence that it is necessary to protect whale populations.

That evidence is not forthcoming for the Southern Sanctuary, because it's not available. The Minke whale population can sustain a hunt and the IWC scientists quit in a huff when the IWC ignored the science and became a political organization against all whaling.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 10:57 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
In 2004, when reviewing the Southern Ocean Sanctuary (SOS), the Committee endorsed a number of recommendations that were to be implemented generically to the review of sanctuary proposals.

The purpose(s) of IWC Sanctuaries should be better articulated through a set of refined overall objectives (e.g., preserving species biodiversity; promoting recovery of depleted stocks; increasing whaling yield). In particular, the relationships between the RMP and the Sanctuary programme should be articulated.
Appropriate performance measures both for Sanctuaries in general, and the SOS in particular, should be developed. These performance measures should link the refined objectives of the SOS with monitoring programmes in the field.
Systematic inventory and research programmes should be established or further developed so as to build the required information base for a Sanctuary management plan and subsequent monitoring programmes.
A Sanctuary management plan should clearly outline the broad strategies and specific actions needed to achieve Sanctuary objectives.
A monitoring strategy that measures progress toward achieving the Sanctuary objectives should be developed and subsequently implemented. A key component of this monitoring strategy would be the development of tangible indicators to monitor progress.
Review criteria that reflect the goals and objectives of the Sanctuary (as described above) should be established.
The Sanctuary management plan should be refined periodically to account for ecological, oceanographic and possible other changes in an adaptive fashion.
In previous years, the Committee has received requests to review proposals for a South Atlantic Sanctuary and a South Pacific Sanctuary


Theres some of the policy thats not available from the IWC, OH wait... That was written BY the IWC.
SCientists who quit in a huff. because they disagreed with the "sanctuary". Ive been looking into the names of those whove quit. Ive only found one from U of Washington, who, as an avocation , i suppose, does consulting for the seafood industry.

I can only find information that the IWC scientific Commission is much larger now than its ever been.

I dont claim to be a cetacean ecologist and I hope you dont claim so either. My argument has been fairly consistent that Id like to see definitive data and evidence of population viability for the SOuthern Minke before I go out on some chat room and exclaim that theres enough Minkes out there to sustain a hunt.

If the Japanese are going to take up to 1000 per year, what about the other whaling interests, will they have an equal shot at the herd?
SCience does show that the population's genetic diversity os quite low, meaning that the population is at least 0.5 of its historical limit. The rule that cetacean ecology dwells on is that a viable hunt can only be based upon a herd that is > 1/2 of its historic high. Theres the real argument that isnt determined accurately. You can harp on and on about "sustainable hunting is now possible" Im not buying it and neither are the majority of the cetacean ecologists .











Quote:
I'm just pointing out that there's no legal basis upon which to do so.

We seem to be butting heads. You keep asserting the same thing again and again thius forcing me to keep defaulting to an international agreements establishing governing policies, I consider policy as equivalent to laws.
"It is the policy of the Internnal Revenue Service to...". Whenever that starts a phrase that youve transgressed, that is considered breaking a law, (even though IRS tax code is merely voluntary)
.
As far as US the CFRs that govern "seafood laws" are quite loaded with words on international governance of fish stocks (whales and dolphins and marine life like whale sharks and other depleted .stocks)
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 11:54 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Theres some of the policy thats not available from the IWC, OH wait... That was written BY the IWC.
SCientists who quit in a huff. because they disagreed with the "sanctuary". Ive been looking into the names of those whove quit. Ive only found one from U of Washington, who, as an avocation , i suppose, does consulting for the seafood industry.


You can't even come up with a legitimate ad hominem to attack the scientists who disagree with you so you just make them up out of thin air? You know, those scientists are showing a lot more intellectual honesty than you are. The IWC is dominated by anti-whaling interests right now, but when even they give scientific evidence of Minke whaling being sustainable you attack the IWC, but then fall back on accepting their authority (going so far as calling them the law) when they do things you like, such as declare the Southern Sanctuary arbitrarily.

Make up your mind, which is it?

Quote:
I dont claim to be a cetacean ecologist and I hope you dont claim so either. My argument has been fairly consistent that Id like to see definitive data and evidence of population viability for the SOuthern Minke before I go out on some chat room and exclaim that theres enough Minkes out there to sustain a hunt.


No, your positions has been to maintain that the science does not support the hunt, you don't have anything to support this position except for the insistence that you haven't seen anyone prove the negative to your assertion, but if anyone does bring data against it you dismiss them as being a shill for the whaling industry.

It's a self-serving and convenient position you've staked out. If evidence is provided you invent ad hominems against the messenger (your single stock and store here, if I debunk you it's "parsing" or some other deflection that fails to address what I say and instead tries to characterize how I say it negatively) and dismiss it, then go on to claim support for your argument by not having seen any evidence to contradict it.

Well I'm going to go out on a limb and posit that you don't see it because you don't want to.

Quote:
If the Japanese are going to take up to 1000 per year, what about the other whaling interests, will they have an equal shot at the herd?


I don't know but that has nothing at all do do with your repeated claims that the Minke population can't sustain a hunt. Personally I'd like to see the whaling quotas divided among all the nations with an interest in whales and to allow each nation to save their quota if they desire but either way it doesn't say anything about whether whaling is sustainable.

Quote:
The rule that cetacean ecology dwells on is that a viable hunt can only be based upon a herd that is > 1/2 of its historic high.


Nonsense, you should try to substantiate this claim. It's not contained in any of the catch limit algorithms I have studied.

Quote:
You can harp on and on about "sustainable hunting is now possible" Im not buying it and neither are the majority of the cetacean ecologists .


Really? I think you just make this kind of stuff up because it sounds good, but we can test this easily enough: what is the substantiation you have for this claim?

Quote:
We seem to be butting heads. You keep asserting the same thing again and again thius forcing me to keep defaulting to an international agreements establishing governing policies, I consider policy as equivalent to laws.


Let's get this straight farmerman, you keep saying that whaling is illegal. You have no basis to do so. I am merely pointing this out. I am not forcing you to keep making this argument, you do this out of your own free volition.

If you consider "policy as equivalent to laws" then I should inform you that you are a criminal in violation of the "law" (arbitrary policy, but as long as you are treating them equally) I made declaring pigs to be too intelligent to eat. After all my whimsical policy has all the authority of an actual law by your standards and any of your consumption of pork is now "illegal".

Do you take my arbitrary "laws" seriously? Of course not, and neither should the Japanese take the nonsense coming out of Australia about taking them to court seriously either. It's domestic political theater with no legal basis whatsoever.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 05:25 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
SCience does show that the population's genetic diversity os quite low, meaning that the population is at least 0.5 of its historical limit.
I have to say this is completely wrong. The same evidence "suggests" humans are in the same genetic situation but there are 7 billion of us, many times more than there have ever been. Are we endangered too ?
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 05:29 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
If you consider "policy as equivalent to laws" then I should inform you that you are a criminal in violation of the "law" (arbitrary policy, but as long as you are treating them equally) I made declaring pigs to be too intelligent to eat. After all my whimsical policy has all the authority of an actual law by your standards and any of your consumption of pork is now "illegal".


Oh, the humanity !! Crying or Very sad Wont someone please think of the little cockroaches ?! ??
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Tonight's VP debate - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Debate Topic - Question by silhouette
So, what am I missing? - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
Suffering - Discussion by EmilySue77
Intellectual confidence. - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
Is euthanasia acceptable? - Discussion by Starchild
Presidential Debate: Final Round! - Discussion by Diest TKO
Rhetoric and Fallacy: A Game For Debaters - Discussion by Diest TKO
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/18/2022 at 10:37:16