Japanese Whaling

[YogSothoth]

I’m not Japanese but I like to speak on behalf of all Japanese on occasion. I think they should just admit they are wrong and capitulate to the correct Western pressure they are feeling. Just swallow their pride and say in this case, foreign gaijin are smarter than Japan

[iamthewalrus_3]

@carnivorousplant

The Jewish dietary laws come to mind. Meat means mammalian meat.

True. I don’t know that I’d point to Jewish dietary laws as an illustrative example of modern language use, though.

On the subject of the OP, I don’t really care if the Japanese are hunting whales that are not endangered, regardless of what international agreements were made. I mean, it’d be nice if they weren’t (I think we probably should try not to eat the more intelligent animals), and they ought to abide by international agreements. But it’s pretty far down on the list of things I’d like to change about the world.

[DrDeth]

@Martini_Enfield

There hasn’t been a cruise liner sink at sea for decades yet the ships still carry lifeboats just in case, because sailing on the ocean is inherently dangerous. J

MS Sea Diamond 2007
Costa Concordia 2012

Not to mention thousands and thousands who perished in ferry sinkings in the last decade. Some ferrys were as big as small cruise liners.

[Sage_Rat]

@YogSothoth

I don’t agree that there’s such a severe gap between understanding human pain and animal pain right now. Its 2016, I cannot believe a significant population can look at a suffering animal and think its the same as a plant. My belief is that they downplay the suffering due to anger at an outside agency telling them what to do

As pointed out, cutting slices off a live animal, which is gasping for breath right in the middle of the table, is a perfectly acceptable practice in Japan.

I remember also seeing, once, on daytime TV a cooking show where they had dressed up a fish in a doll costume and had it propped up (nailed to a board maybe?) vertical, and as they were talking about the fish - which you could see flexing its gills for breath and moving its mouth - they were all laughing, slapping it on the side, etc. They had exactly 0 empathy for the animal.

[madsircool]

@DrDeth

MS Sea Diamond 2007
Costa Concordia 2012

Not to mention thousands and thousands who perished in ferry sinkings in the last decade. Some ferrys were as big as small cruise liners.

Those aren’t ocean liners, they are cruise ships.

[DrDeth]

@madsircool

Those aren’t ocean liners, they are cruise ships.

Well, then his point was ridiculous as there’s only one ocean liner still sailing.

[YogSothoth]

@Sage_Rat

As pointed out, cutting slices off a live animal, which is gasping for breath right in the middle of the table, is a perfectly acceptable practice in Japan.

I remember also seeing, once, on daytime TV a cooking show where they had dressed up a fish in a doll costume and had it propped up (nailed to a board maybe?) vertical, and as they were talking about the fish - which you could see flexing its gills for breath and moving its mouth - they were all laughing, slapping it on the side, etc. They had exactly 0 empathy for the animal.

I’ve seen something similar. I saw a chef slice off chunks of a live fish, then throw the fish back in the water. I’ve see Chinese cooking competitions where a chef grabs the fish by its head, fries its body, then slices into the flesh and serves it while the head is still alive. But a fish I can see, its small and we kill enough small creatures to be desensitized. But a large animal seems to me very different.

[Kimstu]

@Sage_Rat

As pointed out, cutting slices off a live animal, which is gasping for breath right in the middle of the table, is a perfectly acceptable practice in Japan.

Well, putting live lobsters or crabs into boiling water is a perfectly acceptable practice in most western seafood cookery. And swallowing live oysters at the table is also okay.

Cultures that eat insects or other land-based invertebrates often consume them alive and wiggling, too.

I’m not particularly charmed with the idea of eating slices of live fish myself, but I would need stronger evidence that fish have what we would recognize as awareness of feelings of pain or suffocation before interpreting their thrashing and gasping as evidence of actual suffering. I mean, insects struggle while being eaten too, but does that mean they’re suffering as we understand the term?

[scr4]

Americans seem perfectly happy to catch fish with a hook and releasing them just for sport. Even though it often results in fairly severe injury to the fish (e.g. when the hook is swallowed).

[carnivorousplant]

@scr4

Even though it often results in fairly severe injury to the fish (e.g. when the hook is swallowed).

I do not fish, but I have never heard of that.

[coremelt]

@Hiker

That sounds like the same sort of legitimacy the Russians used to annex Crimea. “It’s legitimate, because our own populace supports it, and because we can. International law go to hell.”

The Sea Shepherds have not been found guilty of any serious crimes under international law that would shut them down. A US court found against them, but Sea Shepherds Australia is a separate organisation, the ships are not US registered, so the US court has no jurisdiction over them. They make various arguments in court to justify their actions and so far they’ve beaten the worst charges against them.

And lets face it, theres a bit of difference between an NGO that takes direct action in international waters to protect species that may be sentient and Russia annexing Crimea. Stopping whaling is a worthy goal, and yes in my opinion sometimes the end does justify the means (bending the law) as long as it stops short of deliberate violence against people. The Sea Shepherds have never crossed that line.

[Monty]

@coremelt

Sea shepherds deny that the ramming was deliberate. Why should you trust the whalers to tell the truth ?

Why should I trust the ones who are actually violating laws by, say, ramming a ship? The whalers are engaged in a permissible activity, no matter how much you disagree with it.

Anyway I’m not interested in an argument over the definition of violence.

Of course you’re not interested in that because your heroes are not the non-violent chaps you pretend they are. So, instead of admitting that they are, in fact, violent, you’ll just “avoid the argument”.

@coremelt

Stopping whaling is a worthy goal, and yes in my opinion sometimes the end does justify the means (bending the law) as long as it stops short of deliberate violence against people.

The crew of the ship rammed aren’t people?

The Sea Shepherds have never crossed that line.

You just admitted that you see that “line” as quite flexible, so this statement from you is meaningless.

[coremelt]

Save your righteous indignation for a worthy topic. The legal situation is nowhere near as clear cut as you make out. The Sea Shepherds use various arguments in international law to justify their actions and they win some cases and they lose some cases.

Here is their page with their justifications:
http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/laws-and-charters.html

Here is a legal analysis:
http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/whale-wars/about-whaling/legal-debate-sea-shepherd-legal-authority/

Some legal experts agree with Sea Shepherds, some don’t.

Its a grey area, and meaningless to discuss unless you are talking about one specific incident and have all the facts at hand. The 2007 ramming its claimed that the Japanese whaling ship cut off one of the Sea Shepherd ships and that they could not slow down or change course in time. Then of course there is the destruction of the Adi Gil where it seems both parties were at fault:

Ady Gil and Japanese whaler both blamed for collision

I get it you don’t believe in direct action by NGO’s that targets property. I do (in certain limited cases). Neither of us is going to change each others mind. Meanwhile I’ll donate another $100 to Sea Shepherds.

[Kimstu]

@carnivorousplant

I do not fish, but I have never heard of that.

Oh absolutely, catch-and-release can be very hard on fish, although it’s seldom actually fatal:

After being caught and released by an angler, fish may die for a variety of reasons. The most common causes of death are the physiological stresses caused by the struggle during capture and injuries caused by the hook or the angler. Some fish may die even though they appear unharmed and despite efforts at revival. Fish that struggle intensely for a long time during capture are usually exhausted and stressed from the accumulation of excessive amounts of lactic acid in their muscles and blood. Severe exhaustion causes physiological imbalance, muscle failure, or death. Therefore, use the proper weight-class tackle; land your catch quickly, and when possible, leave the fish in the water while you release it. Any exhausted animal needs oxygen to recover!

Hook wounds may appear minor to anglers, but damage to the gills, eyes, or internal organs can be fatal. If the fish is hooked deep in the throat or gut, research shows that it is best to cut the leader at the hook and leave the hook in the fish. Prolonged attempts to remove the hook often do more harm than good. […]

Controlled studies have shown that most fish released after hook-and-line capture, survive. Researchers working in Boca Grande Pass tagged 27 tarpon with sonic transmitters and found that 26 of these hook-and-line-caught fish survived. The one fish that died had been lifted from the water for a prerelease photograph. Scientists repeatedly caught bonefish held in a large pond in the Florida Keys and found that 96% survived capture. A few of the bonefish that ultimately died had been caught five to ten times each, which suggests that bonefish hooked and released in the wild probably have an even higher survival rate. Angler-caught snook held in large net-pens throughout Florida had a 98% survival rate. Most of the snook that died were caught with live bait, consistent with studies showing that fish caught with lures generally survive. Spotted seatrout caught in Tampa Bay had a 95% survival rate. Hook position affected survival rates; trout hooked in the gills or gut had lower survival rates than those hooked in the mouth. Redfish survival rates range from 84% in Georgia waters to 96% in Texas waters. Like seatrout, hook position affected survival rates; more than 50% of the throat or gut hooked fish died. These studies demonstrate that catch-and-release-fishing works-most fish that are released survive. By following a few simple guidelines, anglers can maximize survival rates.

[coremelt]

Not sure I see the relevance of westerners sport fishing. We do not go fishing after dolphins or whales for sport in the west anymore. Specifically the argument many make against whaling is that it is immoral to hunt and eat any animal which we have evidence for complex societies and possibly a language of sorts. Dolphins and whales meet that criteria.

I don’t really have a problem with Japanese slicing pieces off live fish, to me it’s all about where the animal lies on the spectrum of potential sentience and fish are pretty low down.

[Velocity]

@YogSothoth

But a fish I can see, its small and we kill enough small creatures to be desensitized. But a large animal seems to me very different.

Why does the size matter? A small fish and large whale both feel pain.

[Velocity]

@Sage_Rat

Understanding the Japanese side of things requires understanding a peculiarity of the Japanese.

Many centuries ago, the Japanese became Buddhist. As part of this, there was a drive towards vegetarianism. But, being an Island country where most of their food came from the sea, this wasn’t very practical. So, fish and other sea creatures were declared “vegetables”. The word “meat” in Japanese excludes sea life.

And in modern day, the Japanese have no sense that the creatures of the sea are thinking creatures. They’re just food. Their whole diet depends on eating things from the sea. It’s advantageous for them to think of sea life as being mindless.

And thus you get things like slicing pieces of “meat” off of live, moving fish being a practice that no one bats an eyelash over, as it gives you the freshest food.

Basically, to the Japanese, trying to tell them to not hunt whales is like trying to tell Americans that they should stop killing asparagus.

Plenty of Japanese cuisine involves pork, beef, chicken, etc. Meat from land animals.

[coremelt]

@Velocity

Why does the size matter? A small fish and large whale both feel pain.

Nope, there is considerable evidence that fish (and possibly reptiles) “do not have the neuro-physiological capacity for a conscious awareness of pain.”

Do fish feel pain? Not as humans do, study suggests

Whales and dolphins are of course mammals, with entirely different neuro-physiological anatomy and I don’t believe its disputed that they can feel pain.

[Hiker]

@coremelt

I get it you don’t believe in direct action by NGO’s that targets property. I do (in certain limited cases).

I suppose that’s what it all boils down to. I’m with **Monty **on this one: I don’t think that NGO’s have a legitimate right to use violence or the threat of violence against people *or * their property.
How do you define the “certain limited cases” where you think they should have that right? Is it exclusively tied to the protection of whales, or would, say, the ramming of Greyhound buses for the protection of Kangaroos also be ok (as long as nobody in the bus gets hurt of course)?

[Martini_Enfield]

@DrDeth

MS Sea Diamond 2007
Costa Concordia 2012

Both of those ships ran aground - they didn’t sink on the open sea.