To find out if things have changed. And perhaps to find out for sure that their population is not in decline. How do you know they have an annual pattern anyway, rather than a N-year cycle?
But the larger issue is why commercial whaling of Minke whales should be banned in the frist place. And I don’t really see ood arguments for the ban, unless you’re claiming the Minkes are still endangered.
Is there a reason to suspect that they have?
How would killing whales help you determine that? Wouldn’t tagging with radio transmitters be a better way to determine patterns and population?
I don’t. I admit that I haven’t read up on Minke whales lately. I do, however, know that Norway has an annual pattern. They kill 39 Minkes each year.
If the ban on Minkes was lifted, how many more would be killed each year? At that rate, how long would it be before Minkes were endangered again? How many other whales would be killed either due to actual accidents, being mistaken for Minkes, or because whalers could kill them and sell the illegal meat as legal Minke?
DocCathode:
Who’d take a humpback for a minke, seriously? At any rate, I think you may have missed one of my points: there is no market for whale meat.
I was under the impression that Norway was catching 600+ minkes anually now; Iceland is the one with 39, methinks.
2 minkes would probably do, just as when polling, around a handful of people will usually do. Patterns takes more than 2 whales to define and, again, why shouldn’t we kill 39, 109 or 750 minkes if we thought we needed to?
Why should the commercial whaling of minkes be allowed? I have seen no argument that makes a compelling case for it. The meat isn’t needed as food, there are plenty of other sources of protein. The ‘cultural tradition’ argument doesn’t hold sway either - if we agree that whaling is okay because it is a ‘traditional’ activity, does that mean you are okay with slavery? After all slavery was ‘traditional’. Things change and cultures evolve and in this world the time to hunt whales for any reason has long since passed.
“Some people want to do it, and it doesn’t hurt the rest of us” is usually a good enough reason to allow something. Of course we should be careful and make sure it does no harm. But as long as we can establish that the hunted species is not endangered, and as long as whaling is regulated to sustainable levels (which is much more than we can say for commercial fishing in general), I don’t see any problems.
Same with child pornography.
Yeah, the odds of that are low.
Is that due to lack of demand or lack of supply? Is, for example, the USA generally opposed to eating whale meat or is there no demand because it’s illegal?
That’s just my personal moral stance. If an animal does not belong to an endangered species, and it’s death is for a legitimate purpose, go ahead and kill it.
Killing livestock for food and leather? Go right ahead.
Stepping on a spider you find in your bathroom? I have a big problem with that. Unless you’re dealing with a poisonous spider, just take the thing outside. You achieve the desired result of an arachnid free bathroom without killing.
Why are these Minkes being killed? You say it’s for scientific reasons. So far, I haven’t seen any that require annual Minke killing. What are you trying to learn? Why is necropsy the best way to learn this? Why do you need to do it annually?
Migration patterns? Wouldn’t shooting the whales with transmitter tags be a better way to follow this?
Population? Same as above?
Dietary habits? What reason do you have to suspect that these have changed?
Child pornography doesn’t hurt anybody? That’s news to me. The main arguments I’ve heard against child pornography are:
[ul]
[li]Children are hurt in the making of child pornography[/li][li]It promotes pedophilia and causes more people to molest children[/li][/ul]
I’m not sure I agree with the second one, but nevertheless I haven’t heard convincing arguments against child pornography that doesn’t involve protecting children.
What? You’re comparing whaling with slavery and child pornography? Dude, the easiest way to lose an argument is overstating it; let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. At any rate, aren’t we whaling bastards more like Hitler?
The simple reason that the oceans have changed, the stocks of fish have changed, etc.
There it is. I’m not too sure what exactly we’re researching with the scientific whaling but my guess is that we are mostly worrying about the cod stocks. If they are eating too much cod, we’ll have to do something about that. Personally, I think we should kill maybe 3000-5000 animals in one go and see what kind of influence that has on other fish stocks but it is extremely difficult to see what factors are affecting the stocks; there’s just so many of them. Incidentally, the whale-watching industry here is pretty big and has hitherto co-existed beautifully with scientific whaling.
Sorry about the hijack; thought I might start a new thread about whaling (I love telling people the truths about whaling, after the Greenpeace/Sea Shepherd lie-fests of the 90’s) but haven’t we all been through this umpteen times before?
No he wasn’t. He just made the point that calling something “traditional” does not make it acceptable, and gave an example of something that used to be “traditional” but is no longer regarded as acceptable.
Applying the same label to two things does not equate them. Murder is “wrong”. If I call littering “wrong” would I be criticized for comparing littering with murder?
The Japanese have been allowed to kill 1000 whales a year for 10 years. That’s 10,000 whales killed for “cultural reasons” ? Let’s go hunting buffaloes, lesser Prairie chickens etc. for “cultural reasons”.
If they were not endangerd, I would not see a problem.
Que?
You’re worried about minke whales eating too much cod? I don’t know if you’re familiar with Mark Kurlansky’s book Cod, but I highly recommend it. If cod were smart enough to worry, whales would not be high on their list. The annual Canadian hunt for harp seals has often attempted to justify itself in the same cod-saving cloak, but has been dramatically incapable of reviving cod stocks (see Northridge, S. P. and R. J. Hofman, 1999. “Marine Mammal Interactions with Fisheries.” In: Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals, Twiss and Reeves, Eds.)
You’re best trying to find out about cod stocks by researching cod, not the gut contents of a mere 39 whales.
In fact, Iceland stated when it withdrew from the International Whaling Comission in 1992 that it would turn to alternative forums where the issues of catch limits would be discussed in good faith. It seems they’ve found it in the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission because the IWC was too hostile to their hunt.
Really, I have no problem if they want to hunt a few minkes; they’re not endangered or threatened like many other whales are. I find it somewhat odious that they need to dress it up as “research,” just call it what it really is.
What kind of information do you possibly hope to get from such an experiment? It’s too many whales to be safe for the overall North Atlantic population, too few to have a huge effect on widely distributed fish stocks like cod, has no effective controls, even the best ecologists in the world wouldn’t hope to tease out the effect - as you yourself said, there’s too many other factors affecting cod. It does not sound like a well-thought out scheme.
I just don’t get it: I could understand if you said you wanted to kill 5,000 whales for food, but you say you want to kill them for information you know you can’t obtain by killing them. This smacks more of pulling the wings off flies than anything that remotely resembles science.
Hence the “I’m not too sure what exactly we’re researching” part. It does seem a little odd (I’m not saying fishy, I’m just not) to me, too, to be honest.
Harp seals and Minke whales, shockingly enough, are not the same animal (sorry, just practicing taking things out of context; how am I doing?) and, at any rate, why would the Canadians know more about Cod than we do?
For those of you who are not familiar with whales, there are several different sub-species. The species we are talking about here are minkes, which are in no way endangered or even close to endangerment, so buffaloes and lesser praire chickens are a moot, even ridiculous point to try and make.
To get some perspective, there are 70,000 cows in Iceland and 55,000 minkes. Why isn’t anyone worrying about our merciless cow-slaughter?
Nitpick
Cetacea is not a species, but an order. A quick search turns up this http://www.cetacea.org/whales.htm which informs me that that some whale species are no more closely related than that, being of different suborders, families, and geni as well as species.
Remember folks- Kings Play Chess On Fine Green Sand
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species.
More to the point, I’d be stunned if anybody posting to this thread was unaware that Minkes, Sperm, Blue, Humpback, etc were different species.
Re Cod
So, it’s really, really crappy science. Instead of studying the cod and finding out what’s causing the decline, let’s kill some whales.
You tell us they aren’t being killed for food.
Why exactly are they being killed?
…for fun? shrug
Why exactly shouldn’t they be killed?
Again, I don’t really know the science behind our current whaling and, as you’ve all (I think) tactfully refrained from implying, it might just be for spite for all I know. I don’t really care all that much either way; they don’t bother me much after I reteried from seamanship but I don’t really see the point of protecting the minke stock here just “because”, either.
Oh, and picking on the foreign kid for his language use? Forshame… 
To be honest, though, I didn’t really understand what you said about geni and that stuff… I’ll look it up.
In retrospect, there seems to be a topic… minke meat is quite good, not quite like beef but beefy nonetheless. Kind of like a cross between beef, dark bird and fish–but not really. I can’t imagine it being terribly good on burgers, minke meat being fairly stringy, but they make excellent steaks, perfect for BBQ-ing. As a matter of fact, the last time Rainbow Warrior was here, some guys had a daily minke BBQ on the pier where she was docked, much to the delight of everyone (judge not; all countries have a few of this type of people).
That is part of the problem, when the recent IWC meeting was held our news programs were complaining about the whaling, were they showing Minkes?
Nope they were showing pictures of Humpbacks and talking about how disengenuous(sp?) it was of the Japanese to hunt whales for research.
IMO the only reason so many people are up in arms about this, is that they think that the Japanese/Norwegians/Icelandians are out there killing the remaining Humpbacks etc thanks to improper reporting by news channels who think that it is better to allow people to believe that the endangered species are the ones that are being hunted rather than the truth.
Because they have a larger and better funded fisheries research establishment than Iceland does.
I’m not trying to mess up your rhetorical question here, it should be obvious that Canada is a much larger, wealthier country, and might even have more fishermen than Iceland (not per capita, of course). It’s irrelevant though, the only reason I brought up Canadians was because of the Harp seal hunt and its similar misjustification as with the Minke hunt.
Because cows aren’t very charismatic. Like it or not, a lot of people are repulsed by whaling because whales are charismatic animals.
In any case, Japan at least routinely gives a reasoned and considered response to IWC resolutions asking them to reconsider their whaling programs. It doesn’t make Iceland look good to just pull out of the IWC instead.
Just to put some numbers out there:
The source I consulted didn’t have recent numbers on Iceland’s whaling program, but a google search turned up this site: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/314901.html, which seems to be a letter from the Icelandic Embassy in London describing the research program and justifying on the basis of fish stock assessment. I’m still suspicious of this rationale, though, based on the IWC’s skepticism of Iceland’s research “needs.”
What has been proven inccorect, many times over, is government counts of creatures. Are we sure the count is correct? If we’re dead on sure,then how do you set a limit for those to die? And the assumption that EVERYONE who kills, maims or injures an animal will report it, even if they can’t track it and kill it. Then you have to take into account whales which get tangled and sink; those affected by army tests in the oceans and drowned - who counts those? Are they included in the numbers when the powers that be decide how many die?
How do you know when it’s the last one? there was a lot of blue jays up here last year and prior years - this year West Nile has killed many of them. Are diseases like this included in counts when the powers that be decide how many die?
My opinion? I think, when we start to control what lives and what dies, and how many of each, we are on dangerous ground.