What's new

Whales = "cockroaches of the sea"

So what is your point? What would be a scientifically acceptable number of minke whales that can be caught?

Without any doubt whatsoever, zero.

You don't need to harpoon them simply to measure them.

I think you will find the reason they are being hunted down for the slaughter is for human consumption.

The "Scientific Research" term that the Japanese are using, I would strongly suspect is to provoke environmentalists and animal and nature lovers around the world.

Does the below photo look like the works of scientific research:gun:
 
Mmmmm. whale meat. Id fancy some whale bacon and a glass of beer please.

It is scientific because they make sure they can hunt these whales and still make sure that the population does not decrease. Thats what Scientific research means.

Greenpeace is violent because they attack humans. Da Lai Lama too is violent for eating meat.
 
Mmmmm. whale meat. Id fancy some whale bacon and a glass of beer please.

At least you appear to be honest now..

Why didn't you previously admit that you enjoyed eating whale instead of copying and pasting news and other sites from the web.

Have you got over your Kangaroo fetish yet?
 
Without any doubt whatsoever, zero.

You don't need to harpoon them simply to measure them.

I think you will find the reason they are being hunted down for the slaughter is for human consumption.

The "Scientific Research" term that the Japanese are using, I would strongly suspect is to provoke environmentalists and animal and nature lovers around the world.

You misunderstood me (probably intentionally). I am asking (especially to Rose), what would be an acceptable quota if Japan were to hunt minke whales (for the sake of argument, commercially) without risking siginificant ecological effect based on the scientific data.

I am not asking whether the research whaling is scientifically necessary or not.
 
I am asking (especially to Rose), what would be an acceptable quota if Japan were to hunt minke whales (for the sake of argument, commercially) without risking siginificant ecological effect based on the scientific data.

If It was up to me, I would say zero.
 
If It was up to me, I would say zero.

Well, it is not up to you, and zero cannot be an answer to my question (scientifically acceptable quota). If you don't want to or cannot answer my question, don't bother. I wasn't asking you in the first place.
 
Mmmmm. whale meat. Id fancy some whale bacon and a glass of beer please.
It is scientific because they make sure they can hunt these whales and still make sure that the population does not decrease. Thats what Scientific research means.

You have a strange idea of science indeed.
(my father was a very internationally respected scientist, very related to animals, how to breed and support and feed them, thus I know about their usual works, don't tell us stories)

Greenpeace is violent because they attack humans. Da Lai Lama too is violent for eating meat.

Especially so are you, because you also eat meet. . .is the logic consequence.

And Greenpeace just tries to help some animals not to be violated in extreme ways, which is an entirely different story.
So is occasional eating meat a different thing, if with still some respect towards them.
While overdoing once more is violence.

And thats the present case with whales and esp. dolphins.

If It was up to me, I would say zero.
I join in.
 
Last edited:
You misunderstood me (probably intentionally). I am asking (especially to Rose), what would be an acceptable quota if Japan were to hunt minke whales (for the sake of argument, commercially) without risking siginificant ecological effect based on the scientific data.
I am not asking whether the research whaling is scientifically necessary or not.

I believe that commercial whaling has no place in todays society. Just as hunting large wild terrestrial animals is a sure way to undermine an eco-system. Minke whales are not at pre-hunting levels. If small Japanese fishing villages feel it is necessary to hunt whales to continue a cultural and diet tradition, then they can apply to the IWC, and have a small quota of whales caught of the coast of Japan. To open up commercial whaling again would be disastrous. As others on this forum have stated what would happen if more countries began whaling, how do you control this? South Korean fisheries have just seized over 50 tonne of Minke whale meat, (approximately 70 whales). If whale meat industry is anything like the illegal drug trade, fro every seizure their is 20 more unfound loads.
The Oceans and its products need protecting and if we can't even protect whales what other species have a chance.
 
Well, it is not up to you, and zero cannot be an answer to my question (scientifically acceptable quota). If you don't want to or cannot answer my question, don't bother. I wasn't asking you in the first place.

Take the zero back and my sincerest apologies for answering your question.
 
I believe that commercial whaling has no place in todays society. Just as hunting large wild terrestrial animals is a sure way to undermine an eco-system. Minke whales are not at pre-hunting levels. If small Japanese fishing villages feel it is necessary to hunt whales to continue a cultural and diet tradition, then they can apply to the IWC, and have a small quota of whales caught of the coast of Japan. To open up commercial whaling again would be disastrous. As others on this forum have stated what would happen if more countries began whaling, how do you control this?

So you just avoid answering my question. You talk like you are against whaling based on science but you refuse to talk about the numbers and hard facts, no different from other people on this forum. I can imagine that's what happens at IWC.

Commercial whaling can and will be controllable. Japan tracks all caught whales by DNA, so IWC can audit Japanese market or any other market whenever they want. It's much harder to poach large whales than, say, kangaroos that are killed in millions without international vigilance.

If IWC is going to remain an anti-whaling organization, whaling WILL become unregulated. That's what will happen if IWC chooses to be blind to scientific arguments.
 
Hitler had many scientific arguments too. . .

Pseudo-scientific. Which is exactly how GP and Rose are just camouflaging their emotional or value arguments with scientific flavor. Her arguments are not logical and contradicting herself.
 
Pseudo-scientific. Which is exactly how GP and Rose are just camouflaging their emotional or value arguments with scientific flavor. Her arguments are not logical and contradicting herself.

Be carefull, I know what I say, and am also very science forum trained. I do not have to post a proof about Hitlertime's science here in this very thread., but I can remind on this.
Its all over the internet, by the way, if you wish to inform yourself.

What I mean to say, is, that your mentioned science also is not absolute or unchangable nor free from corruptions etc.
I do not mean you with this, just in general the way, it is already used by other than scientific interests, that try to get excuses for killings, in which it equals the given first example from me.
It can be quite a cheap excuse for something completely different. . . and often is.
By the way, I grew up as the daughter of a scientist (who lived through Hitlertime and was not blind), thus, please, think twice.

And last not least, for your information:
Telling me what you think about others, is of no interest for me nor for the thread, nor very welcome here (see infraction system).
 
By the way, I grew up as the daughter of a scientist, thus, please, think twice.
And last not least, for your information:
Telling me what you think about others, is of no interest for me nor for the thread, nor very welcome here (see infraction system).

If you think being a daughter of a scientist makes you capable of scientific discussion, you are pathetically "unscientific". I never directly addressed you before because you didn't even strike me as capable of scientific discussions. I find your arguments, as with many others here, to be rooted in your very narrow values and intolerence to others. Just ignore my posts and I will leave you alone.
 
I discussed with many scientists for long, plus connected between Universities(amongst this from Japan and Germany), but this is not necessarily a science forum.
And thanks for your arrogance and own intolerance towards others, that I also realised very well. (I am not dependant on you, but ask for your fairness, also towards others)

Please check a new system of the forum:

Obsolete - Infraction System
 
If you think being a daughter of a scientist makes you capable of scientific discussion, you are pathetically "unscientific". I never directly addressed you before because you didn't even strike me as capable of scientific discussions. I find your arguments, as with many others here, to be rooted in your very narrow values and intolerence to others. Just ignore my posts and I will leave you alone.

Well, according to you, I answered your forum question that you commented was not "pathetically" for me.

You have to remember, this is a forum, not a chat room;-)

Your commentrs are hardly scientific but apear to be getting rather personal.
 
So you just avoid answering my question. You talk like you are against whaling based on science but you refuse to talk about the numbers and hard facts, no different from other people on this forum. I can imagine that's what happens at IWC.
Commercial whaling can and will be controllable. Japan tracks all caught whales by DNA, so IWC can audit Japanese market or any other market whenever they want. It's much harder to poach large whales than, say, kangaroos that are killed in millions without international vigilance.
If IWC is going to remain an anti-whaling organization, whaling WILL become unregulated. That's what will happen if IWC chooses to be blind to scientific arguments.

I didn't avoid answering your question, I stated that commercial whaling has no place in todays society. If you would like to talk facts and figures, which i can do, I would have to start with the basics, but I'm sure you know the basics already. If you what number based stats then Minke whales in the Southern Ocean on all accounts (except Japanese 'experts') are still not at pre-harvest levels. So they should not be hunted. That was easy, and before you use Time Flannery's quote that they can be sustainable harvest, go and find out when he said that and the context it was spoken about. Tim is not a whale expert, Dr Peter Harrison is and it would be better to look at what he is saying for a current informed view.

I also think that what you say about poaching whales is a lot harder than Kangaroos is wrong, an example is the South Korean seizure of Minke Whale meat.

And what about August 2006 when it was revealed that Japanese fishers and their suppliers from other countries plundered world southern bluefin tuna stocks, secretly catching up to three times the annual Japanese quota each year for the past 20 years. How can Japan make us believe they will not exceed quotas again? I agree that the IWC needs to keep its cool but maybe it is time to look at other options for global ocean control because the traditional law of the sea doesn't seem to be working. Humans have successfully marginalized the land and degraded it to the point of no return, they we move to the oceans.
 
I didn't avoid answering your question, I stated that commercial whaling has no place in todays society. If you would like to talk facts and figures, which i can do, I would have to start with the basics, but I'm sure you know the basics already. If you what number based stats then Minke whales in the Southern Ocean on all accounts (except Japanese 'experts') are still not at pre-harvest levels. So they should not be hunted.

Then, what exactly is the "pre-harvest" levels of minkes at which you would condone commercial whaling at any level? Can you give a source of "pre-harvest" level for future reference?

And there is no justification to totally ban whaling even if the minke population is not "pre-harves" level yet, especially in light of the strong evidence that the population is increasing robustly. With the detailed demographic data Japan has accumulated, scientists can quite accurately estimate the quantitative effects, if any, of hunting 1000 (or 2000) whales per year and compare it to the situation in which no hunting happens. If the predicted effect is minimal, commercial whaling should be resumed under proper monitoring.

I also think that what you say about poaching whales is a lot harder than Kangaroos is wrong, an example is the South Korean seizure of Minke Whale meat.

IWC should put Korea on their watch list. I never said it's impossible, but once whale meat is obtained in the market, it is easily traced by DNA analysis. Who knows if the kangaroo steak served at a restaurant was illegally hunted or not? I never heard of kangaroo DNA databank that tracks 3 million slaughtered kangaroo DNA per year.

And what about August 2006 when it was revealed that Japanese fishers and their suppliers from other countries plundered world southern bluefin tuna stocks, secretly catching up to three times the annual Japanese quota each year for the past 20 years. How can Japan make us believe they will not exceed quotas again? I agree that the IWC needs to keep its cool but maybe it is time to look at other options for global ocean control because the traditional law of the sea doesn't seem to be working. Humans have successfully marginalized the land and degraded it to the point of no return, they we move to the oceans.

I would appreciate it if you can quote your sources whenever possible, as I am not aware of all news in fishery industry.

Well, I don't endorse overfishing of any species, but poaching whales can hardly be as easy as poaching tunas for their traceability and their large size. As far as I know, I don't think possible illegal overhunting has been seriously raised as a concern against commercial whaling at IWC. If IWC does its job, it's virtually impossible to overhunt whales.

When people know what they are selling can be tracked unambiguously, they won't risk their jobs selling illegal meat. DNA analysis is one of the technological advances that weren't available when whaling moratorium started.
 
With the detailed demographic data Japan has accumulated, scientists can quite accurately estimate the quantitative effects, if any, of hunting 1000 (or 2000) whales per year and compare it to the situation in which no hunting happens. If the predicted effect is minimal, commercial whaling should be resumed under proper monitoring.
IWC should put Korea on their watch list. I never said it's impossible, but once whale meat is obtained in the market, it is easily traced by DNA analysis. Who knows if the kangaroo steak served at a restaurant was illegally hunted or not? I never heard of kangaroo DNA databank that tracks 3 million slaughtered kangaroo DNA per year.
I would appreciate it if you can quote your sources whenever possible, as I am not aware of all news in fishery industry.
Well, I don't endorse overfishing of any species, but poaching whales can hardly be as easy as poaching tunas for their traceability and their large size. As far as I know, I don't think possible illegal overhunting has been seriously raised as a concern against commercial whaling at IWC. If IWC does its job, it's virtually impossible to overhunt whales.
When people know what they are selling can be tracked unambiguously, they won't risk their jobs selling illegal meat. DNA analysis is one of the technological advances that weren't available when whaling moratorium started.

Whales on the Net - World's Oceans once Teemed with Whales

This article details the DNA findings of English researchers suggesting that the populations of whales (humpback, fin and Minke) before industrialized hunting were double but in some cases triple the estimated IWC population sizes. This is because the variations in the genetic data sourced from a Japanese sushi market in 2005, where so great that this would have to mean that the population was a lot larger than previously thought.

Most scientists studying whales agree that the populations of the great whales are not at a level in which they can be harvested. They are only just recovering, some whales are not recovering at all such as the Dwarf Minke Whale which can be mistaken for the Minke whale. And with global warming looming we have no way to predict what will happen to whale populations. This as been a big part in IWC discussions. So again I will state that Minke whales, Fin whales, Humpback whale populations in the Southern Hemisphere are not at pre-harvest levels they should not be harvested. Japan and other whaling countries will have to realize that their tradition has gone sour.

As to the bluefin tuna incident, this is public knowledge in the public domain, therefore I do not need to supply a source. But for you here it is: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20588386-1702,00.html

And why do you keep mentioning Kangaroos they are a completely different species, not in decline, more abundant since European invasion of Australia and well studied. Their breeding cycle is so different from whales. As to data bases, and DNA studies in Australia, this is happening in many places with many speices, this is just one example.

Kangaroo DNA to be mapped
 
Back
Top Bottom