Whales = "cockroaches of the sea"

[earthangel]

I heard some time ago that some Japanese official said that whales are the "cockroaches of the sea."

Can someone point to the exact reference, by whom and when?

Thanks,

[yukio_michael]

Google is your friend.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0XPQ/is_2001_July_23/ai_77236607

[Mr Man]

I've also seen them refer to other species as the "Rats of the sea"
It's easier for them to label whales in such derogatory ways in order for them to be detached enough to exploit and destroy them, making it easier to justify the atrocities they commit against them in the name of $$$ or in this case ￥￥￥

[Aerain]

I don't know what is different in killing whale than any other animal, isn't it only a normative judgement to think that whale deserve a better treatment than any other animal (excluding human in this case)? I mean there are a lot of more important issues that seems to be resolved/debated first. I find it ridiculous even though I am not for it.

[Mycernius]

I don't know what is different in killing whale than any other animal, isn't it only a normative judgement to think that whale deserve a better treatment than any other animal (excluding human in this case)? I mean there are a lot of more important issues that seems to be resolved/debated first. I find it ridiculous even though I am not for it.
Why exclude humans? Aren't we just animals as well?

[yukio_michael]

Why exclude humans? Aren't we just animals as well?No whale (that I know of, nor dolphin) ever wrote Ulysses, or painted "Starry Night".

;)

[Aerain]

Why exclude humans? Aren't we just animals as well?
Well people who aren't used to or accept moral relativism usually don't accept this idea, I thought like most people I had shared a discussion on the subject, people would be more likely to accept my argument if I excluded humans...

[Mycernius]

No whale (that I know of, nor dolphin) ever wrote Ulysses, or painted "Starry Night".

;)
No whale or dolphin have started genocidal wars either. They know the Vogons are coming though.:-)

[Aerain]

I somewhat find more cruel to tame dolphin to make backflips and kiss it's trainer I mean I feel empathy for those who would be forced to do it all day long to eat their meal and have their aquarium cleaned up.

[Mr Man]

I don't know what is different in killing whale than any other animal, isn't it only a normative judgement to think that whale deserve a better treatment than any other animal (excluding human in this case)? I mean there are a lot of more important issues that seems to be resolved/debated first. I find it ridiculous even though I am not for it.
I don't have a problem with whale hunting for survival, but when it's turned into a supply and demand commercial venture in a country like Japan, supply will always increase as demand does, meaning no controls, no limitations and ultimately, destruction of a huge chunk of marine ecosystem, beyond just whales.
Can we really trust the politicians to be responsible to the environment when the real money starts rolling in? Their track record with other marine creatures is shockingly bad! 95% of blue fin tuna gone from southern oceans due to continued over fishing, false catch quotas reported, and the vast majority of that going straight to Japan! They are already lying about the so called scientific whaling they are conducting now! Everybody knows it's commercial, if not then supermarkets are laboratories, and we're all lab technicians? When they lie with every breath now about the reasons they have for hunting whales inside the Antarctic whale sanctuary, how much credence can we give them when they smugly reassure us that they will regulate the industry to make sure whales are never threatened as a species? You'd have to be incredibly naive to believe them!
But I guess there are many who do, since they started trying to whip the public into a patriotic fever of support, calling it a cultural right, as if culture is immutable and set in concrete and therefore justifies their greed, many have answered the call and come running to their aid. Funny how that culture card is so selectively played though, eh? Many other aspects of Japanese culture are no longer in effect! Why? Because they no longer meet with the needs or ideals of todays Japan. Whale meat on the menu is NOT an issue of survival anymore! Nobody is going to die from starvation if whales aren't hunted! It's all about money! Dressed up as culture for all the servile minions who feel they are on the receiving end of another bout of Japan bashing. It is now known that damage to, and even total loss of one seemingly unrelated section of environment can be attributed to the loss of one species of animal. Nobody really knows the real extent of damage that will be caused if whales are hunted to extinction.
The issue is not which animals are more worthy of protection and which can be exploited, it's about the blatant commercialism being dressed up as cultural rights and patriotic duty! There is currently NO viable market in Japan for whale meat, so the government is striving to create a false market now. One of their methods is to use kids in schools, by putting it on the school lunch menus in some prefectures. Their thinking? Today's captive elementary school kid is tomorrow's whale consumer! Great!
We can't allow the remaining scraps of beauty in the world to be sacrificed to the greed of corporations! Money is the only motive here! Make NO mistake!
I'm not saying whales are any more deserving of protection than any other animal, but we certainly don't need to start killing them too, just to prove that point!
In a (big) nut shell the situation is this: A big government supported/subsidised company named Nissui has for years openly stated its intention to start hunting whales, but due to concerted international pressure applied to its overseas subsidieries, Nissui had to quit that plan. The government however have vowed to continue the fight, (no doubt spearheaded by Nissui under a different name; the usual suspects) and the next push is to buy the IWC by sheparding all the little countries (some land locked-LOL) with voting power into the pockets of Japan Inc, where they will be looked after until they get a majority vote to start commercial whaling again and are no longer of use. A relatively small group of very cynical corporate pigs with political support are rallying the masses of Japanese to aid THEM in getting rich! The benefits to the people of Japan? Whale added to the already huge seafood menu......and in several years, environmental disaster! I emplore everyone to fight these bastards tooth and nail.
It's about standing up and saying no more rape of the environment by the greedy and saving it for our children and their children!

[Aerain]

The issue is not which animals are more worthy of protection and which can be exploited, it's about the blatant commercialism being dressed up as cultural rights and patriotic duty! There is currently NO viable market in Japan for whale meat, so the government is striving to create a false market now. One of their methods is to use kids in schools, by putting it on the school lunch menus in some prefectures. Their thinking? Today's captive elementary school kid is tomorrow's whale consumer! Great!


I agree on most of your points, but when you say there is NO viable market in Japan, it is only because "whaling" is restricted for commercial purpose, or I believe, and that's why there is no profit generated from scientific institution that hunts them, however it (the process of hunting and marketing) stimulates the economy of the country, I am not saying that it is right or ethically acceptable to do so, but that as an institution, the government of Japan have the function to act in behalf of it's interest before any ethical question, like every other institution; it is why the United States went in Irak, because without oil their economy would have collapse, etc... We should direct our criticism onto the system and not only the japanese government... It is the system that doesn't work or is "unethical"... For exemple, if we would live in a ideal world, people in africa wouldn't starve, there would be no poverty, etc... And the main reason why humanity will never evolve it is because of the human nature in some way... We are above all individualists, before pointing fingers at other people, we should look at ourselves...

[Mr Man]

I agree on most of your points, but when you say there is NO viable market in Japan, it is only because "whaling" is restricted for commercial purpose, or I believe, and that's why there is no profit generated from scientific institution that hunts them, however it (the process of hunting and marketing) stimulates the economy of the country, I am not saying that it is right or ethically acceptable to do so, but that as an institution, the government of Japan have the function to act in behalf of it's interest before any ethical question, like every other institution; it is why the United States went in Irak, because without oil their economy would have collapse, etc... We should direct our criticism onto the system and not only the japanese government... It is the system that doesn't work or is "unethical"... For exemple, if we would live in a ideal world, people in africa wouldn't starve, there would be no poverty, etc... And the main reason why humanity will never evolve it is because of the human nature in some way... We are above all individualists, before pointing fingers at other people, we should look at ourselves...

True, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't speak out against what we see as fundamentaly wrong either. Once we've looked at ourselves and corrected what we can, we should also try to add our drop in the ocean of mass opinion in the hope of influencing its momentum in whatever tiny way we can.
Thanks for your comment though :) I'm glad you don't support it.

[d3jake]

They know the Vogons are coming though.:-)

Wasn't that the dolphins?

[Aerain]

True, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't speak out against what we see as fundamentaly wrong either. Once we've looked at ourselves and corrected what we can, we should also try to add our drop in the ocean of mass opinion in the hope of influencing its momentum in whatever tiny way we can.
Thanks for your comment though :) I'm glad you don't support it.
Well I love whales and I support Green Peace actions but it seems that nothing will ever come out of it. When I saw a documentary about whaling by the japanese I really felt a lot of empathy for those poor animals, but again, every animal are the same and it would be contradictory to eat meat while defending them.

[yukio_michael]

No whale or dolphin have started genocidal wars either. They know the Vogons are coming though.:-)Very well played, sir!

[Aerain]

I had this fun discussion with my father, where we talked about some interesting aspects of the Asian culture and I ended up discussing with him on the subject of whaling; the funny thing is I asked him about the market, to know whether the Japanese would export their stocks to the Asian market or would rather keep them exclusive to their own market, if I remember well, he didn’t clearly answer me, but he told me that the Korean fisherman would sometime catch whales in accident and that in that case the whale could be legally sold in it’s own market. I somewhat found it ridiculous, because there is no one to supervise the fisherman to know if their claim would be true or not in the case they would get a catch. Anyhow, he told me that it was really expensive, but that it tasted very good. I don’t know if anyone against whaling has ever tried any whale product, but maybe people would change their mind, if for example, they would try once and love it. It seems that social conditioning is an important factor to whether someone would be in favour or against it, because most Asian doesn’t seem to be as deeply involved in the cause. Also, I suspect that the Japanese would likely export their stocks in other Asian market, as I believe that the seal of “commercial” industry affixed to the regulation law concerning whaling links to the fact whether its activity generate profits or not.

[Mr Man]

I had this fun discussion with my father, where we talked about some interesting aspects of the Asian culture and I ended up discussing with him on the subject of whaling; the funny thing is I asked him about the market, to know whether the Japanese would export their stocks to the Asian market or would rather keep them exclusive to their own market, if I remember well, he didn’t clearly answer me, but he told me that the Korean fisherman would sometime catch whales in accident and that in that case the whale could be legally sold in it’s own market. I somewhat found it ridiculous, because there is no one to supervise the fisherman to know if their claim would be true or not in the case they would get a catch. Anyhow, he told me that it was really expensive, but that it tasted very good. I don’t know if anyone against whaling has ever tried any whale product, but maybe people would change their mind, if for example, they would try once and love it. It seems that social conditioning is an important factor to whether someone would be in favour or against it, because most Asian doesn’t seem to be as deeply involved in the cause. Also, I suspect that the Japanese would likely export their stocks in other Asian market, as I believe that the seal of “commercial” industry affixed to the regulation law concerning whaling links to the fact whether its activity generate profits or not.

The majority of Japanese I've spoken to about eating whale meat, said that they didn't like it. And had memories of having to eat it at school etc, but would not choose to now. I'm sure there are those who love it too, and depending on how it's prepared it probably IS delicious. I've actually had it once, but I was tricked into eating it by the mama san at an Izakaya I used to go to, and to tell the truth, I thought it tasted okay.

[Kyoto Returnee]

I heard some time ago that some Japanese official said that whales are the "cockroaches of the sea."

,

It would'nt suprise me!

They seem to have derogative English terms whenever it suits..

The word Alien always got me!

[Astroboy]

I am a bit surprised to see this ..... Koalas may be treated as cockroach in Australia.

http://www.japanprobe.com/2007/01/australia/koala.png

Without Koalas & Kangroo, Australia must be boring. I suggest Australian to treat animals well in order to attract foreign tourists.

http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=1101

[kame]

I can see how the cockroach remark would get twisted by anti-whaling advocates. A stupid and careless remark as an official, nonetheless.

I think Aerain puts into words how many Japanese feel about the hostile intervention toward whaling by other countries. People kill animals like cockroaches everywhere, including in Australia where 3 million+ kangaroos per year are slaughters as pests. They don't NEED to eat kangaroos and they even use some for pet food.

Whether we NEED to eat whales to survive is not relevant to justify or deny whaling. The question is why do we single out whales out of thousands of other species humans kill regardless of their necessity for our survival.

To prevent certain endangered species from extinction is certainly a valid reason to stop hunting them and no one argues against that. Other subjective reasonings that we hear in various places including this thread are not justifiable argument to force someone to give up something.

True, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't speak out against what we see as fundamentaly wrong either.

You can speak out against what you believe is wrong, but you should always keep in mind that what you SEE as fundamentally wrong is just a subjective value based on your past life experience. Eating beef is seen as "fundamentally wrong" by some people so is homosexuality or not believing in certain God. Your conception of whaling being "fundamentary wrong" has no more absolute basis than those people who believe that homosexuality is "fundamentary wrong".

Yes, there are always people trying to prevent gay marriage or otherwise make their lives more miserable (although I don't see people trying to outlaw eating beef yet), but I think one of the fundamental ideas of democracy is to respect the freedom of individuals so long as it doesn't profoundly affect the rest of us negatively. Otherwise, if the loudest voice always gets its way in democracy, there is no chance for minorities to defend their values that democracy is supposed to protect.

[Rose Selavey]

Whether we NEED to eat whales to survive is not relevant to justify or deny whaling. The question is why do we single out whales out of thousands of other species humans kill regardless of their necessity for our survival.


Because they are at the top of the food change, have very few predators, and they are large animals. If you go back to basic ecology, when large species of the food change (or even small ones) have a dramatic population shift, either an increase or decrease the balance in that particular eco system is out of whack.

The fallacy that whales eat all the fish and are the '**** coaches of the sea' is simply a why to continue to justify this a viable and reasonable form of hunting.

[kame]

Because they are at the top of the food change, have very few predators, and they are large animals. If you go back to basic ecology, when large species of the food change (or even small ones) have a dramatic population shift, either an increase or decrease the balance in that particular eco system is out of whack.


I agree that scientific discussions from the ecological perspective should be encouraged and what you say is totally a legitimate topic that should be discussed at IWC. But being at the top of the food chain doesn't necessarily mean that you can't hunt them at all. On the contrary, one could argue that their population would recover relatively fast in the absence of predators. There has to be a reasonable # that the scientists can come up with for different whale species.

[kame]

The fallacy that whales eat all the fish and are the '**** coaches of the sea' is simply a why to continue to justify this a viable and reasonable form of hunting.

You are a little confusing me with this part though. You mention that

when large species of the food change (or even small ones) have a dramatic population shift, either an increase or decrease the balance in that particular eco system is out of whack.

If whales are such a major part of the ecosystem (large species, top of food chain, etc), isn't it entirely plausible that a dramatic population increase which the minke whales could be enjoying have a significant effect on their preys? I am not saying that it is (having an effect on fish population), but your logic seems "out of whack" as well.

[Rose Selavey]

You are a little confusing me with this part though. You mention that
If whales are such a major part of the ecosystem (large species, top of food chain, etc), isn't it entirely plausible that a dramatic population increase which the minke whales could be enjoying have a significant effect on their preys? I am not saying that it is (having an effect on fish population), but your logic seems "out of whack" as well.

Sorry to confuse, If animals on top of the food chain have a large population boom, they usually end up extinct (most top of all food chains, humans)
Southern hemisphere Minke whales are not more abundant then they were before hunting. They are close to the top of the food chain, but other larger whale species such as fin, humpback and blue whales are the major players. In the Southern hemisphere, the first minkes were caught in 1894-1895. Commercial whaling for minkes in this region started in the 1950s and increased after the decline of other whale stocks. Between 1972 and 1980, the Japanese fleet took over 30,000 Minke whales in this region. The Minke whales would not be having a significant effect on their prey, humans are the cause for declining fish stocks not whales. Scientists are still struggling to understand and manage the oceans, and because of the political problems associated with the so called 'law of the sea' many ecosystems (which are intertwined and complex) will become extinct before we know it.

[kame]

Southern hemisphere Minke whales are not more abundant then they were before hunting. They are close to the top of the food chain, but other larger whale species such as fin, humpback and blue whales are the major players. In the Southern hemisphere, the first minkes were caught in 1894-1895. Commercial whaling for minkes in this region started in the 1950s and increased after the decline of other whale stocks. Between 1972 and 1980, the Japanese fleet took over 30,000 Minke whales in this region.

So what is your point? What would be a scientifically acceptable number of minke whales that can be caught? By all estimates, it seems that there are 0.5-1 million minke whales in that region. One thousand (<0.2 %) that Japan is catching sounds like a reasonable number to me.

The Minke whales would not be having a significant effect on their prey, humans are the cause for declining fish stocks not whales. Scientists are still struggling to understand and manage the oceans, and because of the political problems associated with the so called 'law of the sea' many ecosystems (which are intertwined and complex) will become extinct before we know it.

You say that minke whales should not have a significant effect on their prey, yet you maintain that hunting <0.2% minke population per year would have "a significant effect" on the ecosystem? Again, your logic seems to be very biased.

[Kyoto Returnee]

So what is your point? What would be a scientifically acceptable number of minke whales that can be caught?


Without any doubt whatsoever, zero.

You don't need to harpoon them simply to measure them.

I think you will find the reason they are being hunted down for the slaughter is for human consumption.

The "Scientific Research" term that the Japanese are using, I would strongly suspect is to provoke environmentalists and animal and nature lovers around the world.

Does the below photo look like the works of scientific research:gun:
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7264/r145027506921hc5.jpg

[Chi65]

Very "scientific" indeed. . .

Thus:

Who is violent, please??

[centrajapan]

Mmmmm. whale meat. Id fancy some whale bacon and a glass of beer please.

It is scientific because they make sure they can hunt these whales and still make sure that the population does not decrease. Thats what Scientific research means.

Greenpeace is violent because they attack humans. Da Lai Lama too is violent for eating meat.

[Kyoto Returnee]

Mmmmm. whale meat. Id fancy some whale bacon and a glass of beer please.

At least you appear to be honest now..

Why didn't you previously admit that you enjoyed eating whale instead of copying and pasting news and other sites from the web.

Have you got over your Kangaroo fetish yet?

[kame]

Without any doubt whatsoever, zero.

You don't need to harpoon them simply to measure them.

I think you will find the reason they are being hunted down for the slaughter is for human consumption.

The "Scientific Research" term that the Japanese are using, I would strongly suspect is to provoke environmentalists and animal and nature lovers around the world.


You misunderstood me (probably intentionally). I am asking (especially to Rose), what would be an acceptable quota if Japan were to hunt minke whales (for the sake of argument, commercially) without risking siginificant ecological effect based on the scientific data.

I am not asking whether the research whaling is scientifically necessary or not.

[Kyoto Returnee]

I am asking (especially to Rose), what would be an acceptable quota if Japan were to hunt minke whales (for the sake of argument, commercially) without risking siginificant ecological effect based on the scientific data.



If It was up to me, I would say zero.

[kame]

If It was up to me, I would say zero.

Well, it is not up to you, and zero cannot be an answer to my question (scientifically acceptable quota). If you don't want to or cannot answer my question, don't bother. I wasn't asking you in the first place.

[centrajapan]

If It was up to me, I would say zero.

Please don't mix emotions with sceince. Lets stick to science.

[Chi65]

Mmmmm. whale meat. Id fancy some whale bacon and a glass of beer please.
It is scientific because they make sure they can hunt these whales and still make sure that the population does not decrease. Thats what Scientific research means.

You have a strange idea of science indeed.
(my father was a very internationally respected scientist, very related to animals, how to breed and support and feed them, thus I know about their usual works, don't tell us stories)

Greenpeace is violent because they attack humans. Da Lai Lama too is violent for eating meat.

Especially so are you, because you also eat meet. . .is the logic consequence.

And Greenpeace just tries to help some animals not to be violated in extreme ways, which is an entirely different story.
So is occasional eating meat a different thing, if with still some respect towards them.
While overdoing once more is violence.

And thats the present case with whales and esp. dolphins.

If It was up to me, I would say zero.
I join in.

[Rose Selavey]

You misunderstood me (probably intentionally). I am asking (especially to Rose), what would be an acceptable quota if Japan were to hunt minke whales (for the sake of argument, commercially) without risking siginificant ecological effect based on the scientific data.
I am not asking whether the research whaling is scientifically necessary or not.

I believe that commercial whaling has no place in todays society. Just as hunting large wild terrestrial animals is a sure way to undermine an eco-system. Minke whales are not at pre-hunting levels. If small Japanese fishing villages feel it is necessary to hunt whales to continue a cultural and diet tradition, then they can apply to the IWC, and have a small quota of whales caught of the coast of Japan. To open up commercial whaling again would be disastrous. As others on this forum have stated what would happen if more countries began whaling, how do you control this? South Korean fisheries have just seized over 50 tonne of Minke whale meat, (approximately 70 whales). If whale meat industry is anything like the illegal drug trade, fro every seizure their is 20 more unfound loads.
The Oceans and its products need protecting and if we can't even protect whales what other species have a chance.

[Chi65]

Very much agree, thanks. Also good points and solutions in my opinion.

[Kyoto Returnee]

Well, it is not up to you, and zero cannot be an answer to my question (scientifically acceptable quota). If you don't want to or cannot answer my question, don't bother. I wasn't asking you in the first place.

Take the zero back and my sincerest apologies for answering your question.

[kame]

I believe that commercial whaling has no place in todays society. Just as hunting large wild terrestrial animals is a sure way to undermine an eco-system. Minke whales are not at pre-hunting levels. If small Japanese fishing villages feel it is necessary to hunt whales to continue a cultural and diet tradition, then they can apply to the IWC, and have a small quota of whales caught of the coast of Japan. To open up commercial whaling again would be disastrous. As others on this forum have stated what would happen if more countries began whaling, how do you control this?

So you just avoid answering my question. You talk like you are against whaling based on science but you refuse to talk about the numbers and hard facts, no different from other people on this forum. I can imagine that's what happens at IWC.

Commercial whaling can and will be controllable. Japan tracks all caught whales by DNA, so IWC can audit Japanese market or any other market whenever they want. It's much harder to poach large whales than, say, kangaroos that are killed in millions without international vigilance.

If IWC is going to remain an anti-whaling organization, whaling WILL become unregulated. That's what will happen if IWC chooses to be blind to scientific arguments.

[Chi65]

Hitler had many scientific arguments too. . .

[kame]

Hitler had many scientific arguments too. . .

Pseudo-scientific. Which is exactly how GP and Rose are just camouflaging their emotional or value arguments with scientific flavor. Her arguments are not logical and contradicting herself.

[Chi65]

Pseudo-scientific. Which is exactly how GP and Rose are just camouflaging their emotional or value arguments with scientific flavor. Her arguments are not logical and contradicting herself.

Be carefull, I know what I say, and am also very science forum trained. I do not have to post a proof about Hitlertime's science here in this very thread., but I can remind on this.
Its all over the internet, by the way, if you wish to inform yourself.

What I mean to say, is, that your mentioned science also is not absolute or unchangable nor free from corruptions etc.
I do not mean you with this, just in general the way, it is already used by other than scientific interests, that try to get excuses for killings, in which it equals the given first example from me.
It can be quite a cheap excuse for something completely different. . . and often is.
By the way, I grew up as the daughter of a scientist (who lived through Hitlertime and was not blind), thus, please, think twice.

And last not least, for your information:
Telling me what you think about others, is of no interest for me nor for the thread, nor very welcome here (see infraction system).

[kame]

By the way, I grew up as the daughter of a scientist, thus, please, think twice.
And last not least, for your information:
Telling me what you think about others, is of no interest for me nor for the thread, nor very welcome here (see infraction system).

If you think being a daughter of a scientist makes you capable of scientific discussion, you are pathetically "unscientific". I never directly addressed you before because you didn't even strike me as capable of scientific discussions. I find your arguments, as with many others here, to be rooted in your very narrow values and intolerence to others. Just ignore my posts and I will leave you alone.

[Chi65]

I discussed with many scientists for long, plus connected between Universities(amongst this from Japan and Germany), but this is not necessarily a science forum.
And thanks for your arrogance and own intolerance towards others, that I also realised very well. (I am not dependant on you, but ask for your fairness, also towards others)

Please check a new system of the forum:

http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35428&highlight=infraction+system

[Sarapva]

Thanks for showing that thread, Chi - I hadn't seen it!

[Chi65]

Its new, but good ;-)

[Kyoto Returnee]

If you think being a daughter of a scientist makes you capable of scientific discussion, you are pathetically "unscientific". I never directly addressed you before because you didn't even strike me as capable of scientific discussions. I find your arguments, as with many others here, to be rooted in your very narrow values and intolerence to others. Just ignore my posts and I will leave you alone.

Well, according to you, I answered your forum question that you commented was not "pathetically" for me.

You have to remember, this is a forum, not a chat room;-)

Your commentrs are hardly scientific but apear to be getting rather personal.

[Rose Selavey]

So you just avoid answering my question. You talk like you are against whaling based on science but you refuse to talk about the numbers and hard facts, no different from other people on this forum. I can imagine that's what happens at IWC.
Commercial whaling can and will be controllable. Japan tracks all caught whales by DNA, so IWC can audit Japanese market or any other market whenever they want. It's much harder to poach large whales than, say, kangaroos that are killed in millions without international vigilance.
If IWC is going to remain an anti-whaling organization, whaling WILL become unregulated. That's what will happen if IWC chooses to be blind to scientific arguments.

I didn't avoid answering your question, I stated that commercial whaling has no place in todays society. If you would like to talk facts and figures, which i can do, I would have to start with the basics, but I'm sure you know the basics already. If you what number based stats then Minke whales in the Southern Ocean on all accounts (except Japanese 'experts') are still not at pre-harvest levels. So they should not be hunted. That was easy, and before you use Time Flannery's quote that they can be sustainable harvest, go and find out when he said that and the context it was spoken about. Tim is not a whale expert, Dr Peter Harrison is and it would be better to look at what he is saying for a current informed view.

I also think that what you say about poaching whales is a lot harder than Kangaroos is wrong, an example is the South Korean seizure of Minke Whale meat.

And what about August 2006 when it was revealed that Japanese fishers and their suppliers from other countries plundered world southern bluefin tuna stocks, secretly catching up to three times the annual Japanese quota each year for the past 20 years. How can Japan make us believe they will not exceed quotas again? I agree that the IWC needs to keep its cool but maybe it is time to look at other options for global ocean control because the traditional law of the sea doesn't seem to be working. Humans have successfully marginalized the land and degraded it to the point of no return, they we move to the oceans.

[kame]

I didn't avoid answering your question, I stated that commercial whaling has no place in todays society. If you would like to talk facts and figures, which i can do, I would have to start with the basics, but I'm sure you know the basics already. If you what number based stats then Minke whales in the Southern Ocean on all accounts (except Japanese 'experts') are still not at pre-harvest levels. So they should not be hunted.

Then, what exactly is the "pre-harvest" levels of minkes at which you would condone commercial whaling at any level? Can you give a source of "pre-harvest" level for future reference?

And there is no justification to totally ban whaling even if the minke population is not "pre-harves" level yet, especially in light of the strong evidence that the population is increasing robustly. With the detailed demographic data Japan has accumulated, scientists can quite accurately estimate the quantitative effects, if any, of hunting 1000 (or 2000) whales per year and compare it to the situation in which no hunting happens. If the predicted effect is minimal, commercial whaling should be resumed under proper monitoring.

I also think that what you say about poaching whales is a lot harder than Kangaroos is wrong, an example is the South Korean seizure of Minke Whale meat.

IWC should put Korea on their watch list. I never said it's impossible, but once whale meat is obtained in the market, it is easily traced by DNA analysis. Who knows if the kangaroo steak served at a restaurant was illegally hunted or not? I never heard of kangaroo DNA databank that tracks 3 million slaughtered kangaroo DNA per year.

And what about August 2006 when it was revealed that Japanese fishers and their suppliers from other countries plundered world southern bluefin tuna stocks, secretly catching up to three times the annual Japanese quota each year for the past 20 years. How can Japan make us believe they will not exceed quotas again? I agree that the IWC needs to keep its cool but maybe it is time to look at other options for global ocean control because the traditional law of the sea doesn't seem to be working. Humans have successfully marginalized the land and degraded it to the point of no return, they we move to the oceans.

I would appreciate it if you can quote your sources whenever possible, as I am not aware of all news in fishery industry.

Well, I don't endorse overfishing of any species, but poaching whales can hardly be as easy as poaching tunas for their traceability and their large size. As far as I know, I don't think possible illegal overhunting has been seriously raised as a concern against commercial whaling at IWC. If IWC does its job, it's virtually impossible to overhunt whales.

When people know what they are selling can be tracked unambiguously, they won't risk their jobs selling illegal meat. DNA analysis is one of the technological advances that weren't available when whaling moratorium started.

[Kyoto Returnee]

Then, what exactly is the "pre-harvest" levels of minkes at which you would condone commercial whaling at any level? Can you give a source of "pre-harvest" level for future reference?



No comment..........

[Rose Selavey]

With the detailed demographic data Japan has accumulated, scientists can quite accurately estimate the quantitative effects, if any, of hunting 1000 (or 2000) whales per year and compare it to the situation in which no hunting happens. If the predicted effect is minimal, commercial whaling should be resumed under proper monitoring.
IWC should put Korea on their watch list. I never said it's impossible, but once whale meat is obtained in the market, it is easily traced by DNA analysis. Who knows if the kangaroo steak served at a restaurant was illegally hunted or not? I never heard of kangaroo DNA databank that tracks 3 million slaughtered kangaroo DNA per year.
I would appreciate it if you can quote your sources whenever possible, as I am not aware of all news in fishery industry.
Well, I don't endorse overfishing of any species, but poaching whales can hardly be as easy as poaching tunas for their traceability and their large size. As far as I know, I don't think possible illegal overhunting has been seriously raised as a concern against commercial whaling at IWC. If IWC does its job, it's virtually impossible to overhunt whales.
When people know what they are selling can be tracked unambiguously, they won't risk their jobs selling illegal meat. DNA analysis is one of the technological advances that weren't available when whaling moratorium started.

http://www.whales.org.au/news/aoceans.html

This article details the DNA findings of English researchers suggesting that the populations of whales (humpback, fin and Minke) before industrialized hunting were double but in some cases triple the estimated IWC population sizes. This is because the variations in the genetic data sourced from a Japanese sushi market in 2005, where so great that this would have to mean that the population was a lot larger than previously thought.

Most scientists studying whales agree that the populations of the great whales are not at a level in which they can be harvested. They are only just recovering, some whales are not recovering at all such as the Dwarf Minke Whale which can be mistaken for the Minke whale. And with global warming looming we have no way to predict what will happen to whale populations. This as been a big part in IWC discussions. So again I will state that Minke whales, Fin whales, Humpback whale populations in the Southern Hemisphere are not at pre-harvest levels they should not be harvested. Japan and other whaling countries will have to realize that their tradition has gone sour.

As to the bluefin tuna incident, this is public knowledge in the public domain, therefore I do not need to supply a source. But for you here it is: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20588386-1702,00.html

And why do you keep mentioning Kangaroos they are a completely different species, not in decline, more abundant since European invasion of Australia and well studied. Their breeding cycle is so different from whales. As to data bases, and DNA studies in Australia, this is happening in many places with many speices, this is just one example.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/10/1057783286786.html

[kame]

This article details the DNA findings of English researchers suggesting that the populations of whales (humpback, fin and Minke) before industrialized hunting were double but in some cases triple the estimated IWC population sizes. This is because the variations in the genetic data sourced from a Japanese sushi market in 2005, where so great that this would have to mean that the population was a lot larger than previously thought.

I appreciate the reference. I understand the general idea behind the study and it's good that such science is done. The authors are also careful to note that there are so many uncertain parameters in their estimations and as such, their pre-harvest numbers have significant range. Moreover in their articles, they don't argue that whales shouldn't be hunted just because they have not reached pre-harvest population. They merely suggest that hunting quotas for whales species that have shown appreciable recovery like minkes could be reduced (but not eliminated) based on their estimations.

If we have to give up hunting animals until they reach pre-harvest levels, we will be forced to give up catching tunas, crabs, lobsters, sea-urchins... and the list goes on. And, as you mentioned, the marine environment changes over the 100 yr time scale (be it human-caused or not) so the local whale population may never reach the level 100 years ago, let alone even more distant past that the genetic study suggests. The current environment at a certain region may not be able to sustain the same number of whales that may have lived there 1000 (or even 100) years ago. What is important is that we monitor the change in whale population closely while we hunt small number of whales that won't profoundly affect the recovery process.

And why do you keep mentioning Kangaroos they are a completely different species, not in decline, more abundant since European invasion of Australia and well studied. Their breeding cycle is so different from whales. As to data bases, and DNA studies in Australia, this is happening in many places with many speices, this is just one example.

I mentioned it in this case to point out that whale poaching is much more difficult to pull off compared to other wild animals like kangaroos. Australians don't track the DNA data of 3 million+ kangaroos killed each year and consumed in the market whereas all whales distributed in Japan are accounted for. It is easy to imagine lots of kangaroos are hunted illegally and sold on the market, and once it is on the market, very difficult to track them. As I mentioned elsewhere, I believe it is helpful to put whaling in perspective with other animals hunted or slaughtered for human consumption.

[Chi65]

This kangoroo fixation of some becomes more and more funny, because it only creates confusion and distractions from the real theme...
After all, thats really just australian's problem, not a japanese, whereas the whales are not owned by japanese (even if some permantly behave as if, only and only because they eat them, what an absurd reason, hehe. Do we own kiwis or whatnot, when we eat them here?), which changes the picture once more, and very considerably even!

[Sarapva]

And what about August 2006 when it was revealed that Japanese fishers and their suppliers from other countries plundered world southern bluefin tuna stocks, secretly catching up to three times the annual Japanese quota each year for the past 20 years. How can Japan make us believe they will not exceed quotas again?

That's right - how can the IWC negotiate properly with Japan when Japan is known for being deceitful?

[Chi65]

Because they want to make money with them. . .I suppose