Whale Wars - Activists or Terrorists

Remove all ads!

Snook, I take it back.

Duckula is disturbing. You're eccentric.

 

NOG:

I'm just pointing out that Japan is redundant. Anything it offers us, we can replace.

Nope. That's just one of several definitions. Given the context in which I used the term rival, I think it's obvious I meant the following:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:rival&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
"equal: be equal to in quality or ability; "

Despite being descendants of land mammals, and thus at an inherent disadvantage, whales still excel at life in the ocean, demonstrating a survival ability equal to that of sharks (and other fish), who have never really left the ocean.

It's interesting that note that even if we do adopt your definition of rivalry, I would still be correct. Orca and sperm whales do directly compete with sharks for food, and hell, even eat sharks.

Martaug asserted that:

"2) Whales aren't "rivals" to sharks they are food,"

Note that he didn't claim that: *Baleen* whales aren't "rivals" to sharks they are food.

Looks like you're just changing the rules after the fact.

Many things eat sharks when young, injured or ill. If that is a test of competence in the ocean, then every marine animal would fail it.

The point of top predators isn't even relevant to my observation about rivalry, I let myself get derailed by martaug. I just think it's hilarious how martaug styled sharks as the apex predators of the ocean, when in fact it is the orca whale who is considered *the* top predator. Now that he's been caught out, some particular posters are going "Oh, but we weren't talking about *those* whales. We're talking about baleen whales"

 

Nah, he just used an inaccurate term to describe japanese trading('sweatshops'), and was talked into a corner, resulting in his making some strange claims about Japan as a trade partner.
What I believe countD meant when he said sweatshops, was that japanese exports are high output, and the japanese work ethic is very strong too. Am I right?
Japanese culture strongly de-emphasizes individualism, and this is part of the reason why japanese still eat whales. Allow me to explain my reasoning:
The japanese work very long, and have little free time to relax and enjoy themselves. At home, they sleep with their wife, and often the children sleep between them (this isn't exclusive to Japan, but I'm just illustrating their lifestyle here). Often they have to arrange a babysitter and book a hotel room, just to have sex. This has lead, IMO, to rather strange and/or disturbing forms of sex, like bukkake.
Now the japanese are fearful of conflict, and often laugh nervously when confronted with a huge white guy (to the point that it feels insulting). In their culture, the connection between things that are large, and things that are god-like, is not far apart. Japanese history has been one of conflict, so they have learnt that large is strong, and strength means power, even if it isn't exhibited in everyday life.
So hopefully I haven't insulted anyone so far, and have managed to illustrate why the japanese like to eat whales. Perhaps you can guess?

Spoiler

The japanese have very little time to relax. When they eat whale meat, they feel very privileged to eat the meat of such a god-like creature. It's exclusive, and gives them the feeling they are wrapped in luxury. It is considered an effective way to enjoy what little spare time they have.

Unfortunately, this means that the harder it is for them to eat whale meat, the more they will want to eat it. It's a flaw in japanese mentality that is very hard to get rid of.
I also read that the whaling industry is a distraction from an even more disturbing practice by japanese fishermen, the overfishing of Tuna. Depleting Tuna populations will definitely affect the biodiversity of the oceans for the worse.

 

Lots of good discussion so far . . . . . & then we have countduckulas "contribution".(sigh)

Sorry countduckula you are still wrong. As has been stated japan is one of the top 5 economies in the world, to think you can just replace all they produce is beyond stupid it is idiocy. The sweatshop comment was just nonsense & never was explained beyond some weird dislike/hatred of the japanese.

In this discussion we were specifically discussing the whaling that takes place in antartic waters of 2 types of baleen whales. I'm sorry if you were not smart enough to figure this out. You chose to try to bring all whales into it.

Sperm whales & orcas are not direct competitors for (As an example) great white sharks.
Diet for orcas consists of salmon, herring, tuna, whales, dolphins & several of the filter feeder sharks(like basking & whale).
Sperm whales eat squid with some octopuses & rays thrown in.
Great whites eat fish, dolphins, porpoises, whale carcasses and pinnipeds(seals,sealions) & occasionally sea turtles(WTHeck?)
Now of these 3 which actively feed on the others? orcas eat other dolphins but don't have great whites as standard fare. A Great white sharks diet is over 50% dolphin & whale. Orcas are wonderful predators because they use very good pack tactics.

Please duckula, have something new to bring to the discussion other than bad comparisons to nazi's.
Also dont take the comments that i made about your comments as personal attacks against you. They are attacks against your comments.

 

But where is it said that whales that are currently being hunted, are the only species to be considered in the debate? The IWC may approve harvest of other species, or the 'pirate' countries of Japan, Norway and Iceland could decide at any moment that they'd like to try Orca-meat. It was an unspoken debating condition, so no wonder he didn't get the memo.

Anyway, thanks for the compliment, I like to debate about whaling. As a biologist, it's close to my heart.

Slight detail: I didn't say that whales were the apex predators in the food chain (though some are), I only said they were top predators high in the food chain. And the massive impact that an individual filter-feeder has on krill population, is disproportionate to its place in the food chain.

 

Yeah coin, i added a line at the end to explain that my comments were about his comments & not directly at him. Hope he understands the difference.

The only problem i have with this coin is that it is a catch-22, damned if we do & damned if we don't.

It is similar to deer hunting, since we have removed(or severly diminished) the natural predators of deer, the only thing keeping their population in check is hunting. When we ban hunting in an area for several years the population explodes until all the food has been eaten & the deer start to die off from starvation & increased accidents with humans. The only way to keep the herds at managable levels is to either institute hunting programs or reintroduce predators. Since it is very hard to reintroduce preds( & gets lots of opposition) the easist way is through hunting.

Now with the whales if we kill too many "the plankton will thrive as a result, this might lead to low oxygen in the deeper waters, causing underwater wastelands, and depletion of many fish stocks."
On the other hand if we allow the population to grow unchecked "the plankton will diminish, leading to a buildup of nutrients in the water. This would lead to red tides: massive growth of a single species of toxic red algae, killing fish, and darkening and choking the waters".

So what do you propose we do?
We also have to llok at the cultural histories of the whale hunting countries. A lot of them look at as a historical rite of their people & not as a right that can be argued away.
There is also more of a correlation with the deer hunting scenario in that shark populations have been devastated in the last 20 years.

 

This has more to do with Chinese and Taiwanese shark overfishing for their luxurious delicacy, Shark Fin Soup. It was on a CNN special lately, about the emerging middle class creating a huge market that urgently needs better regulation. It's funny how shark fins have barely any flavour, just texture. They like it because sharks are dangerous and powerful creatures, and because only the chinese royalty used to eat it. I wouldn't be surprised if whalemeat turned out to be tasteless too, not that I really want to know.

your deer hunting analogy is amusing, and reminds me of an old Futurama episode: "C'mon people, let's do some conservation!" <click-click!>
But you're talking about a population of non-endangered animals, that are at risk of overtaxing their ecosystem for lack of predation. I'm not fond of killing animals, but it is recognized as a method of population control for conservation.
In an ethics course we were presented with a dilemma of elephant overpopulation in a national park in africa, and asked what the most ethical method of population control was: Relocation, Sterilization or Killing. Relocation was considered to costly and distressing for the animal, with high risk of injury. Sterilization may have unforeseen consequences to the social structure, since they might sense if individuals were sterile, or they'd lose status in the herd because of having no offspring later. So the group concluded, to my amazement, that killing was the most humane.

You ask the question what to do with whales? Well, certainly don't hunt them while they're endangered. Sticking to the IWC's guidelines would be a bare minimum, but I think more is needed to sustain the environment. With our limited knowledge of complex ecosystems, the wisest course of action, is to leave things well alone. Hopefully whale numbers will recover, and no permanent damage was done to the ecological balance.
The moratorium on whales is perhaps mankind's greatest achievement in the field of conservation, and this is probably why you find the most radical conservationists there, on the frontlines. They have my respect and admiration.

Cultural history is a poor excuse for whale hunting, since Europe and America hunted whales even more than Asia. The rite of passage stories are just lame-o excuses for a simple industry. The industry ceased in other countries, when the whale numbers declined, and demand was met by other, better products. It won't be difficult for people in wealthy countries like Norway, Iceland and Japan to find another source of income, so no lives are at stake here. People's mentality towards whaling must be changed in these countries, so that demand will drop.

Why is it that conservatives always have the hardest time seeing the benefits of conservation?

 

Because we are ssstttuuubbbbbbooorrrnnn!!!

Actually most asian cultures seem to have a thing for weird food, just watched a show with foods from japan.
They had octopus ice cream, pit viper ice cream, fish fermented in rice for 5 years with no refridgeration, horse meat(oh man! trigger!) , blue fin tuna eyeballs & other delicacies(yuck to all of them)
You can find weird foods in most old cultures, we over here in the states are a little too young to have strange foods like(for example) blood pudding insects & spider crunchies(eewww spiders!!), live baby octopuses, still beating frog & snake hearts, etc. . . . . . . wait we have livermush!! it's kinda weird(and a southern thing)

The only problem with the IWC is that it is a strictly volunteer group(japan is talking about withdrawing from them) as most of the fishing is done in international waters & most countries are leery of letting other countries tell them what they can or can't do.
You also don't hear as much about the norway whaling activities even though they have a 1,000 whale a year quota(they withdrew from the IWC & don't follow any of their rules)

Oh yeah, minke whales aren't on the endangered list they are considered :
Lower Risk(Conservation Dependent) & Lower Risk(Least Concern) which are 2 & 4 stages away from endangered.
As far as the "they are intelligent" argument goes, pigs are extremely intelligent but millions are served up each year(& are very tasty)

 

On average, the norwegians 'only' hunt 75% of their quota (is this even more than the japanese? i think it is). But this is of a total population of like 110.000 in the north atlantic, if we are to trust that estimate. Pre-whaling levels put the optimum population at under 250.000, so they're still well below half. Now imagine if hunters came and took 750 individuals out of your hometown every year. Do you think the town could grow, or would it be doomed to shrink? And that's assuming whales have human reproductive speed, which they don't: Minke whale pregnancy cycle is 14 months, almost all of the females captured are pregnant (you can see this when figures show that half of the catch every year is pregnant). They're trying their darndest to repopulate the seas, but they just can't breed fast enough to undo the damage.

martaug, I haven't eaten pork for years, and when I do accidentally eat some, it's really heavy on the stomach. Pork isn't easy to digest, and the flavour of the fat is repulsive if you haven't eaten it for a long time. The most despicable delicacy I've heard of, is [warning - pretty disgusting]

Spoiler

live monkey's brains in Thailand. They claim the flavour is best if the monkey isn't dead when you scoop out its brains. Now that is just plain sadistic. Did the director of Hannibal get inspiration from this?

A minority of western tourists really get a kick out of this food. It's the same people that pay to eat endangered species, I think. Many are americans, who live by the 'work hard - play hard' mentality too.

 

Ahh but coin, the same sources that put the north atlantic population at 110,000 are the same ones that list the antartic population at 665,000 so i would think that the norwegian whaling would come under more protest as they are taking from a smaller population size.

Oh man, you just haven't tried the right BBQ yet.
Some of it's so good after you eat it you want to go home & smack yo' momma for not making you some when you were young!

Now cow & pig brains are eaten here in the south but i just never developed a taste for them. But then again pickled pigs feet & pickled pigs lips are eaten here too(hmmm, maybe we do have enough weird food here after all)

 

The people attacking the whaling ships are criminals, no doubt about it. Martaug's very first post says it all:

These filthy morons are more than willing to hide behind the law and the rights it provides but hold themselves above those same laws. Sorry, folks, but the law must apply to everyone if it is going to have any validity at all.

If I had nothing but time and money on my hands, I'd get a group of my friends together and find one of these do-gooder boats. Then I would illegally board it, foul their props, throw sticky flour bombs on their vessel, and ram them (with my boat, I mean, nothing kinky written here! Move along!) They'd be crying about my violations of international law and "law of the sea" faster than a stripper picks up thrown bills. They'd try hard to characterize me as a pirate, a terrorist, and a criminal. They would never once realize their own ridiculous hypocrisy because they are the most self-righteous, sanctimonious bastards on the planet.

I have no problem with them if they disagree with whaling. That's their right. They can take any and all legal steps, and hey, maybe even some ethically questionable ones, but the acts martaug describes are criminal in nature, no question about it. For that they should be punished the same way the Somali pirates should be punished and the way we would punish ANY person who committed similar acts on a vessel legally operating in international waters.

As for arming the Japanese boats, if some dork were about to ram my boat, I would interpret that as an act of aggression, and one that could cause grievous bodily harm to my crew and my livelihood. Therefore, I would say that the whalers have every right to respond with deadly force, in defense of their own lives.

As for Japanese society, I lived there for 2 years. It was a remarkably peaceful place. But they have centuries of violent history, and that doesn't just vanish overnight. I would say that given the right impetus and support, they could easily become a major military power again. They are also bloody crowded and food supplies are in demand. When other countries have such an incredibly high population density to deal with I'll consider listening to their criticisms of how the Japanese obtain food for their population. Until then, said countries should shut the<bleep> up.

 

I doubt Greenpeace would try to redefine the term pirate to apply it on their attackers, they would lose any credibility. Greenpeace attempts to disable whaling equipment without harming the crew on board. Some other organizations, like Sea Shepherd, go even further, and their hatred for whaling, like yours for conservation, has gone so far as to harm the crew as well. If I weren't a tight-arsed bastard, I'd still sponsor them, because I believe what they're doing is right and necessary. Your anger however, and maybe theirs too, is at the point where it could turn into bloodshed even death. That would be something I couldn't approve of. Their actions are still always focused on disabling the whaling equipment on board - what would *your* actions target, if you vandalized their boats? Such hatred rarely stays focused on inanimate objects...

I'm not sure if you read all the posts, but I made a point earlier about why we could see whalers as pirates, more even than conservationists, because they fit the *original* description: Robbery at sea.
martaug made a point in his last post, about norwegian whaling being more objectionable than japanese, because they're clearly taking more from a smaller population. I couldn't answer that back then, but I found the explanation on Sea Shepherd's website. Look at what they write about the International Whaling Commission's guidelines:

The IWC is the closest thing to a neutral organisation in this conflict, and neither parties agree with them completely. But Japan blatantly ignores its important conservation guidelines about whaling, and steals whales that could potentially be hunted by all countries in a controlled fashion in the future, were the population to recover to 54% of pre-whaling levels.
I'll repeat that I, as a biologist, also find it particularly unsulting that they're using the guise of scientific research to hunt in an international sanctuary.

I don't claim that you're underinformed, so should stop posting. Denying objecters the right of speech is an argument you often try to use, but in this case, it doesn't hold up. If they were talking about tunafish, which Japan also overfishes, and they claim that their people would starve if they didn't hunt it, then it might be less ridiculous. But it still wouldn't be true. Japan has ample options to ship in food to feed their populus, many poor countries would be happy to oblige.
This is like comparing the japanese hunting of whales as luxury food, to truffels or caviar, and saying that they'd starve if they didn't.
"If we don't overfish sharks for their fins, the chinese middle class would get no more Shark Fin Soup, and people would starve. You don't have to deal with these problems, so shut up."
Third world countries could also hunt whales, and once they start, it would be a free-for-all. Japan should be ashamed that it can't uphold one of the most important achievements in conservation, while even desperate countries don't indulge in it.

 

Aww yes, the IWC website, i was hoping someone would quote from their site. If you look at the 2006 resolutions, it includes this wonderful resolution.

http://www.iwcoffice.org/Meetings/resolutions/resolution2006.htm

This resolution was sponsored by the following countries:
St. Kitts and Nevis,
Antigua & Barbuda,
Benin,
Cambodia,
Cameroon,
Cote d’Ivoire,
Dominica,
Gabon,
Gambia,
Grenada,
Republic of Guinea,
Iceland,
Japan,
Kiribati,
Mali,
Republic of the Marshall Islands,
Mauritania,
Mongolia,
Morocco,
Nauru,
Nicaragua,
Norway,
Republic of Palau,
Russian Federation,
St. Lucia,
St. Vincent and the Grenadines,
Solomon Islands,
Suriname,
Togo,
Tuvalu.
Thats 35% of all the member nations of the IWC, so if the IWC doesn't do something it will be just another ignored UN-style organization

The IWC's own scientific committee has determined many species are ready to be harvested again yet certain anti-whaling nations have prevented the industry from resuming in a controlled manner, which is what it was set up to do.
It's either that or as i said, have at least 1/3rd of your member-nations leave the organization & ignore it completely.

 

I don't think even they themselves would argue that they are nor criminals. But as far as criminals go, these ones have my complete support. It's a case where something is clearly illegal, but it's also morally correct. Keep in mind though that these whalers are also on the wrong side of the law. The amounts that they are taking, not to mention their use of the whales, is far from legal. The only reason that the IWC hasn't put a stop to it so far has been the extreme amounts of bribery that Japan has been shooting out to poorer counties, to buy their vote over.

I'd be more than happy to see New Zealand sending it's navy (not that it exists) into the Antarctic waters and forcing the whalers to stop. Australia seems to be doing it best at the moment. I believe that Rudd has had a navy ship follow some Japanesse whaling boats, recording data about their actions to take to the courts. Not sure what came of that, but hopefully if they keep it up a bit, something good might be the result.

This has always been a big issue in New Zealand - been right in the centre of it all. We often get these whalers (and even more often, the big trawlers) coming through our waters. At least once a month you can expect something about the whalers to make national news.

 

They don't have to bribe anybody just withdraw from the ICW like norway did & you are no longer bound by their rules.
The IWC has no power to stop sovereign nations from fishing in international waters.

 

But they ARE members of the IWC. It's just like the only way to get nuclear bombs (legally) is to withdraw from the NPT, but so long as you are a member, you are bound to follow the rules.

 

A list of the poorest, most easily swayed countries. And Russia, who can deny that they love playing the political pressure game? This is mainly the fault of those three 'pirate' countries, adopting a stance of: "We're not gonna stop whaling, so you'd better get in on the action. We'd be very grateful for your support on this... [wink wink]"
Oh, Rotku already made that argument.

YET.

The IWC's guideline of 54% pre-whaling population levels hasn't changed for a long time, and their research group sends out mixed messages. On the one hand they accept undeniable scientific facts, which support the moratorium on whales. On the other hand, there is a drive for the resumption of whaling, and results are published which support this too. When you think about the fact that the IWC is a whaling organization, and their main goal is to resume whaling as soon as possible, then you should be able to figure out which messages are true, and which are falsification, deliberate misinterpretation, etc. The IWC is not a conservation organisation, but they are under heavy political pressure from both sides. This is a battle on the forefront of conservation, and if this is lost, then a domino-effect will cross over into other areas as well. It's a war of mentalities, because only a change in mentality can actually save the whales. And by proxy, the environment.

 

Slightly misleading. The IWC was founded with this goal in mind, although it has radically shifted in the past few decades. As the anti-whaling movement grew, many countries joined the IWC with intents of stopping commercial whaling. Also, other countries who were once big whalers, like the USA, have turned, and have lead the IWC in a more anti-whaling stance.

 

First of all, my comment was mostly hyperbolic -- I have much better things to do than actually assault hippy boats. But if someone were to use their own tactics against them, they would whine like a 4 year old denied in the candy store.

Next point, I at no time said people here should stop posting. But I don't give a lot of credibility to people who are not facing the same crisis as they attempt to get the moral high ground. The old saw about "walking a mile in the other guy's shoes" comes to mind.

As for food, Japan certainly depends on food imports to feed its population. But any efforts they make to feed themselves should be lauded. It also makes sense economically and in terms of national security to reduce dependence on external food sources.

I don't really care if the whalers are breaking a law -- I would argue that if they are that must be proved in a fair and neutral court, and that none of the organizations named so far are neutral on the matter, so their credibility in matters of judgement is suspect -- but I digress. What legal authority do these hippy green folks have to enforce the law? To the best of my knowledge, NONE. They are vigilantes (just as I would be a vigilante were I to act the way I hypothesized in my last post). It is my understanding that most civilized countries do not condone vigilante activities. In other words, they can take their case to a court (and if such a court doesn't exist, well, then take it to lawmakers around the world), but the wrongs allegedly being committed by the Japanese whalers do not give a licence for the activists to commit criminal acts themselves.

 

I disagree. There are other ways to gather food, also through fishery, which are more easy, more sustainable, more cost-effectice, less controversial, less damaging to the ecosystem, faster, and which can acquire much more food for the country, and probably more tasty as well. Whales aren't a realistic or practical food source by any stretch of the imagination. Whale hunting shouldn't be seen as a bio-industry. It's an unnecessary luxury, pure and simple. The japanese like whales for the priviledge of eating such a large mammal. It is no different from shark fins, rhinoceros horns, ivory, or fur from endangered animals.