18
   

Earth to Msolga. Do you copy? Over!

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 08:09 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
there's an argument that can be made on the basis of level of sentience. It's an entirely amoral one and so moral indignation over the killing of whales does suggest immoral indifference to the killing of cows and turkeys.
It has nothing to do with the "level of sentience". Turkeys, cows, sheep, rabbits, pheasants, tilapia etc etc have been bred and morphologically altered by humans to be maintained at high numbers as food. ITS an artifical ecosystem totally managed by humans. I dont see how you can fail to see that.

Whales are a wild mammal population. Several whale species are still in recovery from almost being brught to extinction in the 19th century. Also, several species are in decline even after hunting had stopped for over 80 years. There is a concept of "critical mass" in a species wher a minimum number of individuals are needed to maintin genetic diversity and a healthy population with free interchange o genetic material. (When a population becomes fractured and dispersed (s had Humpbacks, and Right whales ; and total isolation os spcies (like the Blue whales) have left isolated populations that must be watched and administered with maritime cautions so as not to further iso;ate and lower the population to reach its lower critical mass.

Abriginal populations such as the Immuits and Athabasckans and a few other populations , are allowed by international treaties to take a limited number of whales for food. These populations have a heritage on using the whale as a resource. Even the aboriginals are monitored as to the numbers they can "Harvest" and they (as far as I know) stick to their allotmenst out of respctfor this vital resource.
The Japanese have no such argument. They are scamming you imto taking their side and even making the bogus comparisons to livestock.

NOONE raises whales as livestock They are ALL wild species subject to natural pressures and several new human induced ones. The Japanese are slowly culling Minkes and several species of large Finbacks with the argument that they are doing it sustainavbly.
Yet spendi (and you seem to agree with his silly logic) States that there are several ecological events occuring that are potentially decimating the world herds of Minke whales "So why not allow "Scientific research" even though the premise is a ruse and the whals are being sent to a growing yuppie market in JApan. They would eat panda tongues if it were shown to be some kind of "delicacy".

Now if that type of argument makes even a lick of sense to you then I guess Im just outnumbered.

I will continue to assert that whale "Harvesting" by breaching international treaties , is criminal. and by you adopying a "moral" argument, ostensibly derived from your deeply held Christian beliefs is, to me , laughable. Im an athesit who believes that there is a natuarl order for which only natural pressures and environmental pressures should be respomsible for the extinction of species. Weve come a long way from the caves and we should take reponsibility and act as The sentient species should.

Whales are NOT equal to livestock ,they are wild populations and should be managed as cross border species with international law governing their future viability. Everyone seems to havegiven Japan a pass on their illegal acts. They provide no backup data that supports their conclusion that they are having NO effects on the population of Minkes. They add up all the Minkes and claim them as one resident population. This is incorrect stats because Minkes are subject to rules of critical population mass as are the Humpbacks.

You have no data to support Japans assertions becasue all the data theyve been publishing uses bad population estimates and poor stats.

Whale gestation is in the oder of years , not weeks or months. The normal calf delivery is one every year and a half to over two years for the larger species.


Whales, are wild
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 08:18 pm
I have the strong suspicion that MsO is weighing in on this discussion via her thumb. If that's the case then I wish she'd step forth. If she's no longer here then that's her choice. But to allow others to make her case as surrogates doesn't do her or them any favors.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 08:25 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Whales, are wild


So are bears and deer and elk and moose but you don't rail against those who take them, O mighty hypocrite.

Quote:
Several whale species are still in recovery from almost being brught to extinction in the 19th century.


Gee, who was involved in that, Farmer? And what of buffalo, who brought them to the edge of extinction, who took them way below their "critical mass"?

You whine about whales but make no mention of the millions of innocent humans that you have helped slaughter with your silence.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 08:26 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

I have the strong suspicion that MsO is weighing in on this discussion via her thumb.

Sadly, she hasn't posted since Oct 23rd, right after her heated exchanges about the new ignore feature.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 08:27 pm
@engineer,
She's made it quite clear that she's quite comfortable with the choice she's made not to be here.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 08:29 pm
@JPB,
Quote:
I have the strong suspicion that MsO is weighing in on this discussion via her thumb.


She seems too honest for that juvenile practice, JPB.
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 09:00 pm
@JTT,
I don't see it as juvenile at all, JTT. If I'm right I hope she sees this as an invention to return to A2K. I've been on her side of the bus. I think I know how she feels.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 06:25 am
@JTT,
Quote:

So are bears and deer and elk and moose but you don't rail against those who take them, O mighty hypocrite
So these populations arent "livestok" You may have your head upyour ass but at least you try to maintain some flexibility. Im not trying to paint you into a corner with diatribes, your logic does it far better than I can.

Bears and deer are managed as a resident population within boundaries of a region. We have made huge investments in training and hiring game managers, Rangers, (What do you call em in UK?).
All these many folks (In Pa alone we have a state Fish nd Game staff of almost 2500 officers d staff who try to KEEP HUNTERS OM POACHING bears and deer etc. We arrest and prosecute these poachers, we dont turn our backs and give em a pss. We manage game and make frequent changes onto the populations density and diversity so as to maintain them in tip top consition and in suitable numbers for viability. Weve stopped hunting of certain furbearing species like wolves and otters and martens (ermine). WE FARM RISE THE FURBEARING SPECIES .
We only support 250 elk permits a year in Pa and we arrest nd prosecute those who dont follow the rules of numbers (The fines and prison time are pretty steep).
ALL this activity of management and enforcement is paid for by HUNTING LICENSE FEES.
Nothing even remotely like that has been agreed to for the JApanese. Theyve obliterated a treaty, theyve defied rules, theyve established quotas to which they attest that these numbers RE VIABLE. We all have to accept that these foxes will watch the henhouse really well for the whales sake. RIIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT

Youve gotta learn to connect ALL your nominative absolutes in a discussion. "Wild populatiobs" and Livestock " have two enturely different bases of being and Im surprised that youre trying to use them interconnectedly throughout your attempts to make a point.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 06:36 am
@farmerman,
Continuing any discussion re: whale hunting is done entirely in her memory, Im proud to say. Shes taken a lot of idiotic heat for her positions on the illegal whaling by a few nations (especially the JApanese). Im not going to abandon this argument on the bases of what someone like spendi hs tried to come up with.

I think olga would smile were she still around.
The arguments FOR commerial whaling are merely typical "free market bullshit" where the proponents would love to see us transported in our time machines back to the Gilded Age when no rules existed save "Make sure yer guns are loaded"
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 08:04 am
@farmerman,
An academic you say. You sound more like a drunken Finn, Farmer.

Quote:
Theyve obliterated a treaty, theyve defied rules, theyve established quotas to which they attest that these numbers RE VIABLE. We all have to accept that these foxes will watch the henhouse really well for the whales sake. RIIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT


You know who the real treaty busters are and the results are much worse than some dead whales. We should trust those who not only decimated the buffalo but who also committed cultural and actual genocide against Native Americans. We are to trust those who commit ongoing crimes against innocent people around the world.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 08:11 am
@JTT,
How about passenger pigeons? They didnt even taste good.
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 08:14 am
@farmerman,
How about Nicaraguans, or Vietnamese or Cambodians or Laotians or Afghans or Iraqis or Koreans or Guatemalans or ... ?

Your pretenses ring hollow, Farmer.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 08:45 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Theyve obliterated a treaty


They have not. The "treaty" specifically allows the right of a nation to ignore it. It is not a treaty therefore. It is more like a gentleman's agreement. Norway ignores it as well. Neither Norway or Japan has any interest in not maintaining a healthy whale population.

Extinction, which is hardly a consideration despite your critical mass sophistries, is a vital feature of evolution. And humans are part of evolution.

The protection of a range of endangered species has all the hallmarks of business exploitation. What an atheist evolutionist has to say about such matters evades my comprehension. Notice the HUNTING LICENSE FEES which implies a bureaucracy to administer them. Nice work I imagine.

Having some experience of the bureaucracy protecting listed buildings I know how jealously it protects its territory. People here have to put up with bats in their attics because it is a crime to even frighten them.

Basically it is the capitalisation of a created sentiment.

As I said earlier--only a vegan hermit can intelligibly take a moral stance.

If whales have no natural predator what it to stop them multiplying to the point of the oceans being clogged up with them?

BTW--declaring my points "silly" is not an argument.

I presume by "poaching" you mean taking an animal without authorisation.

Quote:
We have made huge investments in training and hiring game managers, Rangers, (What do you call em in UK?).


Wild life protection officers or somesuch. The huge investments in training and hiring game managers is in the service of finding jobs for those who find useful work distasteful on the Veblenesque principle of Waste=Status.

People have hunted wildlife the world over since time immemorial. To single out a few species for special attention is an affectation born of ambition.

Have you ever seen the mice and the moles after a field has been ploughed or foundations dug for buildings?

It's a minefield intellectually and getting on a high horse about it is ridiculous.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 09:20 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Extinction, which is hardly a consideration despite your critical mass sophistries, is a vital feature of evolution. And humans are part of evolution


So to become an agent of extinction is our mission? according to you

Your argumens dont make any better sense . AND the treaty is not a "gentlemens agreement" becuse opting our requires huge payments and oversight and several other reqirements that the JApanese do NOT honor.
Kind of like their arguments used to create Manchukuo.

AND , eating whale was an almost half in jest "modest proposal" by the conquerors of the Empire
spendius
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 09:35 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
So to become an agent of extinction is our mission? according to you


Yes but unconsciously in the main. Maintaining species for our entertainment, use or to make money or a reputation is not wildlife. We have a problem with germs and bacteria and insects but we will get there in the end if we are not interrupted.

Somebody once said, I forget who, that only the cuddly and the cute will survive man's exploitation of Nature.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 09:53 am
@spendius,
Quote:

Yes but unconsciously in the main
So the Japanese are unaware that they ve become an agent of extirpation of several species?


Quote:
Somebody once said, I forget who, that only the cuddly and the cute will survive man's exploitation of Nature
Thatwas Gentel, hes not given this much analysis either, since we protect several really ugly as **** species .
Ragman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 09:56 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

... since we protect several really ugly as **** species .


That's no way to talk about a guy's relatives. They can't help it that they ain't so purty. (sniff)
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 10:35 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
AND the treaty is not a "gentlemens agreement"


Quote:
IWC is a voluntary international organization and is not backed up by treaty. Therefore, the IWC, in essence, is a voluntary organization which has substantial practical limitations on its authority. First, any member countries are free to simply leave the organization and declare themselves not bound by it if they so wish. Second, any member state may opt out of any specific IWC regulation by lodging a formal objection to it within 90 days of the regulation coming into force[21] (such provisions are common in international agreements, on the logic that it is preferable to have parties remain within the agreements than opt out altogether). Third, the IWC has no ability to enforce any of its decisions through penalty imposition.

...

The pro-whaling nations accuse the IWC of basing these decisions upon "political and emotional" factors rather than upon scientific knowledge given that the IWC prohibits all whaling, even though its own Scientific Committee has concluded since 1991 that quotas on some species of whale would be sustainable. They argue the IWC has swayed from its original purpose and is attempting, under the guise of conservation, to essentially grant whales an entitlement to life via an absolute protection from being killed by humans for commercial purposes.[24]
Non-IWC whaling nations have expressed similar sentiments. Canada withdrew from the IWC after the vote to impose the moratorium, claiming that "[t]he ban was inconsistent with measures that had just been adopted by the IWC that were designed to allow harvests of stocks at safe levels."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commission


You still maintain that you are an academic, Farmer? I think it would be more than appropriate to change the name of this thread to "Earth to Farmerman".


farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 11:22 am
@JTT,
Quote:

Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary
.

Early in the 20th century, the rapacious global appetite for whale oil and other products drove whalers to the Southern Ocean, with disastrous results for whales. In 1994, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) established the Southern Ocean as a whale sanctuary called the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary (SOWS). Japan has continued to kill whales in the Sanctuary under an exemption for so-called "research whaling."
Background



In the years prior to the IWC’s historic 1982 decision setting all commercial catch limits to zero for an indefinite time (the “moratorium”), the Commission had already put in place a number of important protection measures, among which the setting of individual zero catch limits, over time, for all the large baleen whales in the Southern Hemisphere, a moratorium of indefinite duration on the catching of sperm whales, and a prohibition on pelagic whaling (i.e., whaling using factory ships accompanied by catcher boats) for all species and stocks except the minke whale. Thus the direct effect of the 1982 decision, as far as the Southern Ocean was concerned, was to set zero catch limits for the minke whale throughout the Southern Hemisphere, and to confirm all of the existing zero catch limits for the other species.


One of the main reasons for the 1982 decision was to allow the depleted species and populations an opportunity to recover, not only in terms of their abundance but also to permit them eventually to reassume a more robust and natural age and sex composition. This was further reinforced by the IWC’s subsequent decision, in 1994, to establish the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary (SOWS), covering the summer feeding grounds of an estimated 80-90% of the world’s whales. The rationale for creation of the SOWS included several elements, perhaps most importantly the need for long-term protection of all the whale species for which the IWC has acknowledged conservation responsibility (especially in the context of the development of the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) within the IWC’s Scientific Committee in the early 1990s). However, in contrast to the 1982 decision, the SOWS proposal included the concept of ecosystem restoration, with a view to healing the deeply wounded Southern Ocean ecosystem as a whole.

Current Issues

Some whale species and populations appear to be increasing under protection (view a poster of Southern Ocean whale and dolphin species) but it remains unclear to what extent the Southern Ocean ecosystem might return to anything like its biodiverse and biologically productive state before "modern whaling" began in the early 20th century. For a number of IWC members the SOWS was also part and parcel of a strategy of protecting the precious and unique Antarctic region as a whole. It was furthermore hoped that the creation of the sanctuary would encourage long-term non-lethal research on these populations, of a type and on a scale that had not been supported by Commission members until then. Since the 1982 decision came into force, however, government funding of research on the status of whales in the Southern Ocean has been largely directed to studies related to the possible resumption of commercial whaling on particular species.

While it is the IWC’s duty to monitor the consequences of its own decisions, prime among them the landmark decisions of 1982 and 1994, a unique opportunity to do so in the Southern Ocean has been lost by the IWC's failure so far to organize long-term surveillance of the region. The IWC's Scientific Committee now has no accepted estimate even of the approximate number of Southern Hemisphere minke whales. ASOC finds it remarkable that no attempt has yet been made by the IWC to estimate the numbers of the other baleen whale species from the second and third circumpolar sighting series conducted as part of the IWC’s International Decade of Cetacean Research (IDCR).

The research conducted in the Antarctic over the last two decades under Article VIII of the ICRW has involved the killing of nearly ten thousand minke whales and 13 fin whales. The majority of the IWC's Scientific Committee, and the Commission itself, have repeatedly said that this "scientific whaling" has contributed little or nothing either to information needed for proper management of any renewed whaling under Article V of the ICRW or to better scientific knowledge about whales in general. In particular, reviews carried out by the Scientific Committee have shown unequivocally that the JARPA (Japanese Whale Research Program under special permit in the Antarctic) programme has failed to attain any of its originally stated objectives, such as estimation of the natural mortality rate of minke whales and the nature of interactions among baleen whale species


This is principally to show that the Japanee are lying as to their "Sustinble whaling" and their "research" goals. Why are they lying is not to bypass the treaty(I and most others say it IS a treaty)

Perhaps you re the one who shoul read the entire substance o thetreaties. The estabishment of the Outhern Snctuary is the primary hunting ground and the imformation you post is initiated primarily bay and for JAPAN.



You seem to be posing some jealousy at academics. Waht subjects did you flunk? Are you still selling meat pies? Ye want chips wi at?
panzade
 
  5  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 12:31 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
She's made it quite clear that she's quite comfortable with the choice she's made not to be here.



If she had any doubts, this thread should confirm the wisdom of her choice.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Adding Tags to Threads - Discussion by Brandon9000
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Merry Andrew - Discussion by edgarblythe
Spot the April Fools gag yet? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Great New Look to A2K- Applause, Robert! - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Head count - Discussion by CalamityJane
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
The great migration - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/28/2022 at 01:02:54