Inherent cruelty in whaling

Sarapva

Midnight and Snowflake
Joined
25 Feb 2007
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
48
I searched the whaling forum and didn't find a thread that dealt specifically with this topic, so I hope it's all right to start a new thread.

This is from whalewatch.org, which says that even modern methods of the exploding penthrite harpoon doesn't always kill whales instantaneously:

The hunt
The combination of visibility, sea state, ship motion and marksmanship are likely to impact significantly on the ability of the whaler to reliably kill a whale instantaneously.

If the weather, sea conditions or the motion of the vessel do not allow for a properly aimed shot, then there is a significant risk of a poorly placed harpoon or bullet causing an extended time to death and associated suffering.

The kill
The main killing method used during commercial and scientific whaling is the penthrite grenade harpoon which is fired from a cannon on the bow of a ship. The harpoon is intended to penetrate about 30 inches into the whale before detonation and kill the animal through neurotrauma.

If the first harpoon fails to kill the whale, then a second penthrite harpoon or a rifle is used as a secondary killing method. The common use of secondary killing methods reflects the inefficiency of the primary killing methods. The IWC has not established any formal criteria for determining when to apply secondary killing methods and the decision rests solely with the hunter.

In 2002, Norwegian whalers killed 80.7% of their targets instantly, whereas in 2002/2003 Japanese whalers only killed 40.2% of their instantly. As marine mammals, whales bodies' are adapted for diving and going without oxygen intake for long periods. This may mean that whales are able to experience pain over a period significantly longer than suggested by the current IWC criteria for death in whales.

http://whalewatch.org/

I think the argument against whaling should be as much concerned with the suffering the whales undergo as with the ecological and health concerns.
 
I don't know who invented it, but it doesn't matter where it comes from. The point here is that it must cause excruciating pain to a whale that doesn't die instantly. Can you imagine being shot by an exploding bullet, but not dying? I really can't imagine what it would be like, but I'm sure a person or animal that isn't killed instantly probably experiences extreme agony. I wish we people would use our intelligence to figure out how to get along and live in harmony with nature, instead of developing weapons that kill this way or that way.
 
In brief,
"Improve a whaling method."
Your opinion.
For example, it is an electric shock?
Your demand was useful.
 
In brief,
"Improve a whaling method."

I don't think any whaling can really be improved. The whales would still be killed, some instantly, which is better than prolonged suffering. But there would still be some that don't get killed quickly and will suffer.

The improvement would be if we started watching whales instead of killing them.
 
Exactly, the rest is murder

Still thanks to some grown ups, who know, that they have to give back (not the whales to the murderers, as some Japanese seem to think)
 
Sara ,
I think this is a really interesting point and one which pro-whaling nations are going to have to come to terms with. It is often said that anti-whalers are emotional about this issue rather than scientific, but the image of whale slaughter (or animal cruelty in general) has become iconic in our society. To see the ocean fill with blood, the animal is thrashing about and the last limp dying moments are agony for any one to watch.

The tradition of whaling really is a thing of the past.
 
It stands also for the fact, that many whalers are not only cruel to animals. . .
 
Carefull, now some start to call you a terrorist and delete you here. . .no joke!
 
Back
Top Bottom