i don't think that should be a problem of race here like who is more evil. Should I hate Great Britain because some of English people like to hunt fox? Should I hate Koreans because some of them like to eat dogs but others like them as pets?
Sarapva:
Thanks, akita - I think this is the main argument against whaling. It's also the same for any other environmental destruction like cutting forests down to build on the land. Rose is right - we need to rethink all these things we're doing that only destroy the earth, and try to live with a "light footprint" with as little damage to the environment as possible.
Yep. Exactly, at least not willingly destroy.
That has to do with respect and responsibility, and the strange thing in the whole story is, THAT is Japan's former culture! Living in harmony with nature. Not what they allow now.
If only. . . .sigh. . .
I believe, its still there, but also the threads of other cultures disordering this.
Insofar their fear of being overtaken is real. But they did the same with others, and it might well be a kind of chain-reaction, after having been forced to open after a long closing down for outsiders, to name only one event.
Which says, you have to go even further back and then we have the invaders from Portugal. . .saying, that they come with "God", but been heard for saying something like: "first the religion, then the rest" (for commerce!) on a ship, where there was a Japanese with good ears.
This caused the very rest, the foreigners were thrown out, who had behaved badly already, by attacking japanese believes with destructive actions, thus the Japanese were defending and also agressive. But this talk on the ship gave it the rest.
I adored the Japanese for having heard this, because other nations around at that time haven't, and consequently were overrun. Not so Japan, still an outstanding example!
Starting from there, and then to Commodore Perry , who forced Japan to open up, you may get the kind of trauma, thats still there somehow.
I come with psychology, not just history.
There are many following events, that can very well be dated back to those events, still.
As for the japanese behaviour pattern, and why this and when and not that etc.
And I have a clear view about the differences of the perceptions of the Japanese and other cultures, including their behavior towards their neighbour states. Having come slowly and via China>Korea, I had enough time, to think and feel about this.
What still is taken for an "offence" indeed, if others tell them. But in some cases its fatal for Japan, because often, friendly views from outside may have a better overview. Thats normal everywhere, and thats what friends are for. But not so for a hurt pride. . .
Fact is, they have done so much to adapt positively after the opening, but then linked themselves to Nazi-times, overrated themselves and got the according answer, as much overdone. Next trauma.
The old asian way is to try to understand the other one first, try to see things from their point of view, thats asic politeness, and then maybe show yourself, not the other way round. But the west did it exactly the other way round, which must have puzzled them a lot, every time, they had the "pleasure" to be touched. . .
And so they learned the games of the other side, mirroring them back, beause the old chinese and also japanese habit was, to honour someone, by taking something and giving it back in advanced form. Next shock, they were accused for stealing!
(the copyright-story as an example, it was understood as the right to copy, not in our way. . .)
However, they often found themselves in such a strange situation before, I suppose, being accused for being agressive, where they were not, to give you an idea. Combine this with the hurt of being intruded, thus handled agressively, you have the spriral of war. And can very well lead to overrating yourself by trying to restore your own inner strength in the hope, that your emperor really is a god (this story was invented after Perry, by the way, not before!!), and thus you cannot fail.
That has cost many cultures maybe first ups, but then downs, because it was a bubble to burst sooner or later.
Anyhow, the inner self-worth-balance was disturbed, although not in all of them. By finding others, be it a Maori, who also has similar traumas and thus knows how to "handle" them to his wish, or similar thinkers, who also felt mishandled, so to say...well, the whaling war, as it is already called.
And yet, if they remember their own real inner strength, they may find back to their original harmony and see what is possible, necessary or not. Adapting to new situations or changes, has never really been their problems. They had enough natural desasters to be trained to get up again quickly, much better than others!! Thus, if they remember that too, they can have a quick recovery, but only then.
They ought to know and remember, if they behave against nature, nature strikes back. . .hardly anyone knows better than them.
But this also means, that outsiders should try to understand them and help them to recover. Not help them to go on hurting nature (F..., some agressive norvegians are exactly wrong for them), but to relax and see clear.
I am sure, as soon as they will stand up again for what they once were and held up (in relation to such positive parts of culture), they can count on all the help in the world. Not much to loose, except some agressive manipulators for money only (that play a false game with their deeper hurts), and maybe some outdated habits.
Its just a tiny little step further. . .
I may be naive, but thats about the sketch of the picture.
You don't protect a specie or another just because it's cute but because is part of nature and killing a part of that nature it's destroying the whole equilibrium.
It is certainly true that whaling in the past greatly disturbed the ecosystems within which the targeted whales were existing.
However the reason for this was that whaling activity in the past was out of control, unregulated, and based on economics rather than biological considerations.
This saw species after species of whale depleted, one after the other, and it's true that today some species haven't recovered to anywhere near the levels that they were at previously.
However in the 1960's and 1970's the IWC first started to heed conservation advice, protecting both humpbacks and blue whales from hunting in the 1960's, and then with the development of a management procedure based on biological considerations, fin whales and other species in the 1970's.
When the moratorium was adopted in the early 1980's, almost all whale species were already protected anyway, with minke whales and Bryde's whales the exceptions.
The IWC subsequently developed a more risk averse and throughly simulation tested management procedure by the early 1990's.
Under this management procedure, initial whale harvests would be less than 0.5% of the estimated abundance of a given stock of whales. For example, after the IWC scientific committee estimated the antartic minke whale population to be 761,000 (with a lower 95% confidence level of more than 500,000) in the early 1990's, using the new management procedure it stated that 2,000 minke whales could safely be harvested every year. 2,000 whales was just 0.26% of the estimated abundance, and even in a worst case scenario putting abundance at 500,000, still only 0.4%.
These conservative levels of harvest are unlikely to see the balance of the marine ecosystems in which whales live destroyed again.
Indeed, if all marine resources were managed in such a conservative manner, the world's oceans would likely be in far better shape than they are now.
Banning all whaling, or any harvest of natural resources, is simply unrealistic, and fails to take into consideration the desires of our fellow human beings who choose to enjoy the benefits of whales.
As for kangaroos I think there is enough meat around without hunting a wild animal.
To throw another idea into the ring - is it necessary to farm the animals that are slaughtered to provide the "enough meat" that you refer to, when there are abundant populations of naturally occuring kangaroos in Australia which could be harvested on a sustainable instead, or at least to some degree to offset dependence on farmed animal meat?
Banning all whaling, or any harvest of natural resources, is simply unrealistic, and fails to take into consideration the desires of our fellow human beings who choose to enjoy the benefits of whales.
Dairy farming gives the earth great damage than whaling.
A large quantity of cereals are necessary to breed a cow and a pig, a ****.
Therefore a forest is felled.
Bait of a whale is plankton.
You should prohibit dairy farming for the earth.
In principle, any harvest of biological resources is the same. Research is required to obtain an understanding of the dynamics of the population, for example, rates of natural mortality, age at sexual maturity, reproductive rates and so on.
Whale species are no different from other animals that humans choose to harvest in this respect, although of course the exact dynamics of their populations differs from the dynamics of other species.
With a view to harvesting whales on a sustainable basis, naturally ongoing research is essential.
As I noted in my previous comment, under future IWC managed whaling, catch limits would be set at extremely conservative levels. One of the developers of this "revised management procedure" noted of it that the only scientific basis for questioning it would be on the grounds that it is so risk averse that it will see humans forgo much of a potential harvest.
Research shows that the meat from baleen whales, especially those from the Antarctic, is very low in contaminants and is certainly safe to eat.
Meat from toothed whales tends to have higher levels of contaminants, and frequent consumption may lead to health issues, although to date I am yet to hear of any such issues.
In my experience most whale meat on sale appears to be well labeled, and in one instance where I found a product that was poorly labeled I could surmise the species from the meat itself, as well as the stated area of production. I took the liberty of contacting my local authorities about the poor labeling, and they undertook to advise the retailer in question of the new labeling guidelines under the JAS law.
As for consumption of baleen whales however, there is little risk involved in consumption and a range of health benefits. My hope is that with a resumption of sustainable whaling the demand for toothed whale products will decrease (it was with the commercial whaling moratorium in the first place that led to fishermen seeking to hunt more porpoises in the first instance).
The Japanese Health Ministry did a study in 2003, which found that the red meat from baleen whales is safe to eat, and with respect to Antarctic minke whales, the internal organs and blubber are also well within safety guidelines. For whales in the western north pacific, there are cases where some parts, such as the blubber, were slightly above Japanese ministry guidelines.
The meat from some dolphin species was quite problematic, and one would not want to eat it too frequently.
This is another reason why it is desirable that sustainable commercial whaling be resumed.
I searched quite carefully, but can't find any new studies on whale meat, only similarly old studies.
One study conducted between 2000 and 2002 that mentioned in an older thread talked about toothed whales tending to accumulate higher mercury levels than baleen whales.
This report said essentiallly the same thing as the Ministry study. Dall's porpoises for example were noted as having average total mercury level of 1.26 ppm, and the Ministry study average was 0.74 ppm, also above the guideline of 0.4 ppm (although below the USA guideline level of 1.0 ppm).
The old report says North Pacific minke whale samples had a total average mercury level of 0.10 ppm. 0.1 ppm is of course within the Ministry guideline of 0.4 ppm, and does not represent a problem. In the Ministry's study, the average was 0.2 ppm (also within the guideline), and even the maximum value detected was 0.8 ppm (over the Japanese guideline, but within the US one).
So both the older study by independent scientists and the Ministry study both confirmed that north pacific baleen whale meat is safe to consume.
The serious problem noted in both studies appears to be the consumption of the internal organs of toothed whales.
This is why I suggest that resuming sustainable commercial whaling of baleen whales (thus reducing demand for the meat from smaller toothed cetaceans) would be a positive step for Japan to take, in addition to educating shop retailers who are unaware of the JAS product labeling guidelines which advise that species name be included on the packages.
The old, and according to you, out of date studies appear to reconcile, despite one being conducted by apparently independent scientists and another by Japan's Ministry of health.
Meat from baleen whales for consumption is only available in nations that permit this, such as Japan, Norway, Iceland, South Korea and so on, unfortunately if you wish to get the information it's going to come from such a source.
Given that the majority of whale meat available in Japan is baleen whale meat, and the majority of that comes from the pristine Antarctic ocean where the whales predominantly feed at very low trophic level on prey such as krill, the idea that this meat is very clean does not seem to be a big stretch of the imagination.
Certainly some meat from small tooth cetaceans harvested in the North Pacific does have significant issues, but I would question the motives of those who wish to cast doubt on the results of studies that indicate meat from a pristine environment is not fit for human consumption.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
