International Whaling Commission meeting on May 28

Obeika said:

Intelligence of the animal or fish to me still doesn't make a difference to me. Heck even cockroaches are intelligent enough to run or, in the case of here in Okinawa, fly away when someone swings a rolled newspaper at them.
I think a part of the problem that goes beyond the issue of how intelligent the "whatever" that is being killed is the literally bloody manner with which is was or is done. Something about the blood in my opinion that bothers people, that along with I guess the "intelligence" of the "whatever".

Click to expand...

It's not just the blood alone, its the knowledge that the animal is suffering needlessly. The blood is a visual indicator which may strengthen emotional response but its the whole thing, the blood, the contorted bodies, the violent shaking etc. all together, combined with the knowledge that dolphins are highly intelligent creatures who are aware of themselves and each other.

Let's say they took cockroaches, herded them into a corner and stabbed them with little pins so they lay there dying. It's needless and a little silly but it just doesn't evoke the same response. It's just as horrible in principal some would argue, but its still not the same. Why is this? Cockroaches can't make sense of their own suffering, they don't know who their parents are, they don't have a complex social structure (that we know of), their brain capacity is simply nowhere near that of a sentient creature.

Now on the other end of the spectrum of 'animals' or 'things humans kill', lets look at primates. Gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, etc. These are highly intelligent creatures with complex social structures, communicative ability, emotions, etc. As a point of interest, some Chimpanzees raised in captivity are capable of communicating to their caregivers using American sign language and are also interestingly enough capable of lying, artistic expression and caring for pets such as cats. (All documented and factual). Highly intelligent.

By contrast, some humans are incapable of reading, artistic expression, and so on. Some who are severely mentally challenged are incapable of even caring for themselves independently.

Now, before you call me insane I'm not putting dolphins on par with humans, gorillas on par with the mentally challenged, or anything like that. I am saying though that 'intelligence' is a competely conventional and relative term thats not set in stone. While I wouldn't belittle a mentally challenged person out of sheer respect and kindness, I would definitely bestow the title of 'intelligent' on any creature that exhibited certain advanced characteristics.

My point is that intelligence can be relative and just because we're a little higher than everything else on the food chain it doesn't mean whats happening farther down isn't real. When dealing with highly intelligent creatures (which is a gray area but we can definitely say dolphins and whales are part of this group) the suffering they endure can be just as bad as the suffering of a human relatively speaking. The emotion, the pain, etc. They don't just get confused, run around for a bit and then die like a cockroach. They aren't just big dumb fish. The more advanced the animal, the more pain and suffering it endures, and the more upset people get when they see this because its alarmingly close to the same emotional response thats evoked when a human is visibly suffering.

Anyway I'm not arguing, I'm just trying to articulate a position that I feel is legitmately based in science despite it often being labelled as radicalism. In short, I'm not a supporter of PETA, but I know where some of them are coming from.

bakaKanadajin said:

They don't just get confused, run around for a bit and then die like a cockroach. They aren't just big dumb fish. The more advanced the animal, the more pain and suffering it endures, and the more upset people get when they see this because its alarmingly close to the same emotional response thats evoked when a human is visibly suffering.

Click to expand...

This is a good point, bakaKanadajin. It's more upsetting to see a creature suffering physically when it probably has the intelligence to know that it's us humans who are hurting it, and to maybe wonder why we're hurting it and to want us to stop. The more intelligent the creature, the more mental activity and emotion is probably going on as it suffers. An insect, by contrast, wouldn't know that a human just stepped on it or wonder why we weren't more careful.

What do you think of the fact that many anti-whaling countries legally allow animal cruelty such as recreational fox hunting. When a fox is hunted with dogs, it's not killed "humanely" and instantly, but is mauled by the hounds, and torn into pieces. Visual images of whales being killed is emotionally appealing, but any reason why one should be more compassionate towards the suffering of whales than foxes hunted with dogs?

No, I think fox hunting is another thing that should be made illegal. Ideally, no animal would suffer needlessly at the hands of humans.

I'm having a hard time following the train of thought on fox hunting here. Ideally yes, no animal should suffer, however one animal attacking another is somewhat unavoidable. It's nasty that people unleash dogs on foxes, but it seems fairly natural to me that one creature would devour another. This is what lions do to zebras, owls do to mice, etc. Some death is unavoidable.

As humans we do not naturally prey on dolphins or other deep sea creatures, our paths don't really cross evolutionarily speaking. Culturally speaking some cultures could claim at one point in time that whaling was vital to their survival but in this day and age the whole exercise in whaling and dolphin killing really has no ground.

bakaKanadajin said:

I'm having a hard time following the train of thought on fox hunting here. Ideally yes, no animal should suffer, however one animal attacking another is somewhat unavoidable. It's nasty that people unleash dogs on foxes, but it seems fairly natural to me that one creature would devour another. This is what lions do to zebras, owls do to mice, etc. Some death is unavoidable.

Click to expand...

Actually I can follow diceke's point. The foxhunt is purely set up with the intent of killing the fox for pleasure. Its similar to dog fights or c*o*c*k* fights in my opinion.

There may have been a time when it was a neccessity as with the whale hunting for oils.

Sarapva said:

No, I think fox hunting is another thing that should be made illegal. Ideally, no animal would suffer needlessly at the hands of humans.

Click to expand...

Are you a vegetarian?☝

diceke said:

Are you a vegetarian?☝

Click to expand...

Yes, I am, for 3 years now! I wish I had stopped eating meat and fish earlier in my life, though. I think it's a much healthier lifestyle.

BakaKanadajin - It's true that animals eat each other and that that's unavoidable, but I think a fox has enough intelligence to know that it's being "set up" by humans, even though dogs are what kills it. In nature if a dog kills a fox, the fox has been living normally until being killed. But in a fox hunt the fox is caged first, knows it's in a cage and can't escape, can hear humans and dogs all around it, and probably knows it's in a situation where it doesn't have a chance.

I'm sorry, there is much for me to read on this thread and think about i'm sure (and possibly reply to), but I just read the last few posts about fox hunting and couldn't resist with this (and by the way, I am an avowed consumer of ethically raised and slaughtered meat, and I also believe the research that says it's natural, and that a vegetarian or vegan diet is unnatural):

Sarapva said:

Yes, I am, for 3 years now! I wish I had stopped eating meat and fish earlier in my life, though. I think it's a much healthier lifestyle.
BakaKanadajin - It's true that animals eat each other and that that's unavoidable, but I think a fox has enough intelligence to know that it's being "set up" by humans, even though dogs are what kills it. In nature if a dog kills a fox, the fox has been living normally until being killed. But in a fox hunt the fox is caged first, knows it's in a cage and can't escape, can hear humans and dogs all around it, and probably knows it's in a situation where it doesn't have a chance.

Click to expand...

(From the BBC website yesterday, for the link to the story please click here)



"Performance artist 'eats corgi'

Mark McGowan eats a "corgi"
The corgi was minced and cooked with apple, onion and seasoning
Performance artist Mark McGowan has eaten what he claims was a cooked corgi in a protest over the Royal Family's treatment of animals.

McGowan performed the stunt on London radio station Resonance FM, and shared his meal with fellow guest Yoko Ono.

"To me it was, as an art piece, exhilarating," he said after the show.

The artist's protest concerned the alleged mistreatment of a fox during a hunt led by Prince Philip in January. The RSPCA said the fox did not suffer.

McGowan, who is a vegetarian, said he wanted his unusual meal to raise awareness about "the RSPCA's inability to prosecute Prince Philip and his friends".

"We love our animals in Britain. Why is it then that we then allow people - especially people who are supposed to be ambassadors for this country - to treat animals with such disrespect?"

The Queen is famously associated with corgis
The corgi, which died at a breeding farm, was minced and cooked with apple, onion and seasoning.

As he ate the meatballs, McGowan reported: "It's disgusting. It's really, really, really disgusting."

The radio show's presenter, Bob Smith, said he was not convinced the meat came from a dog.

But McGowan said: "It's stinky, it's white-looking, it's not like any meat I've ever seen."

Some animal rights activists approved of the stunt.

"The idea of eating a corgi will make many people lose their lunch," said Poorva Joshipura, director of the European arm of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta).

"But foxes, who are hunted for so-called entertainment, are no less capable of feeling fear and pain.

"Most of the British public will agree that it is high time the royals joined the rest of us who live in the 21st Century and opposed to cruelty to animals."

The Royal Family has had a long association with corgi dogs.

The Queen has a particular fondness for corgis, and they have the run of Buckingham Palace - even in the middle of formal state events."

Thanks, mos - I saw this story on my home page news, and thought about our fox hunting posts! I didn't know that Mark McGowan was a vegetarian, though. That must have been hard for him to do! In the story I read, he said he could really only eat about one bite of the corgi. What a stunt, though I guess it drives home the point about foxes being like any other animal, even the Queen's corgis! I'm glad to see that in England people are against fox hunting, too. Is it only the royal family that still does fox hunting?

Here's a link to the World Society for the Protection of Animals update on the Whaling Commission meeting:

http://mikewalt.squarespace.com/jou...commerical-whaling-in-through-the-back-d.html

According to Yomiuri
Japan may secede from IWC and make a New organization

it is so interesting.

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20070601-05283524-jijp-bus_all.view-001

Please keep it a bit more on topic: Should the ban be lifted? Yes, No, opinion.

There are other threads about dophins, etc.

Dutch Baka said:

Should the ban be lifted? Yes, No, opinion.
There are other threads about dophins, etc.

Click to expand...

In my opinion yes the ban should be lifted.

From what I can make out, it looks like the world-wide moratorium on commercial whaling is still in place, but Japan is trying to get permission for more whaling. I'll post a link when I find something that explains things clearly.

Moratorium still in place

Here is a link from worldwatch.org about the moratorium and Japan:

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3976


Here's a link from CNN about Japan:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/science/03/28/whale.japan/index.html


This is a link from the Environment News Service:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2004/2004-07-23-02.asp

As far as I am concerned on this topic my answer to if the ban should be lifted is a firm NO.

My reasoning is as follows :- I believe that whales should not be hunted just because someone wants to eat thier flesh or use their blubber in some way. Mankind as we know it seems to be hunting almost everything that it can and in some cases, hunting to near extinction levels.
From what I have read up, fish levels in general in all the major seas and oceans has taken a sharp nosedive in the last ten years. It seems to me that as the Human race, we are eating our fellow animals without thinking of tomorrow.

And lastly one thing pops into my mind when thinking about this topic, and that is a poem called The Rime of The Ancient Mariner, where we should look after all of Gods creatures, rather than kill them all just so we can feed more and more mouths as the world population continues to grow.

keep the ban in place, its not hurting anyone at all and its preserving endangered life for future generations.

what possible logic is there to support lifting the ban?

I think the only "logic" is that from industries wanting to make money. I agree with EmperorHirohito that we humans should be stewards of our environment and animals, taking responsibility and caring for the world around us instead of just exploiting it for short-term, selfish ends. We'd probably indirectly kill off our own species by destroying animals and the environment.

bakaKanadajin said:

what possible logic is there to support lifting the ban?

Click to expand...

The right question should be "what is the possible logic to refuse to lift the ban?"...

After all, almost all scientists agree with the fact that specific whale species are not in danger anymore, and that responsible hunting would have no influence on their population.

Let's consider only the Minke whales.
The WWF, in this 2002 document, estimated the number of Minke whales at between 103000 and 204000 (northern hemisphere) and between 300000 and 760000 in the southern one.

The IWC estimated that same population at 510000 to 1140000 (1982, southern hemisphere) and 200000 to 300000 (2000, northern hemisphere).
Those are usually the "minimum values" you find in documents. Other organisations usually provide higher estimates (like the NAMMCO here).
Do you know how many Minke whales were hunted and killed by Japan in 2001? 1089.


Now, can anyone provide me with a reasonable and scientific explanation on why you couldn't hunt a limited amount of whales from this stock? The problem is even opponent usually admit that Minke whales are not endangered, and rely on more subjective arguments, like "whales are intelligent animals" (so are cows), "whales should be protected for our children" (they are not going to disappear since their population is growing up), "there is no need to eat whales" (nor is there really a need to eat sheeps), and so on...


I so much would like to read some reasonable argument... Just one...


sanji

My argument wouldn't be very scientific - sorry, sanji! I don't know all the numbers, but I think the fear is that countries will hunt irresponsibly if they have the "go-ahead", which is why the moratorium got started in the first place. The whale populations are growing probably because they're not being hunted worldwide.

As a matter of fact, the moratorium got started because indeed the number of whales was dangerously declining, and because studies on the exact number of animals had to be done.

The term "moratorium" speaks for itself. It was supposed, from the beginning, to be only a temporary measure. A measure that was clearly required after years of uncontrolled whaling. In the 19th century, American used to kill up to 10'000 whales per year!

The problem is that although it is now accepted that controlled hunting would not threaten the species, the matter has become political. Countries like USA use the ban as a tool to pressure other countries. Organizations will Greenpeace use it as a way to collect huge amount of money (imagine to use a "save the sharks" logo? Even though sharks probably need to be more protected than Minke whale... But this won't fill Greenpeace's wallet )...

The ban was to be lifted once hunting could be controlled, which is the case today as countries resumed hunting only a small number of whales. But now countries and organization just try to change the original goal of the resolutions taken years ago...

... and this is the main reason why Japan should - and probably will - leave the IWC...

sanji

I believe that sharks need protecting as it is customary in some countries to just chop of their fins and then throw them back in the ocean to die. As for whales, there is no need to hunt them. Simple. There are plenty of other protein sources on this planet that require less suffering to obtain them. Eat a soybean....

sanji said:

The right question should be "what is the possible logic to refuse to lift the ban?"...
After all, almost all scientists agree with the fact that specific whale species are not in danger anymore, and that responsible hunting would have no influence on their population.
Let's consider only the Minke whales.
The WWF, in this 2002 document, estimated the number of Minke whales at between 103000 and 204000 (northern hemisphere) and between 300000 and 760000 in the southern one.
The IWC estimated that same population at 510000 to 1140000 (1982, southern hemisphere) and 200000 to 300000 (2000, northern hemisphere).
Those are usually the "minimum values" you find in documents. Other organisations usually provide higher estimates (like the NAMMCO here).
Do you know how many Minke whales were hunted and killed by Japan in 2001? 1089.
Now, can anyone provide me with a reasonable and scientific explanation on why you couldn't hunt a limited amount of whales from this stock? The problem is even opponent usually admit that Minke whales are not endangered, and rely on more subjective arguments, like "whales are intelligent animals" (so are cows), "whales should be protected for our children" (they are not going to disappear since their population is growing up), "there is no need to eat whales" (nor is there really a need to eat sheeps), and so on...
I so much would like to read some reasonable argument... Just one...
sanji

Click to expand...

It's not an issue of 'ok, there are enough of them now let's kill a few'. That isn't the big picture. There are other reasons why whales shouldn't be hunted. Besides being intelligent we have a lot to learn from them and their impact on the oceans ecosystems, which as a whole are in a serious state of decline. I also can't see any reason why killing a wild animal that's in a state of recovery makes sense. Cows, sheep, as intelligent and worthwhile a form of life as they are, are domesticated and largely removed from the food chain. Their status and numbers have little direct impact on the world's ecosystems, unless you're talking about ancilliary effects like slash-and-burn farming in South America or water table pollution from farm run-off. Whales on the other hand continue to be a large part of the ocean's ecosystems, their stability is critical to many other species.

I found an article which highlights the 'logic' better then I can. It basically suggests that the IWC's historical data is rather incorrect, as it mainly relies on records of past whaling activities and log books, which aren't the products of meticulous scientific methods such as radio tracking and genetic research. Through genetics, independent researchers have found that the original whale stocks were much higher than IWC historical data, underlining the impact of commercial whaling over the last century. This also means that we're still far below the cut-off if you're a proponent of the current regulations which state once a population reaches half its historical amount you may hunt.

I would still argue that the onus of presenting logical reasons for lifting the ban rests on the IWC and whaling industry.

Whale populations are too low to resume commercial hunting, geneticists find

Sorry guys, but getting a "Eat a soybean" is NOT an acceptable argument.

After all, Japanese seldom ate beef before the 19th century. What if I suggest - I saw that Goldiegirl has an American flag under the name - to stop eating beef? I strongly disagree when I read the cows have little impact on the world's ecosystems. Some studies suggest that because of the methane they produce, they could threaten the ozone layer...
What about the whales? Why is their "stability is critical to many other species"? They are at the top of the food chain, and eat mostly phytoplankton. Plus, I am not talking of removing them from the nature, I am just suggesting that hunting less than 0.1% of whales per year might perhaps not be detrimental to them, nor to the equilibrium of the nature.

I am well aware of the scientific studies that suggest that the number of whales used to be higher that expected. Problem is: those studies also often suggest than the number of whales, today, is higher than the WWF believe... or would like you to believe.

Men are killing lots of wild animal... Again, I strongly believe that whaling should be severely controlled. But I can not accept a purely ideological ban...


sanji