What's new

Welcome to Japan Reference (JREF) - the community for all Things Japanese.

Join Today! It is fast, simple, and FREE!

Greenpeace Japan gets support from Japanese

centrajapan

先輩
Joined
16 Sep 2007
Messages
681
Reaction score
11
At the time of the declaration of the whaling moratorium, there was a consensus that whale stocks were dangerously low.

I just want to add that Japan decided to stop hunting whales due to uncertainties in stock estimates. Now that we know that the whale spicies which Japan wants to hunt are not endangered there is no reason for opposing Japans whale hunt.

Substinance whaling was grounds for such an exception, and therefore it became necessary to demonstrate the need for whale meat for survival to obtain such an exemption.

Putting lables like this is typical imperialistic. You can whale but not you because you need it? Some Japanese need it to just as much as anyone else in the world.

edit.

The reason why Inuits and other Native Americans are not as criticised by the west is because the Nobel Savage mentality still exists among alot of people which intself is a racist attitude. Or they look at these people as primitive so they can whales but not Japan. Or because Inuits have had their culture destroyed they can whale but not Japan. Or they need it for their survival but once they do not need it for their survivial then they should not be allowed to hunt whales.

All these opinions which are very common are racist.
 

Mikawa Ossan

気づいたらカッパだ
Joined
17 Sep 2005
Messages
4,924
Reaction score
227
I just want to add that Japan decided to stop hunting whales due to uncertainties in stock estimates. Now that we know that the whale spicies which Japan wants to hunt are not endangered there is no reason for opposing Japans whale hunt.
Sure there is. The moratorium has not been lifted yet. Why do you think Japan consistently tries to lift the moratorium on certain species when the international whaling commission meets. That's the best place to resolve this issue, as that is where I think the legality or non-legality of whaling comes from.

I just want to add that Japan decided to stop hunting whales due to uncertainties in stock estimates. Now that we know that the whale spicies which Japan wants to hunt are not endangered there is no reason for opposing Japans whale hunt.
Putting lables like this is typical imperialistic. You can whale but not you because you need it? Some Japanese need it to just as much as anyone else in the world.
For example?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:

Chi65

後輩
Joined
14 Nov 2007
Messages
951
Reaction score
21
If someone is well aware of the risks, but eats whale meat anyway, what would you say then? Surely then the mercury content, etc., would be a moot point, wouldn't it?

What everybody (grown up of course) does to him/herself, is his/her thing. If some wish to destroy themselves, they can do so, but not with others. I also support free will in hospitals or wherever, to die willingly, when so wished.

Point is, if something is sold (and planned to be sold) by saying that there is no poison (mercury is only one example and content in our case, thus even the details and percentages are wellknown), its a pure fraud and a case for the court, at least hereabout and on many other places.
In case the seller knows the facts. . .which is no doubt in our case.
This is the situation with the schoolmeat (for example). Yet they distributed it!
You can say, the distributers blinded themselves, and thus "did not know", by ignoring, that still does not change the fact, that the meat was poisoned. In such a case, you would have to "pay the bill".

As said somewhere else, we had several "bad meat" cases here in Germany ourselves. . .they were followed to their origin and sentenced accordingly.
 

Mikawa Ossan

気づいたらカッパだ
Joined
17 Sep 2005
Messages
4,924
Reaction score
227
What everybody (grown up of course) does to him/herself, is his/her thing. If some wish to destroy themselves, they can do so, but not with others. I also support free will in hospitals or wherever, to die willingly, when so wished.
Point is, if something is sold (and planned to be sold) by saying that there is no poison (mercury is only one example and content in our case, thus even the details and percentages are wellknown), its a pure fraud and a case for the court, at least hereabout and on many other places.
In case the seller knows the facts. . .which is no doubt in our case.
This is the situation with the schoolmeat (for example). Yet they distributed it!
You can say, the distributers blinded themselves, and thus "did not know", by ignoring, that still does not change the fact, that the meat was poisoned. In such a case, you would have to "pay the bill".
As said somewhere else, we had several "bad meat" cases here in Germany ourselves. . .they were followed to their origin and sentenced accordingly.
But in this case then, the problem is not with whaling per se, but rather with marketing techniques, no?
 

Chi65

後輩
Joined
14 Nov 2007
Messages
951
Reaction score
21

Take for instance Chi. This ignorant German woman who eats sausages and other types of meat and wears leather boots BUT she is against Japanese whaling. The whale for her is some sacred floating cow therefore she wants other people to have the same religion as she has towards whales. Thats imperialism and racism. Both Chi and her country Germany have no tradition eating whale meat. Its easy for her to say. Dont eat whale meat because it has never been a part of her culture.
Ja vi in Germany dont eat whalez thats why whaling iz barbaric. Its her attitude which is barbaric.
Now she recently discovered on the internet that whale meat is deadly. So now she wants to SAVE the Japanese from eating whales. She should be a comedian.
Whale meat is not dangerous. Beef, pork, apples, shrimp. All food is dangerous. Everything in moderation and a good balanced diet is the healthiest diet there is.


Go and make up hatefull stories, you constantly ignore simple known facts and what I have really written. I never even said anything that comes close to thinking that a whale is a sacred cow. You are plain fantasizing, same with other contents of your writings.
As long as you construct reasons to your own liking apart from what is really written by me, plus quoted and for all to see in the internet, even accepted by Japanese officials with according changes, you are nothing but a clown yourself.
You even contradict yourself, if you ignore the official reactions to the posted poisonings. Are they also clowns and you know better, even if you obviously have no scientific knowledge??
Why don't you go to Wakayama and tell them directly, that they should feed their children with this mercury etc. once more??
Or better ask for the details, if you so insist that their meat is healthy?
That has absolutely nothing to do with me, and the according projection is more than silly and nothing but a waste of time and energy.
Also, this information has been on other threads before me already. I am not even the first one to find and post it. Its ridiculous to do as if its me.

At least it gives me the laughs about you, OK. you are really like someone in a hamsterwheel. You repeat yourself and can't get out of your fixed prejudices and weird unrelated constructions. Sorry for you.
 

Chi65

後輩
Joined
14 Nov 2007
Messages
951
Reaction score
21
But in this case then, the problem is not with whaling per se, but rather with marketing techniques, no?

Also, I would say, apart from the so obvious uselessness to even try to feed people with "bad meat", which very well is a general whaling issue. Before I knew about the dangers, I said very clearly (its in the Taiji thread) , that I would not be opposed, if the whaling is within proportions and for locals and with according respect etc. The next thing was, that I realised, how much out of proportion and respect it already was, and for nothing but moneymaking, but misusing all the other made up reasons, etc. etc.

And I am a manager myself, be it for culture, thus I do have an eye on their techniques too, of course. Particularly, when done so poorly and mean, which tells me, that they must have a lot to hide, and so it is.

"Always look for whats left out", which was more than obvious in an question and answer interview with Glenn Inwood, that I posted somewhere else. Not to mention, that our spezie from Norge is using the same poor techniques. . .
 

Mikawa Ossan

気づいたらカッパだ
Joined
17 Sep 2005
Messages
4,924
Reaction score
227
OK, but if people want to eat whale meat, and it is a sustainable industry in terms of whale populations, then as capitolism works, there is no such thing as "uselessness" in trying to sell people bad meat. If they try to sell the whale meat to local school boards as "safe and healthy" but the truth is found to be otherwise, then they could be prosecuted for fraud. But fraud is a different animal than the entire whaling industry, no?

Also, in terms of food quality in general, if you could prove that the whale meat sold at stores exceeds the government mandated levels of mercury, you could probably get the companies fined and punished for breaking food safety law. You don't need to go after the entire industry when the reality might be difficult for the industry to work within the existing framework as it already is.
 

Chi65

後輩
Joined
14 Nov 2007
Messages
951
Reaction score
21
OK, but if people want to eat whale meat, and it is a sustainable industry in terms of whale populations, then as capitolism works, there is no such thing as "uselessness" in trying to sell people bad meat.

Thats why they try to convince people, that there are other reasons behind, and distort their views, not to even ask for the contents. Old marketing trick.
Reason, to make money from innocent people, no matter if they get sick from it or not. Milking the cow, is one of the usual terms. But don't tell her, its not milk for her.
If people would know better, what the real quality is, they are pushed to buy for partly very high price, be it money or/and health, they would not do so. Thus blind them the best way you can. And racism is a fine theme to exploit in Japan, because of its past history, not to forget the relation to Germany during Hitlertime.

If they try to sell the whale meat to local school boards as "safe and healthy" but the truth is found to be otherwise, then they could be prosecuted for fraud. But fraud is a different animal than the entire whaling industry, no?

But it starts there! And is only one example. And this way it becomes clear, what it is they are wishing to sell via whaling, and how.
Its another marketing strategy to "grow future consuments", by giving them a try. Drug dealers do the very same, including the use of "its safe" and "only the opponents are wrong" etc., if possible with very innocent children already, who tend to oppose any restrictions due to puberty.
Easy catches.

Also, in terms of food quality in general, if you could prove that the whale meat sold at stores exceeds the government mandated levels of mercury, you could probably get the companies fined and punished for breaking food safety law. You don't need to go after the entire industry when the reality might be difficult for the industry to work within the existing framework as it already is.

See above, its only the branches of the tree, called whaling, but if the branches are already poisoned, then the roots are even more.. . .
 

bakaKanadajin

先輩
Joined
30 Apr 2007
Messages
1,134
Reaction score
84
The reason why Inuits and other Native Americans are not as criticised by the west is because the Nobel Savage mentality still exists among alot of people which intself is a racist attitude. Or they look at these people as primitive so they can whales but not Japan. Or because Inuits have had their culture destroyed they can whale but not Japan. Or they need it for their survival but once they do not need it for their survivial then they should not be allowed to hunt whales.

All these opinions which are very common are racist.

You're wrong and out to lunch here. Saying that other cultures rely on whaling as much as the Inuit is incorrect. Norwegians and Japanese do not subsist on whalemeat alone for periods of time throughout the year and whaling is not pivotal to their economies. Take whaling away from the Inuit and they die as a people, it is the same for some aboriginal/first-nation communities and hunting/fishing. Take whaling away from Norway or Japan and they'll still have a high GDP and quality of life.

If you want to label this a racist 'noble savage' mentality go ahead but it makes you look like a complete jackass because in so doing you disregard the most basic of dynamics that differentiates the two situations.
 

centrajapan

先輩
Joined
16 Sep 2007
Messages
681
Reaction score
11
Inuits in Alaska would not die if they did not have whale meat and people in Greenland do have access to super markets. Not being able to comprehend this makes you look like a complete jack *** and your views of these primitive but nobel people in Arctic to be outdated and imperialistic.

Anyway. Does this mean that if they get enough food from other resources then they should not kill whales? What kind of attitude do you have towards cultures that eat whales?

For example?

Greenland gets ok for more whaling, Japan gets nothing

There is an extreme lack of consistency, a very unfair treatment of Japan’s reasonable and limited requests. The IWC is a breeding ground for hypocrisy and double standards where the anti-Japanese sentiments are running high

http://www.highnorth.no/read.asp?which=377
 
Last edited:

kame

先輩
Joined
26 Dec 2007
Messages
116
Reaction score
3
I'll be the first to admit my ignorancy on this area, but aren't Inuits allowed an exemption to the whaling moratorium because at least at the time of the moratorium's signing, those people relied on whaling for a substantial part of their diet?

I think what might be different about Japan is that even at the best of times, whale is not a significant part of the Japanese diet. In other words, there are many choices, and food is plentiful, so Japanese don't need to rely on whaling for survival.

Wasn't the whaling moratorium intended to be lifted when whale populations recouperated to sustainable levels? If one could demonstrate that whale populations have reached such numbers, people opposed to whaling wouldn't have a legal basis to do so anymore, would they?

You are correct. IWC's mission clearly states its objective of supporting sustainable use of whale resources.

The situation has changed dramatically since when the moratorium was imposed. At least population of several whale species are clearly increasing robustly and have reached sustainable levels (e.g. minke whales). As you can gather from the comments here, most, if not all, anti-whaling advocates don't care whether the whaling is sustainable or not. That kind of argument shouldn't be torelated at IWC, but the organization has gone dysfunctional and it is now more of a political arena rather than a responsible regulatory arm based on scientific data.
 

kame

先輩
Joined
26 Dec 2007
Messages
116
Reaction score
3
You're wrong and out to lunch here. Saying that other cultures rely on whaling as much as the Inuit is incorrect. Norwegians and Japanese do not subsist on whalemeat alone for periods of time throughout the year and whaling is not pivotal to their economies. Take whaling away from the Inuit and they die as a people, it is the same for some aboriginal/first-nation communities and hunting/fishing. Take whaling away from Norway or Japan and they'll still have a high GDP and quality of life.

It may have been true that Inuits needed to hunt whales to survive when the moratorium was first imposed, but I highly doubt that their survival actually depends on whaling today. If their governments take the arguments from this forum, the Inuits should change their "barbaric" habit and start living on microwavable food, other fish, or whatever.

Of course, the anti-whaling governments don't do that, but basically try to stop Japan and other countries from whaling based on the same argument. That's the double-standard.

You can't take away a part of someone's culture just because it's not necessary for survival. Let's ban ice hockey in Canada because it's a barbaric and cowardly sport where guys bang each other with sticks. We should ban dog sleds races too because it's just animal abuse for human ego that has nothing to do with survival. What do you say to that?
 

Sarapva

Midnight and Snowflake
Joined
25 Feb 2007
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
48
....many people in the industrialized world have come to the conclusion that whales are too intelligent to be classified as "just another animal." In other words, there was something inherently different about whales that made them offlimits to whaling. I wonder how widespread this belief is. It seems to me to actually be the main reason why people oppose whaling whether they actually state it or not.

This could be true, but my stance is more from an animal rights point of view: I'm against any animal cruelty, in whatever form.

Posted by kame:
We should ban dog sleds races too because it's just animal abuse for human ego that has nothing to do with survival. What do you say to that?

Animal rights groups also want to ban dog sled races. But since I lived in Alaska for a while and actually saw some of the racing and heard how the dogs love it and don't want to be left behind, I'm not fighting against this so much. But in cases where there's obvious pain and trauma inflicted on an animal, such as in slaughtering it slowly and laboriously, I am against that.
 

Mikawa Ossan

気づいたらカッパだ
Joined
17 Sep 2005
Messages
4,924
Reaction score
227
Isn't this off topic?. . .
After reviewing this thread, it seems to have been offtopic for quite some time. I would love to split it, but honestly, I wouldn't know where to do so!

I'll respond to the points made shortly, but I'll just preface by saying that nothing anyone has said yet has sounded very convincing to me at this point. I suppose I'll have to remain neutral forever.
 

Mikawa Ossan

気づいたらカッパだ
Joined
17 Sep 2005
Messages
4,924
Reaction score
227
OK, here we go!

I'll first address Centrajapan.

The International Whaling Commission has been around since 1946 (December 2nd, to be exact). It's purpose as taken from its website:
IWC said:
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.
Norway joined the Commission in 1948, and Japan did so in 1951,

The moratorium on commercial whaling was decided upon in 1982 by the commission, and went in effect starting from the 1985/86 whaling season.

The website says the following about aboriginal whaling:
IWC said:
The pause in commercial whaling does not affect aboriginal subsistence whaling which is permitted from Denmark (Greenland, fin and minke whales), the Russian Federation (Siberia, gray whales), St Vincent and The Grenadines (humpback whales), and the USA (Alaska, bowhead and occasionally off Washington, gray whales).
And this as well:
IWC said:
Since its inception, the IWC has recognised that aboriginal subsistence whaling is of a different nature to commercial whaling. This is reflected in the different objectives for the two. For aboriginal subsistence whaling these are to:

* ensure risks of extinction not seriously increased (highest priority);
* enable harvests in perpetuity appropriate to cultural and nutritional requirements;
* maintain stocks at highest net recruitment level and if below that ensure they move towards it.

My points:
  1. Norway is part of the convention, and therefore subject to the moratorium.
    Not only that, but Norway was a member long before the moratorium went into effect. The same can be said for Japan. In other words, they willingly agreed to the moratorium at the time of its inception. If not, they could have pulled out of the convention.
  2. The IWC does not care about such ideas as "Noble Savages." It merely sees an inherent difference between the natures of commercial and substinance whaling.
  3. The IWC is not trying to dictate cultural dietary norms to its members. It is merely concerned with making sure that whale stocks stay at population levels that will allow sustainable whaling. They specifically use the term "moratorium" which has the spefic connotation that it will end at some time in the future.

If you want to argue with people like Sarapva and Chi65, please separate theory from practice. I believe that they are mostly concerned with theory at this point in time. Sustinance whaling is a red herring in the debate.

From a practical standpoint, the most effect argument for the lifting of the moratorium is to argue that whale stocks are presently at high enough populations for whaling to resume. In fact, if you look at the IWC website closely, you'll see that progress is being made towards this end.
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/rmp.htm
 

Mikawa Ossan

気づいたらカッパだ
Joined
17 Sep 2005
Messages
4,924
Reaction score
227
Chi65, why exactly do you oppose whaling? I can see that you oppose its very existance.

But that confuses me. Centrajapan is correct, of course, when he mentions that the cattle industry among others are less than ideal in their handling of animals at least some of the time. Also, with Foot and Mouth disease rearing its ugly head, along with research that beef consumption above very modest amounts is linked to increases in other diseases, one could hardly say that it is unquestionably "safe". Therefore, I don't see the difference between it and whaling.

There are institutions in the various countries concerned that regulate food products. When there is a problem with beef, they intervene, likewise with poultry and other livestocks. I can only speak for Japan and America (the only two countries that I have direct experience with), but Japan seems to do a good job in this regard. I have no reason to think that they would be any less vigilant towards whale meat.

Comparing whale meat to drugs is not appropriate for the simple reason that drugs are addictive, whereas whale meat is not. Equating them is not only misleading, but brings loaded images into the debate that are not helpful.

Sarapva's conviction "against any animal cruelty, in whatever form" is more difficult to debate, as it is a deeper discussion of ethics. I respect this point of view, but I posit the question, do you not think that a well-regulated whaling industry would be more humane than not? The reality of the world today is that people kill animals to eat. I don't think that it's reasonable to expect that to change any time soon, barring anything extremely drastic. Given human nature, I would think that if people are monitored doing such things, they would be forced to be less cruel than they might be otherwise.

Once again, this is coming from a practical point of view. I remain neutral on the actual ethicacy of commercial whaling on a thoeretical level.
 
Last edited:

butakun

先輩
Joined
9 Dec 2004
Messages
91
Reaction score
4
Norway is part of the convention, and therefore subject to the moratorium.
Not only that, but Norway was a member long before the moratorium went into effect. The same can be said for Japan. In other words, they willingly agreed to the moratorium at the time of its inception. If not, they could have pulled out of the convention.
This is not correct in Norway's case. Norway is not bound by the moratorium.
 

centrajapan

先輩
Joined
16 Sep 2007
Messages
681
Reaction score
11
Norway is part of the convention, and therefore subject to the moratorium. Not only that, but Norway was a member long before the moratorium went into effect. The same can be said for Japan. In other words, they willingly agreed to the moratorium at the time of its inception. If not, they could have pulled out of the convention.

Norway and Japan agreed to stop hunting whales due to uncertainties in stock estimates.

As you stated the objective of the convention is

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.

Anyway..By not working in accordance with the objective of IWC members such as USA, Australia, UK are not doing their jobs at IWC. So it is they who should leave if they cannot agree to the agreement that they have signed on. Honest people honour agreements. Countries who oppose Japan is not honouring their agreement.

The IWC does not care about such ideas as "Noble Savages." It merely sees an inherent difference between the natures of commercial and substinance whaling.

Yes it does. These Nobel Savages were not affected by the ban unlike Japan and Norway. Besides all whaling is commercial. All economies in the world is commercial. US votes in favour of the Inuits in Alaska and the Makah Indians hunting whales. But vote against Japan. This is double morals.

Butkun is right. Norway is not bound by the moratorium.

Norway registered an objection to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) commercial whaling moratorium, and is thus not bound by it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Norway

Iceland and Norway did not request any whale quotas. They have their own arrangement with the IWC, which includes that they set their national quotas based on the best available scientific knowledge.

Only Japan’s request for a minke whale quota to four coastal communities was rejected at the IWC meeting.

http://www.highnorth.no/read.asp?which=377

The moratorium was supposed to be reevaluated in the early 90s. By that time it was clear that there were enough whales in the ocean and a hunt of these whales would not be a threat to the over all stock estimates.

The moratorium has no scientific justification.

Chairman of the Scientific Committee, Dr Philip Hammond of the UK, resigned in protest when IWC voted down the implementation of RMP. He further stated.

What is the point of having a Scientific Committee if its unanimous recommendations ... are treated with such contempt. I can no longer justify to myself being the organiser of and spokesman for a Committee whose work is held in such disregard by the body to which it is responsible. Nor can I justify asking other members of the Committee to spend their valuable time working hard ... knowing how the results of this work may be treated. (...) I am left with no alternative, therefore, but to resign as Chairman of the Scientific Committee.

http://www.highnorth.no/iwc2000/Briefings/RMS.htm

Countries who vote against Japan's hunt is not doing their jobs at IWC. The mistake Japan did was that it it not object to IWC like Norway and Iceland because at that time US threatened Japan not to do so.
 
Last edited:

Mikawa Ossan

気づいたらカッパだ
Joined
17 Sep 2005
Messages
4,924
Reaction score
227
Norway and Japan agreed to stop hunting whales due to uncertainties in stock estimates.
As you stated the objective of the convention is
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.
Anyway..By not working in accordance with the objective of IWC members such as USA, Australia, UK are not doing their jobs at IWC. So it is they who should leave if they cannot agree to the agreement that they have signed on. Honest people honour agreements. Countries who oppose Japan is not honouring their agreement.
Then this is where you should be spending your time arguing.
Yes it does. These Nobel Savages were not affected by the ban unlike Japan and Norway.
No it doesn't. The IWC recognizes that those people's very existance relies upon hunting whales. By granting the exeption, they allow those people to exist. That is very different.
Besides all whaling is commercial. All economies in the world is commercial. US votes in favour of the Inuits in Alaska and the Makah Indians hunting whales. But vote against Japan. This is double morals.
The IWC would disagree with you, as would I.
Yes, that is correct. If you look a little closer, I supplied that first link of yours when I admitted as much in my last post.
The moratorium was supposed to be reevaluated in the early 90s. By that time it was clear that there were enough whales in the ocean and a hunt of these whales would not be a threat to the over all stock estimates.
Um, from what I could see, it was reevaluted, but the new regulations have not been approved yet. That is not the same as what you are claiming.
The moratorium has no scientific justification.
Chairman of the Scientific Committee, Dr Philip Hammond of the UK, resigned in protest when IWC voted down the implementation of RMP. He further stated.
What is the point of having a Scientific Committee if its unanimous recommendations ... are treated with such contempt. I can no longer justify to myself being the organiser of and spokesman for a Committee whose work is held in such disregard by the body to which it is responsible. Nor can I justify asking other members of the Committee to spend their valuable time working hard ... knowing how the results of this work may be treated. (...) I am left with no alternative, therefore, but to resign as Chairman of the Scientific Committee.
http://www.highnorth.no/iwc2000/Briefings/RMS.htm
That may be true, but then the proper place to put your energies is at the IWC to get the recommendations passed, not here calling everyone who opposes whaling racist.
Countries who vote against Japan's hunt is not doing their jobs at IWC. The mistake Japan did was that it it not object to IWC like Norway and Iceland because at that time US threatened Japan not to do so.
Give it time.

By the way, all of the information that I have used (aside from that one link) comes from the IWC's homepage.
 

centrajapan

先輩
Joined
16 Sep 2007
Messages
681
Reaction score
11
Thanks for you well written reply. It is good to exchange opinions from someone who actually have put time in reading information from the IWC web page and not only thought Greenpeace.

The IWC recognizes that those people's very existance relies upon hunting whales. By granting the exeption, they allow those people to exist. That is very different.

Thats what is imperialistic about it. IWC labels "aborigonal subsistence" whaling. You have to be poor or else you will not be able to hunt whales. It imples that you have to prove to IWC that if you don't eat whales you will die. Or since you culture would die if you don't whale. Thats what imperialistic about it. All whaling cultures in the world are unique. All whaling is commercial. All economies in the world is commercial. By puttinng labels IWC put a divide between the various economies and cultures.

Anti whalers also pult labels to control ethnic minorities and keep them in a position of dependency. Once they can prove that they don't need to whale for their survival they should stop hunting whales. While they tell the rich countries that you should not hunt whales. And since they are "modern"

The Greenlanders have to prove before the IWC judges that they do not sell too much of the whale products on the market.

The Greenlanders have to prove before the IWC judges that they do not sell too much of the whale products on the market, and Greenpeace and other "environmental"
organizations have threatened the Greenlanders with sanctions if they
choose to cooperate politically with the Icelanders and Norwegians


http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg28004.html

The IWC would disagree with you, as would I.

I disagree with you and IWC.

Um, from what I could see, it was reevaluted, but the new regulations have not been approved yet. That is not the same as what you are claiming.

Norway or Japan did not stop hunting whales for good. They agreed to stop hunting whales due to uncertainties in stock estimates. Now countries are telling Japan despite the stock estimates and robust management schemes that Japan still should not hunt whales.

The Scientific Committee has unanimously recommended the RMP to the Commission, noting that all the scientific aspects of the work had been completed. These scientific aspects were adopted by the Commission in 1994.

http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/rmp.htm

That may be true, but then the proper place to put your energies is at the IWC to get the recommendations passed, not here calling everyone who opposes whaling racist.

Being against whaling is showing prejudice towards people who eat whales. I am not a member of IWC. I wish I was though so that I could have called everyone in IWC for practicing cultural imperialism. A concept which is outdated and racist.

This is a good web site for all whaling cultures around the world.

http://www.worldwhalers.com/whaling_around_the_world/canada.htm
 
Last edited:

Sarapva

Midnight and Snowflake
Joined
25 Feb 2007
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
48
Sarapva's conviction "against any animal cruelty, in whatever form" is more difficult to debate, as it is a deeper discussion of ethics. I respect this point of view, but I posit the question, do you not think that a well-regulated whaling industry would be more humane than not? The reality of the world today is that people kill animals to eat. I don't think that it's reasonable to expect that to change any time soon, barring anything extremely drastic. Given human nature, I would think that if people are monitored doing such things, they would be forced to be less cruel than they might be otherwise.

Yes, I think if whaling were well-regulated it would (hopefully) result in more "clean" killings and not going over quotas. But it seems to me that it would be hard to regulate whaling - a ship is alone in hundreds of square miles at sea, and the only way to supervise it would be to follow in another ship or plane and take pictures, or maybe with a spy satellite?! Or to have inspectors on board the ships.

I know that killing animals isn't going to change soon, and I do believe that industries should be regulated and routinely investigated (like at slaughterhouses to make sure the animals' welfare is being considered). My arguments aren't so much scientific as coming from a more compassionate standpoint. Whales and other animals can't speak in a language we understand, and we're making all these decisions that affect them directly. It seems that someone (and thank goodness it seems the number of animal rights groups is growing) needs to speak for the animal itself.

If I was a whale, I wouldn't want to be harpooned and dragged aboard a ship to be cut open and sliced into chunks. I might have had a family (there is evidence that whales have social groups and the absence of one affects the others) and a life, migrating every year.

This is from PETA.org's page "Why Animal Rights?"
http://www.peta.org/about/WhyAnimalRights.asp

All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. Whenever we consider doing something that would interfere with their needs, we are morally obligated to take them into account.

Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth—a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering.
 

Rose Selavey

先輩
Joined
11 Dec 2007
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
Yes, I think if whaling were well-regulated it would (hopefully) result in more "clean" killings and not going over quotas. But it seems to me that it would be hard to regulate whaling - a ship is alone in hundreds of square miles at sea, and the only way to supervise it would be to follow in another ship or plane and take pictures, or maybe with a spy satellite?! Or to have inspectors on board the ships.
Well said Sara!

The problem is that the Japanese whaling fleet want to hunt alone with no one to watch or regulate. The Minke whale population in the Southern Ocean is increasing in numbers but still the majority of marine biologists find that to lift the moratorium on commercial whaling would be a disastrous move. Their are many species of Minke whales some very endangered, while others are on the increase. At the moment the harpoon is released and if it is the wrong species this is not discovered until it is too late.

The differnece between aboriginal subsistence whaling and commercial whaling is so wide this should not even be an issue and as the moderator suggested simply a red herring! (nice pun)
 

Chi65

後輩
Joined
14 Nov 2007
Messages
951
Reaction score
21
Chi65, why exactly do you oppose whaling? I can see that you oppose its very existance.

I did not at first, in case it is in proportions and really serves an unavoidable need with according respect. See the Taiji dolphin massacre page.

But I do now, because of what I have learned about the very respectless and more than questionable methods of the whalers, incl. some(not all though) of their defenders, plus the real health issues.
Having seen this, I have come to similar conclusions than other opposers, but I only realised this later, when I found many other's conclusions, that were pretty much the same than mine, including the same sources, that are available for all. This told me, whom I can trust, and whom better not.

Who leaves important parts out or calls someone a liar, who is looking at even scientific results, has lost any credibility for me. If I then add the silly childish sadist behaviours of some pro whalers, I know, who has something to hide, and who does not.

And I will not side with sadists for profit, never.

But I do side with those former ones, who are willing to give back!
 
Top Bottom