That thread contains one of the most foolish statements it has been my pleasure to view on this site: *“I like the taste” is justification enough for wanting to hunt them [whales] * (courtesy of MGibson).
Apart from shooting down such feeble arguments as the above, more substantial ones are also addressed, such as the “scientific whaling” nonsense and the lies and obfuscation the Japanese authorities practice when it comes to illegal whaling.
For a discussion on the increasing problem of overfishing in general, see this thread:
The stated thread is OT and stupid. It also does not do the anti whaling crowd any favours. It is als on Japanese and Norwegian whaling, although it touches on Iceland in a very small way.
We have already addressed the perceived Scientific whaling loophole in this thread and you choose to sidestep it and point at another thread which addresses the perceived loophole using of other nations. Maybie you could use your own reasoning to show us in this thread “HOW HUNTING 38 WHALES PER YEAR CONSTITUTES COMMERCIAL WHALING” ? I dont think you will.
As for “I like the taste” not being enough of an argument. Why not? Pls come with up with a reason instead of just throwing this at us. The same reason works for eating cows and pigs. How are whales different? The species in question are not in danger of extinction (certainly not by hunting 38 per year) and they are appr. as smart as cows and pigs. If sustainance is the only measure we shouldnt eat meat at all.
The taste reason in the stated thread is answered with a anecdote about someones grandfather working on overhunted stocks of whales. This is not an argument. All it means is that Brits cant control their whaling. Brits cant really expect us to stop hunting whales just because they hunted them to extinction (almost) in their waters. The same poster also states that whales are ALL in danger of becoming extinct which is something I think we have concluded is not the case. He also states that since his grandfather hunted whale, it must be out of style. I guess he didnt know that his other grandfather probably also killed pigs that lived in their own feces their whole miserable lives. Just as it is now. Well actually pigs probably live even more miserable lives now with the factory manufacturing of pork.
Then theres the same BS about whales not tasting good enough to hunt (dispelled), about how intelligent they supposedly are (addressed in this thread) and how its unecessary (which again goes for all meat).
After that one poster points out how the small number of blue whales and Right whales. I dont know how that touhes on Minke whaling in Iceland. It was OT in the other thread but still used as an argument against Norwegian and Japanese Minke whaling.
The next one says that since cooking human flesh is not ok, cooking whales isnt.
I cant go on about the mentined thread. It is SOOOO off topic and stupid that it shouldnt have been dragged into this one.
Then you choose to drag into this thread another thread about overfishing, totally ignoring the fact that it is also OT and also ignoring the fact that I have already pointed out in this thread, how ICELANDIC FISHING STOCKS ARE JUST FINE. Caps are needed for deeper memory imprinting,I think.
I think the distinct lack of responses to our (pro whaling) questions shows a lack of understanding of the issue and also just how deeply engraved the mythical view of whales are. Not one question I have asked has been answered. Just new straws grasped. Myth after myth has been dispelled in this thread and new ones pop up just as fast.
Again and again the word extinction pops up in a thread about Iceland hunting 38 whales per year. Is this fitting to a homepage dead set on fighting ignorance?
I must state that whales are no better or worse than cows and pigs. They lead a better more humane live than most animals we put in our mouths. Their capture may not be necessary but neither is killing most animals. In a way whales are very intelligent. They are at least as smart as pigs and cows which is very smart for animals. They would look like einstein next to sheep.
1)scr4 According to my Japanese friend, whales have only been seriously eaten in Japan for the last 50 years, in response to severe food shortage. Apparently the stuff is disgusting and is only eaten now because it has reached delicacy status.
Whales that are taken for ‘scientific research’ are not endangered. The world governments should put more of an effort in maintaining biodiversity, rather than worrying about a small number of whales. If the whales that are eaten mean less people eating bluefin tuna or golden roughy, then I am all for eating whales. Eat whale today. And those bloody dolphins…
B]Y.O.B.** actually I thought I attempted to put forth a decent counter argument for the OP. But it was dismissed as being a biased source rather than discounting the science.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with nations harvesting whales from species that can absorb the damage/loss.
I especially don’t have a problem with Iceland doing scientific research in their own waters. Knowing the impact of such a large population of fish eaters on a fishing community makes sense.
I think the biggest fear that many have is theslippery slope effect when it comes to environmental issues. IIRC and don’t hold me to this as gospel, seems to me that Norway started commercially harvesting Minkes with the initial “scientific” killing of only 50 whales. Which has grown to several hundred a year now.
“When the moratorium initially went into effect, Japan and Norway halted their commercial whaling and began killing whales under the provision for scientific whaling. Since 1994 Norway has abandoned the claim of “science” and has openly called its whaling “commercial.” In 1997 Norway killed more than 500 whales. In 1999 Norway announced its plans to increase its self-allocated “quota” to 753 whales—higher than any quota since the moratorium took effect.”
I think that is part of what people fear.
Norway took 80% of the whales killed last year IIRC, from it’s humble start of only a few for science.
BTW, I think mythology plays a big part in this issue. People are emotional, they make decisions about things often by “how they feel”. The whale has been a symbolic figure for millenia. For some to dispel the idea of the whale as a mythic figure merely shows his ignorance. Folklore, legend, religion, poetry and song, etc. all have examples which include stories about the “great beast”.
One such example would be Monoceros Monodone sp? otherwise called the Narwhal. The “Unicorn of the Sea”, hunted specifically for its’ ivory tusk, has been the subject of myth, Jonah and Ahab, no need to even go there.
Back to the point, while I don’t necessarily fall for the slippery slope argument, one can show it as justification for their suspicians.
Also, I find it counterproductive to your argument to make a comparison between whales and cows. You don’t need it and it goes against the “scientific” reasons given for the killing of the 38 Minke whales. While pigs are intelligent, COWS not so much. Believe me, I have worked a great many of them.
Surely you wouldn’t accept the killing of Elephants using the argument, **“Well, they’re like shooting pigs.” **
I think you’re smarter and have more class than that. Besides, some people have great affection for cattle. It could be seen as an offense to your position in other ways as well.
I used to be an avid sportsman, hunting/fishing etc. and I have no problem with those who do. I do have some reservations when it comes to indiscrimant killing for pleasure, sport, science, hell…any reason for that matter.
I think it is a disgrace to humanity the pain, death, suffering and most of all the WASTE that WE are all responsible for.
Historically, mankind IS the plague. “All those Buffalo…” makes me wanna cry whenever I think about the shit we’ve done. Sorry I didn’t mean to go off…
So, in short…the argument is IMHO that the method of counting whale populations is questionable at best.
Also, problematic is whether the slippery slope effect will occur as it did in Japan and Norway.
Those and any biases or sentimentalities people have for whales (for/against) get in the way of logic and science.
Not to mention the whole us/them crap.
“It is not logical to hunt a species to extinction.”
Speaking of stupid, YourOldBuddy, that was a particularly poor post you dropped. Should you choose to develop improved reading skills, you will notice that the threads I linked address issues of both anti- and pro-whaling camps, without recourse to dumbing-down of the argument as you repeatedly attempt. You’ll note that the foolish cow comparison was also brought up back then as well; funny you should criticize a thread so fiercely while resorting to THE silliest rhetorical device contained in it.
It seems T-keela has patiently explained his/her position so I will take a slightly different tack. I linked to the threads earlier in order to aid your comprehension with established discussions that address many of the same issues addressed in this thread, the difference between the two being a) Iceland, and B) you whining indignantly without the faintest sign of a supported argument. You obviously have a sensitive spot about Iceland, a fact about which I couldn’t care less.
I’m certainly not one of those people who think hunting any small number of whales is automatically bad, but, given the track record of whaling nations when it comes to disclosure of the truth and long-term adherence to guidelines (see Japan, discussed in the threads linked, and Norway), and given the endangered status of the majority of whales, I submit this is a problem that must be tackled with the highest possible awareness. Awareness that your bias-laden obfuscatory posts do not remotely promote, rather they seem to actively discourage it.
Rather than delve into the disastrous content of your latest post, which contains not one item of concrete meaning, let me ask you to elaborate this previous statement:
Are you trying to impugn the environmentalist movement, or are you trying to say that save the whale activists are not in fact environmentalists? Or something else? Would you care to explain your assertion and then proceed to support it with more than just a cretinous search on Google? Perhaps some concrete cites?
Certainly there are scammers in the environmentalist camp, as there are everywhere; for example, many “foster child” programs, where you pay a monthly fee to adopt (long-distance) an impoverished child in a third world country, are also scams, but that doesn’t mean that humanitarian charity work as a whole or that all or even most foster child programs are worthy of the uninformed derision you heap on environmentalists.
Well, you certainly display a high opinion of yourself. Has it occurred to you that some people here might have been annoyed by your “debate” style (consisting as it does of aggressively defensive opinion that seeks to tar the opposing camp at every turn) and decided not to waste the energy? Your posts here tend to contain a lot of bombastic assertions and very little support. Tedious.
Now for some real information and points of view as opposed to the useless vitriol you fill your arguments with.
I don’t see any demonization of Iceland going on here, merely the assertion that scientific whaling as claimed by Iceland may not be justified and may therefore be subject to closer scrutiny and even penalization. And the International Whaling Commission recognizes that scientific whaling may simply be a workaround to the whaling moratorium – that is the strategy employed by Japan and Norway to engage in commercial whaling, which you should have realized had you actually read the linked thread as opposed to foaming at the mouth at the mere thought that someone could criticize a practice you approve of.
If Minke whales really have recovered to above 54% of historical stocks – a fact that is not yet obvious – then I suppose that the decision to hunt them may be discussed by the IWC. As long as a very strict control is kept on the numbers and on the specimens caught, though I see no reason to engage in scientific whaling if the data can be obtained conveniently by non-lethal means (scientific whaling tends to be a cover for reduced-scale commercial whaling). The IWC and a few other sources claim that minke are almost fully recovered as a species, yet there are conflicting data based on the far more reliable method of genetic variation analysis in whale populations:
In the case of some other whale estimates, the IWC figures could be wrong by as much as a factor of 10 or 15. See also this writeup, which goes into more detail: New Study Warns Whale Populations Too Low for Hunting.
Additionally, there is some confusion as to how many species comprise the minke – there seem to be two at present count, with at least two more sub-species complicating the picture. It would be unwise to harvest a minke population that has not recovered to anywhere near its historical levels without taking into account different species and sub-species, their exact distribution, populations, and pretty much all their characteristics. That’s simply asking for more trouble, since we (collectively) have thus far failed to preserve the wealth of our oceans.
We know the whaling nations seem, for some reason, interested primarily in the resumption of whaling even though said whaling could be depleting stocks of whales, something that in the long-term would be far more harmful to them than not being able to enjoy a bit of slimy blubber in the short term (and here we’re talking not just about minke – Norway and Japan both catch other types of whales on a regular basis, and Iceland has withdrawn from the IWC and their attempts at conservation as well as stated that they will not support worldwide bans on severely endangered species such as the blue whale). Even in Iceland, from a conservation point of view the best of the lot among the whaling nations, the drive to resume whaling has its opponents:
See also BBC: Iceland tourism chiefs warn whalers, in which the tourism industry heads say that “whale-watching earns more for Iceland than whaling itself could, and is internationally popular”.
As a matter of simple logic, look at some figures:
And, very importantly, from the above link: “The [Iceland] government has refused to be bound by international bans on trade in products from several species, including the very rare blue whale.”
A lovely picture, and one that is far from flattering for Iceland. And note that I didn’t have to resort to any knee-jerks about compassion, love, cetacean intelligence, or any similar fuzzy arguments to raise the above objections – and never have, even in the thread you inanely criticized as “OT and stupid”.
Norway, Japan, and Iceland have stated or hinted that they intend to resume commercial whaling as fully and as quickly as possible, which makes for a dangerous approach – a danger that won’t vanish in spite of your obtuse and unsupported rebuttals. I will let someone with more patience address the idiocy you put forward in equating whales to pigs to cows in terms of intelligence, three completely different animals (just the fact that you lump cows with pigs tells me you know very little about this aspect of the matter, and that you are more interested in diversionary arguments than in seriously tackling the problem at hand). “Whales taste good” seems to be about as complex a picture as your bias in this matter allows you to develop, so perhaps you will spare us any more of your reactionary nonsense.
Indeed, t-keela, that sort of price tag is exactly the reason why certain nations persist in their commercial whaling practices disguised as “scientific whaling”. Cites to this effect may be found in the “OT and stupid” thread.
Hi, all. I have a real problem discussing this subject, so I likely won’t contribute further than this.
I do have point to offer which may help clarify the debate, so I’ll try to get it down before I crack up.
First of all, at the risk of sounding obvious, the IWC is a commission designed to regulate whaling. It’s not a commission designed to save the whales; rather:
Japan, Norway, and Iceland have a point when they say that the Commisssion is supposed to be regulating the business of whaling. In the past they have angrily argued that other nations–led by the United States with a lot of help from its environmental lobby–have misappropriated the IWC and turned it into a conservation society rather than a regulatory body. I can’t help but agree with them, even if I personally think that we should not be whaling at all.
The sometimes absurd-sounding political maneuvering within the IWC of which Japan, Iceland, and Norway have been regularly accused of late in the environmental press, looks to me to be a fairly logical and somewhat desperate response to the hijacking of a regulatory commission by conservationists. But isn’t it equally absurd to see the IWC enforcing a decade-long ban on the very business it is supposed to be fostering?
That having been said, now I have to go off the deep end here. I suspect, but I cannot prove, that aside from subsistence and cultural whaling (including the treaty-protected whaling rights of some Alaska Natives and the Makah Tribe in Washington state), the international whaling industry is largely driven by the far east, and specifically Japan.
For example, Norway was apparently looking to unload 500 tons of whale meat on Japan. I can’t find any per capita consumption rates of whale meat for either Norway or Iceland, but I suspect it is low.
At the same time, some sources (the frothing types of my ilk, so I’ll not bother to cite) claim that the Japanese government is actively attempting to stimulate a declining demand for whale meat at home.
So who is creating the demand for whale meat, anyway?
I think that there is a possibility that bulk of the whaling industry is being propelled by one supermarket chain]([url=http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/summer2001/talbots.htm)'s interest in exploiting a food source which can be harvested cheaply–government scientific study defrayment costs, in many cases–and sold at an incredible premium.
I think that sucks, and that’s probably as much as I should say about it.
Maybie Im a bit too aggressive and most certainly Im very sensitive to Iceland in this context. You, Abe, seem to forget that Icelandic whaling is what this thread is about. I’m from Iceland and personally have seen these beasts in numbers… and they are nothing special. Really. Dolphins are fun and we dont hunt them.
This thread is about Icelandic scientific whaling and when you, Abe, link to other threads indicating that they hold the answers to this one, I should be allowed to look at them and see if they do. In your orginal post you falsely state that the “taste” argument was “shot down” when it wasnt. You also state that it dispelled the “scientific whaling nonsence” without mentioning that it only covered Japanese and Norwegian “scientific” whaling (more than 20x the amount we hunt in Iceland) and also overlook that that it didnt. Then you choose to indicate overfishing somehow enters this topic when it is way of topic and false. Our stocks are almost all exlusive to Icelandic waters and healthy(certain stocks of Herring are shared with the EU and Norway but still healthy).
I recognise that I have said a few things in this thread that have shock value. I have tried to put my arguments forth in a straight forward manner. If I have dumbed down this thread its in response to very dumb arguments put forth in the anti whaling camp. I cant really tell any more when Im answering reasonable or informed posters. I still dont get it how the size of the beast, its mammal status, taste or texture enter this argument. Then we in the pro whaling camp have had to fight false arguments about whale intelligence, character, horrible hunting techniques, whale population numbers, bioshpere regulation value, danger of extinction, etc. Its sort of hard to weed out intelligent arguments.
One intelligent argument is the historical numbers estimate. I have already answered that though. I would like to add to it that I think that it is unfair to use the IWC as a source, which is in effect a conservation society. Recently the IWC suppressed its own research when it concluded that Minke had grown to harvestable numbers. The research was published by Mark Simmonds who is ardently anti whaling, because of sentimental reasons. You should also note that Norwegians have a far higher estimate of their stocks than the IWC does. The IWC doesnt have any recent studies to back up their figures. Norwegian authorities do. I also question the relevance of historical numbers.
Another recent argument is both a bit off topic and also false. Ecotourism is not thought to be threatened in Iceland even though a few Icelandic nutcases say it is. Norwegian whale watching wasnt hurt when they started hunting and more than 90% of all whale watchers in Iceland already think that Iceland hunts whale (pre scientific whaling) in a recent study made by the Icelandic tourist bureau. Guess the counterpoints didnt make it to the international press for some reason
As to the attacks I made on environmentalist organizations I stand by what I said. The snip about Greenpeace only going after areas that sell, it rings true. They have abandoned ceteans in captivity when it suited them and turned to markets that sell. They are just the most prominent example.
Here is what I said:
The anti whaling organiztions would have been a better fit.
On lumping pigs, cows and whales together pls do explain how whales are superior. Im the only one in this thread who has actually supported my argument with scientific research. Whales have an inferior (less adapted) Cortex to pigs and cows. One more a kin to bats and rodents. It is big but that doesnt seem to help them very much. I personally worked (when age 8-14) with free ranging cows 3 months out of each year on my grandfathers farm and know how very smart cows are. Im personally horrified at veal production and such but fighting it doesnt seem to generate the same income.
I will just add that this is not the case in Norway. Whalemeat is not very expensive.
Read your cite, it says Norway wants to sell whale blubber which isn’t eaten in Norway but is considered a delicasy in Japan. But all whalemeat is sold in Norway and not exported.
Let me remind you that I linked to the thread in question with these closing words: *Plenty of links in both threads, so perhaps we could get away from the simplistic “they’re evil!” and “they’re knee-jerk bleeding hearts” silliness. *
Apparently that hasn’t worked – you’re still making accusations against the other camp and arguing without citations. This is like a rehash of the routine “conservative vs. liberal” bitch-fest on these boards, where accusations and demonizations are hurled at the opposite side and the discussion never goes anywhere.
I don’t think species conservation ought to be based on whether a creature is fun or not, though of course I think the preservation of highly intelligent animals like dolphins or the great apes ought to be some sort of a priority, since we value intelligence so highly. That doesn’t mean that “boring” or relatively less intelligent animals like minke ought to be excluded from such efforts.
The rhinoceros deserves to be saved as does the elephant, though one is rather more intelligent than the other; I don’t know if elephants count as “fun”, but if they do then rhinoceroses are definitely less fun than elephants – yet just as deserving of being saved from extinction.
The specific answers contained in the thread linked ought to be of interest to you specifically, Your Old Buddy (who blasted the environmentalists without support for your arguments) and to the knee-jerk environmentalists (whose hearts bleed all over the place without any encouragement). Iceland was not specifically addressed (Norway and Japan were), but more general arguments related to whaling most definitely were. As was the taste argument, which is not even an argument. Read the thread and see how far that taste crap got MGibson. Or perhaps you’d like to propose an argument that whaling should be based on taste considerations and not on rather more important parameters such as stock sustainability, control, and the honesty of pro-whaling nations.
You mention by-the-by that Icelandic cod fisheries are well-managed and a sign of Iceland’s sober conservationist approach, but that does not seem to be the whole story. Aside from the overestimation of the years 1998-2000, according to this report by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, “Icelandic cod stock [is] well below its long-term average, but harvest control rules currently in operation are in accordance with the precautionary approach.” In other words the right precautions are in place and Iceland can be praised for that, but there are no grounds for complacency yet, at least not until cod populations have recovered to well within safety limits. Certainly Iceland is one of the leaders of the “green” pack in most respects, but that shouldn’t be interpreted as carte blanche for needlessly killing whales when they please.
It did, you really may want to read the thread more closely (Japan’s scientific whaling silliness was looked at). Scientific whaling, as the IWC also notes, is often accused of being a subterfuge for commercial whaling – for the IWC mention of this, see The IWC and Scientific Permits, which also sets out the process and rationale for permits. To see how Norway and especially Japan have found workarounds to the whaling and whale products moratorium, read the linked thread and the cites in it.
Iceland specifically addressed? No, it wasn’t and I never said it was. But there is, I hope it’s obvious by now, some rather fundamental dishonesty when it comes to non aboriginal subsistence whaling in general, and to Japan, Norway, and Iceland in particular. Minke whales are not known to have recovered anywhere near their historical levels, at least according to the maternal mitochondrial DNA analysis already linked in my previous post, yet the pressure from Japan and Norway to resume full scale commercial whaling has never let up, and now Iceland looks like it’s joining their ranks. Yet, scientifically speaking, the mitochondrial DNA research is orders of magnitude superior in quality to previous estimates that relied on suspect data, and ought to be considered much more important in reaching decisions on the resumption of whaling.
In fact, the IWC already recognized one aspect of this problem (uncertainty) two decades ago:
My emphasis added.
I don’t think whale intelligence is a false argument at all, it is in fact an interesting field of study – and there are many different types of whales. Nonetheless, you will note I emphasized not a single one of those factors either here or in the threads linked. Nor are the other mentions above false arguments. And minke may not be on the verge of extinction at the moment, but other whales are.
Historical estimates of whale stocks are important because they provide indications of sustainability in addition to metrics like biomass, used with some success to estimate fish sustainability but rather more difficult to implement for cetaceans. However, as we have seen, previous historical estimates, even by the IWC were much lower than the sort of stocks that DNA analysis indicates existed prior to commercial over-whaling. The data employed to calculate previous historical stocks estimates was quite simply of low quality and not very scientific.
It isn’t a conservation society, though it has assumed some conservation roles (note that conservation is well within the IWC’s charter, it’s not like the commission suddenly turned into a conservation fiend with no mandate). And, as mentioned, IWC historical whale populations estimates are in fact quite short of the mark compared to recent and more scientifically reliable research. As far as I know the IWC has usually included the caveat of uncertainty regarding information on cetacean populations, historical and current.
Suppressing research isn’t the scientific thing to do. I’ll need a reliable cite and better information before this can even be debated.
And we’re supposed to trust Norway’s research in this matter over that of the IWC or marine biologists in general?? At least the IWC panel of scientists includes representatives of several countries (51 member states in the IWC). By the way, once again it would be nice to see cites along with those claims.
Heads of the Iceland tourism industry (see links in my previous message) are nutcases now?? If they are, I imagine they are nutcases who are far more aware of international sentiment and tourist traffic than other sources in Iceland. If they claim that whaling could hurt Iceland’s tourism industry, it’s probably safe to give them provisional agreement, since (apart from the fact that they ought to be well informed on this sort of thing) their primary interest is simply the collection of tourist dollars, i.e. developing the tourist industry.
Cite? I remember reading somewhere that the whaling community in Norway was supposed to be against the idea of whale ecotourism, preferring instead the revenues from hunting whales and things like market exports of blubber to Japan even though in Norway, as in Iceland, whale-watching was reported to compare quite favourably in economic terms to whale-hunting.
Do you have a more precise cite for the claim that more than 90% of whale-watching tourists in Iceland already believed that Iceland hunted whales before this scientific whaling uproar? Seems a bit of a weird belief for tourists in Iceland to hold if Iceland wasn’t whaling.
Once again, a cite would be nice in order to support your argument.
Said that, it must be noted that organizations like Greenpeace operate by bringing certain issues to the public’s attention and then acting on them by applying political pressure, lobbying, etc., and therefore not all issues are handled equally. And, though I agree it would be nice if everyone were thoroughly informed on topics such as wildlife conservation, I recognize that it is absolutely impossible to expect that kind of awareness on any subject. Just as a politician running for election emphasizes the aspects of his or his opponents’ careers and personalities that he feels will most benefit his own efforts (not always with the highest regard for truth and objectivity), so Greenpeace must juggle with the public’s attention (sometimes unashamedly tugging at heartstrings or whatever) in order to keep momentum for their general efforts. Such organizations tend to be heavily politicized, which may be a necessary evil. If you don’t like Greenpeace (and many don’t, given their frequently aggressive approach) there are plenty of other societies that are milder and respected.
For example:
You still haven’t supported the whole scientific whaling argument as decried in the very first cite I posted. Why is it needed, when others claim it’s unnecessary? Is it to deliberately rock the boat? To sound the level of international response? Is it a first step towards commercial whaling? These are the fears Iceland’s actions have sparked, as articulated by t-keela above. As in other cases of whaling, this is likely about the whale meat and revenue, not about science.
I don’t have to, because I didn’t make any such claim. I merely noted that anyone who considers a cow and a pig equal in intelligence can’t be too reliable on the subject. As for the specific topic of cetacean intelligence, I notice that you rebutted the claim “whales talk to each other” with a link to an article posted on the web site of an organization whose mission is to encourage the hunting of marine mammals (highnort.no). And you complain that the IWC is biased.
Anyway, the article you linked to a few posts ago is deliberately simplistic on the subject of cetacean communication, and the best they can do is conclude that even though whales and honeybees both communicate (you claimed that whales don’t) they don’t necessarily have to be intelligent. Not a very scientific treatment, I guess we humans also communicate but we aren’t necessarily intelligent either. In fact it seems that honeybees developed a complex symbolic language that is limited to communicating information about type, source, direction, distance, etc. of flowers, and not much else. The temporal and spatial cognitive capacities of the bee and the bee communication systems are impressive for an insect, however severely limited to bees’ biologically-dictated needs, and can therefore be viewed as a variation of the strategy insects are the very best at: specialization. Biological, reflex computers. Markedly different from language acquisition in less specialized animals like humans or other primates, or even among dogs or some cetaceans.
A perusal of the database on cetacean intelligence writings located at your source (highnorth.no) shows only selective citations, that is they present only pieces in support of their point of view. This is especially obvious when considering Highnorth’s abundant references to disruptive cetacean behaviour and the complete lack of references to more positive forms of behaviour – an unbiased source would have presented both types rather than broadcast their confirmation bias.
How do you define an inferior or less adapted cortex? Are you claiming that the intelligence of, say, a killer whale is about the same as that of, say, a free-ranging cow? Are you aware of the intelligence, advanced social behaviour, altruistic thinking, and language displayed in herds of elephants? There are quite a few parallels among killer whales, including behaviour (hunting tactics) that is particular to just one herd (school??) of orcas, meaning the behaviour was almost certainly learned by one orca and taught to others nearby (see also different tribes of chimpanzees geographically separated: some tribes have learned to use tools to obtain food, others have not).
Veal is a substantial sub-industry of the beef trade, itself a colossal industry well established in most of the world and therefore fairly unsurmountable. Besides, we’re talking about a domesticated animal here, one whose numbers and characteristics are easily controlled. Still, there are plenty of animal rights organizations that criticize the veal business, you can pick any one of those and lend them your support if you feel strongly enough on the subject. I don’t know how far into animal rights Greenpeace gets these days, from what I know they tend to focus on environmental concerns.
The other scientists sounded rather sceptical about the DNA numbers.
Why shouldn’t we trust Norwegian scientists? And the IWC says it is ca 149 000 minke whales in the north atlantic(1987-1995) so catching less then 1000 whales seems sustainable.
And I hope the IWC panel includes scientists from Switzerland, San Marino and Mongolia since we can be sure these countries joined because of their long maritime tradition.
Roman and Palumbi write that in light of their findings, current populations of humpback or fin whales are “far from harvestable.”
Minke whales are closer to genetically defined population limits, they wrote, and “hunting decisions regarding them must be based on other data.”
/Even the scientists who made the study say its not an issue for Minke. I will try to find the rest of the Cotes you you, Abe, would do well to find your own. Im still the only one who has linked to a valid study on whale intelligence, albeit from a biased source.
Your Old Buddy, perhaps it would be best to sort out this problem in this manner:
Is your issue here with the worldwide resistance to *scientific *whaling in Iceland, which has been widely decried as unnecessary?
Or are you upset because there is such strong opposition to whaling in general and by extension to whaling in Iceland?
As for this:
You thunder in here flinging unsupported accusations to address accusations that you claim are unfounded, you link to one biased source, you are asked repeatedly to provide better information in order to continue the debate, and then you expect me to do work for you?
You should know by now it doesn’t work like that.
A cite would be helpful. An argument would be greatly appreciated. And a point would prove invaluable.
The point was rather why should we trust solely Norwegian scientists over IWC scientists or scientists from other countries when it comes to evaluating whale stocks? My objection was a reaction to the claim that Norway had better information and the implication that it should therefore provide any sort of final word in this matter. Norway’s efforts over the past two decades have made them rather suspect in these matters, and we know Norway is strongly interested in the resumption of commercial whaling. Or we should say the expansion of commercial whaling, since Norway already seems to be engaged in covert commercial whaling.
Really? What if every nation with a coast – or even without one – feels like catching X number of whales just because there are a putative (uncertain) X number of specimens in the wild? What a highly scientific, responsible and informed approach to marine conservation, especially when all the evidence we have points to a degradation of marine ecosystems world-wide. Whaling is regulated for a number of reasons, you know, some of them historical and some of them current. Other than that, perhaps you could re-read this thread, particularly the slipperly slope post, which explains many of the concerns in this matter.
A meaningless comment. I could say that if anything lack of a coast and therefore of access to whales might suggest impartialiality in the matter and a motivation to preserve maritime resources. I don’t put that forward, I state it simply to counter your objection.
I wrote that paragraph with little regard for low comprehension, so let me explain that the wording employed indicated hearsay, i.e. a signal that “I read X somewhere and am not able to recall the cite”.
He told the BBC: "If the genetics is right, then either our estimates of past catches are very wrong or there’s been some major ecological shift in the oceans. Where is the stuff all these whales were eating? "
The point is that the DNA number might be wrong and you can’t say the other numbers are wrong based on the DNA numbers.
I asumed that you had read the cite about the DNA numbers, I will not do that again.
**
Norwegian scientists have the most recent numbers and do a lot of research to be able to set quotas.
Norway is engaged in comercial whaling, there is nothing “covert” about it, although we don’t export any whaleblubber and want to.
**
“I read somewhere” that the quotas where made based on the number of whales in norwegian waters.
And since “the evidence we have points to a degradation of marine ecosystems world-wide.”, does that mean that you want a worldwide ban on fishing? Or only whaling?
**
I just wanted to show that the IWC isn’t necesearly impartial. And why would an organization that writes “The purpose of the Convention is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.” let nations that obviously have no interest
in whaling join.
I thought that might be the case but because it was at the end of a long post that mostly consisted of “Cite?” I gave you the benefit of the doubt and hoped that there was some kind of an explenation for a statement that didn’t make any sense.
A lesson in international law – the Japanese are not “allowed” to kill whales. They decided that they were going to kill whales, period. The international community, having no means to prevent the Japanese from doing so, bowed to the inevitable.
Bark’s Dog Food, I suspect you are deliberately wasting my time. Find another form of entertainment or engage in real debate.
Good, you are more or less able to use cites (as long as someone else finds them for you) and develop a semblance of a rudimentary argument. A sceptic (just one – not “other scientists” in general as you suggested) does not one study invalidate. Frankly, when one study is based on hard evidence from mitochondrial DNA and the other is based on the rough estimates of data (prone to at least three sets of errors) collected by non-scientists, I have little difficulty which to pick as the one that has the better chances of being reliable.
However the point goes back to what I said days ago – that there is a dangerous degree of uncertainty over whale stocks, historical and current – which is part of the reason whaling is largely banned. The DNA study emphasizes this. Even if it is not accurate, it’s a good road to follow, and I look forward to seeing further scientific studies take prominence --including studies that build on this one-- rather than estimates based on unreliable data.
Note that when the sceptic asks “where is all the stuff the whales were eating”, the sad condition of our oceans immediately springs to mind. Please see cites regarding severe overfishing and dwindling stocks in the discussion linked, as well as in the ICES report linked above.
Were you in the least bit informed on the matter you would have answered your own question without stating it as such a foolish challenge. Look into how Iceland set about conserving the cod in its waters. Cod, although they reproduce extremely rapidly, are globally threatened species – Iceland fares somewhat better than the rest of the world when it comes to cod stocks, because they took drastic measures to preserve their stocks a long time ago. Additionally Icelandic fishermen were prohibited from fishing cod in certain zones and/or for part of the year, and the government subsidized them for lost revenue, paying their mortgages, etc.
Species that are on the verge of failing, like the cod, need to be aggressively protected, either with bans on fishing or very strict controls. In the case of cod, that is a lesson that the Eastern Canadians learned the hard way. In matters of cod Iceland is a model for the rest of the world. Is that sufficient answer to your facile question?
I agree, and never said it was. However I will generally trust them over the whaling nations, particularly the de facto leaders of whaling, Japan. For obvious, oft-stated reasons that I won’t repeat again.
Maybe – just maybe – because other nations are interested in A) the conservation of whale stocks and of maritime resources in general, and/or B) the whaling industry.
Firstly, you’ll have to do better than that if you want to claim I made no sense. But more importantly: “A long post that mostly consisted of ‘cite’”??? Are you being delberately illiterate? is that a pitiful attempt to salvage your obscure and largely unstated (probably non-existent) argument?
My posts contain both arguments and cites, something that can’t be said of yours. I criticized Y.O.B. a number of times for blasting environmentalists in general without anything more substantial than a cite from a biased source, a cite that did not support the vast majority of his allegations. The links I have provided here, including in the post for which you offered the above inane criticism, are rather more abundant than the average per post in this particular thread. It seems you simply didn’t like the fact that I challenged one of your fellow pro-whalers to back up his assertions and felt compelled to bitch about it. Spare me.
I hope I wasn’t wasting your time when I poited out that Norway is not engaged in “scietific” whaling but in comercial whaling as I think it’s rather important to this debate.
**
But one scientist is what the journalist found. That indicates that there are others. The DNA study is not hard evidence it is statistical prossesing of numbers with several asumptions. And while I agree that this might be a good road to follow this study could very well be wrong, what I objected to was that you claimed that all earlier studies must be wrong based on the DNA study. And even the authors of the study said: "Hunting decisions about the minkes, the authors say, “must be based on other data”. Which is why this study can’t be used as an argument against hunting minke whales.
**
This might seem like a good answer to you but it might be bad answer to a marine biologist which is why I trust the skeptic more than you.
**
But almost all whales are protected(except for aboriginal subsistence whaling which apparently doesn’t make any difference), and even though many species of fish are protected some aren’t just like most whales are protected but some can be hunted… The only whales that are hunted are in good shape even acording to the DNA study. Which leaves the question ;why should all whaling be banned because many whales are threatened when we don’t ban all fishing because many species of fish are threatened?
**
Your claim indicates that the whalers could make at least as much money on whale-watching as on hunting but for some reason prefers whaling. Since the whaleboats are not made to give tourists daytrips this isn’t an option for the whalers. They would have buy new boats with the necessery equipment to transport tourists, fewer people could work on the boats and the boats couldn’t be used for other purposes like fishing.
First off, whale steak tastes great - really great. It shouldn’t be much of an argument about that.
Besides that there is really no reason to resume whaling. Economical impact? Commercial whaling (true commercial whaling) ended 15-20 years ago. If the fishermen haven’t adjusted yet, they never will. But they have. The need to explore resources? Whaling didnt account for much of the fishing industry 20 years ago, and it certainly wont today. Even Norway’s current 300-800 a year is just a fraction of previous numbers. Whale meat is rarely seen in the shops anymore, when I was growing up it was pretty common. Extinction? Maybe, maybe not. But looking beyond the last 20 year window, the number of whales in the sea in 2002, or in 1982, was just a small percentage of what it just to be, say 100 or 200 years ago. As is the case with a lot of animals, both in sea and on land.
When that is said, a good case can actually be made for scientific research, though in small numbers. Whales can tell us a lot about life in the ocean. The question is of course, are any research actually carried out on the whales caught? Or are they just shipped off to the shops?
Im trying to find out what this debate is about now. I dont think its about if Minke whales around Iceland are endangered or not.
There seems to be some confusion still about just how smart/dumb whales are. I linked to a valid scientific study of whale intelligence (albeit from a biased source). Abe hasnt shown anything to contradict my link so I think the onus is on him to show a link to the contrary, unless he can show that something is wrong with the methodology used in the study.
There is also the off topic of just how much ecotourism in Iceland is affected. I read the original statement from the Icelandic tourist chiefs (acutally just heads of large tourist companies) and all they ask is that their interests be considered in the whole whaling deal. Biðja fjölmiðla að taka tillit til stöðu ferðaþjónustunnar vegna hrefnuveiðanna Link in Icealndic. They also warn that tourism might be affected. So far tourism in Iceland is only growing. This year included.
On the effects whaling had on Norwegian whale watching and the number of tourists in Iceland who already think we hunt whale (pre scientific whaling) Im having a hard time finding links. Its off topic anyway. We Icelanders are never gonna change how we do things because misguided foreigners think we are killing the last surviving whales.
There is also the research on historical numbers. The only source to that effect Abe has offered specifically mentioned that Minke are closer to historical numbers and “hunting decisions regarding them must be based on other data.”. Those are the words of the scientists that made the study. I certainly think historical numbers are not a factor in Icelandic Minke whaling since the scientists who made the study dont think it is. I hope this argument is hereby out of the table.
Here is the scientific study in detail:
Every whale caught is studied in detail.
Then there is the question whether or not Anti Whaling movements are environmentalist. I would say that this link is proof enough. Minke are many enough (according to historical numbers and IWC numbers) to be hunted. Anyone who finds the time to whine about Iceland hunting 38 Minke is not doing his/her best for the environment. Blasting Iceland which to my knowledge is the most environmentally sound western country in the world is pure hypocracy. I never blasted environmentalists in general like Abe indicated. I consider myself an environmentalist.
