International Whaling Commission meeting on May 28 [Archive]

Sarapva

May 28, 2007, 04:26

This may be a silly question, Sarapva san, but what difference does it make if the ban is lifted...if Japan and other countries have never taken any notice of it in the first place?
Isn't it really obsolete??!
:?

I think this is similar to the argument about legalizing drugs - saying that it's "okay" would probably lead to more use. It's heartening to know that a majority of countries have voted against commercial whaling, making those that still do earn the reputation of beings "bandits" in a way. Subsistence whaling by cultures that depend on whales for survival is one thing, and not likely to wipe out any whale species, but commercial whaling for people who don't need the whales to survive seems like such a waste of resources, and of course takes a toll on the whale population.

Here is a link to the International Whaling Commission:

http://www.iwcoffice.org/meetings/meeting2007.htm

And here is a link to stopwhaling.org:

http://www.stopwhaling.org/site/c.foJNIZOyEnH/b.2577495/k.506B/Stop_Whaling_Now__International_Fund_for_Animal_We lfare.htm

made of stone

May 29, 2007, 06:35

I think this is similar to the argument about legalizing drugs - saying that it's "okay" would probably lead to more use. It's heartening to know that a majority of countries have voted against commercial whaling, making those that still do earn the reputation of beings "bandits" in a way. Subsistence whaling by cultures that depend on whales for survival is one thing, and not likely to wipe out any whale species, but commercial whaling for people who don't need the whales to survive seems like such a waste of resources, and of course takes a toll on the whale population.

I cannot thank you enough for that reply Sarapva! Your analogy brought me a deeper level of looking at not only this topic, but in fact different themes (perhaps) in life :)...

My personal philosophical travels aside; you have brought to my mind that various studies have indicated, here in the UK, that one significant driving-force behind the desire to take these substances is, in actual fact, the very notion that they are illicit, dangerous, rebellious and/or deviant

I am just speculating to a large extent here, and although i'm posing these things as questions, I really don't expect answers. BUT (and it is a significant but!) is there some sense in which we can see the reaction of the Japanese Government on the issue of 'whaling' to be merely an assertion of self-identity, (i.e. as the way they have always done things), perhaps even strength? - if you like, a two fingers up at the force of the West that has neutered Japan politically (to an extent; and in a regional sense more so) and certainly in military terms, since WW2?

I posit these ideas just because I got a sense of them from some of my older Japanese friends. That whaling was traditional, and part of that traditional diet. That they didn't care too much for the taste, but that they felt through history that it should be their choice. If we gave them that choice, and tried to approach things in less confrontational a manner, might that not work???

:?

Just some ideas...

mos :)

Han Chan

May 29, 2007, 07:06

I think that the ban or regulation of whaling should be based on sound scientific data. As whales are mamals they reproduce much slower than fish. I think that great caution should be taken, but I think that some limited harvesting of the least endangered spiecies should be possible.

For more factual info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#The_arguments_for_and_against_whaling

Goldiegirl

May 29, 2007, 07:30

Han Chan

May 29, 2007, 07:59

I like how we use the word harvest when what is meant is killing. I guess it sounds better. I don't believe we harvest animals, we harvest corn, apples etc, but we slaughter animals. I'm not opposed to people eating meat, I am opposed to slow, painfull deaths.
Harvest is often used when talking about utilizing fish and whale stock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_stock
I am also opposed to slow, painfull deaths, but as I do like to eat meat and fish I have to accept that some animals are killed. My point is that advise should be taken from scientists.

Goldiegirl, you wrote this in an other thread: "When you are in a war you strike where you will do the most damage. Whether innocent people or not get killed isn't even an issue. At that time just being Japanese you were the enemy. So yes, they were enemies."
It seems to me like you are more compationate towards animals than people?

bakaKanadajin

May 29, 2007, 08:16

I posit these ideas just because I got a sense of them from some of my older Japanese friends. That whaling was traditional, and part of that traditional diet. That they didn't care too much for the taste, but that they felt through history that it should be their choice. If we gave them that choice, and tried to approach things in less confrontational a manner, might that not work???

My knowledge of this is very limited but I'll throw 2 more cents in. A decent article on whaling appeared in the Metropolis recently and it attempted to gauge the Japanese public's feelings on whaling. For many of the older generation as you pointed out whale was a traditional part of the diet, especially during war time when meat was scarce. Many older people remember it as being fatty, rubbery and nothing special. The article left me feeling that they are simply nostalgic about their elementary school days moreso than the delicacy of whale itself.

The author of the article did some research and found that tons of frozen whale meat already exists and more whaling is not necessary in order to provide the meat to those few who enjoy it. Continuned whaling activities seem to be aimed at allowing fishing communities to continue traditional Japanese practices, not to meet demand.

As far as public information goes, in Tsukiji a spokeswoman for whale meat stated (this is not from the article this was an experience my friend had one morning) that whaling was in fact permitted for 'scientific research' and that the Japanese were endorsed by various organizations and NGO's on these grounds. This was obvious misinformation as the objection to Japanese whaling is quite broad and well-known. Also omitted was the practice of dolphin hunting and how it is often part of the 'traditional' practices of these same fisherman.

To repsond to your ideas, allowing these fisherman to continue doesn't have a huge amount of modern popular support, it would seem. Current indifference towards the taste and experience of whale meat itself by the public combined with an abundance of frozen stocks makes further killing of whales unnecessary. I suppose it comes down to pure national pride in traditions, but I think as I mentioned in a previous post, responsibility for endangered species and the greater common good have to factor in somewhere. The traditions of a few small fishing communities trumping the greater good of an endangered species' right to existence and well-being, especially with such low demand, doesnt seem correct.

KirinMan

May 29, 2007, 09:33

Goldiegirl, you wrote this in an other thread: "When you are in a war you strike where you will do the most damage. Whether innocent people or not get killed isn't even an issue. At that time just being Japanese you were the enemy. So yes, they were enemies."
It seems to me like you are more compationate towards animals than people?
I wonder what context this was originally written in, link please, because from the majority of posts that I have read from Goldiegirl I never got the impression that she valued or was more compationate towards animals than people.

Taken out of context in relationship to the thread that it was originally posted in the phrase could possibly be misconstrued or misunderstood.

Animals as you know are not going to fire a weapon at you so in that sense what Goldiegirl wrote here makes plenty of sense to me at least.:-)

Goldiegirl

May 29, 2007, 09:42

The point of that thread was about war and the "savage killing of 100,000 people in Tokyo". When it's war there is death that was the point. We are not in war with whales the last that I knew. As I wrote as well, I have no problem with people eating meat.

KirinMan

May 29, 2007, 09:47

We are not in war with whales the last that I knew.
I get the feeling that there are people out there that would disagree with you here. Personally I agree with you and thank you for clarifying the possible misconception.

Also and not to belittle in any way shape or form the concerns the OP has about whales but to me at least it is nice to see that you Goldiegirl "care" about us humans too.:p :sorry: :giggle:

Goldiegirl

May 29, 2007, 10:34

I do care about humans! :) I care about them almost as much as animals!:giggle: :cute: :lol:

FrustratedDave

May 29, 2007, 11:14

I hope for the reopening of commercial whaling.
I ask in respect for your oppinion but Why?
This is why I am I hope the ban is not lifted.
"WARNING THIS VIDEO IS OF GRAPHIC NATURE"
http://www.glumbert.com/media/dolphin

bakaKanadajin

May 29, 2007, 12:55

I ask in respect for your oppinion but Why?
This is why I am I hope the ban is not lifted.
"WARNING THIS VIDEO IS OF GRAPHIC NATURE"
http://www.glumbert.com/media/dolphin
Horrible. I feel ashamed to be part Japanese after watching that.

FrustratedDave

May 29, 2007, 13:23

KirinMan

May 29, 2007, 14:03

First I want to say I love my wife and my family, her family ,my friends and also love living here in Japan. (My wife and family are Japanese)
But ,there is a general level of exceptance here they some of us (western society) find disconcerting. Check these vids out and tell me what everyone thinks?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3_-tMS3zEY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ejapanprobe%2Ecom%2F%3Fp%3D 1660
http://www.break.com/index/very-fresh-fish.html
It is all about money and nothing else. I choose not to have an oppinion on these last vids, so I will leave it up to you guys to say what you think. BTW, I am no PETA freak either.

The top one was Japanese, yet if I am mistaken the bottom one was from a Chinese restaurant. Either way well I may be in a minority here but they are just fish, and I enjoy eating them. I really do not care about how they feel only how they taste. Like I said people may not agree with my opinions or thoughts about this but to me it wasnt a big deal.

This is why I am I hope the ban is not lifted.
"WARNING THIS VIDEO IS OF GRAPHIC NATURE"
http://www.glumbert.com/media/dolphin

Why is it people get more upset, angry or bothered by the size or the type of fish that is being killed? Whales, dolphins or porpises seem to be on everyones list of mammal's or fish that shouldn't be culled, harvested, fished, or killed. Choose the word that you agree with. It's food, and other than the size of the "catch" fisherman the world over net literally tons of smaller fish everyday and almost noone gives a damn about how they are processed.

Is it the size that bothers people? What if those were all sharks, would people give a damn about them?

I'm sorry I don't agree that the video was that "graphic", unless of course you are a person that is bothered by seeing large fish being killed in large numbers.

I'm sorry, Once again I may be in the minority here on this but in my opinion it really isn't that big of a deal and have a hard time getting bothered by seeing it. There was a thread here on the subject of killing baby seals, that was only for the skins, nothing else, at least here the meat of the dolphins killed is processed for food and people buy it. I've eaten the dried dolphin jerky that was jerked with a teriyaki flavor, pretty damn good if you ask me, just a bit too expensive for my budget. Tastes great with a cold beer too!

To me it just looked like a decent haul by the fishermen that day.

bakaKanadajin

May 29, 2007, 14:09

KirinMan

May 29, 2007, 14:28

Not quite as bad as the dolphins, but still a little disturbing.
The dolphin slaughter along with Western livestock slaughterhouses are probably the most alarming due to the high intelligence level of the animals vs. the amount of suffering they endure. It may sound harsh to downplay whats happening to these poor fish but these fish simply don't have the same capacity for emotions and suffering. That does not make it right, but some relativity is unavoidable. On the other hand we know that dolphins, whales, and after more recent research cows too are highly intelligent. I think for many, the killing of whales and dolphins is especially upsetting because we are only now beginning to understand how deep their social interactions and communicative ability could potentially be. Dolphins and whales have also never been a widespread staple of the human diet to the degree that livestock are, and are not domesticated either, making it seem even more unnecessary and cruel.

Intelligence of the animal or fish to me still doesn't make a difference to me. Heck even cockroaches are intelligent enough to run or, in the case of here in Okinawa, fly away when someone swings a rolled newspaper at them.

I think a part of the problem that goes beyond the issue of how intelligent the "whatever" that is being killed is the literally bloody manner with which is was or is done. Something about the blood in my opinion that bothers people, that along with I guess the "intelligence" of the "whatever".

I am pretty sure that if there was a method that didn't cost anything and produced the same results people would be willing to use it to kill the "whatever" in question. In the video the fishermen used their knives to kill the dolphins without damaging the meat, which btw as everyone knows is the product. That may not be the neatest way but it is the most efficient way for the money that they probably know.

FrustratedDave

May 29, 2007, 15:45

I did not listen to them with the sound on so I did not know the last one was from china.
I was going to say my bit ,but I could not be bothered. But whales and dolphins are not a sustainable food source or did you already know that?

KirinMan

May 29, 2007, 20:03

But whales and dolphins are not a sustainable food source or did you already know that?
Outside of Japan and Iceland who else in the world wants to, or actually does hunt whales or dolphins? I have heard news that make claims that the source is non sustainable, however from the news I remember reading about the whaling here in Japan the Japanese are not suggesting that they will hunt the whales to extinction.

Greenpeas' and other enviromental organizations, to me anyway, like to make it appear that the Japanese want to harvest every last living whale on the planet. I dont think that is true.

Putting limitations on the number and species to me would be fine, then the food source would be sustainable. There are fishing areas throughout the world where there are limits placed on the number of fish or crustaceans that are allowed to be caught or harvested.

The same could be done in my opinion for Japan in regards to the whale issue as well.

Sarapva

May 30, 2007, 07:41

I don't know how I missed all these posts yesterday! I must have been online too early!

If we gave them that choice, and tried to approach things in less confrontational a manner, might that not work???
:?
Just some ideas...
mos :)

mos - This is a good point, and I'm glad you put it in this light. The Japanese continuing whaling could be a reactionary thing or done in defiance. But I don't think any decisions should be made based on the traditions of only one country. The whaling ban is a worldwide ban, so most countries had agreed with it (and I hope they still do when they vote again this week). At the most, some leniency could be given to Japan because it's such an old tradition, but I think that's already been done. I think Japan should show more respect for the rest of the world and comply as much as possible with something a majority of countries voting have decided.

FrustratedDave - I've seen the dolphin hunt video, and I couldn't watch the other links you had. Any video about any suffering, big animal or small, leaves me horrified, depressed and angry for a few days (at least) afterward. Obeika had a good point, that there are millions of small fish caught and processed that probably feel as much pain and suffering as the dolphins and whales. This is why I don't eat any flesh foods anymore, not wanting to support anything that causes that kind of suffering. Whether anything is intelligent or not, if it's alive it can probably feel pain. When we humans have the power to increase or decrease that pain, why don't we choose to decrease it? I don't understand how any human could continue to cause pain after becoming aware that something is feeling pain. Compassion is what separates us from animals after all, isn't it - the ability to empathize and "feel" what another is feeling.

bakaKanadajin

May 30, 2007, 08:21

Intelligence of the animal or fish to me still doesn't make a difference to me. Heck even cockroaches are intelligent enough to run or, in the case of here in Okinawa, fly away when someone swings a rolled newspaper at them.
I think a part of the problem that goes beyond the issue of how intelligent the "whatever" that is being killed is the literally bloody manner with which is was or is done. Something about the blood in my opinion that bothers people, that along with I guess the "intelligence" of the "whatever".

It's not just the blood alone, its the knowledge that the animal is suffering needlessly. The blood is a visual indicator which may strengthen emotional response but its the whole thing, the blood, the contorted bodies, the violent shaking etc. all together, combined with the knowledge that dolphins are highly intelligent creatures who are aware of themselves and each other.

Let's say they took cockroaches, herded them into a corner and stabbed them with little pins so they lay there dying. It's needless and a little silly but it just doesn't evoke the same response. It's just as horrible in principal some would argue, but its still not the same. Why is this? Cockroaches can't make sense of their own suffering, they don't know who their parents are, they don't have a complex social structure (that we know of), their brain capacity is simply nowhere near that of a sentient creature.

Now on the other end of the spectrum of 'animals' or 'things humans kill', lets look at primates. Gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, etc. These are highly intelligent creatures with complex social structures, communicative ability, emotions, etc. As a point of interest, some Chimpanzees raised in captivity are capable of communicating to their caregivers using American sign language and are also interestingly enough capable of lying, artistic expression and caring for pets such as cats. (All documented and factual). Highly intelligent.

By contrast, some humans are incapable of reading, artistic expression, and so on. Some who are severely mentally challenged are incapable of even caring for themselves independently.

Now, before you call me insane I'm not putting dolphins on par with humans, gorillas on par with the mentally challenged, or anything like that. I am saying though that 'intelligence' is a competely conventional and relative term thats not set in stone. While I wouldn't belittle a mentally challenged person out of sheer respect and kindness, I would definitely bestow the title of 'intelligent' on any creature that exhibited certain advanced characteristics.

My point is that intelligence can be relative and just because we're a little higher than everything else on the food chain it doesn't mean whats happening farther down isn't real. When dealing with highly intelligent creatures (which is a gray area but we can definitely say dolphins and whales are part of this group) the suffering they endure can be just as bad as the suffering of a human relatively speaking. The emotion, the pain, etc. They don't just get confused, run around for a bit and then die like a cockroach. They aren't just big dumb fish. The more advanced the animal, the more pain and suffering it endures, and the more upset people get when they see this because its alarmingly close to the same emotional response thats evoked when a human is visibly suffering.

Anyway I'm not arguing, I'm just trying to articulate a position that I feel is legitmately based in science despite it often being labelled as radicalism. In short, I'm not a supporter of PETA, but I know where some of them are coming from.

Sarapva

May 30, 2007, 09:20

They don't just get confused, run around for a bit and then die like a cockroach. They aren't just big dumb fish. The more advanced the animal, the more pain and suffering it endures, and the more upset people get when they see this because its alarmingly close to the same emotional response thats evoked when a human is visibly suffering.

This is a good point, bakaKanadajin. It's more upsetting to see a creature suffering physically when it probably has the intelligence to know that it's us humans who are hurting it, and to maybe wonder why we're hurting it and to want us to stop. The more intelligent the creature, the more mental activity and emotion is probably going on as it suffers. An insect, by contrast, wouldn't know that a human just stepped on it or wonder why we weren't more careful.

diceke

May 30, 2007, 13:33

What do you think of the fact that many anti-whaling countries legally allow animal cruelty such as recreational fox hunting. When a fox is hunted with dogs, it's not killed "humanely" and instantly, but is mauled by the hounds, and torn into pieces. Visual images of whales being killed is emotionally appealing, but any reason why one should be more compassionate towards the suffering of whales than foxes hunted with dogs?

Sarapva

May 31, 2007, 05:56

No, I think fox hunting is another thing that should be made illegal. Ideally, no animal would suffer needlessly at the hands of humans.

bakaKanadajin

May 31, 2007, 10:50

I'm having a hard time following the train of thought on fox hunting here. Ideally yes, no animal should suffer, however one animal attacking another is somewhat unavoidable. It's nasty that people unleash dogs on foxes, but it seems fairly natural to me that one creature would devour another. This is what lions do to zebras, owls do to mice, etc. Some death is unavoidable.

As humans we do not naturally prey on dolphins or other deep sea creatures, our paths don't really cross evolutionarily speaking. Culturally speaking some cultures could claim at one point in time that whaling was vital to their survival but in this day and age the whole exercise in whaling and dolphin killing really has no ground.

KirinMan

May 31, 2007, 11:00

I'm having a hard time following the train of thought on fox hunting here. Ideally yes, no animal should suffer, however one animal attacking another is somewhat unavoidable. It's nasty that people unleash dogs on foxes, but it seems fairly natural to me that one creature would devour another. This is what lions do to zebras, owls do to mice, etc. Some death is unavoidable.

Actually I can follow diceke's point. The foxhunt is purely set up with the intent of killing the fox for pleasure. Its similar to dog fights or c*o*c*k* fights in my opinion.

There may have been a time when it was a neccessity as with the whale hunting for oils.

diceke

May 31, 2007, 17:05

No, I think fox hunting is another thing that should be made illegal. Ideally, no animal would suffer needlessly at the hands of humans.
Are you a vegetarian?:souka:

Sarapva

Jun 1, 2007, 05:30

Are you a vegetarian?:souka:

Yes, I am, for 3 years now! I wish I had stopped eating meat and fish earlier in my life, though. I think it's a much healthier lifestyle.

BakaKanadajin - It's true that animals eat each other and that that's unavoidable, but I think a fox has enough intelligence to know that it's being "set up" by humans, even though dogs are what kills it. In nature if a dog kills a fox, the fox has been living normally until being killed. But in a fox hunt the fox is caged first, knows it's in a cage and can't escape, can hear humans and dogs all around it, and probably knows it's in a situation where it doesn't have a chance.

made of stone

Jun 1, 2007, 05:44

I'm sorry, there is much for me to read on this thread and think about i'm sure (and possibly reply to), but I just read the last few posts about fox hunting and couldn't resist with this (and by the way, I am an avowed consumer of ethically raised and slaughtered meat, and I also believe the research that says it's natural, and that a vegetarian or vegan diet is unnatural):

Yes, I am, for 3 years now! I wish I had stopped eating meat and fish earlier in my life, though. I think it's a much healthier lifestyle.
BakaKanadajin - It's true that animals eat each other and that that's unavoidable, but I think a fox has enough intelligence to know that it's being "set up" by humans, even though dogs are what kills it. In nature if a dog kills a fox, the fox has been living normally until being killed. But in a fox hunt the fox is caged first, knows it's in a cage and can't escape, can hear humans and dogs all around it, and probably knows it's in a situation where it doesn't have a chance.

(From the BBC website yesterday, for the link to the story please click here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6703423.stm))

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42985000/jpg/_42985751_corgi_203_pa.jpg

"Performance artist 'eats corgi'

Mark McGowan eats a "corgi"
The corgi was minced and cooked with apple, onion and seasoning
Performance artist Mark McGowan has eaten what he claims was a cooked corgi in a protest over the Royal Family's treatment of animals.

McGowan performed the stunt on London radio station Resonance FM, and shared his meal with fellow guest Yoko Ono.

"To me it was, as an art piece, exhilarating," he said after the show.

The artist's protest concerned the alleged mistreatment of a fox during a hunt led by Prince Philip in January. The RSPCA said the fox did not suffer.

McGowan, who is a vegetarian, said he wanted his unusual meal to raise awareness about "the RSPCA's inability to prosecute Prince Philip and his friends".

"We love our animals in Britain. Why is it then that we then allow people - especially people who are supposed to be ambassadors for this country - to treat animals with such disrespect?"

The Queen is famously associated with corgis
The corgi, which died at a breeding farm, was minced and cooked with apple, onion and seasoning.

As he ate the meatballs, McGowan reported: "It's disgusting. It's really, really, really disgusting."

The radio show's presenter, Bob Smith, said he was not convinced the meat came from a dog.

But McGowan said: "It's stinky, it's white-looking, it's not like any meat I've ever seen."

Some animal rights activists approved of the stunt.

"The idea of eating a corgi will make many people lose their lunch," said Poorva Joshipura, director of the European arm of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta).

"But foxes, who are hunted for so-called entertainment, are no less capable of feeling fear and pain.

"Most of the British public will agree that it is high time the royals joined the rest of us who live in the 21st Century and opposed to cruelty to animals."

The Royal Family has had a long association with corgi dogs.

The Queen has a particular fondness for corgis, and they have the run of Buckingham Palace - even in the middle of formal state events."

Sarapva

Jun 1, 2007, 09:52

Thanks, mos - I saw this story on my home page news, and thought about our fox hunting posts! I didn't know that Mark McGowan was a vegetarian, though. That must have been hard for him to do! In the story I read, he said he could really only eat about one bite of the corgi. What a stunt, though I guess it drives home the point about foxes being like any other animal, even the Queen's corgis! I'm glad to see that in England people are against fox hunting, too. Is it only the royal family that still does fox hunting?

Sarapva

Jun 1, 2007, 10:04

Here's a link to the World Society for the Protection of Animals update on the Whaling Commission meeting:

http://mikewalt.squarespace.com/journal/2007/5/31/japan-tries-to-slip-commerical-whaling-in-through-the-back-d.html

caster51

Jun 1, 2007, 15:47

According to Yomiuri
Japan may secede from IWC and make a New organization

it is so interesting. :cool:

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20070601-05283524-jijp-bus_all.view-001

Dutch Baka

Jun 1, 2007, 17:11

Please keep it a bit more on topic: Should the ban be lifted? Yes, No, opinion.

There are other threads about dophins, etc.

KirinMan

Jun 1, 2007, 17:18

Should the ban be lifted? Yes, No, opinion.
There are other threads about dophins, etc.

In my opinion yes the ban should be lifted.:-)

Sarapva

Jun 2, 2007, 09:09

From what I can make out, it looks like the world-wide moratorium on commercial whaling is still in place, but Japan is trying to get permission for more whaling. I'll post a link when I find something that explains things clearly.

Sarapva

Jun 3, 2007, 09:03

Here is a link from worldwatch.org about the moratorium and Japan:

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3976

Here's a link from CNN about Japan:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/science/03/28/whale.japan/index.html

This is a link from the Environment News Service:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2004/2004-07-23-02.asp

EmperorHirohito

Jun 3, 2007, 09:35

As far as I am concerned on this topic my answer to if the ban should be lifted is a firm NO.

My reasoning is as follows :- I believe that whales should not be hunted just because someone wants to eat thier flesh or use their blubber in some way. Mankind as we know it seems to be hunting almost everything that it can and in some cases, hunting to near extinction levels.
From what I have read up, fish levels in general in all the major seas and oceans has taken a sharp nosedive in the last ten years. It seems to me that as the Human race, we are eating our fellow animals without thinking of tomorrow.

And lastly one thing pops into my mind when thinking about this topic, and that is a poem called The Rime of The Ancient Mariner, where we should look after all of Gods creatures, rather than kill them all just so we can feed more and more mouths as the world population continues to grow.

bakaKanadajin

Jun 3, 2007, 15:06

keep the ban in place, its not hurting anyone at all and its preserving endangered life for future generations.

what possible logic is there to support lifting the ban?

Sarapva

Jun 4, 2007, 08:35

I think the only "logic" is that from industries wanting to make money. I agree with EmperorHirohito that we humans should be stewards of our environment and animals, taking responsibility and caring for the world around us instead of just exploiting it for short-term, selfish ends. We'd probably indirectly kill off our own species by destroying animals and the environment.

sanji

Jun 4, 2007, 12:39

what possible logic is there to support lifting the ban?

The right question should be "what is the possible logic to refuse to lift the ban?"...

After all, almost all scientists agree with the fact that specific whale species are not in danger anymore, and that responsible hunting would have no influence on their population.

Let's consider only the Minke whales.
The WWF, in this 2002 document (http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/species/publications/index.cfm?uNewsID=3983), estimated the number of Minke whales at between 103000 and 204000 (northern hemisphere) and between 300000 and 760000 in the southern one.

The IWC (http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm) estimated that same population at 510000 to 1140000 (1982, southern hemisphere) and 200000 to 300000 (2000, northern hemisphere).
Those are usually the "minimum values" you find in documents. Other organisations usually provide higher estimates (like the NAMMCO here (http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/Nammco/634.pdf)).
Do you know how many Minke whales were hunted and killed by Japan in 2001? 1089.

Now, can anyone provide me with a reasonable and scientific explanation on why you couldn't hunt a limited amount of whales from this stock? The problem is even opponent usually admit that Minke whales are not endangered, and rely on more subjective arguments, like "whales are intelligent animals" (so are cows), "whales should be protected for our children" (they are not going to disappear since their population is growing up), "there is no need to eat whales" (nor is there really a need to eat sheeps), and so on...

I so much would like to read some reasonable argument... Just one...

sanji

Sarapva

Jun 5, 2007, 09:48

My argument wouldn't be very scientific - sorry, sanji! I don't know all the numbers, but I think the fear is that countries will hunt irresponsibly if they have the "go-ahead", which is why the moratorium got started in the first place. The whale populations are growing probably because they're not being hunted worldwide.

sanji

Jun 5, 2007, 10:32

As a matter of fact, the moratorium got started because indeed the number of whales was dangerously declining, and because studies on the exact number of animals had to be done.

The term "moratorium" speaks for itself. It was supposed, from the beginning, to be only a temporary measure. A measure that was clearly required after years of uncontrolled whaling. In the 19th century, American used to kill up to 10'000 whales per year!

The problem is that although it is now accepted that controlled hunting would not threaten the species, the matter has become political. Countries like USA use the ban as a tool to pressure other countries. Organizations will Greenpeace use it as a way to collect huge amount of money (imagine to use a "save the sharks" logo? Even though sharks probably need to be more protected than Minke whale... But this won't fill Greenpeace's wallet )...

The ban was to be lifted once hunting could be controlled, which is the case today as countries resumed hunting only a small number of whales. But now countries and organization just try to change the original goal of the resolutions taken years ago...

... and this is the main reason why Japan should - and probably will - leave the IWC...

sanji

Goldiegirl

Jun 5, 2007, 10:38

I believe that sharks need protecting as it is customary in some countries to just chop of their fins and then throw them back in the ocean to die. As for whales, there is no need to hunt them. Simple. There are plenty of other protein sources on this planet that require less suffering to obtain them. Eat a soybean....

bakaKanadajin

Jun 5, 2007, 13:10

The right question should be "what is the possible logic to refuse to lift the ban?"...
After all, almost all scientists agree with the fact that specific whale species are not in danger anymore, and that responsible hunting would have no influence on their population.
Let's consider only the Minke whales.
The WWF, in this 2002 document (http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/species/publications/index.cfm?uNewsID=3983), estimated the number of Minke whales at between 103000 and 204000 (northern hemisphere) and between 300000 and 760000 in the southern one.
The IWC (http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm) estimated that same population at 510000 to 1140000 (1982, southern hemisphere) and 200000 to 300000 (2000, northern hemisphere).
Those are usually the "minimum values" you find in documents. Other organisations usually provide higher estimates (like the NAMMCO here (http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/Nammco/634.pdf)).
Do you know how many Minke whales were hunted and killed by Japan in 2001? 1089.
Now, can anyone provide me with a reasonable and scientific explanation on why you couldn't hunt a limited amount of whales from this stock? The problem is even opponent usually admit that Minke whales are not endangered, and rely on more subjective arguments, like "whales are intelligent animals" (so are cows), "whales should be protected for our children" (they are not going to disappear since their population is growing up), "there is no need to eat whales" (nor is there really a need to eat sheeps), and so on...
I so much would like to read some reasonable argument... Just one...
sanji

It's not an issue of 'ok, there are enough of them now let's kill a few'. That isn't the big picture. There are other reasons why whales shouldn't be hunted. Besides being intelligent we have a lot to learn from them and their impact on the oceans ecosystems, which as a whole are in a serious state of decline. I also can't see any reason why killing a wild animal that's in a state of recovery makes sense. Cows, sheep, as intelligent and worthwhile a form of life as they are, are domesticated and largely removed from the food chain. Their status and numbers have little direct impact on the world's ecosystems, unless you're talking about ancilliary effects like slash-and-burn farming in South America or water table pollution from farm run-off. Whales on the other hand continue to be a large part of the ocean's ecosystems, their stability is critical to many other species.

I found an article which highlights the 'logic' better then I can. It basically suggests that the IWC's historical data is rather incorrect, as it mainly relies on records of past whaling activities and log books, which aren't the products of meticulous scientific methods such as radio tracking and genetic research. Through genetics, independent researchers have found that the original whale stocks were much higher than IWC historical data, underlining the impact of commercial whaling over the last century. This also means that we're still far below the cut-off if you're a proponent of the current regulations which state once a population reaches half its historical amount you may hunt.

I would still argue that the onus of presenting logical reasons for lifting the ban rests on the IWC and whaling industry.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/august6/whales-86.html

sanji

Jun 5, 2007, 22:18

Sorry guys, but getting a "Eat a soybean" is NOT an acceptable argument.

After all, Japanese seldom ate beef before the 19th century. What if I suggest - I saw that Goldiegirl has an American flag under the name - to stop eating beef? I strongly disagree when I read the cows have little impact on the world's ecosystems. Some studies suggest that because of the methane they produce, they could threaten the ozone layer...
What about the whales? Why is their "stability is critical to many other species"? They are at the top of the food chain, and eat mostly phytoplankton. Plus, I am not talking of removing them from the nature, I am just suggesting that hunting less than 0.1% of whales per year might perhaps not be detrimental to them, nor to the equilibrium of the nature.

I am well aware of the scientific studies that suggest that the number of whales used to be higher that expected. Problem is: those studies also often suggest than the number of whales, today, is higher than the WWF believe... or would like you to believe.

Men are killing lots of wild animal... Again, I strongly believe that whaling should be severely controlled. But I can not accept a purely ideological ban...

sanji

bakaKanadajin

Jun 5, 2007, 23:11

The reason why they're critical as stated in the article is because their bodies provide nourishment when they decompose for alot of marine life. Alot of species such as killer whales and sharks also feed on whales as a regular source of food. As for the WWF's numbers being inflated, I'm sorry but I can't simply throw them away and start accepting numbers from the IWC. They both have entrenched interests. I'd say something in the middle is more acceptable, but no matter what average you take its still alot less than there used to be. Hundreds of thousands of whales going missing over the course of just a century is going to have a huge impact on the oceans ecosystems especially if combined with massive commercial fishing operations. The connection is clear in my humble opinion.

Also, to clarify, when I said cows dont affect the ecosystem I didn't mean that they have zero impact. As I said, clear-cutting forest for farmland, animal manure run-off into local water tables (e.coli bacteria) and yes, methane as you said, they all impact us. But, there are no natural predators who prey on wild cows that would go extinct due to a lack of cows, same with sheep, they have been domesticated for roughly 10,000 years and are not a keystone of worlds ecosystems aside from being a mainly human food source. The closest thing to a wild cow I can think of is perhaps water buffalo in Africa which the large cat family and crocodiles still rely on for food.

I agree that, if their numbers are increasing it seems as though there's no reason why we can't kill a few, but letting their numbers increase further holds more benefit in the long run than trimming the population down for the benefit of commercial whalers. As I stated in a previous post, the tradition of eating whale meat seems to hold a nostalgic value for the modern Japanese public at best. Demand is low, and there is already enough frozen meat to meet the demand for quite some time.

Sarapva

Jun 6, 2007, 09:12

You all have good arguments, and know a lot more about all this than I do! My only argument is that it doesn't "feel" right to me somehow to kill any whales, except the way small communities do it for subsistence living. Whales don't have a chance against huge ships and harpoons. I saw an exhibit once on an Eskimo tribe that hunts whales for survival, and their belief was that the whale they caught (which was maybe one per year) "agreed" to be caught so that they could survive. Commercial whaling ships most probably don't relate to the whales like this, and wouldn't care if the whales agreed to be caught or not. At least in subsistence hunting there is a relationship with nature, a give and take, and not just take like with commercial hunting.

sanji

Jun 6, 2007, 18:43

I think it doesn't "feel" right to hunt any animal... But why not whales, and why deers, for example? The point is that most people who oppose to whaling do so because of purely "moral" reasons, not for ecological, scientific or economic ones...

For a large number of Japanese, eating whale is not shocking. Many of them don't - it is usually quite expensive, as a matter of fact, but most of them agree that it does, indeed, "feel" right to eat them.

And if the species is not endangered, there is no reason, IMO, not to allow that.

sanji

Sarapva

Jun 7, 2007, 09:02

I'd rather not see any animal hunted, except by people who need them to survive. I realize that whale hunting and eating is a very old tradition in Japan and that this isn't something that can change quickly. Whether whaling is a good thing or not is an argument that will probably go on for decades, if not centuries! But as some animal rights groups say, people have to speak up for animals because they can't speak for themselves. I think it's a good sign that so many people are fighting to protect animals.

Sarapva

Jun 15, 2007, 02:57

Here is an update from the World Society for the Protection of Animals (UK):

http://wspa.org.uk/news.asp?newsID=438&type=0

WSPA pressure pays off at the IWC

The 59th meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) wrapped up in Alaska last week, with WSPA pressing home its message of protecting whale welfare.

Pressure from thousands of concerned WSPA supporters led to more than 20 countries making strong statements of concern for whale welfare – the most seen at any year’s meeting. This unprecedented achievement represents the progress on welfare that’s been made during the years WSPA has attended the IWC.

Departing UK Prime Minister Tony Blair responded to UK public pressure – generated by a WSPA petition – to deliver a statement in favour of continuing the ban on whaling. Such a high level intervention by a head of state has never before been made on the welfare concerns of whaling.

Mr Blair said: “We have been and will remain strong advocates for a moratorium on commercial whaling.”

He went on to cite both conservation and animal welfare as the reasons why the ban should remain in place and be fully observed by all members of the IWC. He added that whaling resulted in unavoidable levels of suffering and that whale-watching was a more appropriate and sustainable use of whales.

Around 2,500 whales will be killed using inhumane methods over the next year. WSPA will be continuing their work to ensure the welfare of these animals is made a priority.

NoWrongInWhaling

Jun 22, 2007, 13:30

bakaKanadajin,

Why wouldn't you accept the IWC's numbers? The figures that have been bandied about by some other people have been criticised by the IWC's Scientific Committee, including scientists that are heavily critical of whaling. For example, IWC Scientific Committee member Phillip Clapham (who's political anti-whaling rhetoric Greenpeace has recently borrowed) said of the inflated figures: "It's completely out of the realm of reality".

It's true that most stocks of whales are still recovering, but the fact is that they are by and large recovering (with perhaps Northern Right and Western Pacific Grey whales as two notable exceptions). Even the blue whale is now recognised to be recovering - and it's the IWC Scientific Committee who is doing this research, not some bunch of scaremongerers who ask everyone for donations so they can "save the whales".

You talk about "Hundreds of thousands of whales going missing ... going to have a huge impact on the oceans ecosystems" - well hey, that's already happened, and it started happening when the industrializing nations started hunting whales like there was no tomorrow back in the 1800's. Whales have been recovering since protection, which were mostly put in place during the 1960's and 1970's (in fact only a couple of non-depleted stocks of whales actually got protection from commercial whaling when the "moratorium" was introduced). You talk about the effects on ocean ecosystems of whales going missing - what's been happening since the 1970's is many whale stocks recovering at rates of around 5% and 10% each year - what effect do you think that will have on the ecosystem?

Humans taking small numbers of whales won't see a reversal of the trend - it will only see rates of growth of between maybe 4.5% and 9.5% each year, instead of between 5% and 10%.

I also agree that we should let numbers increase further. We should let them increase more so that these stocks can recover to higher levels which could sustain even larger levels of harvest, providing humans with more eco-friendly food.

Your comment that "trimming the population down for the benefit of commercial whalers" is backwards. The commercial whalers want larger stocks of whales. If you have a stock of 20,000 whales increasing at 5% each year, that's 1,000 extra whales each year. If you only have a stock of 10,000 whales it's only 500 extra whales each year. It's pretty obvious which is of greater benefit to an industry that wants to stay in business for an indefinite period of time. The greater the sizes of whale stocks, the more profitable sustainable whaling can be. All this requires is strong regulation to ensure that short term interests aren't favoured over long term interests - that's just a matter of creating the right incentives.

Finally, whale meat demand is relatively low compared to other products, but there is hardly any whale meat in stock. Japan has more than a million tonnes of marine products in frozen storage at any point in time. The total of whale meat stockpile sizes around the nation fluctuate between 2,000 and 6,000 tonnes each year. Over the last 12 months the average volume of stock leaving stockpiles each month was 750 tonnes. Current supplies will only last until around October or November.

bakaKanadajin

Jun 22, 2007, 22:14

As I said in my previous post, I wouldn't take either the WWF's or IWC's numbers at face value, as each have entrenched interests. So I'm discounting everyone equally. One side wants the moratorium lifted, the other wants it kept, so they're going to manipulate statistics slightly to augment their positions. If I really had to pick and choose I'd just settle on something in between the two groups. At any rate, I preferred the simple science behind the article I'd found, which was that, no matter what the current stocks are, we've severely underestimated the impact that commercial whaling had on the original numbers so therefore we can't afford to lift the moratorium yet. By it's own formulae, the IWC has to wait until stocks reach a certain percentage of the original estimates, but according to new research we're finding the original estimates to be severely undervalued. So by its own rules the IWC would have to wait for stocks to reach these new previous values. Furthermore, if they're severely undervalued, the impact on the world's oceans becomes more troubling. So either way I think maintianing the moratorium is a good move.

Also I think you may have misinterpreted my remark "trimming the population down for the benefit of commercial whalers". I can appreciate that more whales = better business for whalers. What I meant was that allowing a few thousand whales to be killed each year for the benefit of commercial interests would amount to 'trimming' the growth of the stocks, it's like limiting trees to a certain size by pruning them. I don't see the benefit in allowing growth to slow down like that, especially since in light of new scientific research we are learning that we may have devastated the whale population far worse than originally thought.

But as you said, we should allow numbers to increase so as to provide more food and sustainable oceanic development (or at least contribute to that cause). I agree there, and I also agree that a small amount of whaling wouldn't lead to a reversal of the trend but as I stated above it would slow it down, even a few percent is too much and thats just my opinion. But based on how much catching up there is to do I think every bit counts. If you lift the ban and everyone takes .5% it adds up.

NoWrongInWhaling

Jun 29, 2007, 17:52

Mmmm, I still don't understand why you have a problem with the IWC's numbers. Personally I don't see that the IWC's Scientific Committee has entrenched interests. This is a committee made up of (hundreds of) scientists delegated to it by IWC contracting governments (which are of a mixture of "pro-whaling" and "anti-whaling" persuasion), as well as other experts.
You talk about discounting everyone equally, but still you do opt to go with the figures of Roman and Palumbi. Roman and Palumbi participated in the IWC Scientific Committee and presented their findings, but it didn't go down so well:
(I can't post the link but this is from the IWC homepage:)
"... initial pre-whaling population sizes of humpback, fin and common minke whales in the North Atlantic have considerably more uncertainty than reported, and can not be considered reliable estimates of immediate pre-whaling population size"
Again, this evaluation was from a committee made up of scientists both nominated by various governments as well as non-government delegated experts.
You are exactly right to compare whaling to "limiting trees to a certain size by pruning them". Unfortunately we can't have populations of whales at 100% of their natural carrying capacity and also harvest a yield from it at the same time. That is, we can't have our cake and eat it too :)
There are benefits from hunting for both whaling people and the consumers of whale products. I am guessing you don't personally benefit from it as you aren't jumping up and down enthusiastically about it, but if we have some empathy for our fellow human beings who do make their living out of whaling and also the consumers of whale products, I think we should be tolerant of the activity in recognition of the benefits that it brings them - to the extent that the activity is sustainable and allows future generations of humans to benefit as well, if they so please.
Finally, you say: "If you lift the ban and everyone takes .5% it adds up."
Under a good system, a catch quota should be decided upon biological considerations. So if the IWC (or some other organization) decides that say 500 whales from a given stock of whales is the catch limit, it doesn't mean that everyone gets to take 500, it means that the quota of 500 will have to be divided up amongst the interested parties, if it turns out that more than just a single party wants it.

centrajapan

Sep 16, 2007, 00:39

Whaling does not destroy the environment and is very energy efficient. The biodiversity and habitat does not have to be destroyed and turned into agricultural land.

Whales live freely and are spared the prolonged suffering of factory-farm livestock.

Goldiegirl

Sep 16, 2007, 01:10

Perhaps whales can live freely, but they are certainly not spared from suffering. I don't consider hacking them to death free from suffering.

centrajapan

Sep 16, 2007, 01:18

Whales are shot to death. It is much less barbaric than what we do to cows or pigs.

Goldiegirl

Sep 16, 2007, 01:21

Not all whales are shot to death...do some research.

centrajapan

Sep 16, 2007, 01:28

They are shot to death with harpoons. You are the expert, please enlgithen me.

Sarapva

Sep 16, 2007, 08:45

There are videos of how whaling ships kill whales, and sometimes it can take an hour or longer for the whale to die. I don't have a link to a whaling video right now, but this is one of how the fishermen in Taiji, Japan round up dolphins once a year and slaughter them:

www.glumbert.com/media/dolphin

Be warned that it's very upsetting to watch. I don't understand how the fishermen can be so unconscious of the dolphins' suffering.

centrajapan

Sep 16, 2007, 19:32

The minke whale hunt has much stricter guidelines to how the hunt should be carried out than any other form of wild hunt on this planet.

If you have a better way to catch the dolphins than the way they do in Taji then you should come up with an idea. Telling that they should not eat them woun't do as you probably eat beef, pork and chicken and wear leather shoes.

Sarapva

Sep 17, 2007, 08:53

No, I don't eat any meat or fish, and I'm getting rid of anything I've had that's made with leather. Why are you so angry about this?

centrajapan

Sep 18, 2007, 04:25

I'm not angry. It seems as if you are angry. Well if you don't eat meat and fish, good on you. How come you start a thread on whaling on how evil it is when Japan takes I don't know, but less than 1000 a year and a millions of cows are being slaughtered each day. Good to see you have your prorities.

Sarapva

Sep 18, 2007, 07:43

Factory farmed animals are bred to be killed and eaten - I believe none should be, but there isn't a chance they would go extinct. I think the practices on U.S. farms are just as horrid as the images of whale hunting. I wish more people would let these animals live and enjoy them as living beings instead of wanting to kill them. It isn't a matter of which country is doing what - we all come up short in my opinion in terms of compassionate living. Since this forum is about Japan, I'm talking about Japanese whale hunting - if it was about Norway, I'd probably talk about the fur farms in Norway; if about the U.S., the factory and foie gras farms that are too horrible to describe here.

By the way, are you Norwegian or Japanese (if that's not being too nosy)?

centrajapan

Sep 18, 2007, 16:08

Factory farmed animals are bred to be killed and eaten

A sustainable hunt of a natural renewable resources is the most eco friendly form of food production in the world today.

In contrast. Cow farming is not eco friendly besides, I would much rather be a free whale and get unlucky than Betty the Cow who roams around in the farm only to be slaughtered. You seem not to have a problem with Inuits hunting whales but Japan for some reason. Thats rather discriminatory way of thought you have.

Japan wants to hunt Minke whales. A whale spiecies which is not on any red list and is abdundant. Not every animal hunted goes extinct. There is such a thing called sustainable hunt. Japan is not intereseted in hunting every last whale to extinction. They go through the hassle of being a member of IWC and tell how many whales they want to hunt. Its a rather complicated long winded procedure.

Why are you so much against Japan hunting whales?

Goldiegirl

Sep 18, 2007, 22:05

If there were no other food sources available I would say hunt what ever you need to live. There is no reason to kill whales. I don't think we could ever trust any country to self regulate themselves with how many whales they would slaughter. Every country that has a history of whaling did it to the point where they (we) almost caused the extinction of the species. We have never pushed cows or chickens to that limit. Any whale that isn't protected will eventually end up on the endangered list because humans can't be trusted to not over hunt them.

centrajapan

Sep 19, 2007, 01:27

If there were no other food sources available I would say hunt what ever you need to live. There is no reason to kill whales. I

There is no ned to kill cows but you do it plus THIS has much graver consequences to this planet than Minke whale hunting. Minke whales have been hunted for thouands of years and they are not even close to being endangered. Plus whale meat is the most eco friendly form of meat there is in this world today.

Goldiegirl

Sep 19, 2007, 03:41

We domesticated cows, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese etc, for the sole pupose to have them close at hand so as to not have to hunt. It was keeping our food source close. A dairy cow isn't a "wild" animal anymore. Whale are wild and free, and if they eat fish that you want to eat, tough, you have a choice what to eat, they DON'T!

Sarapva

Sep 19, 2007, 07:11

A sustainable hunt of a natural renewable resources is the most eco friendly form of food production in the world today.
In contrast. Cow farming is not eco friendly ..... Why are you so much against Japan hunting whales?

I agree with you that animal farms are not eco-friendly - they're said to contribute even more toward global warming than cars (I don't have a link to a resource with me right now). I can understand your argument that hunting whales isn't the same as farming - it doesn't take up land and natural resources like water and grain that humans could use instead of farmed animals. My own personal argument is more about the way any animal is killed - the quicker the better.

I'm against any animal being used for profit by humans. Primitive people like the Inuits aren't using whales that way - they live closely with their environment and do what they need to survive.