The Japs are at it again, so why do we care

[leon]

Hi Guys, well I probably be wiped from IIS, or banned, or both.

It appears that the Japs are at it again this year hunting and killing hundreds of whales for scientific purpose, not that anyone has seen the outcomes of their research, so it is probably all crap anyway.

Yep, I to love our big Ocean dwellers and wish that they were just left alone.

But is it because they, the whales are big and majestic, and totally harmless, that we jump up and down when they are killed and dragged aboard.

We don't mind millions of little fish, lambs, cows, and even Skippies being killed and put on our table, so what is it about the Whale thing, and don't come up with, well there is only so many left in the wild.

So if there were millions of whales it would be OK, just like millions of Tuna, Crayfish, you name it.

Buggered if I know, but i do like Skippy occasionally.

Leon

[Kevnool (Kev)]

Greenpeace will whoooop em

Cheers Kev.

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

I'm behind you 100% Leon.

[renormalised (Carl)]

This is nothing more than a failure of international law and no will on the part of any of the nations to actually do anything to stop it. The simple fact that the politicians are too willing to ultimately turn a blind eye and mouth platitudes is more than justification for a complete change in how things are run on this planet. When you have greedy self-interest dictating how countries interact with one another and the subsequent flagrant violations of international "law" and "treaties" (most of which aren't worth the paper they're written on), this is what you can expect. It's an excellent example of why the nation state is moribund and should be scraped. You will have no action being taken to save any population of any of the whale species whilst the present governmental system of this planet continues.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Kevnool

Greenpeace will whoooop em

Cheers Kev.

All they can do is make noise and maybe upset the whalers a bit. Their actions are token at best and will only slightly delay the inevitable. Good on them for trying and more kudos to them, but it'll take a lot more than getting in front of whaling boats to stop the trade and/or the "scientific research".

[casstony]

While the issue of killing animals for our food is complex, I'm completely against use of animals where suffering is involved. The whales suffer before they die and battery hens suffer for their entire lives, in contrast to a grass fed cow that can be killed instantly.

[Peter Ward]

So long as they would be restricted to a hand thrown harpoon, from a row boat, in the southern ocean, I'd say, by all means, let Japanese whalers have a go... but crikey, it would be a hard row back to Oaska with a whale in tow

[big_dav_2001 (Davin)]

Hi Leon,

I very intriguing question there mate, ive often wondered similar myself.

I think its more of an emotional attachment we have to these animals rather than any scientific data, or Greenie crap which makes the killing and eating of whales taboo.

Take dogs for example, there are some countries where Fido is served up regularly and are seen as a staple form of meat, it seems that the countries which use dogs as a form of meat have less (if any) emotional attachment to them as pets, and they are simply seen as another food source. Whilst i don't condone the practice, i certainly understand it. (please note that i make no racial judgement here at all, merely using this as an example and don't mean to offend anyone)

I think whaling is a simillar situation. Whilst many countries revere whales as beautiful and majestic, others look at them and see food, or oil, or whatever else they use them for. Again, I personally think its wrong to kill them, but that doesn't mean they're wrong for killing them.

Hindu culture is another example. What many non-Hindu Aussies see as a main source of food, cows/beef, is revered by some forms of Hindu culture as a god, or god-like. Does that mean we're wrong for killing them, or that they're wrong for revering them? Just because we see it as food, doesn't mean that some other culture doesn't see it as majestic and beautiful, and vice-versa. (again, no offense intended, merely using this as an example)

For me personally, worries start to arise when the rate at which they're being killed is called into question. These animals aren't a pest (like kangaroo's, rabbits etc), and they aren't from farmed stock (such as cattle and sheep), so i believe care should be taken to ensure that they aren't being killed faster than they can regenerate. But other than that, i see no problem in any country taking a couple, as long as the research is done to ensure that their numbers can be sustained and as long as they are killed in as humane a way as possible.

I should add that i work as a qualified butcher, so my opinion of the use of animals for food purposes may be a little biased, but just thought id offer my opinion.

Davin

[big_dav_2001 (Davin)]

I just reallised that my previous post may be taken incorrectly and may be a little unpopular, so please let me explain.

I what im trying to say is that i do not support whaling in any way, shape, or form, but i do understand it.

Care should be taken to ensure that numbers are sustainable, but i think that just because our culture says its wrong doesnt make it wrong.

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

Originally Posted by casstony

and battery hens suffer for their entire lives

I used to buy the battery farm culls instead of buying point of lay from the produce agency.
Its was wonderful watching them as they learned to walk properly and scratch and peck and hunt for bugs. And the first time they take a dust bath, oh boy.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by big_dav_2001

I just reallised that my previous post may be taken incorrectly and may be a little unpopular, so please let me explain.

I what im trying to say is that i do not support whaling in any way, shape, or form, but i do understand it.

Care should be taken to ensure that numbers are sustainable, but i think that just because our culture says its wrong doesnt make it wrong.

The problem is hunting them in any numbers is not sustainable. Most whale species only calve every 3-4 years and that's with a baby that usually gestates for 18 months. So, in actual fact, they have babies only once every 5-6 years on average. It takes them many years to mature to reproductive age (about the same as humans, some even longer) and an orphaned calf is as good as dead. Most of the whales, including Minke Whales, are now at the point where those taken are sub adults or smaller than what they used to be. Japan's so called "scientific" whaling is supposed to be restricted to Minke Whales, yet they know they've been hunting other species because they've done genetic tests on some of the meat that ends up in markets and restaurants. They've found Humpback, Fin, Right and others...even Blue Whale meat. All those other species are protected species. What's been done about it....nothing. The politicians of the other nations are gutless and/or don't really care at all. All they do is dance around the issues, make noise and hope the problem just blows over.

As far as belief systems and old cultural practices goes, don't get me started on those. It sufficient to say that if an old belief or cultural practice makes no sense anymore and is an anachronism and/or is possibly causing problems etc, then it needs to change. Humans have the capacity to change their ways and work towards a common good for everyone and everything. It's about time they start using that capacity.

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

I'm with Peter. Traditional hunting is fine with me, as long as it is carried out in the traditional manner. I'll go so far as to consider bolt action rifles and double barrel (not pump action) shotguns to be traditional.

Andrew

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by mithrandir

I'm with Peter. Traditional hunting is fine with me, as long as it is carried out in the traditional manner. I'll go so far as to consider bolt action rifles and double barrel (not pump action) shotguns to be traditional.

Andrew

Amongst peoples like the Inuit and such, fine. Where there's only a few killed a year it doesn't harm any population. But not to the point of commercialisation or for "scientific interest". In any case, most of the whale species these peoples hunt are the smaller ones....pilot whales etc, although some larger ones such as Northern Rights are occasionally taken. But it's like 2-4 per year/season, not 200, 600 or 1000 and more.

Even 20 is too many for any one group of people...even Inuit, because any one tribe never killed that many.

[big_dav_2001 (Davin)]

The problem is hunting them in any numbers is not sustainable. Most whale species only calve every 3-4 years and that's with a baby that usually gestates for 18 months. So, in actual fact, they have babies only once every 5-6 years on average. It takes them many years to mature to reproductive age (about the same as humans, some even longer) and an orphaned calf is as good as dead. Most of the whales, including Minke Whales, are now at the point where those taken are sub adults or smaller than what they used to be. Japan's so called "scientific" whaling is supposed to be restricted to Minke Whales, yet they know they've been hunting other species because they've done genetic tests on some of the meat that ends up in markets and restaurants. They've found Humpback, Fin, Right and others...even Blue Whale meat. All those other species are protected species. What's been done about it....nothing. The politicians of the other nations are gutless and/or don't really care at all. All they do is dance around the issues, make noise and hope the problem just blows over.

As i said, i'm a butcher, not a scientist. I have no idea of the gestation period/ reproduction rate of whales, i simply said that if a sustainable way of killing them can be found, regardless of the purpose, whats the harm?? As you've pointed out, sustainability may be close to impossible, so perhaps the practice should be extremely limited (although that may also prove to be impossible).

It sufficient to say that if an old belief or cultural practice makes no sense anymore and is an anachronism and/or is possibly causing problems etc, then it needs to change. Humans have the capacity to change their ways and work towards a common good for everyone and everything. It's about time they start using that capacity.

Makes sense to whom??. What gives me or anyone else the right to change try and change another cultures practices and beliefs just because i don't understand them? The practices make sense to them that's the important part. When cultures start questioning the importance of their own values/beliefs/practices, then it should be up to them to change them, the change should not be forced upon them by an outside culture because simply because the outside culture doesn't understand.

[TrevorW]

Maybe it's the intelligence thing we feel affinity with an intelligent mammal as we would a dog, cat, chimp or dolphin

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by big_dav_2001

As i said, i'm a butcher, not a scientist. I have no idea of the gestation period/ reproduction rate of whales, i simply said that if a sustainable way of killing them can be found, regardless of the purpose, whats the harm?? As you've pointed out, sustainability may be close to impossible, so perhaps the practice should be extremely limited (although that may also prove to be impossible).

That's why decisions regarding whaling are better left to those that know about the biology of whales and not to people who don't. Most of the public isn't informed enough, or knowledgeable enough, to make the right decision unless they're given completely unbiased information and helped in understanding the issues.

Originally Posted by big_dav_2001

Makes sense to whom??. What gives me or anyone else the right to change try and change another cultures practices and beliefs just because i don't understand them? The practices make sense to them that's the important part. When cultures start questioning the importance of their own values/beliefs/practices, then it should be up to them to change them, the change should not be forced upon them by an outside culture because simply because the outside culture doesn't understand.

It's upto the people concerned to change, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't listen to others in order to gain information and to make decisions based on new ideas and ways of doing things. Just because something makes sense to someone doesn't make it right, moral or ethical. Nor might it actually make any real sense when it's looked at in the cold hard light of logic and reality. Sometimes people won't change unless they're prompted to, or educated differently. Sometimes people have to be pushed into it because they're intransigent and just don't want to change. If in not changing they possibly jeopardise the well being of everyone else, then they should be forced to change. If any country acts like a spoilt and unwilling child, then they should be treated as such.

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

So Australians hunting turtle and dugong okay? In my view an wild kill needs to have two things covered, human kill and sustainable. As long as those are covered then we should rule things in or out.

[big_dav_2001 (Davin)]

That's why decisions regarding whaling are better left to those that know about the biology of whales and not to people who don't. Most of the public isn't informed enough, or knowledgeable enough, to make the right decision unless they're given completely unbiased information and helped in understanding the issues.

I agree completely, and i present myself as a good example of the uneducated majority. Obviously sustainable whaling would be impossible, so perhaps another way could be found to effectively control numbers killed? No idea how this might be done, but surely there is some sort middle-ground which can be found.

It's upto the people concerned to change, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't listen to others in order to gain information and to make decisions based on new ideas and ways of doing things. Just because something makes sense to someone doesn't make it right, moral or ethical. Nor might it actually make any real sense when it's looked at in the cold hard light of logic and reality. Sometimes people won't change unless they're prompted to, or educated differently. Sometimes people have to be pushed into it because they're intransigent and just don't want to change. If in not changing they possibly jeopardise the well being of everyone else, then they should be forced to change. If any country acts like a spoilt and unwilling child, then they should be treated as such.

Of course, all cultures should be open to changing their ways through education rather than force, if a better alternative can be found, but that also goes both ways. In this case, Japan could be shown that what they're doing is generally accepted as wrong, but i also think that we as a culture should realize that whaling is not taboo in all cultures, and what we see as majestic, others simply see as food. Which goes back to my answer to Leon's original question, apart from diminishing numbers, i think its those cultural differences and misunderstandings which make whaling so wrong when fishing/hunting Skippy's etc is OK

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

btw the inuit kill around 180 whales a year. Japan and Norway take a further 750 and 600 and the Faroese kill around 1000 pilot whales.

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Amongst peoples like the Inuit and such, fine. Where there's only a few killed a year it doesn't harm any population.

When I say "traditional hunting" I mean for your family, tribe or village's food supply. I do not mean trophy hunting where most of the kill is left to rot, or at best feed scavengers; or commercial interests like the Japanese whaling fleets.

Originally Posted by KenGee

So Australians hunting turtle and dugong okay? ...

Australian Aboriginal communities have that right on their traditional lands.

Originally Posted by KenGee

... In my view an wild kill needs to have two things covered, human kill and sustainable. As long as those are covered then we should rule things in or out.

Exactly.

Andrew