Why is Whaling Illegal?

[Army of GOD]

[Funkyterrance]

Yeah the whole ramming the shit out of sharks until they sink to the bottom a bloody pulp is pretty badass. Dolphins are cool beans.

Actually, dolphins are fish.

Damn, I'm going to demand a refund from the University for my Oceanology course.
Oddly enough, I looked it up and we're both wrong. They're actually marsupials.

[tzor]

Actually, dolphins are fish.

In other places, the "Dolphinfish" is known as mahi-mahi

Damn good eating.

[PLAYER57832]

Aye, but there's a fair bit of background as to why Japan took that approach, although the hypocrisy of allowing whaling for Americans is certainly part of it-

Uh... could be I was giving a highly shortened synopse (did I mention having sat in on a few international whaling commission meetings, not to mention a few other international fishery allocation meetings myself?)

[gordon1975]

whaling is wrong!ive seen Star Trek IV,argument finished!!!

[Symmetry]

Aye, but there's a fair bit of background as to why Japan took that approach, although the hypocrisy of allowing whaling for Americans is certainly part of it-

Uh... could be I was giving a highly shortened synopse (did I mention having sat in on a few international whaling commission meetings, not to mention a few other international fishery allocation meetings myself?)

I'm not surprised- the hypocrisy on the issue was a big thing in Japan too- and that goes for the Japanese pro-whaling lobby as much as the anti-whaling lobby.

It also goes both ways for much of the debate in the UK about fishing quotas in general.

[PLAYER57832]

Aye, but there's a fair bit of background as to why Japan took that approach, although the hypocrisy of allowing whaling for Americans is certainly part of it-

Uh... could be I was giving a highly shortened synopse (did I mention having sat in on a few international whaling commission meetings, not to mention a few other international fishery allocation meetings myself?)

I'm not surprised- the hypocrisy on the issue was a big thing in Japan too- and that goes for the Japanese pro-whaling lobby as much as the anti-whaling lobby.

It also goes both ways for much of the debate in the UK about fishing quotas in general.

I try to stick to the biology. My view is that the limits should be set by biological realities, not political wishes. Its funny, though, how many people seem to think that politics can dictate biology or environmental facts just because they wish it so.

I remember my professor talking about all the big players of that decade fighting over the Pollock fishery. In there was, I think Poland, wanting a mere fraction of what the other folks' wanted and very much dependent upon that small fraction to feed itself. It would have been easy for the big guys to just say "OK... let's just give the Poles their piece".. and move on, but it naturally could not happen that way.

I have no biological problem with allowing a few Inuit to take a couple of whales... or even allowing Japan to take a very few under certain limited conditions. I have a big problem with Japan and Norway each claiming to be doing scientific investigations, but somehow managing to sell the meat on the open market.

[Symmetry]

Aye, but there's a fair bit of background as to why Japan took that approach, although the hypocrisy of allowing whaling for Americans is certainly part of it-

Uh... could be I was giving a highly shortened synopse (did I mention having sat in on a few international whaling commission meetings, not to mention a few other international fishery allocation meetings myself?)

I'm not surprised- the hypocrisy on the issue was a big thing in Japan too- and that goes for the Japanese pro-whaling lobby as much as the anti-whaling lobby.

It also goes both ways for much of the debate in the UK about fishing quotas in general.

I try to stick to the biology. My view is that the limits should be set by biological realities, not political wishes. Its funny, though, how many people seem to think that politics can dictate biology or environmental facts just because they wish it so.

I remember my professor talking about all the big players of that decade fighting over the Pollock fishery. In there was, I think Poland, wanting a mere fraction of what the other folks' wanted and very much dependent upon that small fraction to feed itself. It would have been easy for the big guys to just say "OK... let's just give the Poles their piece".. and move on, but it naturally could not happen that way.

I have no biological problem with allowing a few Inuit to take a couple of whales... or even allowing Japan to take a very few under certain limited conditions. I have a big problem with Japan and Norway each claiming to be doing scientific investigations, but somehow managing to sell the meat on the open market.

Of course the biological argument is that whales aren't an endangered species, indeed, not a species at all. And the majority of whales killed by the Japanese aren't endagered either. If you're ok with the Americans killing endangered whales, but your position is that it shouldn't be done if it's labelled in the wrong way, I don't think you have a reasonable point.

[PLAYER57832]

Of course the biological argument is that whales aren't an endangered species, indeed, not a species at all. And the majority of whales killed by the Japanese aren't endagered either. If you're ok with the Americans killing endangered whales, but your position is that it shouldn't be done if it's labelled in the wrong way, I don't think you have a reasonable point.

I admit it has been a few years since I researched this topic, so it is possible that some factors have changed.

However, I believe that the only people claiming whales are not endangered are those wanting to hunt them.

From the outset, I am not saying I utterly ignore the "moral" bit. I now enough about whales to say that while they are certainly not with human intelligence or anything close, they are intelligent. I am not comfortable with any hunting for those reasons... but, I am OK with hunting deer, eat pork and do recognize that this is an inconsistant view.

Its just that I think there are enough purely biological reasons right now to leave the discussion on those grounds... and let research develop on the other fronts, for the time being. The morality issue just has no firm answer.

Anyway, my understanding is that ALL cetaceans, with the possible exception of a couple of porpoises, are endangered. For the inuit, taking a whale is a big part of certain tribe's culture. I won't get into all that here, but when the whales go.. those tribes will simply no be, culturally, any more. That time of change is actually inevitable, may even be here for a variety of reasons. However, as long as the people are holding to traditions and living the basically traditional lifestyle (albiet with electricty, etc.), then I think they have a right to continue, even if it means hunting whales. The number of whales they have EVER taken was very few. It is within a sustainable limit, even for a highly depressed species. For both of those reasons, I think allowing specific "Eskimo" tribes to hunt whale is OK.

Japan and Norway, to contrast, essentially revel in the future. We are not talking about Sami, but modern, highly technical hunters. Then the question is one of biology. Either the population CAN sustain the hunt or it cannot. So far, the consensus is mostly "no", but these nations have skirted around that. I believe that discussion should be open, honest and up front. Either there is a sustainble population with fishing or not.

OH-- one more bit, while I try to avoid the whole "should we hunt whales at all [because they are "Flipper" or "Shamu", more or less),I DO think discussion of ethical, humane hunting techniques is warranted. When an animal is slaughtered on a farm, there are rules to make sure the animal is killed in a relatively painfree way, is held up until slaughter in reasonable conditions, etc. This is another reason why Japan rather stands out. Their methods have often been shown to be repulsive.

[Symmetry]

Of course the biological argument is that whales aren't an endangered species, indeed, not a species at all. And the majority of whales killed by the Japanese aren't endagered either. If you're ok with the Americans killing endangered whales, but your position is that it shouldn't be done if it's labelled in the wrong way, I don't think you have a reasonable point.

I admit it has been a few years since I researched this topic, so it is possible that some factors have changed.

However, I believe that the only people claiming whales are not endangered are those wanting to hunt them.

From the outset, I am not saying I utterly ignore the "moral" bit. I now enough about whales to say that while they are certainly not with human intelligence or anything close, they are intelligent. I am not comfortable with any hunting for those reasons... but, I am OK with hunting deer, eat pork and do recognize that this is an inconsistant view.

Its just that I think there are enough purely biological reasons right now to leave the discussion on those grounds... and let research develop on the other fronts, for the time being. The morality issue just has no firm answer.

Anyway, my understanding is that ALL cetaceans, with the possible exception of a couple of porpoises, are endangered. For the inuit, taking a whale is a big part of certain tribe's culture. I won't get into all that here, but when the whales go.. those tribes will simply no be, culturally, any more. That time of change is actually inevitable, may even be here for a variety of reasons. However, as long as the people are holding to traditions and living the basically traditional lifestyle (albiet with electricty, etc.), then I think they have a right to continue, even if it means hunting whales. The number of whales they have EVER taken was very few. It is within a sustainable limit, even for a highly depressed species. For both of those reasons, I think allowing specific "Eskimo" tribes to hunt whale is OK.

Japan and Norway, to contrast, essentially revel in the future. We are not talking about Sami, but modern, highly technical hunters. Then the question is one of biology. Either the population CAN sustain the hunt or it cannot. So far, the consensus is mostly "no", but these nations have skirted around that. I believe that discussion should be open, honest and up front. Either there is a sustainble population with fishing or not.

OH-- one more bit, while I try to avoid the whole "should we hunt whales at all [because they are "Flipper" or "Shamu", more or less),I DO think discussion of ethical, humane hunting techniques is warranted. When an animal is slaughtered on a farm, there are rules to make sure the animal is killed in a relatively painfree way, is held up until slaughter in reasonable conditions, etc. This is another reason why Japan rather stands out. Their methods have often been shown to be repulsive.

I'm not sure if fishing under any form is really valid compared farming to farming in this argument.

Japanese whaling is pretty sustainable. While it is true that they do take some endangered species, or those that are threatened species. most of what they catch is the minke whale. Which isn't endangered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minke_whale#Population_and_conservation_status

Bluefin Tuna, however, is where Japan and the world is really in trouble, but it's not as interesting as a cause.