To me, no. I didn’t say it was OK, I said my wife seems to feel it’s OK … I quite clearly seperated my statements from my wife’s. To me, there is no justification - even saying that it is traditional, or they like the taste, doesn’t cut it.
To give an example…in New Guinea and New Zealand, cooking and eating human beings was tradition up until fairly modern times. I’m speculating that people there also quite liked the taste of long-pig. Is that, in your eyes, justification for allowing cannibalism to continue? Justifying it for whales and not for cannibals is, IMO, special pleading, as I don’t see humans as anything other than part of a spectrum of sentience. You might disagree.
That’s also why whales and not tuna. My opinions are based on perceived degree of sentience on the one hand, and the impact on me and my local economy, on the other. And the desire to preserve biodiversity on the third
There have been allegations that Japan does not adhere to its “scientific whaling” mandate, but uses it instead as a smokescreen; a TV program I saw a month or two ago (60 Minutes, possibly?) decided to look into the whale meat readily available (for the right price) on the Japanese market. Unsurprisingly, a lot of it turned out to be from whales that are supposedly protected.
I looked around to see if I could find anything on what the program was talking about, and came up with a few possibilities. Here is a fresh story on this topic:
See also this Reuters story, which mentions whale-reliant communities in Japan (strongly suggesting that whaling is more relevant for commercial rather than “scientific” purposes).
I’m not sure how strong the economic factor really is in the drive for whaling, and in the long run whale-dependent communities will probably have to change or go under. But when it comes to Asia in general, people are really attached to their traditional foods and remedies–you just can’t take that tiger or deer penis away from people who are willing to pay anything for such items.
Marc, you may also want to consider that whaling is a fundamentally cruel activity when compared to slaughtering farm animals, since you bring it up: generally speaking, measures are in place to ensure that your beef does not suffer long when it’s time to become dinner; but whaling consists of shooting an explosive harpoon at the animal and blowing bits of it up in order to cripple it and eventually kill it. The technique is probably kinder than the cold harpoon it replaced, but still nothing to rave about.
On the topic of Native N.A. tribes, of course it’s a matter of scale. It’s one thing for scattered tribes in the frozen North to be granted a licence to hunt whale as they have for hundreds of years–a catch under such licence sustains relatively small communities for long periods of time and is ecologically sound–but it’s quite another thing to have the world’s second-largest economy decide that the recently increased consumer demand for whale meat is more important than an increasingly fragile natural patrimony.
Finally, the suggestion that whales decimate stocks of fish seems rather outrageous considering that almost every sea in the world is already overfished by humans, and that the data for such whale prosperity claims tend to come from nations with highly questionable positions on the subject (i.e. Norway and Japan).
Whales IRL are not cute…impressive, yes, but the growth- and barnacle-encrusted Southern Rights we get are definitely not cute.
Speaking as one person concerned with the environment, I’d just like to say that I do devote more time to non-cute species like abalone, Patagonian Toothfish, Great White sharks & rainfrogs, as well as plants (and we’re talking about some of the world’s ugliest succulents here). I believe overfishing is the worst ecological disaster we as a species are perpetrating at the moment, period.
I just brought up the whales 'cos the IWC is meeting right now. And this is one set of species we already hunted almost to extinction. I think it’s a bit trusting to believe people who say “Oh no, we won’t do it like that again”, when they’ve already displayed dishonesty, poor “science”, and arrogance.
…except that, like your own country’s UN membership, membership in the IWC is something the Japanese and Norwegians chose. When you don’t like the democratic process (the moratorium being something that got voted on), you don’t throw a hissy fit and expect not to be dissed. Japan liked the IWC just fine when all they did was regulate quotas. Now that world opinion in the forum has swung to a ban (and that’s only since the 80’s, lest we forget), Japan doesn’t abide by the rules. I think, as a member, it has an obligation to abide by the rules and the spirit of the IWC moratorium.
…most specifically, Right Whales float when killed because of the blubber, meaning they can be towed rather than hauled aboard.
I think I should point out, Sofa, that those numbers refer to the Northern Right population (I know the linked article mentions it, but not everyone follows links). The Southern Right population here in Walker Bay is doing quite nicely, with a steady annual increase. And that’s because they are left alone.
…most specifically, Right Whales float when killed because of the blubber, meaning they can be towed rather than hauled aboard.
I think I should point out, Sofa, that those numbers refer to the Northern Right population (I know the linked article mentions it, but not everyone follows links). The Southern Right population here in Walker Bay is doing quite nicely, with a steady annual increase. And that’s because they are left alone.
I engage in recreational fishing several times in any given year. The process involves getting a fish to bite on a metal hook, getting it lodged in his mouth real good, hauling him out of the water, sticking them in a live well where their oxygen supply decreased, and finally taking them out of the live well, gutting them, cleaning them, and at long last eating them. It sounds fairly cruel I guess but then millions of Americans enjoy doing the same thing as a recreational activity.
**
You called whaling a fundamentally cruel activity. Isn’t it even more cruel for those scattered tribes in the frozen North to use primative means of dispatching a whale? What about that tribe in the North Western U.S. who used such traditional tribal whaling tools as metal harpoons and .50 caliber rifles? If you truly find the practice fundamentally cruel I don’t see how you can justify it on any scale.
**
So at what point will whaling be a possiblity without putting the Minke whale at signifigant risk?
The point I want to make is that in Japan’s case I honestly cannot see why they feel the need to cull MORE. The fact that I can’t find whale meat readily in my supermarket (not that I wanted any, I was just looking out of curiosity) seems to tell me that its not a popular meat with the masses. The current numbers that they are taking should be sufficient. And much as I hate the practice, if WWF or Greenpeace have data that shows the Minke whales aren’t in danger of extinction, then I guess there’s no reason for it not to go on (except for the fact that they are sentient beings, but then you are getting into a different kind of argument).
And I wish the Japanese whaling industry would simply call a spade a spade and ADMIT that they are taking the whales for human consumption, since everyone knows they are anyway.
Speaking as the OP, I would have no objection to this thread heading in the direction of such an argument, as it’s one of my primary reasons for oppposition.
My position is that the Japanese whalers have shown they are untrustworthy in this regard, therefore things will get out of hand. I know that sounds like slippery-slope logic, but the case I’m making is that they are proven “criminals”* and rule-benders when it comes to whaling, and that the probability of them being sustainable is not very high.
*Criminals in the sense of defying a moratorium on whaling when they are members of the IWC and should abide by it’s decisions
I’ve read this in Japanese newspapers over the years, and also when I travelled in Hokkaido. Specifically, all of these “sources” were talking about coastal towns and villages in Hokkaido. Don’t know if it is true or not, but it is true that the rural population has (had?) a disproportionate voting power.
Marc, I specifically said, and you even quoted it-
How did you equivocate on that clear statement, especially when you quoted the entire thing inclusive of the “when compared” phrase?
Recreational fishing is a form of cruelty to animals. Not that I am passing judgement on the activity, but causing extended pain and death to an animal for no particular reason (i.e. your survival is hardly at stake, you are doing this for pleasure) is a form of cruelty. I think that the cruelty is partly determined by circumstance though, and I doubt anyone will complain if you set about fishing a population that has exploded beyond the environment’s capacity to sustain (like in the mountains of Austria, for example, where all you need to do is stick a hand in a stream and pick your trout). If you were fishing for species on the verge of extinction, I would say you were especially cruel.
But if you intend to make this a discussion about cruelty, I suggest you open a new thread. It will be a thorny topic.
I don’t think it is “even more cruel”. Everyone survives how they can. Inuit use skidoos, guns, and radios these days–you are not suggesting that because they are Inuit and living in their original environment they ought to forsake all modern technology. Of course, ideally such tribes will avoid using a shotgun to fish for whale (or similar expedient), but my knowledge of what goes on there is limited. Some tribes depend on whaling and have done so for a very long time with little or no adverse effect on the environment; the same cannot be said of larger whaling nations. One of the interlocked problems here is sustainability.
I don’t know if it’s possible to get an answer to that question at this point, when populations are still not only in danger, but being decimated regularly. No one knows for sure if some whales can be saved, and I don’t know when the whale populations fished by the Japanese will recover, if they will have the chance to recover. Why?
How is that relevant? Frog legs weren’t a common dish in Dallas but it is more common here in Arkansas. Even then most of the restaurants I go to don’t actually serve frog legs. Frog legs might not be popular enough to appear on a McDonalds or TGIF menu but enough people eat it for it to be served some places.
**
Not that your basing this off of anything more then pure speculation. If they weren’t convinced they could sell more whale why would they want to hunt more of them?
I’m just trying to get a good grasp on this whole cruelty thing as a valid reason to be against whaling. It seems rather odd that you would bring up cruelty as though it mattered and then turn around and say it was ok to be cruel under certain conditions. If that is the case then cruelty really isn’t an issue.
Why? Because I suspsect there are those against whaling who will never admit that there is a point where whales can be safely harvested.
This is a false dichotomy. The relative cruelty of whaling is a factor, not a desideratum. The cruelty, plus the extinction issue, plus the difference between whaling for survival and whaling for commercial profit, all make a fairly compelling case that whaling should at least be restricted.
Note that, despite your suspicions, no one has actually claimed that no whaling should ever occur. Personally, I think that sperm whales are probably safe to hunt in controlled batches; probably, any whale with a population over 50,000 is relatively safe to whale if there’s good evidence that whaling nations are abiding by the restrictions. I say 50,000 because it leaves plenty for genetic diversity within the species, plus a relatively safe cushion for population estimates that could be off off by a factor of 10.
errm, actually, I have done just that. I said “no justification”, after all. The only justification I can see in any modern society would be “It’s us or them”…as in “they’re maliciously sinking our ships and eating the survivors”
Not “they taste nice”, not “tradition”, not “they’re in no danger of extinction”.
I really don’t think the Japanese need the meat (given that its such a small % of the total, and seemingly hard-to-find).
So, if you allow whaling, you are slaughtering sentient beings to feed a luxury goods market, possibly endangering the livelihood of third-world nations that need the cash from ecotourism, and reducing biodiversity at a time when the marine ecosystem is in crisis.
Actually I haven’t tried it, but I heard the meat available at the finer restaurants in Oslo is excellent.
I disagree with Dibble that the whale is such a sentient animal. I mean, maybe that Shamu at Sea World. But Shamu’s been trained.
I can’t speak for the Japanese, but the Norwegians are harvesting a sustainable number of Minke, and maintaining a way of life for these old coastal villages. What’s the harm?
Also, I object to the hypocrisy of the IWC, not allowing Iceland back in as a member, while keeping Norway and Japan in the IWC. As discussed, Norway and Japan hunt whale, but Iceland voluntarily does not. They were kept out because Iceland would like to hunt, but another pro-hunting vote among the membership could tip things the wrong way, as far as the IWC is concerned.
