Whaling is Not A Conservation Issue according to Australians

[centrajapan]

This story just shows how hypocritical Australia’s stance on whaling really is:

Australian animal protection groups questioned on Monday a new government guide for the humane killing of kangaroos which recommends "forcefully swinging" the heads of young animals against a vehicle tow bar.

A proposed code of conduct for shooting young kangaroos, called joeys, and smaller wallabies released by the Department of Environment also recommended a single close-range shotgun blast.

"These changes are basically saying the federal government believes it’s okay to blast a defenseless joey to bits with a shotgun," Pat O’Brien, President of the Wildlife Protection Association, told local newspapers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSSYD8247920080107

A further hit to the anti-whaling lobby came from an unlikely source Australian of the Year Tim Flannery:

ENVIRONMENTALIST and 2007 Australian of the Year Tim Flannery has declared his support for the hugely unpopular Japanese whaling program.

As Australia prepares to monitor the whaling fleet in Antarctica amid rising diplomatic tensions with Japan, Professor Flannery says there is nothing unsustainable about its annual cull of up to 1000 whales - particularly the common minke whale.

"In terms of sustainability, you can’t be sure that the Japanese whaling is entirely unsustainable," Professor Flannery told The Daily Telegraph. "It’s hard to imagine that the whaling would lead to a new decline in population.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22987914-5001021,00.html


The anti-whaling lobby has been spreading the disinformation that the Japanese were going to hunt whales to extinction even though the Minke whale which they are authorized to hunt 935 of is not endangered. Neither is the hunting of 50 Fin whales going to impact its population as well. In fact both whales species numbers continue to grow and as Tim Flannery says are sustainable. So this completely destroys the other anti-whaling argument I hear over and over again that Japanese whaling effects the Australian whale watching industry which is now obviously not true.

The whaling issue has nothing to do with the protecting the environment and conservation as the anti-whaling people are trying to lead people to believe. This whole issue is that these people find whales cute and intelligent and feel that there lives are worth more than other animals. If they would just come out and say that I would have more respect for their argument instead of hiding behind the phony environmental angle.

The fact of the matter is that they need to hide behind the environmental angle because protecting animals because they are cute and smart isn’t likely to mobilize people against whaling. However, when you pass propaganda that the Japanese are hunting whales to extinction, torturing them, violating Australian territorial waters, and going to wipe out the Australian whale watching industry then that will mobilize people even though it is all rubbish.

The actions of the anti-whale lobby may have mobilized people in Australia but it has now also mobilized people in Japan which whaling has now become an issue of nationalism. Additionally the Japanese government has now included whale meat in school lunches in show of solidarity with the whalers. If the anti-whaling people had actually approached this issue in a responsible and mature manner, the eating of whale meat probably would have naturally died off in Japan because the older people that grew up eating it would eventually age and pass away over the years. Now due to the anti-whale people, a whole new generation of Japanese children will now grow up eating whale meat.

Remember this all happening not because of environmental reasons, but because whales are cute and smart. Kangaroos are cute but I guess they are just not smart enough for these people.

http://dailyboomerang.com/2008/01/12/whaling-is-not-a-conservation-issue/

[Kyoto Returnee]

I'm still at a loss Centrajapan why on earth you keep bringing up Kangaroos.

Totally Irrelevant to whales...

Could it possibly be that you are trying to justify the slaughter of the oceans whales because some in Australia inhumanely kill kangaroos?

Nothing to do with the whale issue as far as I can see..

I seriously think you need to druft away from You Tube, and all the other sites you seem to keep copying and pasting..

[centrajapan]

I unlike you value all animals equal. Its not me btw who is pointing out the double morals. Its open minded Australians who are saying it.

[Rose Selavey]

I unlike you value all animals equal. Its not me btw who is pointing out the double morals. Its open minded Australians who are saying it.
Yes it is! Centrajapan you are using the fact that Kangaroos being slaughtered in Australia is a cause for the slaughter of whales. Australians do not have double standards as you put it, the environmentally aware and those which care for all animals are against ANY type of slaughter. And has I have said before, the more people become aware of what is happening in other countries then all the better for the environment. may I ask a question since you are so keen to attack vegetarians and animal rights activates, what is your BMI, and where does your meat come from?

[centrajapan]

I am as I have alreay stated before. I am illustrating the hypocrasy of the Australian government. It is worse to kill kamgaroos for fun than whales for food.

Please follow the link. Its Australian. Good to see that there are some rational Aussies.

[Chi65]

The point is not who is worse, but why at all. . .and there you better start where you are.
And others where they are.

Even WITHOUT Australians the situation in itself would be the same and has been there before the Australians.
Face own responsibility first finally.

[Sarapva]

... the environmentally aware and those which care for all animals are against ANY type of slaughter. And has I have said before, the more people become aware of what is happening in other countries then all the better for the environment.

That's right! We all have the right to criticize and question what other countries are doing - thank goodness, because we live in free countries for the most part (I know that can be argued, but let's not do that here - those are arguments for other threads). And it does help a country to know what other countries think. I'm sure Australia has plenty of criticism within it from animal rights groups.

But I wonder whether there is criticism of Japan's whaling within Japan? Shouldn't people feel free enough to criticize their government and other things within the country?

[Hiroyuki Nagashima]

I found such a video in a net.
I cannot believe contents of this video.:okashii:
Racist Australia and Japanese whaling Vol.1 (ver.1.0)
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=e8lvep0-Ii0

A JAPANESE pro-whaling video condemning Australia as a racist nation using images of the infamous Cronulla riots has been launched onYouTube
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23014405-421,00.html

[centrajapan]

the video makes a good point about dingos being more endangered than humpback whales. and the treatment they give to kangaroos. so it is odd that they have so much higher thoughts about whales than for instance the kangaroos or dingos.

[Kyoto Returnee]

I am trying not to play into Centrajapan's hands but here we go:

Dingoes are a protected species, Kangaroos have to be controlled due to over population and damage to the environment.

Their are strict measures in place for the humane culling of Kangaroos and this is for their own good so the younger can survive.

Their was a time where the Kangaroos were burnt, then we realized that Japanese tourists would eat them along with crocodiles, also taking into account Mad Cow diseases and a large overseas export market, not to mention the meat being much healthier than beef, or so the experts say.

Any in-humane killing of Kanagaroos in Australia IS illegal.

I still cannot see what this has to do with the slaughter and killing of endangered whale species in international waters, which so many countries are against, even more so for "Scientific Purposes".

Have you seen the dolphin slaughter video?

That is definitely something I wouldn't show my kids.

[centrajapan]

the number of whales japan wants to hunt has no impact on the stocks as a whole. despite japan hunting whales the stocks increase each year. so as far as the sustainable argument goes the hunt is sustainable. the whaling debate has become more symbolic.

the reason why it is called scientific is because japan goes down there and calculates how many whales they can hunt. thats what scientific about it. iwc is a whaling organization. countries are bound by an agreement to work towards the best interest of whaling according to scientific data. including australia.

each hunt and each kill of the animal is registered. everything from the time of the kill, if the whale is a male, female etc. in comparison there are no exact numbers of kills in australia of kangaroos. just broad estimates.

dingos are critically endangered but yet they are being killed and many get stuck in fences and traps.

the australian animals are killed due to pest management. in other words they are regarded as pests.

i dont think it is fair of australia to stop japan killing whales for food while they at home turf do not have such a good track record of animals.

apart from that. i would like to visit australia. it seems like a nice country.

[Hiroyuki Nagashima]

Dingoes are a protected species, Kangaroos have to be controlled due to over population and damage to the environment.

It is the too selfish logic.
A method to save life of a kangaroo,
Australian population increase?
An emigrant is more necessary from China and Korea.


If your family moved to Japan ,
A kangaroo is killed?
Head count the same as your family.

[kame]

From the first article:
Former lawmaker and conservationist Richard Jones said the code could backfire on the government in its campaign against Japanese Antarctic whaling, despite the fact kangaroos are not internationally protected like whales.

"We can hardly take the high moral ground on animal welfare and whale conservation when the government is prepared to condone barbaric practices regarding our native wildlife," Jones told the Canberra Times newspaper.

The Reuters article is relevant to whaling.

If you are really against slaughter (of whales or kangaroos) as a principle, you should catch a million kangaroos and spay/neuter them like you would with stray cats. That's more humane, isn't it? No, it's too expensive to birth control kangaroos so we kill them by blowing their heads off.

You can't argue morals when you are doing that.

[Kyoto Returnee]

An emigrant is more necessary from China and Korea.

And Japan . . . . . . . .

[Kyoto Returnee]

apart from that. i would like to visit australia. it seems like a nice country.

It's a popular part of the world!

You can see FULL breed Dingoes around Fraser Island. Do a search for scenery and photos. beautiful place.

Unfortunately, full bred Dingoes are breeding at a rapid pace with wild dogs.

These are dogs that people have let go free in the bush and they have turned wild and in turn have become very dangerous for the human type of animal that may venture to close.

It's a fine line between Kangaroos, tourists, Dingoes, farmers and fences..

[centrajapan]

Dingos are probably like wolves. We got wolves in Norway but the sheep farmers kill them because they are regarded as pests by sheep farmers .

[Rose Selavey]

the number of whales japan wants to hunt has no impact on the stocks as a whole.
Please provide the science for this statment. Japanese whaling has no science to it, their original reasons of why kill to the whales has gone from 'data' to simply a census, whale counting.

[centrajapan]

Tim Flannery the Australian of the year said an Australian who are known to be the most racist anti whalers on this planet said that the Japanese hunt pose no threat and is sustainabnle.

[Kyoto Returnee]

Tim Flannery the Australian of the year said an Australian who are known to be the most racist anti whalers on this planet said that the Japanese hunt pose no threat and is sustainabnle.

Does who know that he's correct?

[centrajapan]

Rose asked me for scientific arguments. I gave her the Australian of the year. If he is not correct then Australia is not correct.

[Chi65]

Rubbish. . . . .. . .

[Rose Selavey]

Time Flannery is not a whale expert, his comments where taken out of context, the next line of his statment is we have more important things to worry about as far as Global Warming is concerned and the need to address climate change. He regrets saying it, but then again Tims main aim as a scientist is too bring scientific issues to the public forum, so a bit of controversy never hurt. The IWC even states re the population size of the Southern Hemisphere Minke whale: The Commission is unable to to provide reliable estimates at the present time. A major review is underway by the Scientific Committee.

[akita]

I hope I'll not offend anyone here. It seams this whaling matter brigs all the time the race problem front. It may sound naive but killing no matter what wild animal that don' t pose you an immediate danger such as killing your family or something like that wrong? You don't protect a specie or another just because it's cute but because is part of nature and killing a part of that nature it's destroying the whole equilibrium. An example of interfering in nature was given below with dingos. It will not be necessary to kill them if humans would act more rationally and not live behind dogs. In the end is all about as not animals.

i don't think that should be a problem of race here like who is more evil. Should I hate Great Britain because some of English people like to hunt fox? Should I hate Koreans because some of them like to eat dogs but others like them as pets? We all have a law that might be consider strange for others or even offensive.

What I don't understand is why is necessary to hunt weals or kangaroos in the first place? Neather of those countries need more food to survive or more resources. What is that a weal can give you and you can't replace with something similar? If you need to eat fish there are fish farms so there is no need to go in the Ocean. As for kangaroos I think there is enough meat around without hunting a wild animal.

[Rose Selavey]

I think you are right akita, it is not necessary to kill either whales or Kangaroos for meat. It is time we took a new approach to food, world wide, local in season and low impact would be best for as all.

[Sarapva]

You don't protect a specie or another just because it's cute but because is part of nature and killing a part of that nature it's destroying the whole equilibrium.

Thanks, akita - I think this is the main argument against whaling. It's also the same for any other environmental destruction like cutting forests down to build on the land. Rose is right - we need to rethink all these things we're doing that only destroy the earth, and try to live with a "light footprint" with as little damage to the environment as possible.

[Kyoto Returnee]

i don't think that should be a problem of race here like who is more evil. Should I hate Great Britain because some of English people like to hunt fox? Should I hate Koreans because some of them like to eat dogs but others like them as pets?
Could not have said that better myself..

My uncle breeds Simental and Herreford cattle with a farm near a town named Tamworth in the state of New South Wales, Australia.

My Uncle and Aunt adore and care for animals like gold..

I must ask my uncle in regards to the slaughter process for cattle to understand if it is humane or not.

[Sarapva]

I must ask my uncle in regards to the slaughter process for cattle to understand if it is humane or not.

I'd be interested in what you find out! :cool:

[Chi65]

Sarapva:
Thanks, akita - I think this is the main argument against whaling. It's also the same for any other environmental destruction like cutting forests down to build on the land. Rose is right - we need to rethink all these things we're doing that only destroy the earth, and try to live with a "light footprint" with as little damage to the environment as possible.

Yep. Exactly, at least not willingly destroy.
That has to do with respect and responsibility, and the strange thing in the whole story is, THAT is Japan's former culture! Living in harmony with nature. Not what they allow now.
If only. . . .sigh. . .

[Sarapva]

Yes - that's what I thought, Chi. We hear about Japanese gardens and taking care of the environment. Maybe things have changed in the last 20 years?

[Chi65]

I believe, its still there, but also the threads of other cultures disordering this.

Insofar their fear of being overtaken is real. But they did the same with others, and it might well be a kind of chain-reaction, after having been forced to open after a long closing down for outsiders, to name only one event.

Which says, you have to go even further back and then we have the invaders from Portugal. . .saying, that they come with "God", but been heard for saying something like: "first the religion, then the rest" (for commerce!) on a ship, where there was a Japanese with good ears.

This caused the very rest, the foreigners were thrown out, who had behaved badly already, by attacking japanese believes with destructive actions, thus the Japanese were defending and also agressive. But this talk on the ship gave it the rest.

I adored the Japanese for having heard this, because other nations around at that time haven't, and consequently were overrun. Not so Japan, still an outstanding example!

Starting from there, and then to Commodore Perry, who forced Japan to open up, you may get the kind of trauma, thats still there somehow.
I come with psychology, not just history.

There are many following events, that can very well be dated back to those events, still.
As for the japanese behaviour pattern, and why this and when and not that etc.

And I have a clear view about the differences of the perceptions of the Japanese and other cultures, including their behavior towards their neighbour states. Having come slowly and via China>Korea, I had enough time, to think and feel about this.

What still is taken for an "offence" indeed, if others tell them. But in some cases its fatal for Japan, because often, friendly views from outside may have a better overview. Thats normal everywhere, and thats what friends are for. But not so for a hurt pride. . .

Fact is, they have done so much to adapt positively after the opening, but then linked themselves to Nazi-times, overrated themselves and got the according answer, as much overdone. Next trauma.

The old asian way is to try to understand the other one first, try to see things from their point of view, thats asic politeness, and then maybe show yourself, not the other way round. But the west did it exactly the other way round, which must have puzzled them a lot, every time, they had the "pleasure" to be touched. . .

And so they learned the games of the other side, mirroring them back, beause the old chinese and also japanese habit was, to honour someone, by taking something and giving it back in advanced form. Next shock, they were accused for stealing!
(the copyright-story as an example, it was understood as the right to copy, not in our way. . .)

However, they often found themselves in such a strange situation before, I suppose, being accused for being agressive, where they were not, to give you an idea. Combine this with the hurt of being intruded, thus handled agressively, you have the spriral of war. And can very well lead to overrating yourself by trying to restore your own inner strength in the hope, that your emperor really is a god (this story was invented after Perry, by the way, not before!!), and thus you cannot fail.
That has cost many cultures maybe first ups, but then downs, because it was a bubble to burst sooner or later.

Anyhow, the inner self-worth-balance was disturbed, although not in all of them. By finding others, be it a Maori, who also has similar traumas and thus knows how to "handle" them to his wish, or similar thinkers, who also felt mishandled, so to say...well, the whaling war, as it is already called.

And yet, if they remember their own real inner strength, they may find back to their original harmony and see what is possible, necessary or not. Adapting to new situations or changes, has never really been their problems. They had enough natural desasters to be trained to get up again quickly, much better than others!! Thus, if they remember that too, they can have a quick recovery, but only then.

They ought to know and remember, if they behave against nature, nature strikes back. . .hardly anyone knows better than them.

But this also means, that outsiders should try to understand them and help them to recover. Not help them to go on hurting nature (F..., some agressive norvegians are exactly wrong for them), but to relax and see clear.

I am sure, as soon as they will stand up again for what they once were and held up (in relation to such positive parts of culture), they can count on all the help in the world. Not much to loose, except some agressive manipulators for money only (that play a false game with their deeper hurts), and maybe some outdated habits.
Its just a tiny little step further. . .

I may be naive, but thats about the sketch of the picture.

[david@tokyo]

You don't protect a specie or another just because it's cute but because is part of nature and killing a part of that nature it's destroying the whole equilibrium.
It is certainly true that whaling in the past greatly disturbed the ecosystems within which the targeted whales were existing.
However the reason for this was that whaling activity in the past was out of control, unregulated, and based on economics rather than biological considerations.
This saw species after species of whale depleted, one after the other, and it's true that today some species haven't recovered to anywhere near the levels that they were at previously.
However in the 1960's and 1970's the IWC first started to heed conservation advice, protecting both humpbacks and blue whales from hunting in the 1960's, and then with the development of a management procedure based on biological considerations, fin whales and other species in the 1970's.
When the moratorium was adopted in the early 1980's, almost all whale species were already protected anyway, with minke whales and Bryde's whales the exceptions.
The IWC subsequently developed a more risk averse and throughly simulation tested management procedure by the early 1990's.
Under this management procedure, initial whale harvests would be less than 0.5% of the estimated abundance of a given stock of whales. For example, after the IWC scientific committee estimated the antartic minke whale population to be 761,000 (with a lower 95% confidence level of more than 500,000) in the early 1990's, using the new management procedure it stated that 2,000 minke whales could safely be harvested every year. 2,000 whales was just 0.26% of the estimated abundance, and even in a worst case scenario putting abundance at 500,000, still only 0.4%.
These conservative levels of harvest are unlikely to see the balance of the marine ecosystems in which whales live destroyed again.
Indeed, if all marine resources were managed in such a conservative manner, the world's oceans would likely be in far better shape than they are now.
Banning all whaling, or any harvest of natural resources, is simply unrealistic, and fails to take into consideration the desires of our fellow human beings who choose to enjoy the benefits of whales.
As for kangaroos I think there is enough meat around without hunting a wild animal.
To throw another idea into the ring - is it necessary to farm the animals that are slaughtered to provide the "enough meat" that you refer to, when there are abundant populations of naturally occuring kangaroos in Australia which could be harvested on a sustainable instead, or at least to some degree to offset dependence on farmed animal meat?

[Chi65]

Banning all whaling, or any harvest of natural resources, is simply unrealistic, and fails to take into consideration the desires of our fellow human beings who choose to enjoy the benefits of whales.


Any harvest and whaling are two different issues.

Particularly after we know, how the later is handled despite the poisonings.

No excuse, since we know the Whaling comittee story already, over and over again.

[Hiroyuki Nagashima]

Dairy farming gives the earth great damage than whaling.
A large quantity of cereals are necessary to breed a cow and a pig, a ****.
Therefore a forest is felled.
Bait of a whale is plankton.
You should prohibit dairy farming for the earth.

[Chi65]

I don't know enough about that farming, and it may as well have to be revised.

But thats not the issue here, nor does it make the whaling problem any smaller.

[david@tokyo]

Any harvest and whaling are two different issues.

In principle, any harvest of biological resources is the same. Research is required to obtain an understanding of the dynamics of the population, for example, rates of natural mortality, age at sexual maturity, reproductive rates and so on.

Whale species are no different from other animals that humans choose to harvest in this respect, although of course the exact dynamics of their populations differs from the dynamics of other species.

With a view to harvesting whales on a sustainable basis, naturally ongoing research is essential.

As I noted in my previous comment, under future IWC managed whaling, catch limits would be set at extremely conservative levels. One of the developers of this "revised management procedure" noted of it that the only scientific basis for questioning it would be on the grounds that it is so risk averse that it will see humans forgo much of a potential harvest.

[Chi65]

. . .of poison, congrats, humans!

Lemmings. . .

can't be stopped from killing themselves (by killing others in this case), never waking up.

[david@tokyo]

Research shows that the meat from baleen whales, especially those from the Antarctic, is very low in contaminants and is certainly safe to eat.

Meat from toothed whales tends to have higher levels of contaminants, and frequent consumption may lead to health issues, although to date I am yet to hear of any such issues.

In my experience most whale meat on sale appears to be well labeled, and in one instance where I found a product that was poorly labeled I could surmise the species from the meat itself, as well as the stated area of production. I took the liberty of contacting my local authorities about the poor labeling, and they undertook to advise the retailer in question of the new labeling guidelines under the JAS law.

As for consumption of baleen whales however, there is little risk involved in consumption and a range of health benefits. My hope is that with a resumption of sustainable whaling the demand for toothed whale products will decrease (it was with the commercial whaling moratorium in the first place that led to fishermen seeking to hunt more porpoises in the first instance).

[Chi65]

They took samples from shops and tested them, the result was in all cases, not safe. . .

How old is your source?

[david@tokyo]

The Japanese Health Ministry did a study in 2003, which found that the red meat from baleen whales is safe to eat, and with respect to Antarctic minke whales, the internal organs and blubber are also well within safety guidelines. For whales in the western north pacific, there are cases where some parts, such as the blubber, were slightly above Japanese ministry guidelines.

The meat from some dolphin species was quite problematic, and one would not want to eat it too frequently.

This is another reason why it is desirable that sustainable commercial whaling be resumed.

[Chi65]

2003 is already outdated!

We have 2008, and there are several more informations about later studies posted already, especially with meat to be found on the markets.

But if you wish to support slow poisonings. . .

[david@tokyo]

Would you care to provide information about the studies you mention?

[Chi65]

Would you care to provide information about the studies you mention?

Would you care, looking and reading through other whaling threads of lately?
It is impossible, nor necessary, to repeat it all.

Take your time, its all there.

[david@tokyo]

I searched quite carefully, but can't find any new studies on whale meat, only similarly old studies.

One study conducted between 2000 and 2002 that mentioned in an older thread talked about toothed whales tending to accumulate higher mercury levels than baleen whales.

This report said essentiallly the same thing as the Ministry study. Dall's porpoises for example were noted as having average total mercury level of 1.26 ppm, and the Ministry study average was 0.74 ppm, also above the guideline of 0.4 ppm (although below the USA guideline level of 1.0 ppm).

The old report says North Pacific minke whale samples had a total average mercury level of 0.10 ppm. 0.1 ppm is of course within the Ministry guideline of 0.4 ppm, and does not represent a problem. In the Ministry's study, the average was 0.2 ppm (also within the guideline), and even the maximum value detected was 0.8 ppm (over the Japanese guideline, but within the US one).

So both the older study by independent scientists and the Ministry study both confirmed that north pacific baleen whale meat is safe to consume.

The serious problem noted in both studies appears to be the consumption of the internal organs of toothed whales.

This is why I suggest that resuming sustainable commercial whaling of baleen whales (thus reducing demand for the meat from smaller toothed cetaceans) would be a positive step for Japan to take, in addition to educating shop retailers who are unaware of the JAS product labeling guidelines which advise that species name be included on the packages.

[Chi65]

You have not looked at the researches for whale meat in the market, particularly so-called "research whaling" meat. . .

[Kyoto Returnee]

So both the older study by independent scientists and the Ministry study both confirmed that north pacific baleen whale meat is safe to consume.

The serious problem noted in both studies appears to be the consumption of the internal organs of toothed whales.



Old out of date news.

I would not believe what comes out of Japan.

[Chi65]

Old out of date news.

I would not believe what comes out of Japan.

Except from those independants and "undercover researchers" about "scientific research" meat and the like, which have been pretty good lately.

[david@tokyo]

Old out of date news.

The old, and according to you, out of date studies appear to reconcile, despite one being conducted by apparently independent scientists and another by Japan's Ministry of health.

I would not believe what comes out of Japan.

Meat from baleen whales for consumption is only available in nations that permit this, such as Japan, Norway, Iceland, South Korea and so on, unfortunately if you wish to get the information it's going to come from such a source.

Given that the majority of whale meat available in Japan is baleen whale meat, and the majority of that comes from the pristine Antarctic ocean where the whales predominantly feed at very low trophic level on prey such as krill, the idea that this meat is very clean does not seem to be a big stretch of the imagination.

Certainly some meat from small tooth cetaceans harvested in the North Pacific does have significant issues, but I would question the motives of those who wish to cast doubt on the results of studies that indicate meat from a pristine environment is not fit for human consumption.