So what is your point? What would be a scientifically acceptable number of minke whales that can be caught?
Mmmmm. whale meat. Id fancy some whale bacon and a glass of beer please.
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.
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.
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.
I join in.If It was up to me, I would say zero.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.