Home Politics & Debate
Fill out The Mix's Annual User Survey for a chance to win a £200 Amazon voucher, to shape our services, and get closer to earning a badge!
Need support urgently? Click here

Whaling - should the moratorium be lifted?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Its now 20 years since the International Whaling Commission imposed a complete ban on commercial whaling, after stocks were devasted in the mid-twentieth century by vast technologically sophisticated factory ships. However, some species of whale have now recovered to pre-exploitation numbers, and a few have even surpassed these numbers (e.g. minke whales).

Whaling nations (primarily Norway, Iceland, and Japan) are now pushing for and end to the moratorium and a resumption of limited, highly regulated commercial whaling. Some nations have threatened to leave the IWC and resume whaling under their own auspices, and Japan in particular is becoming increasingly fraustrated with what it considers the "cultural imperialist" attitude of the anti-whaling nations.

So should the IWC lift the ban on commercial whaling?

I think that its ridiculous to impose an indefinate ban on whaling when many stock are plentiful, its unfair to dictate to other cultures what renewable food sources they are allowed and not allowed to harvest on the basis of our perception of that particular resource.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If, and only if, it is done in a very very tightly controlled way I dont really have an issue with it.

    However, the Japanese case is a very odd one, they have been arguing for it for ages - but there is actually no demand for the meat, they are allowed to take some whales for 'scientific' study, and they try and sell the meat from them but most of the time it goes to waste.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Whaling should be 100% illegal imho.

    Get the navy to sink whaling vessels. I would do it if you gave me a Sub.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    However, the Japanese case is a very odd one, they have been arguing for it for ages - but there is actually no demand for the meat, they are allowed to take some whales for 'scientific' study, and they try and sell the meat from them but most of the time it goes to waste.

    I don't think thats right - do you have a source for it?

    I was under the impression that theres quite a lot of demand for whale meat in Japan, in fact theres a thriving black market for it, supplied in part by pirate whaling operations. Also in places like Korea, where genetic analysis of seized whalemeat has shown that some of it comes from highly endangered species of whale that have obviously been hunted illegally.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    Whaling should be 100% illegal imho.

    Why?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    I don't think thats right - do you have a source for it?
    The Japanese hunt and incredible 1,200 whales per year for "scientific research".

    The Japanese have to date produced precisely fuck all reserach gained by such indescribably large amount of specimens caught "for study".

    Anyone who believes Japan is catching whales for anything other than human consupmtion is extremely naive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    The Japanese hunt and incredible 1,200 whales per year for "scientific research".

    The Japanese have to date produced precisely fuck all reserach gained by such indescribably large amount of specimens caught "for study".

    Anyone who believes Japan is catching whales for anything other than human consupmtion is extremely naive.

    I was asking about his assertion that there is little or no demand for whalemeat, I'm well aware of Japan's scientific whaling. Actually, they have produced a lot of scientific findings from these activities, although of course its mainly motivated by the desire for whale meat.

    The point is that the IWC moratorium has forced them into this approach, because they're not allowed to hunt whales for commercial purposes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nobody is forcing them to hunt them for scientific reasons. And the reason Japan was banned from whaling commercially is because they, together with a few other nations, nearly drove several species of whale to extinction.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Nobody is forcing them to hunt them for scientific reasons.

    No but they're being forced to hunt whales under the guise of scientific study because the moratorium means that they aren't allowed to hunt them any other way
    And the reason Japan was banned from whaling commercially is because they, together with a few other nations, nearly drove several species of whale to extinction

    But now many species have recovered to pre-exploitation numbers, and even beyond. So why shouldn't they be able resume a limited and regulated hunt for these species?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    No but they're being forced to hunt whales under the guise of scientific study because the moratorium means that they aren't allowed to hunt them any other way
    That's a bit like saying drug dealers are being 'forced' to pose as doctors to their get hands in industrial amount of drugs because the law means they cannot get them any other way.

    What makes them special that they can hunt a species to extinction?

    [/quote]But now many species have recovered to pre-exploitation numbers, and even beyond. So why shouldn't they be able resume a limited and regulated hunt for these species?[/QUOTE] Perhaps because whales are highly intelligent mammals and because the best known way of hunting them is indescribably barbaric and cruel.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Perhaps because whales are highly intelligent mammals and because the best known way of hunting them is indescribably barbaric and cruel.

    So you're opposed to whaling on ethical grounds...

    But what gives us the right to dictate to other cultures what animals they are allowed to hunt for food? What if India were the most powerful country in the world and banned everyone else from eating cows? Or Israel insisted that nobody was allowed to eat pigs?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    So you're opposed to whaling on ethical grounds...
    On ethical as well as ecological. I remain unconvinced that Japan et al would be disciplined enough to stick to the species of which some claim there is now plenty stock of.
    But what gives us the right to dictate to other cultures what animals they are allowed to hunt for food? What if India were the most powerful country in the world and banned everyone else from eating cows? Or Israel insisted that nobody was allowed to eat pigs?
    If they were endangered species and if the only way of killing them was indescribably brutal and cruel they might have a point. But that isn't the case.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    I don't think thats right - do you have a source for it?

    I was under the impression that theres quite a lot of demand for whale meat in Japan, in fact theres a thriving black market for it, supplied in part by pirate whaling operations. Also in places like Korea, where genetic analysis of seized whalemeat has shown that some of it comes from highly endangered species of whale that have obviously been hunted illegally.

    Its true, the Japanese government spends alot to subsidise the meats sale just because they see whale hunting as part of their history.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    On ethical as well as ecological. I remain unconvinced that Japan et al would be disciplined enough to stick to the species of which some claim there is now plenty stock of.

    They wouldn't have to be, whaling would be stringently monitored by the IWC.
    If they were endangered species and if the only way of killing them was indescribably brutal and cruel they might have a point. But that isn't the case

    Well the whales that Japan/Norway/Iceland want to hunt are not endangered, and in fact (combined with the activities of man) are endangering their prey species of fish and krill because they are now so numerous. So your perspective rests entirely on the method of kill, which you describe as "indescribably brutal and cruel." But many cultures consider other culture's method of slaughter of animals "brutal" and "cruel:" that doesn't mean they have the right to impose their own ethical perspective on anyone else.

    Besides, I wouldn't say that the only way of killing them is "indescribably" brutal and cruel, they simply fire an explosive harpoon into the whale and most die instantly, the remaining minority within a couple of minutes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote: »
    Its true, the Japanese government spends alot to subsidise the meats sale just because they see whale hunting as part of their history.

    Do you have a source for this?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    They wouldn't have to be, whaling would be stringently monitored by the IWC.
    Yeah right. As if that is remotely possible.


    Well the whales that Japan/Norway/Iceland want to hunt are not endangered, and in fact (combined with the activities of man) are endangering their prey species of fish and krill because they are now so numerous.
    Out of curiosity are there any credible references for this?
    So your perspective rests entirely on the method of kill, which you describe as "indescribably brutal and cruel." But many cultures consider other culture's method of slaughter of animals "brutal" and "cruel:" that doesn't mean they have the right to impose their own ethical perspective on anyone else.
    I doubt there is a single culture in the world- and that includes Japan- that doesn't consider being harpooned repeteadly and taking long periods of time to die in agony and distress brutal and cruel. The difference is that Japan and the others don't give a shit that is cruel because they like the taste of whale meat.

    There isn't an argument more invalid and repugnant (in my view of course) that something should be allowed solely on the basis that is "part of someone's history and culture". What's wrong is wrong, and whether the practice has been practised by some people for a long time doesn't make it any better. Otherwise we would still be doing a lot of unpleasant things today from enslaving black Africans to burning women at the stake who who live alone and own a black cat.
    Besides, I wouldn't say that the only way of killing them is "indescribably" brutal and cruel, they simply fire an explosive harpoon into the whale and most die instantly, the remaining minority within a couple of minutes.
    I suggest you research that a little because it couldn't be further from the truth.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    carlito wrote: »
    Why?

    Because it is unecessary. And they are endangered. And that it is my belief that we can honestly live without this.

    Let's face it, WHY is cannabalism illegal even with consent?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Yeah right. As if that is remotely possible.

    Well it is possible, otherwise they wouldn't be able to enforce the moratorium or scientific whaling. Also, advances in technology since pre-moratorium exploitation now allow whales to be tracked using sonar, radio, and satellite.
    Out of curiosity are there any credible references for this?

    I'm sure you could find it in a quick internet search, I only have references to published work:
    -Cherfas, J., “Whalers Win the Numbers Game,” New Scientist, 134 (1992), pp. 12-13
    -Broch, Harald, “North Norwegian Whalers’ Conceptualization of Current Whale Management Conflicts,” in Freeman, Milton, (ed.) Elephants and Whales: Resources for Whom? (OPA, 1994)
    -Freeman, Milton, “Energy, Food Security and A.D. 2040: The Case for Sustainable Utilization of Whale Stocks,” Resource Management and Optimization 8, no.3-4 (1991), pp.235-44
    I doubt there is a single culture in the world- and that includes Japan- that doesn't consider being harpooned repeteadly and taking many hours to die in agony and distress brutal and cruel. The difference is that Japan and the others don't give a shit that is cruel because they like the taste of whale meat...I suggest you research that a little because it couldn't be further from the truth

    From Wikipedia:

    "In March 2003, Whalewatch, an umbrella group of 140 conservation and animal welfare groups from 55 countries published a report, Troubled Waters...They quoted figures that said 20% of Norwegian and 60% of Japanese-killed whales failed to die as soon as they had been harpooned. John Opdahl of the Norwegian embassy in London responded by saying that Norwegian authorities worked with the IWC to develop the most humane killing methods. He said that the average time taken for a whale to die after being shot was the same as or less than that of animals killed by big game hunters on safari. Whalers also say that the free-roaming lifestyle of whales followed by a quick death is less cruel than the long-term suffering of factory-farmed animals."

    So 80% of whales killed by Norway die instantly, and thats according to unconfirmed figures from an anti-whaling umbrella group. Admittedly only 40% of Japanese whales die instantly (the vast majority of the rest taking a couple of minutes), but the Norweigan experience shows that it is possible to hunt them humanely. Obviously stringent standards should be demanded of any commercial whalers to try and minimise any suffering.

    Again, because you consider something wrong (especially when you are ill informed about the issue) it doesn't mean you should be allowed to impose your perspective on other cultures.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    Because it is unecessary. And they are endangered. And that it is my belief that we can honestly live without this.

    Firstly, the whales that whaling nations want to hunt aren't endangered. Secondly, what do you consider "necessary"? It is not "necessary" to kill and eat any animals, so should we ban all meat-eating? We could live without a lot of things, doesn't mean we should ban them.

    Also, I'll repeat my point from before, whales consume an enormous amount of fish and krill, many scientists have pointed out that as whale populations recover and surpass pre-exploitation numbers they could contribute to the catastrophic collapse of many fisheries. So we could live without hunting whales, but could we live without fish as well?
    Let's face it, WHY is cannabalism illegal even with consent?

    Well I don't think that cannabalism should be illegal, I don't see any reason why if thats what people want to do. But its a completely different issue because humans are necessarily differentiated from animals.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    Well it is possible, otherwise they wouldn't be able to enforce the moratorium or scientific whaling. Also, advances in technology since pre-moratorium exploitation now allow whales to be tracked using sonar, radio, and satellite.
    Being able to track ships doesn't mean they're going to know what they are fishing.


    I'm sure you could find it in a quick internet search, I only have references to published work:
    -Cherfas, J., “Whalers Win the Numbers Game,” New Scientist, 134 (1992), pp. 12-13
    -Broch, Harald, “North Norwegian Whalers’ Conceptualization of Current Whale Management Conflicts,” in Freeman, Milton, (ed.) Elephants and Whales: Resources for Whom? (OPA, 1994)
    -Freeman, Milton, “Energy, Food Security and A.D. 2040: The Case for Sustainable Utilization of Whale Stocks,” Resource Management and Optimization 8, no.3-4 (1991), pp.235-44
    Thanks for that, even if the 2nd, 3rd and 4th references don't sound exactly impartial.

    Others seem to think many estimates are wrong:
    The International Whaling Commission (IWC) says there are fewer minke whales in the southern oceans than it had thought.

    The IWC scientific committee said the true number was probably "appreciably lower" than the 760,000 estimate accepted till now.

    It said it could not rule out the possibility that the Antarctic minke population had suffered a decline, which could be continuing.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/817238.stm
    Norway resumed commercial whaling in 1993 as an attempt by the political party in power at the time to gain popularity in northern Norway.

    In order to justify its hunt, Norwegian scientists calculated a population estimate, which was later found to be much higher than the data supported.
    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/save-our-seas-2/save-the-whales/norwegian-whaling

    From Wikipedia:

    "In March 2003, Whalewatch, an umbrella group of 140 conservation and animal welfare groups from 55 countries published a report, Troubled Waters...They quoted figures that said 20% of Norwegian and 60% of Japanese-killed whales failed to die as soon as they had been harpooned. John Opdahl of the Norwegian embassy in London responded by saying that Norwegian authorities worked with the IWC to develop the most humane killing methods. He said that the average time taken for a whale to die after being shot was the same as or less than that of animals killed by big game hunters on safari. Whalers also say that the free-roaming lifestyle of whales followed by a quick death is less cruel than the long-term suffering of factory-farmed animals."

    So 80% of whales killed by Norway die instantly, and thats according to unconfirmed figures from an anti-whaling umbrella group. Admittedly only 40% of Japanese whales die instantly (the vast majority of the rest taking a couple of minutes), but the Norweigan experience shows that it is possible to hunt them humanely. Obviously stringent standards should be demanded of any commercial whalers to try and minimise any suffering.

    Again, because you consider something wrong (especially when you are ill informed about the issue) it doesn't mean you should be allowed to impose your perspective on other cultures.

    Now let's look at that data from another angle:
    Whalewatch says Norway reported around 20% of whales failed to die instantaneously in 2002/3, and that Japan reported almost 60% were not killed outright.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3542987.stm

    In fact, all the data we have about how long it takes for the whales to die comes from the whalers themselves. It is impossible to corroborate the stories and very difficult to believe they are keeping an honest account- specially since they lie about the reasons behind their current whaling.

    Two other issues they don't mention is the large number of whales that escape after being struck. I'm quoting from memory as I cannot find the document I was looking at half hour ago but there are shockingly high number of whales that escape after being hit. Very little is known about what happens to them but there can be but one outcome for most of them: slow death.

    The other issue is when to know when a whale is dead. All whalers wait for is for the whale to stop flapping about. In fact many whales are still alive long after they have stopped moving.

    If whalers were to allow independent teams to go with all of them for a period of time and record their own findings, this fanciful 'two minute average' for whales to die would be shown for the monumental load of rubbish it is.

    Whichever way you look at it, whaling is an atrocious, unjustified, barbaric and nauseating practice on delicate, highly intelligent and constantly under threat mammals that has no place in a modern, so-called civilised world.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Being able to track ships doesn't mean they're going to know what they are fishing.

    No, its the whales that they are now able to track. This means that some are arguing for whales to be privatized as a resource.


    Thanks for that, even if the 2nd, 3rd and 4th references don't sound exactly impartial.

    Others seem to think many estimates are wrong:

    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/save-our-seas-2/save-the-whales/norwegian-whaling

    Now thats hardly an impartial source, is it?
    In fact, all the data we have about how long it takes for the whales to die comes from the whalers themselves. It is impossible to corroborate the stories and very difficult to believe they are keeping an honest account- specially since they lie about the reasons behind their current whaling.

    Two other issues they don't mention is the large number of whales that escape after being struck. I'm quoting from memory as I cannot find the document I was looking at half hour ago but there are shockingly high number of whales that escape after being hit. Very little is known about what happens to them but there can be but one outcome for most of them: slow death.

    The other issue is when to know when a whale is dead. All whalers wait for is for the whale to stop flapping about. In fact many whales are still alive long after they have stopped moving.

    If whalers were to allow independent teams to go with all of them for a period of time and record their own findings, this fanciful 'two minute average' for whales to die would be shown for the monumental load of rubbish it is.

    All this is assumption, the quoted figures are the best we have available. Also, independent observers are allowed on whaling expeditions.
    Whichever way you look at it, whaling is an atrocious, unjustified, barbaric and nauseating practice on delicate, highly intelligent and constantly under threat mammals that has no place in a modern, so-called civilised world

    But not "whichever way you look at it" in the slightest. The Norweigians, Icelandics, and Japanese don't look at it that way, for starters. And they are highly modern and civilized, probably more so than the UK. Whales are also not "constantly under threat" as has been shown, even the revised figures you quoted would allow substantial sustainable harvesting.

    Whales are an animal and we hunt, kill and use animals for a variety of puposes. Pigs are also highly intelligent mammals, and in the UK alone millions are subjected to a terrible life in confinement before being slaughtered and eaten. But we like eating pigs so thats allowed. But if another culture likes eating whales, and hunt them for this purpose, they are "atrocious, barbaric, uncivilized, and nauseating." I for one would prefer to be a whale who lived its entire life in the wild, free from humans, and then die in a couple of minutes after being hit with an explosive harpoon than be a pig confined in poor conditions for my entire life, tagged or branded, driven around by humans with sticks and then slaughtered in an abbotoir. But even if I would not prefer that, I wouldn't deny the right of other cultures to harvest a food source in the most humane way possible if they wanted to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest I don't see why not. if controlled its no worse than shooting game birds or stags (and is probably better than Tuna for example)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    I don't think thats right - do you have a source for it?

    I was under the impression that theres quite a lot of demand for whale meat in Japan, in fact theres a thriving black market for it, supplied in part by pirate whaling operations. Also in places like Korea, where genetic analysis of seized whalemeat has shown that some of it comes from highly endangered species of whale that have obviously been hunted illegally.


    they resorted to putting it in dog/cat food and in school dinners, what does that tell you of demand?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest I don't see why not. if controlled its no worse than shooting game birds or stags (and is probably better than Tuna for example)

    I agree.

    Take the Icelandic government for example, they give out hunting permission for an x amount of whales. It's the same as they do with reindeer. The hunting was never supposed to be permitted without regulating it. I'm fairly sure that we're regulating our fish stock better now than in a lot of other western countries. :thumb: A large part of the reason Iceland won't join EU is that we won't be able to regulate the fishing as we would like it to be.

    However I'll freely admit to my personal belief that Iceland has only started whaling again as some bizarre statement of independence and defiance. We got lots of bad rep for it and I think the politicians got off of telling others to fuck off. Well, it looks like some tourists did just that. The governments are more spineless. ;)
    There's zero demand for whale meat in Iceland and with the ban on selling to another country we can't export it to Japan (doubtful that there are any other buyers).

    There are many views on this matter. I don't oppose whaling per se, and don't buy in on the 'omg they're still going extinct' cries but I personally don't see a point in whaling right now. I do however believe that as humans are upsetting the balance of nature there comes a point where if we are regulating fish, we must also regulate the numbers of whales if evidence can be found that it is affecting the fish stock.

    But right now I think the effect of whales is not big enough to matter.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest I don't see why not. if controlled its no worse than shooting game birds or stags (and is probably better than Tuna for example)

    If whales are not endangered I think you might be right.

    But, still, I find something wrong about the idea of whaling...Inconsistent, I suppose as I support the right of individuals to hunt foxes but I don't really want to see Japan/Norway/Iceland whaling again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    No, its the whales that they are now able to track. This means that some are arguing for whales to be privatized as a resource.
    They cannot track all (or even a small percentage) of all the whales.

    The best they can do is check if fishing boats are in the vicinity of areas where certain species of whale are believed to be.

    At the end of the day they have no way on earth to check what the fishing boats are hunting. They could do spot checks on some of them as they arrive to port, at best.
    Now thats hardly an impartial source, is it?
    No they aren't. So we have contradicting reports on the numbers of whales out there. I say let's play it safe and leave them alone. It's not as if the survival on mankind depends on hunting whales anyway.


    All this is assumption, the quoted figures are the best we have available.
    They are the only we have available. And they are completely unreliable, seeing as they are given out by people who have a very marked interest in the matter.


    But not "whichever way you look at it" in the slightest. The Norweigians, Icelandics, and Japanese don't look at it that way, for starters. And they are highly modern and civilized, probably more so than the UK. Whales are also not "constantly under threat" as has been shown, even the revised figures you quoted would allow substantial sustainable harvesting.
    They might be modern and civilised in some areas, but they still can and do embark in barbaric practices.
    Whales are an animal and we hunt, kill and use animals for a variety of puposes. Pigs are also highly intelligent mammals, and in the UK alone millions are subjected to a terrible life in confinement before being slaughtered and eaten. But we like eating pigs so thats allowed. But if another culture likes eating whales, and hunt them for this purpose, they are "atrocious, barbaric, uncivilized, and nauseating."
    When they hunt highly intelligent, delicate and critical animals for the wellbeing of the entire marine ecosystem and the way they hunt is crude and gruesome it becomes barbaric, yes.

    Also, whale meat is a delicacy as opposed to a 'basic diet' meat that is part of the diet of billions of people. Little would be lost if whaling was banned forever, other than a less than 1% of the world's population stomping their feet because they have lost one of their favourite dishes.
    I for one would prefer to be a whale who lived its entire life in the wild, free from humans, and then die in a couple of minutes after being hit with an explosive harpoon than be a pig confined in poor conditions for my entire life, tagged or branded, driven around by humans with sticks and then slaughtered in an abbotoir. But even if I would not prefer that, I wouldn't deny the right of other cultures to harvest a food source in the most humane way possible if they wanted to.
    Many pigs don't live in poor conditions. And more to the point, it does not need to be like that. However there is no pretty way about hunting whales. And as I said below it's not as if entire countries are going to eat. Whale meat is a delicacy and an eccentricity. There are thousands of more abundant alternatives readily available. The price to pay for a few people to enjoy posh dish is simply too high.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    They cannot track all (or even a small percentage) of all the whales.

    The best they can do is check if fishing boats are in the vicinity of areas where certain species of whale are believed to be.

    At the end of the day they have no way on earth to check what the fishing boats are hunting. They could do spot checks on some of them as they arrive to port, at best.

    Well, even if your right, this is all slightly irrelevant because if the IWC can't monitor commercial whaling then they cannot enforce the moratorium either.

    Also, don't forget that the IWC is a voluntary organization. If they continue an indefinite ban on whaling then eventually whaling nations will just withdraw from it (or join an alternative organization) and resume whaling without any kind of regulation.
    They might be modern and civilised in some areas, but they still can and do embark in barbaric practices.

    When they hunt highly intelligent, delicate and critical animals for the wellbeing of the entire marine ecosystem and the way they hunt is crude and gruesome it becomes barbaric, yes.

    Also, whale meat is a delicacy as opposed to a 'basic diet' meat that is part of the diet of billions of people. Little would be lost if whaling was banned forever, other than a less than 1% of the world's population stomping their feet because they have lost one of their favourite dishes.

    Many pigs don't live in poor conditions. And more to the point, it does not need to be like that. However there is no pretty way about hunting whales. And as I said below it's not as if entire countries are going to eat. Whale meat is a delicacy and an eccentricity. There are thousands of more abundant alternatives readily available. The price to pay for a few people to enjoy posh dish is simply too high

    So what your saying is that because those who want to eat whale are a small minority, it is acceptable to ban it, and right to ban it because you consider whaling to be barbaric. Well, thats a tyranny of the majority. What you want to do is enforce your values onto other cultures that you don't fully understand: interesting considering what I would assume your general political position on imperialism is.

    Many pigs do live in fairly nice conditions, you're right. But many many more are farned intensively and live miserable lives. Thats the reality. Many people would also like meat-eating banned in general, because they consider it barbaric. I don't think you'd like it if you were told you weren't allowed to eat meat anymore. And for the record whale is not necessarily a "posh" dish, it is on school menus in Japan and available fairly cheaply in restaurants and supermarkets (also in Norway).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    Well, even if your right, this is all slightly irrelevant because if the IWC can't monitor commercial whaling then they cannot enforce the moratorium either.

    Also, don't forget that the IWC is a voluntary organization. If they continue an indefinite ban on whaling then eventually whaling nations will just withdraw from it (or join an alternative organization) and resume whaling without any kind of regulation.



    So what your saying is that because those who want to eat whale are a small minority, it is acceptable to ban it, and right to ban it because you consider whaling to be barbaric. Well, thats a tyranny of the majority. What you want to do is enforce your values onto other cultures that you don't fully understand: interesting considering what I would assume your general political position on imperialism is.

    Many pigs do live in fairly nice conditions, you're right. But many many more are farned intensively and live miserable lives. Thats the reality. Many people would also like meat-eating banned in general, because they consider it barbaric. I don't think you'd like it if you were told you weren't allowed to eat meat anymore. And for the record whale is not necessarily a "posh" dish, it is on school menus in Japan and available fairly cheaply in restaurants and supermarkets (also in Norway).

    the price of the whale meat overthe pastfew years has fallen dramatically and there isnt any need to kill more, the ones killed for 'scientific research' provide more than enough, having to put whale meat in pet food and school dinners doesnt class as a desired meat culrurally

    biased thing here:http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/A87959ABC9BB91C68025726F004C658B
    but some of the statisticson unwanted meat are shocking
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think Japan aren't too fussed really.

    They're hunting dolphins to extinction as well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    So what your saying is that because those who want to eat whale are a small minority, it is acceptable to ban it, and right to ban it because you consider whaling to be barbaric.
    No. It's a combination of factors.Whaling is barbaric plus whales are highly intelligent and delicate animals plus they are critical to the entire marine ecosystem and it would be an unimaginable disaster if some species were to disappear plus humans don't depend in any way whatsoever on whale meat consumption for their survival or wellbeing.

    Well, thats a tyranny of the majority.
    Better that than the tyranny of the minority- a tyranny that has no positive aspects other than satisfying the egos and taste buds of a few people.
    What you want to do is enforce your values onto other cultures that you don't fully understand: interesting considering what I would assume your general political position on imperialism is.
    What's not to understand? A few people like the taste of a certain meat and they are too greedy to stop consuming it even though their actions are barbaric and the potential consequences are catastrophic.

    As I said earlier, just because something has been done by a ''culture'' for a long time doesn't make it any more acceptable. What's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong, regardless of whether it is part of somebody's "culture".
    Many pigs do live in fairly nice conditions, you're right. But many many more are farned intensively and live miserable lives. Thats the reality. Many people would also like meat-eating banned in general, because they consider it barbaric. I don't think you'd like it if you were told you weren't allowed to eat meat anymore. And for the record whale is not necessarily a "posh" dish, it is on school menus in Japan and available fairly cheaply in restaurants and supermarkets (also in Norway).
    As I explained earlier whale meat it is a completely different proposition to pork (or poultry, or beef). It's a niche food consumed by few but which has already destabilised the fragile whale species too much and too often.

    We must stop thinking we can do whatever the fuck we want with this planet and its resources. There is nothing wrong with responsible eating. But there is a lot wrong with irresponsible and selfish eating habits.

    And for the record, whale meat is a delicacy and a niche food, one for which many Japanese don't actually have any time but which consumption and importance is exaggerated by the whaling lobby.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    No. It's a combination of factors.Whaling is barbaric plus whales are highly intelligent and delicate animals plus they are critical to the entire marine ecosystem and it would be an unimaginable disaster if some species were to disappear plus humans don't depend in any way whatsoever on whale meat consumption for their survival or wellbeing.

    Well, firstly they are not critical to the entire marine ecosystem. In all probability, if they were to become exctinct little would happen except stocks of krill and fish (and giant squid if you include sperm whales) would increase, which would actually be of benefit to humans. It would not be an "unimaginable disaster": although I do enjoy your constant hyperbole. Not that I am advocating the extinction of whales.

    Also, you say that humans don't depend on whale meat consumption for their survival or wellbeing: that is patently false. Firstly, significant numbers of people have been dependent on whaling for centuries, economically, socially, and culturally. So the ban on whaling does threaten the survival of these communities (and for some cultures their actual individual physical survivial, e.g. Inuits). Secondly, people's wellbeing does depend on the consumption of whalemeat, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to resume whaling. People don't like being bullied by far off political bodies who have no understanding of their cultures, and they like being able to harvest resources that their fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers have harvested.

    Whether whaling is "barbaric" or not is a purely normative matter.
    Better that than the tyranny of the minority- a tyranny that has no positive aspects other than satisfying the egos and taste buds of a few people.

    Well thats a very disingenuous way of putting it. I'd suggest that the biggest single positive aspect is allowing human beings to live independent lives free from coercion. The fact that it makes people proud of themselves and happy about their cultural heritage, and gives them food that they enjoy eating are of course also positive aspects.
    What's not to understand? A few people like the taste of a certain meat and they are too greedy to stop consuming it even though their actions are barbaric and the potential consequences are catastrophic.

    Again, "barbaric" is entirely normative. I wouldn't say they are greedy. Norway already operates commercial whaling outside the IWC, and has been conducting an entirely sustainable hunt for years. And as I've said the potential consequences are not catastrophic, and there is little indication that the resource would be overexploited.
    As I explained earlier whale meat it is a completely different proposition to pork (or poultry, or beef). It's a niche food consumed by few but which has already destabilised the fragile whale species too much and too often.

    We must stop thinking we can do whatever the fuck we want with this planet and its resources. There is nothing wrong with responsible eating. But there is a lot wrong with irresponsible and selfish eating habits.

    Whether it is a niche food or not is irrelevant. Because you consider a food "niche" does that mean its acceptable to stop other people consuming it? I don't see how that follows.

    The other assumption you make here is that the pre-moratorium over-exploitation of whales was perpetrated for food, which it was not. Whales were harvested on such an industrial scale for their oil, which was mainly used for making margerine, lighting, lubricants, and cosmetic products (amongst other things). UK, Norweigian, South African, American and later Japanese and Soviet whaling fleets made huge profits from whale oil, which is why whaling was so excessive. However, from the 1970s alternative sources (that were more economically viable) were developed for products previously made using whale oil, usually using petroleum but also vegetable oil (e.g. sunflower oil). So there is no reason to assume that a resumption of commercial whaling now would equal a resumption of overexploitation: in fact if what people have been saying about low demand for whale meat is true it would probably not even result in any extra whales being killed.

    I think you're being slightly dishonest in your argument. Its pretty clear that the whalers have indeed "won the numbers game:" the stocks they want to harvest have recovered to pre-exploitation levels. There is no serious conservation argument to be made.

    That leaves "barbaric"/ethical/intelligence/method of kill arguments, which is what I suspect is the reason why you oppose whaling.

    If that is why you wish to coerce people of another culture into not doing something you find distasteful, I say you should just be honest about it and not try and muddy the waters with conservation and "delicate ecosystem" arguments.
Sign In or Register to comment.