9
   

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

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 06:44 am
@Ionus,
Youre grabbin at the straws again IONUS,We, as a species, have the unique ability to contro,l our own environments and thus "breed" ourselves out of carrying capacity . The parallel for humans is disease and war.

Consider the human diversity "bottleneck" at the time that it occured. We, as a species were a few generations shy of becoming properly extinct. Good fortune prevailed and our species managed to doge the bullet. EVERYTHING about species is based upon fortunate genes and good luck. The chances to become extinct (in a natural environment) outweigh its not doing so, by 4 orders of magnitude.

All Thats only from the fossil record which shows that 99.999% of all life on earth goes extinct. Your view of human species is premature.We are too young a specis to have a decent environmental "track record".
So why should humans be dead set in favor of being the mechanism of extinction for a few species.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 06:51 am
@Ionus,
HArp seal hunting goes on at a controlled rate which makes my very argument. It was the cessation of hunting that allowed the species to recover and a sustainable hunt was developed
Quote:
Limiting harp seal killing to native hunters is a bad idea
That isnt what I said at all. I said that limiting the hunt to WEANED SEALS IS THE METHODS THAT ARE EMPLOYED NOW> Innuits use every part of the seal aqnd also sell the fur. What every your aborigines do with manatees is an invalid compqrison. Just because your folks are irresponsible doesnt imply that all aboriginals are.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 07:07 am
@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.


Surely you can do better than that.

" Policy "established as the consequence of a duly constituted treaty (under initial UN CHarters)has way more clout than some guy on a chat line wishing to start a pig sanctuary. BTW, we DO have several Pig Sanctuaries in the SW SOoran desert and the Gila Bend parks and in the SMokies. In these areas any Hunting is limited by season, permit, and number of individuals needing culling.(Seems when you propose a silly parellel you forget that there are probably ssuch "sanctuaries out there governed by US (and other countries in Europe where remaining mega fauna pigs still live)

Your view of the "whaling algorithms" is interesting. Ive been quoting the original ecology papaers that were done in the 90's' when, according to the data, the number of individuals in a species was considered problematic to hunting when the present population was less than 0.5 of its pre whaling (natural population estimates). The present estimates are done by Lincoln Indeces where its a catch and release method.
If you deny that the Minkes (entire world populations) are losing genetic diversity(which ois an indicator of pre-decline in a natural environment), lets see what youve got.

Im not married to any data package if its real stuff. But, why dont there appear any large "deep web" data lists of the genomes of the hunted whales by the Jaqpqnes?? Id say because their profit margin on each individual thats taken drives the "science".


Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 05:12 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
We, as a species, have the unique ability to contro,l our own environments
We have no more control over our environment than beavers, bees and ants.

Quote:
thus "breed" ourselves out of carrying capacity .
The majority of species do this...herd animals reach very large numbers in good conditions, insects reach plague proportions.

Quote:
We, as a species were a few generations shy of becoming properly extinct.
You have extrapolated fiction from the facts. Just because we come from a few doesnt mean there werent others around at the time.

Quote:
All Thats only from the fossil record which shows that 99.999% of all life on earth goes extinct.
??? Are you arguing whales are going to become extinct anyway, why bother ???

Quote:
So why should humans be dead set in favor of being the mechanism of extinction for a few species.
Now who is clutching at straws ? Dead set in favour ? Dont you think there are any other species who have been responsible for the extinction of others ? Is this a part of the terrible awful humans argument ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 05:18 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
HArp seal hunting goes on at a controlled rate which makes my very argument. It was the cessation of hunting that allowed the species to recover and a sustainable hunt was developed
This is totally incorrect. Scientists knew the hunt was sustainable. The Canadian government did its homework and supported the hunt against public pressure because it was sustainable. The greenies loved the hunt because it was a money earner.

Quote:
What every your aborigines do with manatees is an invalid compqrison.
So the eskimos (innuit are only one tribe) do not use high powered rifles or petrol driven engines in their snow mobiles and boats ?

Quote:
Just because your folks are irresponsible doesnt imply that all aboriginals are.
Just because you think all eskimos are responsible doesnt mean they all are...
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 05:36 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Just because you think all eskimos are responsible doesnt mean they all are...
The concept of Trust but Verify has been in practise by BIA since a looong time. Wanton Killing like feral animals isnt part of their heritage.


Quote:
Scientists knew the hunt was sustainable.
The fact that the entire HArp Seal population was decimated during the 50's and 60's led to a total moratorium. The resumption of hunting only came after a

1Rules of the clubbing size were promulgated and take limits established.

2Rules that stated only weaned individuals could be taken

4They established a tighter season so that the new borns werent affected

If thats not conservation , what is?

ID suggest you read a bit re the Canadian Fur seal reports and see how the population dexlined and then rebounded ONLY after a moratoriem on clubbing for about 15 years.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 05:53 am
@farmerman,
I forgot the main conservation point. The EU has begun to ban seal skin products from their market anyway so that the value of pelts has taken a dive in the last few yers. That will also be a nice conservation tool.

Furtaking is kind of a paleolithic trade. Killing animals just for their skins is something that has gone way over the top. Fur coats in the US arent a fashion statement anymore. Mist people realize that kiiling of other creatures is involved.(several of which are endangered).
I think that, in the near futire, the very few "sustainably taken" fur animals will be
farm raise mink and fisher
Nutria and muskrats
Alligator

Im not sure that even these markets will be practical until the burgeoning middle class markets of China and India become fur consumers on the scale that Europe, Russia, and US had been.

Fur is No longer a "look" in the US. Women wearing fur tend(IMHO) more to be working girls than society doyenne .

I used to do muskrat trapping as a kid. I was paid about 5$ for each prime pelt. Today the muskrat market is about 3.50 a pelt. Its almost not worth even doing. SO that too is a viable conservation means.

Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 05:45 pm
@farmerman,
You have lost me. You are aware that the seal hunt continues, arent you ? It is not just natives ?

Have you read the hype ? Inhumane clubbing, red blood on white snow, they are only babies....what drivel. I have tried to save humans who would have much preferred to be clubbed rather than the way they died.

Quote:
see how the population dexlined and then rebounded ONLY after a moratoriem on clubbing for about 15 years.
Be careful of reading greenie sources. They are very biased. The Canandian government allows the hunt to keep the population in limits that reduce starvation and disease that would occur if they become prolific. It is also a biodegradable aternate to synthetics.

I stand by what I said before...the greenies want the fur hunt to continue because it is a big money earner.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 05:48 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I think that, in the near futire, the very few "sustainably taken" fur animals will be
farm raise mink and fisher
Nutria and muskrats
Alligator
The greenies want them stopped also...and for people to stop buying synthetics..it seems everyone has to wear cotten or wool except the greenies dont like the greenhouse gases farm animals produce.

In short, greenies havent a clue.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 11:22 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Surely you can do better than that.


Like using pointless one-liners like this? Like gainsay without any attempt at substantiation? I probably could do better than that but it's still a sight better than what you are doing.

Quote:
Your view of the "whaling algorithms" is interesting. Ive been quoting the original ecology papaers that were done in the 90's'...


You "quoted" no such thing.

Quote:
...when, according to the data, the number of individuals in a species was considered problematic to hunting when the present population was less than 0.5 of its pre whaling (natural population estimates).


Nobody really has any idea what "pre whaling" populations were and this simply is not a basis for claiming "sustainability".

Sustainability means the action can be sustained over time in the present and future, regardless of what previous population numbers were.

Quote:
If you deny that the Minkes (entire world populations) are losing genetic diversity(which ois an indicator of pre-decline in a natural environment), lets see what youve got.


I've said no such thing. I asked you to substantiate your claims but you respond by asking me to substantiate claims I didn't even make.

I would love to introduce you to burden of proof.

Quote:
Im not married to any data package if its real stuff. But, why dont there appear any large "deep web" data lists of the genomes of the hunted whales by the Jaqpqnes?? Id say because their profit margin on each individual thats taken drives the "science".


It's now clear to me that you don't really actually follow any of this science at all because Japan has done genetic diversity studies. But this is another distraction from having to actually substantiate the claims you parrot so getting back to that:

You repeatedly claimed that Minke whaling is not sustainable. Once again, I ask that you please substantiate your claims.

And, in case there is any confusion, that doesn't mean asking me to substantiate the negative of your claim, or asking me to substantiate other unrelated claims I have never spoken about.
farmerman
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2010 08:43 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
You repeatedly claimed that Minke whaling is not sustainable.
From the top. I wish youd stop being dishonets in your posts. YOU were the one who claimed sustainability (without any substantiation even though IWC asks for population studies). You try to sound like you know what youre talking about when its obvious you do not. "Pre whale" population numbers whic have defined the genetic diversity (or lack thereof) are usual ecological metrics t (look up Lincoln Index) that help all kinds of population dynamic studies achieve decent scientific conclusions (NOT, as your hanging with , some "feel good" number because it sounds low).

Quote:
You repeatedly claimed that Minke whaling is not sustainable.
Sowly cause I understand youre not feeling well. I CLAIMED that WE DONT REALLY KNOW whats sustainable. We getalmost nothing from Japan whose doing the culling. AS far as the gtenetics testing, please find it for me, Ive looked and found precious little besides male female/weight and species.

Quote:
I've said no such thing.
You seem to imply that Minkes HAVE NOT lost any diversity. Therefore Ive assumed that youve got some genetic data that shows this. Youre claim that Japan has published same is a bit of a dodge
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Sun 7 Mar, 2010 12:44 pm
@farmerman,
I've made no claims whatsoever about the genetic diversity of the Minke whale.

1) You claimed that virtually all scientists in this field consider the population not able to sustain a hunt. You are not able to provide a shred of evidence for this.

2) You claimed that you are "quoting" papers from the "90s" when you make the claim that sustainability is defined by the genetic diversity in comparison to pre-whaling populations. You are not able to provide any such "quotes" to substantiate the claim that this is (or even was, in the 90s) the scientific consensus on how to determine sustainability.

Well if you won't bring a single shred of evidence to the table then this is really just pointless. You are going to keep telling me to prove the negative of your claim and if that kind of intellectual laziness doesn't merit much further effort on my part.
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 © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/25/2021 at 08:11:37