Japan wins key vote to reintroduce commercial whaling

[Reenk Roink]

I hope we can change your opinion.

With your polite and intelligent discussion, there certainly is a possibility.

Generally I'd agree, but when an species is close to extintion, I say no. There's something wrong with that. Besides as someone said above the food is rotting in the storage.

First, my apologies for my lack of elaboration. The Carolina Hurricanes won the Stanley Cup ( the Red Wings Curse) shortly after my post...

I understand that many species of whale are endangered. This is why my first stipulation was "regulate". Also, I do believe that hunting can coexist with efforts to repopulate the whales.

Sadly, both regulation and repopulation are likely not to occur on the initiative of the whalers themselves (human nature), which is why the government must step in. Once again, this sadly is not the case.

Still, it is a more palatable, and more realistic proposal for the other side to allow for regulated whaling then to just flat out ban it.

As for the waste, what can I say? This is just another characteristic of our modern selves...

Because that's really possible at the moment. Please come back when you wake up to the reality of how whaling occurs.

In the 1860s, a Norwegian, Svend Foyn, invented a cannon-fired harpoon with an explosive head. His harpoon gun was improved upon until, by the 1870s, it had reached its present form: a cylindrical steel device shot from a cannon-type gun and trailing a heavy rope. The force of the shot carried the harpoon great distances and penetrated deep into the whale's body. A charge on the tip exploded, and movable barbs opened out to fasten the weapon snugly inside the whale. Most whales sink when they die (the sperm whale is the sole exception), so dead whales were pumped full of air to keep them afloat.

Also, I am well aware that the the anti-whaling group Whalewatch, in it's report Troubled Waters had figures that 20% of Norwegian killed whales and 60% of Japanese killed whales fail to die immediately after being harpooned. While these are not satisfactory at all, the numbers most certainly can be improved. And it is most certainly possible that a whale can be killed instantaneously and painlessly. Besides, the cruel killing concern goes much beyond just whales...

[doc_bean]

Nothing wrong with hunting whales for food...

Be sure to regulate it, make the kill painless and instantenous, and help the whale community survive; but really, we kill cows for food...

Err..watch my dolphin video, whaling is pretty similar, expect they're bigger.

I don't really mind the cruelty that much, it's human nature I guess, I can accept it, although i'd never support it, but Japan simply threatens the eco system. Such short sightedness...

Also, I take the Navaros stance on animal testing...

Even for medical purposes ? What about surgeon training ?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

What about surgeon training?

Surgeons train on live animals in Belgium?

[doc_bean]

Surgeons train on live animals in Belgium?

They did, gorillas. they still have a few held at an undisclosed location.

They train on corpses first of course, but that was their first 'live' test subject. They killed the animals after the operation since the students more often than not would mess up completely. Now they do their first 'live' test on a human being...

[Sigurd]

There's long way to go before commercial whaling returns ...

A long way? We have had commercial whaling since 1993.
We conduct controlled whaling on the large stock of mink whales in our waters. We have conducted whaling since the beginning of times and have as much right to take from the seas its larger fruits as has the aborigines in the lands to the west (say no more).

[Reenk Roink]

Err..watch my dolphin video, whaling is pretty similar, expect they're bigger.

I did mate, it's gruesome. But just the description of whaling in the encyclopedia article was gruesome as well; yet it is still possible to kill the whale instantly. That's what I'm going for. After all, suffocation leaves no physical marks, and yet it is much more painful than a quick harpoon death...

[Xiahou]

Whaling for food in a controlled manner would be one thing- but no one even wants to eat it. The meat is just rotting at the markets. Im afraid they dont have much justification for wanting to do this.

[Papewaio]

A long way? We have had commercial whaling since 1993.
We conduct controlled whaling on the large stock of mink whales in our waters. We have conducted whaling since the beginning of times and have as much right to take from the seas its larger fruits as has the aborigines in the lands to the west (say no more).

Actually as part of the world and it is a world resource then you have as much right as the rest of the world. If the world says no to using shared resources then play ball.

If you want to actually pay your way then by all means farm the animals.

Also if this is going to be based on being a tradition, use traditional methods.

Norway has no legs to stand on when it complains about others ignoring international conventions. Japan on the other hand is actively using bribing and threats to try and achieve its ends.

[Sigurd]

Actually as part of the world and it is a world resource then you have as much right as the rest of the world. If the world says no to using shared resources then play ball.

If you want to actually pay your way then by all means farm the animals.

Also if this is going to be based on being a tradition, use traditional methods.

Norway has no legs to stand on when it complains about others ignoring international conventions. Japan on the other hand is actively using bribing and threats to try and achieve its ends.

We did not recognize the move certain lobbyists did to make the minke whale appendix 1(no hunting) from appendix 2 (limited hunting) as is our right according to the convention's article V no 3.
A formal protest was made and we are therefore not bound to this restriction according to the same convention.
IWC has not been true to the convention and has therefore not attended their management duties.
The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and its articles 61, 62 and 65 gives us economic rights to the sea mammals in our waters according to certain conditions.
The conditions we meet.
IWC does not listen to their scientific board as is written in hard capitals in the same convention you say we break, they are swayed by emotionally loaded drivel.
That is why no international court can make us stop.
The only card the world has left is the emotionally loaded one.
You should all attack America that lets their aborigines extinguish the Bowhead whales.
You now the ones that can become over 200 years old.

[Vladimir]

Only an ignorant, inhuman, blistering idiot would kill this magnificient creature for food.

That depends on how good they taste. One of these bad boys can kept me fed for over a week! Really though, subjective, emotional, sensationalized nonsense because after all, if someone does something you disagree with or makes you feel bad they're an idiot. Anyone hear of the “Whole Foods” store that stopped selling live lobsters. You can kill them before they get to the store but apparently you just can’t count on the ignorant consumer to kill them in a humane way I suppose. Similar rubbish.

The best way to protect whaling is to legalize it. Make countries/companies pay to hunt them, regulate the industry, and enforce the regulations. This way not only can you control the hunting but you delegitimize those who don’t follow the laws. Let the UN control it , that rapid response force they want can help enforce the regulations.

[Beirut]

That depends on how good they taste. One of these bad boys can kept me fed for over a week! Really though, subjective, emotional, sensationalized nonsense because after all, if someone does something you disagree with or makes you feel bad they're an idiot.

Welcome to the world of faith-based environmentalism.

Many peoples's culinary biases are deeply rooted in culture, religion, and emotionalism. This does not mean they are always wrong. Much of what people use as criteria to explain the difference between right and wrong in many aspects of life is also "subjective, emotional, and sensasionalized", but not necessarily "nonsense". Mind you, the two are often mixed in odd ways. There are places where a cow is considered sacred and children are not. Subjectivity and emotionalism are everywhere at all times and make for curious patterns of behaviour.

To me, eating dogs and whales and gorillas is insane. It is abberant, disgusting, inhuman behaviour to the nth degree, yet others see it as routine. If they feel they have a right to act in such a way, then I have a right to criticize their behaviour (as do they mine).

Some people think what I do is terrible. But even we who cut trees down are aware of the difference between right and wrong. We know clear cutting is wrong. We know cutting giant cedars and redwoods is wrong. We know cutting down fifty healthy trees to improve a guy's view of the lake is wrong. And we do refuse work on moral grounds, whereas the homeowner stands by his "It's my land and I'll do what the hell I want!" viewpoint. Who is right and who is wrong?

We're not Vulcans, we are a passionate species who chose right and wrong based often on little else but subjectivity and emotionalism. We elevate ourselves, philosophically and technologically through a deeper understanding of our surroundings while applying those qualiities. Otherwise what would we be but machines bent on increased production regardless of the cost. But, since we are biased, emotional creatures, I am applying my bias and I am saying that killing whales for food is a grotesque violation of nature and just plain stupid.

What next? Should restaurants serve dolphin burgers and cat sandwiches? Do we really want the meat counter to stock ground monkey and dog meat? Where would you draw the line? Just because you can kill and eat an animal most certainly does not mean you should. What's in the back of your brain is just as important as what's on the tip of your fork.

Anyone hear of the “Whole Foods” store that stopped selling live lobsters. You can kill them before they get to the store but apparently you just can’t count on the ignorant consumer to kill them in a humane way I suppose. Similar rubbish.

I think cooking any animal alive is cruel. It is simply not required and it is barbaric.

[Vladimir]

So that’s how you make decisions and determine your beliefs. Instead of using reason and a logical decision making process you think that because some people make decisions purely based on emotions that there’s nothing wrong with you doing the same. I understand your personal beliefs on this issue but you’re saying that it’s ok to make knee jerk decisions? The standard we as rational beings need to have is to hold to a certain standard while accepting that our human imperfections will affect our decisions (bounded rationality and all that).

Just remember that for you to live, something needs to die. Just because you feel bad about it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen (not to put too much focus on any one person). It’s an odd thing that people consider reverting to our base emotions a characteristic of civilization. An issue like whaling is much larger than roasting rover over a grill or chilled monkey brains (Temple of Doom ) and needs to be regulated. So are we going to ban it like elephant and rhino poaching, or try to regulate (and enforce) it as we should?

Edit: And not required? What the heck does that mean? Should you cut it's head off first or make it OD on Morphine?

[Kralizec]

What about cats and dogs? They're not threatened with extinction and easier to replace then whales anyway. Also cheaper to kill them, and I guess easier to prepare. How it tastes is secundary to me, everybody eats pigs and/or cows so that doesn't do it for me. But if every Dutch person starts doing it, it will be even better- we'll have a tradition! And traditions are good.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If you're incredibly stupid and didn't realise I was being sacrastic: I was being sarcastic. I like cats and dogs, but not on my plate.

Vladimir: I assume you're in favour for elephant and rhino, and maybe panda/tiger/other endagered species hunting too?

[Beirut]

So that’s how you make decisions and determine your beliefs. Instead of using reason and a logical decision making process you think that because some people make decisions purely based on emotions that there’s nothing wrong with you doing the same (we have women for that).

It's a mix of all of the above. Find me a human who makes his decisions based solely on logic and reason and I will show you someone who is not actually human at all.

Just remember that for you to live, something needs to die.

I can accept that things die in order that I might live. But I am also willing to draw the line at what I am willing to let die so that I might live. We all make moral judgements concerning our pleasures and their costs. Killing a blue whale so I can have a bowl of "fish" soup is simply beyond reason.

So are we going to ban it like elephant and rhino poaching, or try to regulate (and enforce) it as we should?

Ban it.

Edit: And not required? What the heck does that mean? Should you cut it's head off first or make it OD on Morphine?

It means causing pain to an animal is not required as part of the cooking process. You want to eat a lobster, fine. Eat all you want. But I see no reason, given modern technology, that something needs to be cooked while still alive in order to enjoy it.

Cutting off it's head is a good idea. Some chefs do just that. The morphine, while offering certain pleasing sensations to the lobster (and you perhaps), might impart a strange flavour.

[Reenk Roink]

My position remains firm that if these conditions are met:

- instant and painless killing of the animal
- regulation and repopulation of any endangered species
- waste minimized

that humans are justified in killing animals, including whales, including dolphins, for food and other beneficial uses (sans sport). This is my paradigm, otherwise I would have a crisis of what I eat.

I will continue to have no whale meat in my diet. Why? I don't like whale meat. I don't like fish, squid, octopus, or anything else from the sea, so I probably wouldn't like whale.

However, whale is a staple diet of several native tribes, and widely eaten in other countries.

[Kralizec]

From what I read whale meat is fairly disgusting to most. Even in Japan there is an anti whaling movement because whale burgers are not as popular as they're made out to be (hence the rotting carcasses) and because it gives the country a bad name.

[AntiochusIII]

I never understand the "legalize and regulate it" position when clearly that not only will not achieve what those who support the position wants to do (i.e. control) it will cause only more trouble. What would a poacher do if the elephant-hunting activity is now legalized? Will he continue hunting like he was, not changing his ways, except now proclaiming "the government supports us!" and gain a fake moral superiority, as well as a certain defense against criminalization (sure, it's still against the new law in this case but any good lawyer can twist the facts, distract, and change the case so this guy seems no longer to be hunting elephants out-of-the-rule but in), or will he just submit to this new, heavily annoying rule that forces him out of the hunting he knows and limits him from doing what he always do?

Of course, we know the choice. It doesn't help.

[Reenk Roink]

I never understand the "legalize and regulate it" position when clearly that not only will not achieve what those who support the position wants to do (i.e. control) it will cause only more trouble. What would a poacher do if the elephant-hunting activity is now legalized? Will he continue hunting like he was, not changing his ways, except now proclaiming "the government supports us!" and gain a fake moral superiority, as well as a certain defense against criminalization (sure, it's still against the new law in this case but any good lawyer can twist the facts, distract, and change the case so this guy seems no longer to be hunting elephants out-of-the-rule but in), or will he just submit to this new, heavily annoying rule that forces him out of the hunting he knows and limits him from doing what he always do?

Of course, we know the choice. It doesn't help.

A regulated system is necessary in almost any scenario...

Humans need regulations, and regulations need to be enforced.

Frankly, I like my "regulate and repopulate" idea, better than "ban it".

People in countries where whaling occurs are going to defend it, as you can see by what just happened in Japan...

"Regulate and repopulate" would allow people to continue on taking food and oils, and help the whale population make a comeback.

Of course, I'm being Panglossian* once again, because it seems that neither side wants to compromise on an issue where a compromise would give one side the food and oils they need, and the other the increase in the whale population as well as quick deaths, without really taking away anything...

*(no, I still think Voltaire is the most overrated writer ever; hence why I like Pangloss )

[Banquo's Ghost]

A regulated system is necessary in almost any scenario...

Humans need regulations, and regulations need to be enforced.

Frankly, I like my "regulate and repopulate" idea, better than "ban it".

People in countries where whaling occurs are going to defend it, as you can see by what just happened in Japan...

"Regulate and repopulate" would allow people to continue on taking food and oils, and help the whale population make a comeback.

Of course, I'm being Panglossian* once again, because it seems that neither side wants to compromise on an issue where a compromise would give one side the food and oils they need, and the other the increase in the whale population as well as quick deaths, without really taking away anything...

It's not really that neither side wants to compromise - regulated hunting works in some conservation scenarios. The issue with whaling is that Japan and the other whaling nations have a complete blind spot with regard to the science (for example, they cite minke whales as being a sustainable resource, but actually hunt other species - soon they will start hunting humpbacks in the Southern Ocean Refuge, and these are very certainly endangered still). It's therefore really difficult to believe they wouldn't break future quotas as they regularly do now for 'scientific whaling.' Norway doesn't even bother with that pretense - why would they respect any restrictions in the future?

There really is no need for whale meat and oils nowadays. Consumption of the former is declining, and the latter has been replaced by synthetics.

Sustainable harvesting of whales is tough. We know so little about the true state of ocean stocks and their real fragility. As the fishing industry proves, commercial interests always argue the science is too conservative and doom laden - until the stocks collapse. Most whales take many years to reproduce, unlike anchovies. We over-harvest and they're gone forever. There are always those who push the boundaries. The oceans are notoriously difficult to police. Few people argue we should allow hunting of tigers so the Chinese can get their peckers up and some oddballs can have a moulting rug. If there was a real product need from whales or tigers, we might have to consider a sustainable use. But there is absolutely no need to kill either except to satisfy a few nations' macho aspirations. (My remarks include aboriginal people too - there is a wierd hypocrisy in the environmental movement that thinks it's OK for an Inuit to kill a whale but not a Norwegian, for essentially the same purpose. Neither, in the modern world, needs to kill whales to prove their manhood or satsify a need).

In addition, your point about humane killing has a touching faith in technology, but all studies have shown whales die agonisingly over a long time. It simply isn't possible to fire a harpoon into the brain of a diving, fleeing mammal from a bucking boat 100% accurately every time. These are not farm-bred cattle waiting patiently for the stun-bolt to smash their brain. Whales are among the most intelligent mammals to have evolved, and they communicate - other whales hear the death screams over many hundreds of miles, and show clear signs of empathic distress.

If the emotional perspective that Beirut so ably articulated is also to be dismissed, why then do we not harvest all that human meat currently going to waste in the developing world? There is nothing special about humans, except our rather bizarre emotional attachment to our own species. Given the expressions of outrage in other threads, maybe we could eat paedophiles and solve two problems at once?

[_Martyr_]

I think the difference between the Norwegans and the Native cultures is that the Native cultures use traditional methods, kayaks and spears, as they have been doing for God knows how long. I dont really have a problem with this. The Norwegans and Japanese are using fast modern ships, advanced sonar tracking equipment and mechanical harpoons, following a diving whale around till it has to surface to breathe, firing the harpoon and then slowly drowning it by dragging it backwards... not exactly the same thing if you ask me. Add to that that the whales arent being eaten, its just a subsidised industry that the whaling countries dont want to lose.

This so called "Regulate and repopulate" idea is utterly absurd. Whats next, should we be hunting Orangutans? How about Pandas? Yeah, I can just see the logic now... killing off a significant percentage of these endangered mamals to rot in Japanese markets will clearly "repopulte" them... Maybe we should try it on the Dodo?

An outright ban on commercial whaling with a strong internationally enforced authority that activly goes after poachers is the only way.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think the difference between the Norwegans and the Native cultures is that the Native cultures use traditional methods, kayaks and spears, as they have been doing for God knows how long.

Maybe so, but they don't need to hunt anymore. There's no logic in arguing that whales must be conserved at all costs, unless they're killed with pointy sticks. The suffering of the whale is arguably considerably more under ancient methods.

The same argument is often made to allow native peoples to continue in oppressing women or other breaches of human rights. If something is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of tradition. Is it right that bears are kept in suffocating captivity so that their bile can be drained every day to serve the Chinese 'medical' market? Chinese 'medicine' is a tradition many thousands of years old.

In other words: A dead whale is a still a dead whale.

[Reenk Roink]

It's not really that neither side wants to compromise - regulated hunting works in some conservation scenarios. The issue with whaling is that Japan and the other whaling nations have a complete blind spot with regard to the science (for example, they cite minke whales as being a sustainable resource, but actually hunt other species - soon they will start hunting humpbacks in the Southern Ocean Refuge, and these are very certainly endangered still). It's therefore really difficult to believe they wouldn't break future quotas as they regularly do now for 'scientific whaling.' Norway doesn't even bother with that pretense - why would they respect any restrictions in the future?

Enforcement...

There really is no need for whale meat and oils nowadays. Consumption of the former is declining, and the latter has been replaced by synthetics.

Then the demand can be satisfied with less whales, yet it cannot be satisfied with no whales.

Sustainable harvesting of whales is tough. We know so little about the true state of ocean stocks and their real fragility. As the fishing industry proves, commercial interests always argue the science is too conservative and doom laden - until the stocks collapse. Most whales take many years to reproduce, unlike anchovies. We over-harvest and they're gone forever. There are always those who push the boundaries. The oceans are notoriously difficult to police. Few people argue we should allow huntingof tigers so the Chinese can get their peckers up and some oddballs can have a moulting rug. If there was a real product need from whales or tigers, we might have to consider a sustainable use. But there is absolutely no need to kill either except to satisfy a few nations' macho aspirations. (My remarks include aboriginal people too - there is a wierd hypocrisy in the environmental movement that thinks it's OK for an Inuit to kill a whale but not a Norwegian, for essentially the same purpose. Neither, in the modern world, needs to kill whales to prove their manhood or satsify a need).

Firstly, there is no need for large scale harvesting of whale, just efforts to repopulate the endangered species. That is what my stance has been.

Secondly, there is a huge difference between an Inuit hunting a whale, which is a staple diet and a way of life for them, and the countries of Japan and Norway carrying out commercial whaling to be enjoyed as a delicacy. You must make this distinction and not just jump to superficial claims of hypocrisy...

In addition, your point about humane killing has a touching faith in technology, but all studies have shown whales die agonisingly over a long time. It simply isn't possible to fire a harpoon into the brain of a diving, fleeing mammal from a bucking boat 100% accurately every time. These are not farm-bred cattle waiting patiently for the stun-bolt to smash their brain. Whales are among the most intelligent mammals to have evolved, and they communicate - other whales hear the death screams over many hundreds of miles, and show clear signs of empathic distress.

I have stated that a whale certainly may be killed instantly and painlessly by the current method. Please do cite "all studies" that contradict this. I infact, have cited a claim from an anti-whaling organization that about the percentage of whales that are not killed instantaneously. Seeing as there is a more than statistically significant difference between the percentages of Norway (20%) and Japan (60%), the reason is not the technology, but rather , it is the people using it. Regulations and enforcement of them could take the percentage down further. By the way, the suffering of slaughterhouse animals is also quite alarming; sadly there is not much of a crusade for them...

Maybe so, but they don't need to hunt anymore. There's no logic in arguing that whales must be conserved at all costs, unless they're killed with pointy sticks. The suffering of the whale is arguably considerably more under ancient methods.

The same argument is often made to allow native peoples to continue in oppressing women or other breaches of human rights. If something is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of tradition. Is it right that bears are kept in suffocating captivity so that their bile can be drained every day to serve the Chinese 'medical' market? Chinese 'medicine' is a tradition many thousands of years old.

Now not to digress too much, but sadly, many other cultures do not agree with our western secular ethics and morals. Telling a people to give up their staple diet and subsequently, way of life, because it is "wrong" in your paradigm isn't going to go over so well...

If the world was dominated by India say; then the powerful and influential would consider beef consumption to be "wrong", despite other's traditions?

[Leet Eriksson]

Anyone who fancies a whale on his dish should realise this:

you are basically eating cow meat. I tried it personally.

What you get from whales is exactly what you get from cows, so whats the point?

I'm against whaling personally, till of course its sufficient to hunt them again , but those who support whaling, i say with all pride, what a bunch of idiots.

[Sigurd]

I try to do as one of my role-models and put off decisions and responses until my head is clear and my heart is not racing.
There are two reasonable voices here; Reenk Roink and Banquo’s Ghost.

If the majority of Norwegians did not eat whale meat I see no reason continuing to tax the minke stock in our waters. It is as faisal said, a red meat comparable with ox and cow. You can use it in any meat dish.

If you, and I am talking to all of you who strongly oppose killing whale, you should realize that controlled hunting is not the greatest danger to whales today. It is environmental issues; pollution being one of the greatest.
For the wellbeing of humanity certain species of marine mammals is driven to extinction.
I suspect this is all common knowledge but because we can do so little about it; we attack the ones who noticeable kill a few whales for food each year.
It is not idiocy, but emotional people tent to use strong language.

I finally found an English link: Norwegian minke whaling.