Dolphin hunting and general issues of humaness

[Tokis-Phoenix]

As a follow on of a now locked thread ( Animal Cruelty in Japan. How Bad is it and Why? ), i want to ask a broader range of people on their thoughts on humane killing, cruelty and dolphin hunting. Questions;

a What is a cruel/inhumane method of slaughter/killing in your opinion?

b. What is a humane method of slaughter/killing in your opinion?

c. Do you value dolphins more than various other animals (we are not comparing insects here btw)?

d. If dolphins are killed in a humane manner, would you be ok with the killing of dolphins as long as they are not endangered/threatened and the slaughters are closely monitored/supervised and gone about in an organized and selective manner?

e. What reasons do you think are ok to kill animals for? For example, are you against or in agreement of the killing of animals for food?



My answers to these questions;
a. A cruel/inhumane method of slaughter in my opinion is one that causes unnecessary/excessive suffering to the animal and takes a while/long time to kill the animal in question.

b. A humane method of killing/slaughter in my opinion is one that takes little time to kill the animal (perhaps under 1minute) and does not cause unnecessary/excessive suffering to the animal.

c. No.

d. Yes.

e. I think its ok to kill animals for any purpose as long as they are killed in a humane manner and are not endangered or threatened (and the killing of the animal will not have a noticeably bad effect on the ecosystem to which the animals belong). If they are raised in captivity, then they must be given a decent quality of life and diet and a life that attends to their basic needs well.



How about you guys?

 

[Sarapva]

I agree with you on "a" and "b" - humane slaughter would be quick and mostly painless. Inhumane slaughter is that which causes pain and lasts long enough that the animal has time to feel fear and to know what's happening to it.

I don't value dolphins above other animals - I believe that no animal should be killed for any reason except self-defense in an attack. I don't have as much of a problem with people killing animals to survive in the wild, but I disagree with creating industries that make animals' lives miserable and exist for financial profit. It seems that when money comes into it, people are more concerned about that and not about animals' welfare.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I agree with you on "a" and "b" - humane slaughter would be quick and mostly painless. Inhumane slaughter is that which causes pain and lasts long enough that the animal has time to feel fear and to know what's happening to it.
I don't value dolphins above other animals - I believe that no animal should be killed for any reason except self-defense in an attack. I don't have as much of a problem with people killing animals to survive in the wild, but I disagree with creating industries that make animals' lives miserable and exist for financial profit. It seems that when money comes into it, people are more concerned about that and not about animals' welfare.

Its true that there is a lot of cruelty in the animal products industry, however i don't think its fair to label the entire lot as cruel as there are a lot of farmers that go to great efforts to care for their animals well.


IMHO, the main thing which i believe has fueled a lot of the mistreatment towards animals in farming is not the farmers wanting to be this way themselves, but rather it comes about because people increasingly demand lower and lower prices for animal products.
In essence, its the demand for cheap animal products that has created some of the worst methods of farming, for example like battery farming.

I think people have become too accustomed to expecting cheap prices for animal products. Now days, some animal products can be even cheaper to buy than fruit or veg.
Because people demand such low prices for animal products, and because there are always farmers willing to care less for their animals for the sake of profit and keeping their business profitable, it makes it very difficult for the good farmers out there to farms animals better at a greater expense and somehow convince the general public that its better to buy animal products for more money rather than less.

Unfortunately, although the government now days seems to be doing more about the welfare of animals, on the other hand it goes to much greater lengths to try and keep food prices low.
Until people pay more for animal products, then it will be difficult for farmers to keep animals that lead a good quality of life but are still profitable to keep.
However unfortunately, people seem to create a myriad of excuses now days to justify why they have to eat animal products and why they can't afford to pay more for such products.

I personally do eat meat and other animal products from time to time, but i only buy such products from my local butchers, who have good ethics- they source all of their products from local sources and only sell free range animal products and they are strongly against methods of farming like battery farming. They hand out pamphlets covering what farms they get their products from and the methods these farms use in raising their animals.
By buying animal products from my local butchers, not only am i supporting local farmers/the local economy, but i am also supporting those farmers who do go to great lengths to raise their animals in a good manner, and by supporting local farmers i am also helping the environment (its a lot more un-environmentally friendly to ship meat from abroad than it is to produce it in the same town/area where its bought etc).

My mother runs a farm, we have farmed many different types of animals in the past. My mother has very good ethics concerning raising animals. But we had to give up farming numerous types of animals simply because it was too costly to raise them giving them a good quality of life, and my mother refused to reduce the animals quality of life in the sake of profit.

Farming, when gone about correctly, it has its place (and a good place at that) in the environment/ecosystem- if it weren't for farming, many types of animals would most likely go extinct. However unfortunately, with todays culture of international food trade and farming and public expectation of low food prices, many types of food like fruit and veg are farmed out of season and often in countries which they are not native too, and many farm animals quality of life is reduced for the sake of cheap animal products, and many fields are increasingly over-farmed with poor crop rotation programs and too many pesticides/herbicides etc.

So i do think its ok to eat meat, but i think this largely depends on the circumstances/situation, especially concerning how the animal is raised. I do think that in general, farm animals need to be treated with more respect, and farmers need to get paid more for their products so they can afford to look after their animals better etc.

 

[Sarapva]

Thanks for that informative explanation, Tokis - that really makes sense to me. If all farms were run with the animals' welfare in mind, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. It's the imposing of cruel and miserable conditions on any living thing that I think is wrong.

I'm glad that your mother didn't want to compromise the welfare of the animals on her farm. I think this is actually the wave of the future - organic and humane farms are becoming more and more popular in the U.S., even though the meat and eggs cost more. The market for organic produce is rising every year. This shows that many people do care about how the animals are raised, and I think as more people catch on and learn about different farming methods, more and more will choose the humane ones.

There are a lot of companies now that use as part of their advertising that their animals are treated humanely, even if they're not organic. It's heartening to me to know that people will support these companies even if they're more expensive, and of course I think the products are of a much higher quality, too.

As for fishing and dolphin and whale hunting, I think those industries are still inhumane. Not enough is known about how much fish can feel, but I think fish that are commercially hunted suffer quite a bit before dying. This is seen better in the bigger ones like dolphins, but small fish I'm sure suffer as well.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Thanks .


I am personally against whaling primarily because in my opinion i do not think that any of the methods currently being used to kill whales are humane- all of them take a long time to kill whales. I'm not sure if its even possible to kill a whale quickly/humanely.
Secondly I am also against the killing of whales because despite a recovery in their numbers, i do not think they are in large enough numbers for people to consider killing them- they are in a very delicate state right now, especially considering that many, if not all, of marine ecosystems at current are being too damaged by over-fishing and the such like.
I also do not think whales are killed selectively enough- right now, calves, sub-adults, adults and males and females alike are seemingly killed without much consideration. I think if we are to help sustain whale populations in healthy/prosperous numbers, then a lot more thought needs to go into what whales are killed- if we don't kill them selectively, then we could end up with gluts or shortages of certain genders or ages of whales, and this could have a serious impact on their species and the ecosystems that are connected to whales.

So basically there's a lot that i disagree with about whaling and a lot that i think needs to be changed about it if it must happen.

Concerning the hunting of dolphins, this is more of a gray area in my opinion. There is a humane method of killing dolphins and that is the pin method (a metal pin is shoved into the back of the dolphins neck/spinal cord, killing the dolphin in a few seconds), and it is a method that is encouraged by the government and it is used by dolphin hunters. However there is enough evidence to also conclude that dolphins are not always killed in this way and they are sometimes treated very carelessly during the slaughter, which causes the dolphins stress and suffering.
There are many different types of dolphins which are hunted in Japan, some are endangered/threatened and others are not. Like the whales, i also do not think that dolphins are often not killed selectively enough in general.

So i disagree with the killing of endangered/threatened species of dolphins which are killed in inhumane/cruel and un-selective manners, but i do not feel so bad about the killing of dolphins which are not endangered/threatened and are killed in a humane & selective manner.

 

[david@tokyo]

in my opinion i do not think that any of the methods currently being used to kill whales are humane- all of them take a long time to kill whales. I'm not sure if its even possible to kill a whale quickly/humanely.

It is possible, but mileage varies because of the variable nature of the conditions of a wild animal hunt.

When thinking about whether treatment of animals is "humane" or not I think it's important to consider not just the kill, but other aspects as well. I think most people would agree.

As for whales, they certainly lead better lives than farm animals. Furthermore there is more meat on a whale than there is on other types of animals, and as a result fewer animals are required to produce equivalent amounts of food. Farmed animals are also demeaned by being bred solely for the purpose of producing food for humans - not so with whales. Thus in my way of thinking, humanity depends not only on the measure of time that it takes to kill an animal (improvement of which has been continuously acheived over the years), but other factors such as the life we allow the animal to lead before we take it, the respect we show for the animal, and the number of animals we elect to take (fewer is better).

The problem is that there is no established global standard in this respect, and so people with their different ways of thinking tend to look down on one another. And some people in some places have a tendancy to *selectively* take some aspects of the way in which some animals are treated to the way in which whales are treated, without a more rounded evaluation. I think this is why disputes arise.

Secondly I am also against the killing of whales because despite a recovery in their numbers, i do not think they are in large enough numbers for people to consider killing them

What are your criteria in making this judgement?

If you have a population of whales that is scientifically recognised to be increasing at a rate of at least 3% each year and perhaps as much as 10% each year, what would be a problem with taking a number of whales equivalent to say 0.5% of their total numbers?

For example, if you have 10,000 this year, you'll have 10,300 next year, and you are thinking about whether it's OK to take 50 or not? As a result you'd end up with 10,250. If the rate of increase was actually 10%, not 3%, you'd have 10,950.

If 10,000 is too small a number (and maybe it is), let's talk about 100,000 whales. Next year we'd have 103,000, and people might think about taking 500 or so.
If they take 500, there will be 102,500 next year.


It's very hard to see any problem with this without some reasoning. Alternatively, perhaps you could be specific about the levels of abundance at which you would be OK with whaling and why.

they are in a very delicate state right now, especially considering that many, if not all, of marine ecosystems at current are being too damaged by over-fishing and the such like.

Whale populations that are increasing would probably not be doing so if their environments were not healthy enough to support them, but in any case, as people are talking about conservative harvests at levels well within current reproductive capacity, it seems extremely hard to justify the risk as being too high to accept, and it's not as if we couldn't take action to address any problems that might occur.

I also do not think whales are killed selectively enough- right now, calves, sub-adults, adults and males and females alike are seemingly killed without much consideration.

With respect to Japan's research whaling, their programme employ random sampling techniques, which is why there is a variation in the types of whales taken (and there is good reason for this random sampling being employed). Commercial whaling operations however tend to target larger whales only, and whalers also have an incentive to avoid areas where females were known to be predominant, although this sort of segregation doesn't happen as much with baleen whales as it does with species such as sperm whales.

I think if we are to help sustain whale populations in healthy/prosperous numbers, then a lot more thought needs to go into what whales are killed- if we don't kill them selectively, then we could end up with gluts or shortages of certain genders or ages of whales, and this could have a serious impact on their species and the ecosystems that are connected to whales.

The IWC's Revised Management Procedure takes the gender of the catch into consideration when catch limits are reviewed, and commercial whaling has a natural incentive to target larger (older) whales than smaller (younger) ones.

So basically there's a lot that i disagree with about whaling and a lot that i think needs to be changed about it if it must happen.

Whaling is already happening, and will continue to happen. I think what is important for people who aren't involved in whaling is to ensure that their criticisms of it are truely constructive ones, or else they may find that they lose their audience.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Where are you getting these whale population statistics from and why do the Japanese need to randomly kill whales for sampling (i don't really understand the reasons why Japan needs to hunt whales for "scientific" purposes)?

 

[Hiroyuki Nagashima]

International Whaling Commission

HISTORY AND PURPOSE
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was set up under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which was signed in Washington DC on 2nd December 1946 (Click HEREto view full text). 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.
The main duty of the IWC is to keep under review and revise as necessary the measures laid down in the Schedule to the Convention which govern the conduct of whaling throughout the world (Click HEREto view the full text). These measures, among other things, provide for the complete protection of certain species; designate specified areas as whale sanctuaries; set limits on the numbers and size of whales which may be taken; prescribe open and closed seasons and areas for whaling; and prohibit the capture of suckling calves and female whales accompanied by calves. The compilation of catch reports and other statistical and biological records is also required.
In addition, the Commission encourages, co-ordinates and funds whale research, publishes the results of scientific research and promotes studies into related matters such as the humaneness of the killing operations.

Do not you misunderstand it?
Because it is investigation for whaling,
There will not be a meaning unless they whale.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

IMHO, its an outdated form of wildlife conservation- far more information can be gained from tagging whales with special electric sensors than simply killing the whales and looking at their insides.

 

[david@tokyo]

Where are you getting these whale population statistics from

They were examples for discussion purposes.

Some real estimates are here:
iwcoffice.org - This website is for sale! - iwcoffice Resources and Information.
(hundreds of thousands of minkes, tens of thousands of fins, only about 10,500 bowheads - the Americans are permitted to hunt about 50 of these annually pretty much as per my example, 42,000 humpbacks in the southern hemisphere a decade ago, and known to be growing at rates of 7.9% or more each year)

why do the Japanese need to randomly kill whales for sampling

They are trying to study certain aspects of whale populations that (amongst other things) will be useful in setting sustainable catch limits. Without random sampling the whales studied would not be representative of the population under study.

 

[david@tokyo]

IMHO, its an outdated form of wildlife conservation- far more information can be gained from tagging whales with special electric sensors than simply killing the whales and looking at their insides.

That is a very dubious claim indeed.

 

[Rose Selavey]

The IWC, are even unable to supply reliable data on Whale populations. It is without justification that Japan continues to hunt scientifically, as I have said before the Japanese whaling fleet needs to reapply to the IWC to resume whale hunting for commercial purposes, because their random sampling technique does not stand up to the latest monitoring of marine species, especially whales, the new methods of stats such as visual, tagging and DNA from skin samples is much more reliable and does not end in the needless death of a whale. The Japanese have sampled the whale for 20 years under scientific banner and yet they can give us no analysis, random sampling does not give an outcome or direction in purpose it only gives millions of more 'results'.
From a recent news article:

The Japanese claim that they require samples of all ages to form statistical data has repeatedly been discredited. Nicola Beynon, campaign director at the Humane Society International, said Japan's lethal evidence was consistently discredited at the International Whaling Convention.

"They bring along the stats for the number of calf, pregnant mothers, males, females, how big their eyeballs were - whatever - but there is never any analysis," she said.

They are trying to study certain aspects of whale populations that (amongst other things) will be useful in setting sustainable catch limits.

Are you an insider to the ICR motives, in which peer reviewed scientific paper did they reveal this?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

That is a very dubious claim indeed.

Well its true- what have we found out about whales by killing them that we couldn't find out about them by not killing them?

 

[david@tokyo]

The IWC, are even unable to supply reliable data on Whale populations.

This is not true. If that were the case the USA would certainly not be permitted to kill bowhead whales they way it is.

It is without justification that Japan continues to hunt scientifically

This is also not true. Japan's research whaling does have a justification - the problem is that some people don't like the justification. Japan is interested in whales as a resource that can be utilised to benefit humans. Being a natural resource, research is required to understand how these resources can be effectively utilised.

the Japanese whaling fleet needs to reapply to the IWC to resume whale hunting for commercial purposes

Japan has asked the IWC many times for commercial whaling quotas, but been rejected for a whole range of spurious reasons. One of which was that there is not enough scientific knowledge of how to effectively and safely utilise them, and thus Japan commenced it's research whaling programmes in response. Today additional research objectives have been added.

because their random sampling technique does not stand up to

Mmm, be honest, how much do you know about the objectives of the Japanese programme and why they use the methods they do?

the new methods of stats such as visual, tagging and DNA from skin samples is much more reliable and does not end in the needless death of a whale.

Japans programmes include the use of non-lethal methods including all of those you mention, however it's not the case that these methods in isolation are "more reliable" than using a suitable combination of lethal and non-lethal methods.
The fact that whales die in the research is mute, because the whole idea of using whales as a resource in the first place involves killing them.

Perhaps your problem is not so much with Japan's research but more with the fact that you disagree with their view that whales are a legitimate source of resources that humans can utilise for their benefit?

The Japanese have sampled the whale for 20 years under scientific banner and yet they can give us no analysis

This is certainly not true. I've read some of the reports on the various analyses conducted myself (available on the net), so I know this for a fact.

From a recent news article

Humane Society Interanational is not a source of news, they are an anti-whaling group.

"They bring along the stats for the number of calf, pregnant mothers, males, females, how big their eyeballs were - whatever - but there is never any analysis," she said.

It's true they provide the data, but it's false that they do no analysis of them. You can read the analyses for yourself if you like.

Are you an insider to the ICR motives, in which peer reviewed scientific paper did they reveal this?

Their motives are written in plain English on their homepage on the "Internet".

 

[david@tokyo]

Well its true- what have we found out about whales by killing them that we couldn't find out about them by not killing them?

One example is Age. From the IWC homepage:

iwcoffice.org - This website is for sale! - iwcoffice Resources and Information.
Age

"The earplug has a layered structure which is visible when the plug is bisected. It has been discovered that one growth layer is formed each year (rather like the rings in a tree-trunk), so that the age of the whale can be found by counting the number of layers."

Age determination is important in standard marine resource stock assessment science. Do a little googling for "cohort analysis" or "virtual population analysis".

This is just one piece of information that can only be obtained via lethal methods.

Anti-whaling scientists have recently started trying to develop a new non-lethal method to determine the age via telemere analysis (whale skin flakes, essentially). However the method is not developed, tested, or accepted as standard yet, it's dubious as to whether such "skin flakes" can be readily obtained from a randomly sampled whale in the Antarctic, and even the scientists who are trying to develop this method themselves recognise that the method will not be able to provide as accurate a measure as that of the existing lethal method.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

One example is Age. From the IWC homepage:
iwcoffice.org - This website is for sale! - iwcoffice Resources and Information.
Age
"The earplug has a layered structure which is visible when the plug is bisected. It has been discovered that one growth layer is formed each year (rather like the rings in a tree-trunk), so that the age of the whale can be found by counting the number of layers."
Age determination is important in standard marine resource stock assessment science. Do a little googling for "cohort analysis" or "virtual population analysis".
This is just one piece of information that can only be obtained via lethal methods.
Anti-whaling scientists have recently started trying to develop a new non-lethal method to determine the age via telemere analysis (whale skin flakes, essentially). However the method is not developed, tested, or accepted as standard yet, it's dubious as to whether such "skin flakes" can be readily obtained from a randomly sampled whale in the Antarctic, and even the scientists who are trying to develop this method themselves recognise that the method will not be able to provide as accurate a measure as that of the existing lethal method.

You'd only need one whale to discover this though, so thats justification for killing one whale. Like a lot of other animals, the age of whales can be determined by the trained eye roughly by their appearance.

IMHO The researching of dead beached whales is better for research as its more important to find out why whales are dying in the sea than why they are surviving. We already know though a lot of the main threats to whales, like boat traffic and lack of food, but i think more action needs to be taken in conserving whales by helping reduce these threats to whales by setting aside marine wildlife reserves where boat traffic and fishing is limited or banned.
For animals that only number in their thousands, every animal counts, and killing them should be avoided at all costs- i think a lot of people's main issue with Japan's whaling is that many people think it doesn't avoid killing whales when it could do.

My main issue though with whaling is the methods being used to kill them, more humane methods need to be deployed if whaling is to go on.

 

[Hiroyuki Nagashima]

Japan alone need not do research whaling.
Do research whaling by your method by using your capital.
None of the Japanese objects and does not interfere with you.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Japan alone need not do research whaling.
Do research whaling by your method by using your capital.
None of the Japanese objects and does not interfere with you.

Japan isn't the only country researching whales and no-one expects Japan to fund other countries research programs. Although at the moment the majority of Japanese are in favor of whaling, not all Japanese are (it is not completely true that "None of the Japanese objects").
I respect that its your country, you do what you want with it, however whales do not belong to anybody and they do not all belong to Japan- whales are not Japan's private property, they are free animals which need some degree of protection, so you should accept that other people can have a say on what happens to them.
I do understand the pro-whaling arguments and i do agree with some of the points, but i do not think that the current state of affairs is ideal.

 

[Hiroyuki Nagashima]

I showed it, The most suitable method to let you stop Japanese research whaling.

 

[bakaKanadajin]

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

...???

... ... ..."sigh". Do you have anything meaningful to contribute to this thread?

 

[MadamePapillon]

Sadly, I think the core reason why so many people are against killing whales is being forgotten with all the debate of sustainability and their environmental impact.

There is a reason people feel more strongly about whales and dolphins being killed than they do about pigs or tuna. All statistics and politics aside about the reasons for or against whale/dolphin hunting the question that is rarely talked about is should whales and dolphins be commercially hunted for food? The moral and ethical issue of recognizing these creatures as above average intelligence and that they should be protected because of this.

Like gorillas or elephants who we know to possess greater than normal intelligence, wouldn't we find killing them for food to be inherently wrong?

Whales and dolphins possess all the characteristics of a species that is uncommonly aware of itself and others, more like the elephant (who has been shown to have an awareness of death) than even the gorilla who we label as the most 'human' of all animals. So what sort of characteristics does an animal have to display before it should be considered 'off limits' on moral grounds.
Many people would say intelligence, awareness of itself and others, advanced communication skills, the ability to show compassion or empathy, the ability to problem solve ect

Whales and dolphins show definite signs of higher intelligence. Their communication skills, as scientists are increasingly learning, are far more advanced than we previously though to the point where biologists and scientists call it a 'language'.

http://www.interspecies.com/pages/whalmusi.html

They show the ability to recognize when a human is a threat (trying to escape if we are) or when we aren't a threat (often coming close and trying to play or simply observing us). As well as that there have been incidents where whales and dolphins are able to recognize our direct attempts to help them (such as untangling them from nets) and act accordingly, displaying signs of appreciation afterwards.

Daring rescue of whale off Farallones / Humpback nuzzled her saviors in thanks after they untangled her from crab lines, diver says

Dolphins have also been known to rescue drowning people showing an awareness of us and the fact that we are in danger in the water.

But possibly even more than intelligence and empathy, whales have shown that they are even capable of being purposefully cruel, such as Killer Whales (Orcas) toying with seals that they catch.



So with an animals that are intelligent, empathetic, uncommonly aware and have displayed the ability to be total a**holes (a trait that is often associated with humans), should they truly be used as an object for commercial hunts?
keep in mind, I'm not arguing the small, local hunts that take place in Japanese villages or among Inuit people, I am arguing against full scale commercial hunts, even with guidelines and quotas. Should whales be used as nothing more than a money making product or to fuel a political agenda? Is it morally and ethically sound knowing that whales/dolphins are intelligent and fully aware creatures?

 

[bakaKanadajin]

Great post, MadameButterfly.

You'd think people would just 'get' it, that is, what you're saying about how it IS possible to differentiate between some animals and others. But we're still picking at it with tweezers (hence my tongue-in-cheek animated gif posted above.) That's not to say that different 'levels' of life are intrinsically more valuable than others because all life in principle is precious and should be preserved as much as possible. But to some people, a slice of roast beef is the same as a dolphin is the same as a TV dinner is the same as a pancake is the same as a chimpanzee. I mean, how stupid does this look:

We must use the earth to feed ourselves and sustain ourselves, but does that mean we HAVE to use everything? Does anyone here eat the plastic garnishings that come with their pre-prepared bento boxes? Disposable chopsticks are organic, they're wood, hey let's eat those too.

Thanks for the thoughtful post and for putting effort into explaning the intangibles in life which some will just never grasp.

 

[Chi65]

We simply should not eat what we can learn from. . .
Its very old prejudice, that you become like a lion, if you eat one, as one example.
Eat what you adore and thus try to be that one. Its like a very old habit, that keeps coming up. This also was a principle thought for a kind of cannibalism, actually. Eat the kings of the oceans and you might become one yourself. Try to translate this. . .and you get the points, why who is really doing what at present. . .its not about "tradition" really, its much more behind, if you get my point, be it conscious or not.

There still is a film from Fellini, who picked up on cannibalism, under such an aspect. . . .

As for hunters, it was not just the fur, that was worn to be warm, but for the pride of being that killed spirit as well.
Be it conscious or not, this image is not really dead yet.

But in psychology, it belongs to a very early state, to put everything into your mouth, thus eat it instead of trying anything else with whats around

Grown up would be something else, or should be at least, and that can be learned. Also in communities.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

We simply should not eat what we can learn from. .

I agree with this statement a lot in many ways. We understand and know so little about animals like whales, like what they do when they go to the bottom of the ocean and what their migratory routes are, or what certain sounds mean in whale language etc- we understand a little about these things, but we're only scratching the surface so to speak, there's so much more to learn about these things.

Also, they play a crucial part in ocean floor ecosystems- whale carcasses which float down to the bottom of the ocean can support hundreds of types of animals for months, even years, at a time. We know so little about these ocean floor animals, every time we go down to the bottom of the ocean we discover new animals or things- we actually know more about the surface of the moon than our own planets ocean floors. Whales obviously play a very important part in these ocean floor animals lives, they support all sorts of animals like giant sharks and weird prehistoric eel-like fish to crabs and giant worms etc- we don't yet know what sort of effect we are having on these ocean floor ecosystems by over-fishing the sea's of almost everything. Some of these ocean floor animals could go extinct before we even discover and study them alive in their natural habitats.