Whereas I have none whatsoever. If you must get your kicks out of killing animals, at least choose a weapon that does the job efficiently rather than causing high rates of injuries and slow deaths.
With respect to the subject of whaling and Japan’s position, I have a fair amount of sympathy for their views (even though I am a paid up member of a charity to protect whales). Whales are a resource that I think it acceptable for humans to use as a source of food as long as that does not endanger the survival of the species. If we choose to eat animals, I don’t think it should matter how cuddly or graceful or impressive the animal is. I don’t understand why some people have issues about eating whales or seals or dogs or horses. An animal is an animal is an animal.
However, the Japanese approach of cheating and lying makes me want to oppose them no matter what.
But really now, whales are mammals, not fish. Come on now. It would not matter one cent if they had fins, or scales. What they need are hooves, rumination of cud, (Which they don’t eat anyway.), etc. If you are going to stick with those irritating rules anyway, then get them right! :mad:
Thanks for the correction, it appears DNA sampling from the skin is actually an alternative to more traditional research methods.
So it would be better to openly defy the IWC and conduct commercial whaling, like Norway does? I’d point out that the IWC does allow “research whaling” and the commercial sale of whale meat from such whaling.
From the same TV program that showed the tissue sampling (Nature of Things), which covered the 2004 IWC meetings, Norway has an IWC-recognized exemption to kill whales in its own waters.
My objections to Japan include that it is not “research whaling”: there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals from the “research” that necessitated the killing of thousands of whales. It is a facade in order to kill whales for their meat.
It doesn’t say fish in there at all - just creatures living in the seas.
Re: Iceland.
OK, Iceland and Norway are both Western countries that have whaling as a part of recent culture. Does anyone think that Iceland and Norway are populous enough to represent even a quarter of the people in Western countries? A tenth? I think even with these two exceptions it’s still very safe to say most Western peoples are not OK with the idea of eating whale meat.
My views on this subject are pretty much in agreement with amarone’s.
I thought the “excption” was basically a refusal to agree with the moratorium? Isn’t it akin to sayign the US is exempt from the Kyoto treaty?
The “facade” is created by the IWC, not Japan and Iceland. Why would they allow research whaling, if not to pacify pro-whaling nations without arousing too much criticism? They’ve had plenty of opportunities to close the loophole if they so choose.
It doesn’t explain why it was acceptable for Captain Ahab to hunt whales in the 19th century (and other US-based commercial whalers - Nantucket was once the largest whaling port in the world), but not anymore.
Period. Full stop. No need to think about it. It is simply that if you have heard of no one doing something, ever, except for the distant past, and then someone does it, then that is odd. Same story with homosexuality.
I’ve not only had whale, I’ve had raw whale. It’s served as part of the appetizer at a nice Italian restaurant around the corner from where I live. It’s kind of oily, a bit sweet, and chewy. Horse is better.
Japan says a lot of things that are blatant bullshit. This whaling for “research purposes” is one of them. Notice that the figures given earlier for whale populations show that the lowest population of Minke whales (25,000) is in Japan’s vicinity. Gee, I wonder if Japan’s research is having a negative impact on the whales? Contrast this hunting with the adoption of Tama-chan a sea lion that started hanging around the rivers in Yokohama a few years ago and you’ll get a severe case of WTF happening.
For the record, I don’t have a big problem with hunting. My dad fed us occasionally on wild animals he’d taken. I helped butcher them. I helped slaughter animals we raised too. I would actually have a bigger problem if they just threw away the meat. I was raised to think that if you kill something, you use it. You don’t kill things for fun.
What I object to is the obvious lying on the part of the Japanese government and the idea that hunting whales with a diesel-powered ship, a harpoon gun, and an electric winch to haul the carcass on deck can be in any way construed as “preserving a traditional practice.” There’s really no reason to hunt them from a cultural point of view, there’s no need or much demand for whale meat in the diet, and there’s no practical reason for continuing to kill these whales.
What it boils down to is that the Japanese government likes to assert its authority by doing things that other countries don’t like much but aren’t important enough to start a war over. They did the same kind of thing with import barriers. Cargoes of rice, for example, that they wanted to deny would be “held for inspection” for weeks or months and then rejected due to the low quality of the grain. It was low quality because it had gotten wet from condensation, been infested with insects and rodents during its time in port, and left in a storage condition that was only ever intended to be temporary. Instead of refusing right out, they used this kind of indirect method to say that they were not erecting trade barriers, but that other countries just couldn’t meet the high expectations of the Japanese.
All governments say a lot of BS. Like all other IWC participants that allow research whaling but still complain that it’s used as a loophole. If they don’t want to close the loophole, why won’t they shut up?
Wonder all you want, but the fact is that Norway catches more whales than Japan and there’s a lot more whales in the North Atlantic than the Pacific. And even more in the Southern Ocean, which is where the Japanese go to catch whales.
Why do Americans think “traditional” must mean “low-tech”? How old must a technology be before it can be used in a “traditional” practice?
“We’ve been eating whale meat for hundreds of years, and we want to continue doing it” isn’t a cultural point of view?
My guess is that it’s a compromise solution, just like practically everything else in politics. It’s probably just not important enough yet for the other IWC nations to either re-negotiate or impose the kind of sanctions that would encourage compliance with the spirit of the agreement. Japan, if pushed on this issue, would do what they’ve done in the past when called on their crap: “Look at poor little Japan being pushed around by big ol’ mean America and those other bully Western nations.” Thinking from a realpolitik point of view, it is also good leverage for the nations who don’t whale to use against the nations who do when it comes to PR wars.
And why do the Japanese go halfway around the world to catch the whales? Could it be because the whale population in their area is too small to support the scale of hunting they want? I’m not deeply invested in this issue, so I don’t have the answers off the top of my head, but I’ll bet that this is a factor. Norway does not take more whales overall than Japan, they just take more from the same location. Japan takes some whales from the North Atlantic, where almost all of Norway’s are hunted, but as you yourself pointed out, the bulk of its catch comes from the Antarctic.
Even if Norway actually did take more whales than Japan, it wouldn’t matter much because some of the whale meat taken by Norway is illegally sold to Japan. Norway is also (no offense to any Norwegians out there) a relatively small and powerless country. Japan is a major industrial power with a much greater population and therefore many more options for survival and profit than Norway. Japan has less of an excuse and more of a potential for abuse than Norway.
Your comment reminds me of the old joke about having Washington’s original axe: the head’s only been replaced twice and the handle three times.
Doing a traditional activity with modern tools is not preserving a tradition. Preserving a tradition involves preserving all the associated crafts and ways of doing things along with the end product or practice. It would not be considered traditional rug weaving if you use a computerized mechanical loom to produce rugs from acrylic yarn, even if you’re using historical patterns, so why is it traditional hunting to use modern tools to take a whale?
The Japanese do preserve associated traditions with many, many other aspects of their heritage. You wear traditional clothing and use archaic language and forms of address when practicing many martial arts. The best (and most expensive) tools and equipment for doing any of the traditional arts and crafts are hand-made. They aren’t doing any of that in relation to whaling. It’s a byproduct of begging for votes from special interest groups and propping up failing commercial enterprises, not tradition.
Except that most modern Japanese have not eaten whale, it does not make up even a significantly minor part of the diet, and most Japanese wouldn’t care or even notice if it was never on the menu again. It’s an odd luxury food that has about the same status and level of consumption that caviar has in the US. At least it did until this chain started making McWhale Burgers.*
No, it’s what some governments do. Japan seems to enjoy going out of its way to piss off other countries in ways that can’t be seen as quite bad enough to start bombing them over. On the other hand, it could be worse. Instead of being passive-aggressive they could be like Americans: looking for an excuse to start a fight.
*For humor value only, not intended to literally refer to McDonalds or any of its subsidiary companies. Void where prohibited. Remember to take your vitamins.
Exactly, it’s a compromise, which means all parties are comfortable with it to some extent.
That’s right. So what?
OK perhaps, but the numbers are close. Norway 671 to Japan 684 for year 2002, according to the Wikipedia article.
And I still don’t understand why that’s a joke. It is the same axe. And the Golden Pavilion in Kyoto has burnt down several times, but it’s rebuilt each time and is the same building.
I’m not sure I agree. My grandmother has a tea ceremony instructor license, and she uses microprocessor-controlled electric pots to boil water for her tea. I have some traditional-style clothing but they’re all machine-made, and some do have synthetic fibers. “Traditional” Japanese food mostly date back to the 19th century or later, and of course the ingredients come from commercial fishing or plastic greenhouses.
How often does the average citizen have to eat it before it can be considred a tradition? Or is eating a specific food not a tradition?
To shed some light on the scientific/commercial aspect of whaling (at least on my side); we need to know what the Minke is eating, most of all, and not even DNA will tell us that, which is why we hunt up to (drum roll) 39 animals a year, out of the 55,000 minkes around the Icelandic shores (that makes, what … .007%?). There is absolutely no market for whale meat or blubber anywhere around the world, which is why we will not profit in any way from commercial whaling. The Japanese don’t want the whale meat or blubber Iceland and Norway produce, and Norway is catching more than it needs to satisfy its markets. Whale meat from the 39 animals caught here the year before last is still available and the meat just piles up.
But what is the problem with killing minkes? I really can’t see what the issue is here, to tell you the truth, and I can’t imagine how some people will react if and when we have to start mowing minkes down again (we’re trying to keep the cod stock intact …or at least alive)–the last time we had the US army help shoot them, since we’re a little short on weapons, and I can’t believe that was a particularly pretty sight.
Don’t get me wrong; I think whales in general are magnificent creatures and they can be a lot of fun to see when sailing (if you’re not competing with them for the fish, that is), but I fail to see how they are different from, say, goats or pigs, and why they should be holy animals in any respect.
And by the way: in our 1100 year history, whaling is as much a tradition as fishing, which, shockingly enough, we now do on motorboats and even on trawlers. Tradition has nothing to do with technology.
I think you answered that question earlier in your post when you said
Okay, in the interest of science you have killed 39 minkes to see what they ate, fine I can see where that may be useful. However, if you did that last year, why do you need to do it again this year? Does the minke diet change yearly? Is there something that requires 39 whales when 2 may provide the same information?
How often does it change? How old would a text on the dietary habits of the minke whale have to be before it became obsolete?
Well, if there is a scientifically valid to do the study, you’d have to get a large enough sample to accurately represent the population. However, if every specimen you’ve caught for years yields ‘Stomach contents-assorted bits of cod’ you have to question whether you really need more specimens.
