I don’t understand why the size matters(though many whale species are smaller than some mammals living on land, does that make it okay to hunt them?) or why it matters that they are the only mammals hunted in the sea(except seals and maybe some more). And I still don’t understand why we shouldn’t hunt them because there are .0061% as many mink whales as humans. Would it make it okay if it was .0062? At what number would it be okay to hunt whales? And why can’t we use this calculation on other species?
Your using my quote out of context. I was stating that they are big in relation to them not being comparable to animals hunted by western civilization.
Because the name of the thread is Whaling not Sealing
Comparatively, they are being driven to extinction. My National Geographic resource points out that in just one decade, from the 80’s to the 90’s the population of these whales alone was driven down by about 45%. (From 760,000 to 380,000)
Essentially the size does not matter but I would like to think that as all things go in life, it counts for something. Maybe its from media brainwashing but I just can’t bring myself to categorized whales with cows.
The numbers I used are a comparison. A contrast. An example. Sure, 380000 sounds like a big number, but compared to what? I wanted to compare it to something that we all know - and something we tend to forget about. Less than half a million whales is not a lot compared to 6 billion humans.
We had these whaling bans in place for a reason deemed logical in the past - Iceland has gone rogue and I think they are wrong.
I don’t think of whales as cows but I do think of them as a natural resource that can be used.
The numbers are meaningless and taken from the Southern Ocean on the other side of the world. The only number I am interrested in is how many whales are needed for a healthy population.
We got a whaling ban to stop some species from being exterminated. There is no reason why Iceland can’t do scientific reasearch on a non significant number of whales.
**
These numbers are from the Southern Ocean and have nothing to do with Iceland.
Well, either that, or the reason that was deemed logical in the past is no longer being deemed logical… Perhaps the stocks have recovered to the point where a small harvest would be sustainable, in which case Iceland would not be wrong, but the rest of the world would be wanting to ban something unnecessarily (on sustainability grounds, at least).
Not that there’s anything wrong with society making a decision that a certain class of animal just shouldn’t be hunted, period, but if so, then the movement to ban such a hunt should be based explicitly and openly on a moral valuation of the species as something other than an exploitable resource.
By the same token, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting to hunt a species for cultural and traditional reasons, but in that case the argument should be made in those terms.
That said, if the rest of the world claims they are opposed to whaling because it’s not sustainable, but in fact don’t give a rat’s ass about whether the take is sustainable or not, because behind the rhetoric they just think whales are special, then can we fault Iceland for starting up a sustainable hunt and claiming it to be for scientific reasons, when in fact behind the rhetoric they may not give a rat’s ass about the science, and just really like whale meat?
Note that I have no idea about either the minke whale population size or dynamics, nor do I make any factual claims in this post about the motivations of Icelandic whalers or the quality or importance of the science.
Whales are big. -> So?
Whales are mammals -> So?
Minke Whales are endangered -> No.
Whales have been hunted to excinction by other nations -> So?
Minke Whales are only 380.000 -> Those numbers are 14 years old and disputed.
Iceland is using a loophole -> Not really. The number of whales to be catched is actually 38. That can hardly be categorised as commercial. Even if Iceland is just using a loophole then the answer would be, SO?
Did I miss anything?
The number of whales to be hunted is 38. I dont think that number can really be thought of as anything other than scientific. The Scientific loophole argument doesnt hold water.
Iceland hasnt overfished ANY species out of exctinction and I dont think that is likely to happen. Blaming Iceland for other nations inability to regulate their fishing is harsh. Nowhere in Europe are fishing stocks in better shape than Iceland and the quota on Cod is getting larger.
Iceland is primarily a fishing nation and is the only rich raw materials producer on earth that doesnt have oil. Whale is just another bountyfull product that can be hunted and consumed. Whales are no better or worse than the cow or pig you eat. In essence I think that whales get a much better deal than animals at the same intelligence level. Most ppl will happily eat a pig that has lived caged in its own excrement its whole miserable life but shudder at the thought of killing of a whale that has a lived a good free life.
You need to get unbrainwashed. Whales are not mythical creatures that can communicate with aliens. I see no argument here.
In order for a whale to be considered “huntable”, it’s current population must be at least half of what it historically/naturally is/was. The (IWC) International Whaling Commission has determined that Minke Whales are now back to 54% of their natural population. Therefore some nations are going to begin hunting them again.
Problem:
Specifically, Minke Whales which have been quoted to be at 54% of their historic numbers are not correct. The historic population should be twice what the IWC claims.
Their estimates are based on log books taken from whaling ships which are inconsistent and unreliable.
More reliable estimate based on DNA reseach and mitochondria diversity shows that historically, Minke Whale populations were at least twice what the IWC claims. This evidence would put the Minke Whales back on the “at risk” list and remove them from being hunted legally.
When a reporter claimed that the IWC’s numbers were off as much as 5-10 times. Their response was that they were aware of some miscalculations and that their numbers might be off off by 2-3 times, but not ten.
Lets say that Brutus’ Seafood Company killed every whale (including those sellouts at Sea World) tomorrow.
-What would the known consequences be?
-I know a lot of whales eat plankton, so we would have a lot of plankton swimming around. Good? Bad? Unknown?
-Other whales eat squid and various types of fishies, so we would have more squid and other fishes swimming around, right? Again, good, bad, or unkown?
I am not saying we should kill of all the whales, or encourage the Icelanians to do so. But if they did, other than not having whales around, what would happen?
I’m away from my cites but i’ll get them later today.
First off Brutus, If every known whale was killed off Theres a good chance it would lead to the extinction of mankind, and most life on earth. Whales eat zooplankton, which in turn feed off phytoplankton. These two groups of species are the basis of all life in the oceans (exept for those weirdos who feed off the vents, but just forget them for now) If whales went extinct, the number of zooplankton would rise tremendously, meaning phytoplankton would go way down. This would cause mass extinctions and die outs in almost every species of life in the ocean. You may not realize it, but we depend on life in the ocean alot, pretty soon there would be extinktions of land as well. Oh and lets not forget that by FAR the ocean is the largest carbon sink in the world, so global warming would skyroket. So basically, whales= essential for humanity.
Now on the issue of why/if whales are different. They most deffintly are. Whales have the largest brains the animal kingdom, and there neurocortex(Sp?) is almost as convulted as a humans. They are capable of speech with other whales, and even other species. Furthermore, the way we kill whales is horrible. I don’t have my cites with me, but I believe it takes, at minimum, 1/2 of an hour for a whale to die, in which time it is in extreeme pain. If the whale speaks (sings) at all during that time it is very different from its normal speech, and is belived to be equivilant to crying in humans. IF you ask why this matters, it is simple. The mentality that currently advocates killing whales, looking at them as a resource etc. is the same mentallity as in any genocide, and makes the moral acceptibility of a genocide far more possible.
From your link: But minke whale numbers appear historically to have been much closer to current populations.
There seemed to be some dispute over the accuracy of the DNA numbers, some people asked why the loss of that many whales didn’t have any large impact on the enviroment.
They asked a mathematician specialising in fisheries population modelling, from the University of Cape Town not the IWC.
Tallayan you better have cites for all of that and not from biased sources, and this:
But we look upon most animals as resources, does that mean we are commiting “genocide” on all animals? If you think so that’s ok but that’s not what we are discussing.
Hey! Hands off the bison! I tried some yesterday and it was pretty damn tasty!
Frankly, I don’t see why various nations are so gung-ho about hunting whales. From what I’ve heard, whales don’t taste very good. (Watched a program on Discovery, I think, where they showed some Eskimos cooking a whale that they harvested. Several of the younger folks who’d never eaten whale before gagged when they tasted it.) So, what is it about whale meat that makes it so appealing to certain countries? Is it the whole “forbidden fruit” thing or are there actually tasty ways of preparing it?
IWC numbers are scewed and 54% recovery (or less) is not enough -> By whom? Minke whales number at least 80.000 in the waters surrounding Iceland (IWC) numbers. It is self evident that this number of whales can suffer the loss of 38 a year. Also you should know that the IWC is heavily biased against whaling and its purpose has changed from regulating whaling to conserving whales no matter the scientific proof that they are many enough to support limited whaling. The IWC has passed many resolutions to that end.
Whales regulate Zooplankton and hold the key to human survival -> Tallayan is misinformed here. A number of species eat Zooplankton ranging from small shrimps, corals, fish and birds. This reason takes the cake for stupidity. I would like a cite stating the contrary that is at least semi scientific. Anyway, is someone afraid that Minke whales die out because of 38 whales getting hunted?
Whales are smart (Tallayan again) -> Not really. The only semi smart whales are Dolphins and Iceland doesnt hunt them. I would like a semi scientific study showing just how smart whales are. Heres mine http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-be-an.htm
Whales speak with each other. -> Not really. See link above.
Whales take a long time to die. -> No they dont. There have been instances a long time ago with whales being harpooned and taking a long time to die. With never more effective hunting equipment they die instantly or almost instantly.
Whaling leads to genocide -> Eh. Even using the word in this context devalues the word. Whales are a renevable resource and should be utilised as such in a responsible manner.
Whales taste bad. -> Not all whales taste well. Some are even inedible (indigestable). Im not to fond of Minke myself but Dolphins taste really good. Anyway Im not really sure this was an argument against whaling. Whale meat has other purposes than as food for humans.
Tuckefan some people like whalemeat and some don’t.But I see no reason why people who like whalemeat shouldn’t be allowed to eat it because some eskimoes don’t like it.
Never said that. I said I was curious about why folks had a strong desire to eat whale meat, when it appeared (based on the program I saw) to be an acquired taste. Remember, the Eskimos didn’t simply dislike the taste, but it made them gag. I’ve eaten very few foods that have gagged me.
They weren’t eating it raw, it looked to be boiled. They didn’t exactly give out the recipe, ya know?
The reason I’m questioning is that I can’t imagine that there’s that many folks alive today who have eaten whale enough that they could enjoy it. In the program I saw, most of the folks who were old enough to have eaten whale were in their 50s or older, while the young folks had never had it before then.
I also don’t know if was minke or some other kind of whale.
Whales live their whole life in freedom, and suffer a short while when killed. Meat animal on modern industrialized farms suffer their whole miserable, if mercifully short, lives – and suffer, often extremely so (which is evident for anyone who have seen animal transportations) when slaughtered.
Are you actually jumping from eating whale meat to genocide?! This is has to be one of the most far out ridiculous things I have read on SD on my stay here, but perhaps very characteristic of the hysterical feelings that certain groupings choose to wallow in instead of looking scientifically at the numbers without prejudice. The rest of your message wasn’t so hot either. :rolleyes:
Everybody on then Faeroe Islands have eaten whale. I have eaten whale (not minke whale) on several occasions. Smoked, dried and as steaks, it was ok, nothing spectacular. The meat is very red, since whales are evolved to dive for long periods and store oxygen inside the muscles. (Other animals with mammaries I have eaten: cows, sheep, goats, pigs, deer, dogs – I think it was :eek:, horses, seals, and more – gee. does that make me moral culpable of genocide?)
This is has to be one of the most far out ridiculous things I have read on SD on my stay here, but perhaps very characteristic of the hysterical feelings that certain groupings choose to wallow in instead of looking scientifically at the numbers without prejudice. The rest of your message wasn’t so hot either. :rolleyes: