# Japanese Whaling



## roland (13 November 2007)

Hi, new thread. Everytime I hear something on this - it annoys the hell out of me.

I am either not very well informed on the whaling issue, or very naive. How can there be any justification for the Japanese to continue slaughtering whales for "scientific research"?

It's pretty obvious to me, that the end result is a piece of whale sashimi on a Japanese dinner plate. I cannot believe that the same conclusion is not obvious to everyone else.

I am also not insensitive to the political issues regarding foriegn trade with Japan, and how the whaling issue takes a very big backseat to pressuring Japan to cease it's whaling.

I am not a hard core greenie, but know when something is wrong - and killing these beautiful creatures is wrong.

Greenpeace and that American renegade Shepard are always presented in such a bad light when the media reports on the conflicts between them and the Japanese whalers.

I heard tonight on the 7.30 Report on ABC that the Japanese have added the Humpback and the Fin Whale to their list for this years slaughter.

I would like to hear other opinions.


----------



## aussie86 (13 November 2007)

I think im with you mate,

I get the feeling the issue is been pushed into the background because of other considerations (e.g. trade, general diplomacy).  

Also you have to remember that eating whale has been part of the Japanese culture for ages, so I think a softly softly approach may be best at solving this.  From memory, I think Greenpeace had started a campaign aimed at Japanese school children, trying to educate them about what has to happen to get whale onto their plates.  I think this might be the best approach.

Cheers


----------



## doctorj (13 November 2007)

aussie86 said:


> Also you have to remember that eating whale has been part of the Japanese culture for ages



I was under the impression that whale meet was more of a status symbol than for real regular consumption until after WW2.


----------



## roland (13 November 2007)

aussie86 said:


> I think im with you mate,
> 
> I get the feeling the issue is been pushed into the background because of other considerations (e.g. trade, general diplomacy).
> 
> ...




I think I would be more sympathetic if the Japanese came and said they carry out whaling as their cultural right for filling their dinner plates, instead of the lies about scientific research. I wouldn't be any closer to supporting it, but it would make it far less annoying.


----------



## roland (13 November 2007)

doctorj said:


> I was under the impression that whale meet was more of a status symbol than for real regular consumption until after WW2.




I think you are correct. I remember seeing some research where the younger Japanese didn't even like whale meat. They much preferred pizza and macca's


----------



## sam76 (13 November 2007)

I think you'll find that this is the last hurrah of an old tradition and it will be finished within the next decade regardless of external pressure.

As you said, the young'uns simply don't care about whale eating traditions.

Doesn't taste that great, anyway.


----------



## Pat (13 November 2007)

It is very sad to see such blatant disregard for god’s creatures, they are endangered for god’s sake.
I also remember seeing huge amounts of dolphins being slaughtered on nine MSN or similar about 2 weeks ago. Could make a grown man cry 

I am of the opinion that the Japanese have one of the most refined cultures, Perhaps I'm wrong?


----------



## nioka (13 November 2007)

Maybe the Japanese consider whales are a resource that are no different to any other mammal used as a source of meat. We eat beef, lamb, fish, kangaroo, possum, chicken, pork etc. Why not eat whalemeat. I have eaten it and have given it to others who could not tell it from beef (when served with plenty of onions.)
 Whaling stopped because the numbers were decimated. Not many know why that actually happened and blame the Russians and the Japenese. That was not correct. Most whaling countries and whaling companies abided by quotas which were set to conserve the species and harvest on a sustainable basis. However the multi millionaire Aristotle Onasis set up a large whaling fleet  made up from ex wartime shipping using minesweepers, corvettes and ex wartime freighters. He followed the whales around the world and harvested until they were nearly all gone. It took him only two years. His fleet was eventually seized in Peruvian waters and that was the end of his little escapade.Whaling stopped because of the fact that the whaling countries agreed there was a need to let the numbers recover. Japan was one country that allowed that to happen.Had they not done so there would not be any humpbacks left.
The whole whale debate for years has been dominated by the animal liberation movement and now taken over by the whale watching industry. Whales are majestic so are cattle and sheep. If people had never seen lambs frollicking in a paddock and were shown them as a tourist attraction I'm sure they would be just as much against the slaughter of sheep as they are with whales. 
 I say let the Japanese have a few. It is just as much their birthright to eat whale meat as it is for us to eat beef.


----------



## Ageo (13 November 2007)

The thing i dont like is that they are in our waters and they are hunting them without our permission.

In terms of the killing, well im assuming only a certain number of whales would be killed for consumption/research which would be sustainable. When they say whales are endangered you better look to see where that info is coming from because i once read "Red Kangaroo's" were endangered and unless you have been in the bush (red country) then you dont really know how many their are. 

You have to also understand that if its part of their diet then whats the difference between a whale and a cow? or a chicken?

I find the bigger the animal the more feeling it shows and the more emotional people get. If they were endangered then i would be against it, if they are in our waters (which they are) then unless permission is granted i would also be against it.

Otherwise if a sustainable qouta is met each year with no breeches of anything else then i cant see a problem.


----------



## Stan 101 (13 November 2007)

been seeing more and more humpbacks off Moreton Island in the last 10 years. So much so, it rare to not be in close proximity to at least one on a dive.

A marine biologist mate has been doing a bit of research on krill and is starting to think the populations of whales may soon have a noticeable effect on the little animal numbers. He isn't the only one in this line of thinking..

Don;t get me wrong I have a strong emotion for whales, maybe more than the average person due to many many close encounters. It is something you don't forget in a hurry when you are eyeballed by a humpback for the first time.

If the Japanese are actually killing whale for human consumption and not things like pet food, what other country has clean enough hands to take the moral high ground on thisand say the Japanese are being inhumane? Would the same reaction be put to our eskimo friends who's lives depend or did at one time depend on whale as a staple..

I think the cow is getting a bum's rush over this whole debate..How many cows is a whale worth in the humane debate? How many whales to a human?


cheers,


----------



## shinobi346 (13 November 2007)

I think another thing is we lack the resources to patrol our territory and discourage/board whaling ships. so the Fed govt keeps pretty quiet about the issue to avoid being seen as a toothless tiger. I'm sure if the Fed govt did more, there'd be less vigilantes chasing the whaling ships.

BTW I am against whaling and NEVER would I when I go to JApan one day, will I knowingly eat whale or dolphin meat.


----------



## BlingBling (13 November 2007)

Guys,

I7ve been living in Japan for over ten years and we have never heard a whisper about all the fuss about whaling. In fact the only time we did see something on the news was last year when the Nisshin Maru had that fire and a crew member died. They made it out like it was the activists fault then, too.
We also see nothing about the dolphin massacres that that have just happened down in Taji.

Most Japanese I know won't eat whale and LOOVE dolphins. It's the old pollies that are trying to keep an old tradition alive of eating whale meat in school lunches because the old boys did in the war era.

They've recently started selling MINKES at our local supermarket. I guess I could buy some in the name of research


----------



## Pat (13 November 2007)

nioka said:


> Maybe the Japanese consider whales are a resource that are no different to any other mammal used as a source of meat. We eat beef, lamb, fish, kangaroo, possum, chicken, pork etc. Why not eat whalemeat.



I understand what your saying, however the above animals are farmed. I myself eat all of the above, apart from possum, due to the fact they are endangered in Australia, now if it was NZ possum then i'd give it a try .



Stan 101 said:


> A marine biologist mate has been doing a bit of research on krill and is starting to think the populations of whales may soon have a noticeable effect on the little animal numbers. He isn't the only one in this line of thinking..



Do you mean more whales may effect other sea creature populations? I am of the understanding that if the apex preditor in an eco system is healthy, then the whole eco system is healthy (Steve Irwin). I guess not all whales are preditors but an Orca sure is.
For scientists to say that there are potentially too many whales for whatever reason seems somewhat unbelievable to me.
Or have I miss understood?


----------



## Pat (13 November 2007)

An example of an apex preditor!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuJyL4rqKkM


----------



## Stan 101 (13 November 2007)

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica fact file/wildlife/krill.htm


Above is the first cab off the rank for a google search on "krill numbers." It does not lend itself to my mates discussion of a hypothesis.

He did give me some links a little while ago and I can't find them just now.. 

The page above is giving the ice melt on the poles as the main reason for the decline in krill, it seems.

BTW, I never mentioned there is definitive proof of the krill numbers. There are some scientific thought that there could well be a link.



Cheers,


----------



## Snagglepuss (13 November 2007)

My understanding is that whale meat is NOT a "traditional" food in Japan, apart from in one or two very small coastal communities. Whale meat was never widely eaten in Japan before WW2. During and immediately after WW2 it became more common as other food sources became scarce. However, it was seen as a poor substitute, and today it still retains something of a "poor man's food" image. It is not widely eaten at all. Older Japanese people may indeed look at whale meat with a bit of a nostalgic feeling, but most younger Japanese probably couldn't care less about it.

- Snaggle


----------



## Pat (13 November 2007)

Stan 101 said:


> http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica fact file/wildlife/krill.htm
> 
> 
> Above is the first cab off the rank for a google search on "krill numbers." It does not lend itself to my mates discussion of a hypothesis.
> ...



I would say for sure that the more whales there are the less krill there maybe, however I would think that they would reach an equilibrium... less krill = less whale food = less whales etc.
Anyway, I am for the krill as I am for the whales


----------



## nioka (13 November 2007)

Pat said:


> I understand what your saying, however the above animals are farmed. I myself eat all of the above, apart from possum, due to the fact they are endangered in Australia, now if it was NZ possum then i'd give it a try .
> 
> Do you mean more whales may effect other sea creature populations? I am of the understanding that if the apex preditor in an eco system is healthy, then the whole eco system is healthy (Steve Irwin). I guess not all whales are preditors but an Orca sure is.
> For scientists to say that there are potentially too many whales for whatever reason seems somewhat unbelievable to me.
> Or have I miss understood?




 If you were a(living) krill you would think of a whale as a predator. I,ve seen all sorts of things taken from whale stomachs from sea birds to herrings. Sperm whales are certainly predators. As for a shortage of krill  they are being harvested in large quantities and like the fish stocks are being depleted.
 Also if the apex predator is healthy then it is probably Ok to harvest some.
 In a world where food is going to be in more and more demand and climate change reducing production, each whale will be looked at as 10 tonnes of meat and 8 tons of edible oil plus some other byproduct stock food ingredients. 
As for possums, if you were a fruit grower you would not consider them endangered. They only seem that way because they mostly come out after dark and most people seldom get to see them.
 Green peace like to show the killing of whales as very cruel. Most times the explosive charge in the harpoon head which explodes in the whale shortly after impact, means instant death. In the event that it does not happen then a second "killer" shot is fired. Of course there is blood in the water as there is blood in any abattoirs.
( I worked at whaling stations in the 50s for several seasons and do not apologise for the fact.)


----------



## Gspot (13 November 2007)

BlingBling said:


> Guys,
> 
> I7ve been living in Japan for over ten years and we have never heard a whisper about all the fuss about whaling. In fact the only time we did see something on the news was last year when the Nisshin Maru had that fire and a crew member died. They made it out like it was the activists fault then, too.
> We also see nothing about the dolphin massacres that that have just happened down in Taji.
> ...




This is why Australia, NZ, USA, England etc should put some big money behind an Anti whaling group within Japan. 
It should be run by young Japs, that could advertise on tv, and run a strong campaign with international backing. Then you would see change.


----------



## chops_a_must (14 November 2007)

Gspot said:


> This is why Australia, NZ, USA, England etc should put some big money behind an Anti whaling group within Japan.
> It should be run by young Japs, that could advertise on tv, and run a strong campaign with international backing. Then you would see change.



Yeah, because the Japanese love having issues to do with pride pointed out to them...


----------



## Pat (14 November 2007)

nioka said:


> If you were a(living) krill you would think of a whale as a predator. I,ve seen all sorts of things taken from whale stomachs from sea birds to herrings. Sperm whales are certainly predators. As for a shortage of krill  they are being harvested in large quantities and like the fish stocks are being depleted.
> Also if the apex predator is healthy then it is probably Ok to harvest some.
> In a world where food is going to be in more and more demand and climate change reducing production, each whale will be looked at as 10 tonnes of meat and 8 tons of edible oil plus some other byproduct stock food ingredients.
> As for possums, if you were a fruit grower you would not consider them endangered. They only seem that way because they mostly come out after dark and most people seldom get to see them.
> ...



Yes it is certianly in the beholders eye.
However I certainly don't like to live in a world where we are depleting our natural resources just to survive today. IMO we humans are smarter, and, more capable of a much better outcome for now and the future.
We are now educated enough to understand the consequences of our actions, well some of us are. Would you now, knowing what you know, work in a whaling station today?


----------



## Kathmandu (14 November 2007)

If only more people had balls like Capt. Paul Watson.

http://www.seashepherd.org/crew-watson.html

His organisation are the only ones that I know off who actually do anything to stop whaling.

http://www.seashepherd.org/

He was one of the founding members of Greenpeice, but was disheartened with their all talk-no action approach and collection of money to pay wages.

He set up Sea Sheperd and did something about stopping the slaughter.

EG: SS stopped the Icelandic whaling fleet by going into Iceland and sinking the fleet while at anchor so as not to endanger life.

http://www.seashepherd.org/whales/whales_SSCS_history.html

They actually offer rewards  for info about eco-crime

http://www.seashepherd.org/rewards.html

I tip's me hat to the likes of Paul Watson and wish there were more like him

Dave


----------



## Ageo (14 November 2007)

Pat said:


> Yes it is certianly in the beholders eye.
> However I certainly don't like to live in a world where we are depleting our natural resources just to survive today.




Pat like i said before if they are depleting the numbers then its wrong, but if they are only harvesting a sustainable qouta (meaning it wont effect the population) then i see nothing wrong with it.


----------



## Who Dares Wins (14 November 2007)

Kathmandu said:


> If only more people had balls like Capt. Paul Watson.
> 
> http://www.seashepherd.org/crew-watson.html
> 
> ...




Well Dave I think Paul Watson of Sea Shepard ought to be stopped then hung, drawn and quartered. 

Lets face it the guy is just a renegade troublemaker of international proportion.

What he is doing by ramming ships on the high seas is commonly known throughout the world as Piracy. If I were to register a ship in any country I can think of and then carry out actions such as his I would expect severe legal consequences - how he has not already been called to order is beyond me. 

We can only hope for the safety of all seafarers that he is removed in the future.

And you know at the end of the day:

*WHALES ARE FISH TOO!*


----------



## Stan 101 (14 November 2007)

Who Dares Wins said:


> *WHALES ARE FISH TOO!*




In all fairness, whales may just be mammals, not fish..


cheers,


----------



## BIG BWACULL (14 November 2007)

Who Dares Wins said:


> Well Dave I think Paul Watson of Sea Shepard ought to be stopped then hung, drawn and quartered.
> 
> Lets face it the guy is just a renegade troublemaker of international proportion.
> 
> ...



Actually whales arent fish they are mammals like us Breathing in the same toxic air we do, Go Doctor watson, At least someones having a go instead of turning a blind eye, After all for every ONE that is caught or sunk i'm sur there are hundreds flying under the radar, Sink Em All I say


----------



## Mrs Mackie (14 November 2007)

What really really really makes me mad is that they travel half way around the world to kill the whales in *our* waters.  If they want to eat whale then well fair enough but they should keep to their own national waters and not plunder the resources of other countries.  The fact is Aust and NZ make a lot of tourist dollars from whale watching so why should those businesses and tourism suffer because Japanese want to eat whale.  Eat your own bloody whales and leave ours alone!  Norway still cull whales too, but at least they keep it to their own waters and don't affect other stocks or other countries resources.

On the eco note, apparently krill and plankton are the basic food source for most of the oceans life, and they in turn depend on whale poo to survive.  So take away the whales -> less poo -> less krill -> less ocean life.  Whales are only doing what comes naturally and they (unlike humans) are a necessary part of the marine ecosystem.

I can't understand how any country can't realise that if you deplete your natural resources due to greed etc you will stuff the whole system up and be worse off in the end.  Stupid stupid stupid.

Anyway, I heard that the majority of whale meat ends up as pet food and the Japanese just keep whaling because of pride issues ie they won't let other countries tell them what they can and can't do.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (14 November 2007)

Stan 101 said:


> In all fairness, whales may just be mammals, not fish..
> 
> 
> cheers,



Hey that was my line  
First in best dressed


----------



## Kathmandu (14 November 2007)

> What he is doing by ramming ships on the high seas is commonly known throughout the world as Piracy




Funny you should mention that.

The ships they sunk in Iceland had no registration , no home port and no documentation on them whatsoever.

They had no existence, so how could he have sunk them.

They were "Pirate Whaling Vessels" and as such, could get no insurance.

No replacement meant no fleet.


His methods while I admit are a bit different, certainly have more effect than the alternative *"Stop or I'll say Stop again"* approach that is currently used by Greenpeice and Govt.

Also interesting is that while the govt. of the world dont exactly support his methods, some have in the past indirectly supplied food, fuel, and repair facilities for his vessels free of charge via. Naval facilities


Here are some additional teqniques the Japanes fisherman use for* Dolphins*.

http://www.seashepherd.org/taiji/taiji_ruthless_killing.html

Watch the Video Who Dares Wins, and come back and say that the Japanese fisherman are only killing fish and organisations like Sea Shepard should be stopped.


Dave


----------



## Bazmate (14 November 2007)

Speaking of marine creatures... It seems to me that the whales aren't doing too bad these days.

I'm a bit incensed about the treatment shown to sharks by some nations fisherpeople. Fancy killing a beautiful creature like that just to take 5% of it's bodyweight to market - It's fins.

In fact most sharks aren't killed when their fins are removed, they drown as they sink to the bottom after being thrown back.


----------



## Who Dares Wins (14 November 2007)

Dave, you do understand that while the harvesting of whales by Japan has only been common for about the last 70 years the harvesting of dolphins and pilot whales has gone on for many hundred years there, as has the harvest of whales by the native Inuit people in places like Canada and Alaska.

In consideration of the length of time that this has been occurring this would amount to traditional harvest would it not?

I live in New Zealand where we have it rammed done our throats every day to be respectful of other peoples, particularly native peoples, _"traditional or customary rights"_.

Why is it that some people are allowed to catch and harvest these animals, or at least it is perceived to be morally acceptable to do so (the native Inuits), but not so for others?

Either the animals are endangered globally.......or not. 

How is it that they are considered endangered for one group of people but not another?

Considering, as I've said, both the Japanese and the native Inuits have caught these aninals for a very long time what would it be that you're using to differentiate between the two groups rights for access?

It wouldn't be race would it Dave, cos you know what thats called...


----------



## Who Dares Wins (14 November 2007)

Stan 101 said:


> In all fairness, whales may just be mammals, not fish..
> 
> 
> cheers,




For all the fools out there who sucked it up I am aware that whales aren't technically fish.

The "WHALES ARE FISH TOO" statement is on a T-shirt that was doing the rounds in New Zealand a while ago.

WDW


----------



## nioka (14 November 2007)

Pat said:


> Yes it is certianly in the beholders eye.
> However I certainly don't like to live in a world where we are depleting our natural resources just to survive today. IMO we humans are smarter, and, more capable of a much better outcome for now and the future.
> We are now educated enough to understand the consequences of our actions, well some of us are. Would you now, knowing what you know, work in a whaling station today?




Yes. Providing I was sure it was sustainable harvesting and was done according to reasonable rules. I,ve also owned grazing properties and see no difference. I am an animal lover but not an animal liberationist.


----------



## Kathmandu (14 November 2007)

> In consideration of the length of time that this has been occurring this would amount to traditional harvest would it not?




No it would not.

Unless of course they use "Traditionall" methods of harvesting, which they don't.

Dave


----------



## SevenFX (14 November 2007)

I've heard their is another team of SCIENTISTS that are hunting Japanese whalers using harpoon style medical instruments, to study their behaviour pattens in the name of Science.

They will also expand their studies to cover Shark Finn pouchers, and German Sheppard eaters...????


----------



## Who Dares Wins (14 November 2007)

Kathmandu said:


> No it would not.
> 
> Unless of course they use "Traditionall" methods of harvesting, which they don't.
> 
> Dave




No one else who catches anything under the "traditional or customary" banner uses totally traditional methods - why are you discriminating against the Japanese or for that matter the Norwegians?

Come on, even it up. If you harvest whales its bad, no matter who you are.


----------



## Kathmandu (14 November 2007)

Who Dares Wins said:


> No one else who catches anything under the "traditional or customary" banner uses totally traditional methods - why are you discriminating against the Japanese or for that matter the Norwegians?.




I believe the link I posted didnt just mention Japanese and Norwegians, so I don't just target them



Who Dares Wins said:


> Come on, even it up. If you harvest whales its bad, no matter who you are.




Absolutely.

Also anyone who uses "traditional or customary" as a reason to take any resource without using traditional or customary methods gets my thumbs down as well.

Dave


----------



## Dukey (14 November 2007)

Who Dares Wins said:


> Dave, you do understand that while the harvesting of whales by Japan has only been common for about the last 70 years the harvesting of dolphins and pilot whales has gone on for many hundred years there, as has the harvest of whales by the native Inuit people in places like Canada and Alaska.
> 
> In consideration of the length of time that this has been occurring this would amount to traditional harvest would it not?
> 
> ...




I think that in an ideal world there should be no difference in our attitude towards these diff cultures ... BUT comparing the Inuits to the Japanese whaling (or even norwegians) is like comparing apples and .... grapes!
The Japanese whaling fleet are 'harvesting' from all over the international waters - many thousands of miles from home in areas they could never have reached in traditional vessels. AND Japanese have plenty of other things to eat.

From my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) - Inuits are taking small numbers, close to home and they have few other protein sources. Maybe we (international community) should work on that...

It's also true what was posted previously -by  dunno who.
- having spent most of the past 3.5 yrs in Japan - I can vouch that most Japanese are not even the remotest bit interested in eating whale or dolphin meat. Most people abhor the idea - apart from a small number of 'war nostalgics'.
But these folk - as the elders - have political clout in Japan where tradition - is sacred. So they paint whale consumption as an important tradition when it is simply not the case.
Japanese media is also to blame - they invariably swallow and disseminate whatever lies the government feeds them. Resulting in the regular Japanese Joe-blo on the street having no/little awareness of what is really going on...


----------



## Happy (14 November 2007)

Not to be too blunt meat is meat; otherwise there would not be cannibalistic rituals in some native tribes.

And here real question – can rituals be changed?

These were customary rituals, and as such they do not exist, in theory at least, so any ritual can and should be changed, even wife purchasing.

Traditional, ritual – get real, in 1000 years we will have 31 century, move on people.


----------



## Pat (14 November 2007)

Happy said:


> Traditional, ritual – get real, in 1000 years we will have 31 century, move on people.



But what if there are no whales left? Or particular species of whales? Or dolphins.... Or whatever we humans are making extinct.


----------



## Happy (14 November 2007)

Pat said:


> But what if there are no whales left? Or particular species of whales? Or dolphins.... Or whatever we humans are making extinct.




Well,
Rituals will have to be changed, that’s for sure.

Unless they find a substitute, like soya drink instead of milk .


----------



## Ageo (14 November 2007)

Pat said:


> But what if there are no whales left? Or particular species of whales? Or dolphins.... Or whatever we humans are making extinct.




Pat its like hunting in Africa, In Kenya elephant hunting is banned but numbers are at their lowest because illegal poaching is at an all time high. Where is is somewhere like Botswana elephant hunting is allowed but is controlled (by qouta), and the numbers are on the rise there simply because hunting brings in alot of cash which is then spread among the people so they dont poach.

The same thing is here, if you give them (legitmate whalers) a certain number to harvest so that way its sustainable (meaning the numbers will still grow) then its a win win for both people. 

Thats how the world should be run, a good balance in between and thats proper conservation.


----------



## Pat (14 November 2007)

Happy said:


> Well,
> Rituals will have to be changed, that’s for sure.
> 
> Unless they find a substitute, like soya drink instead of milk .



I reckon they can keep there rituals, god given rights, but I do think they should cut down on the extinction process. Now If, lets say they took 2% of the whale population per year, and the whale population grew by 8% then thats reasonable. But as far as I know, some, if not most whale specie populations are still in decline.
And agree Ageo, didn't read your post, I'm at work and sometimes it takes a while to finish writing my post.


----------



## disarray (14 November 2007)

i don't approve of unnecessary hunting of intelligent species. whales have large brains, communicate with each other and form social groups, exhibiting obvious signs of intelligence. while nowhere near our level, whales and pigs are more intelligent than other food species such as cows, sheep, chickens and fish.

there is no real reason for us to hunt them in a survival sense so its bad karma to go around slaughtering other intelligent species. the use of battery farming also pisses me off because its such an affront against nature. i would rather see us controlling the growth of the human population than having to harvest more and more of earths finite resources.


----------



## Pat (14 November 2007)

disarray said:


> i don't approve of unnecessary hunting of intelligent species.



This sould read "unnecessary hunting of any animal".


disarray said:


> whales have large brains, communicate with each other and form social groups, exhibiting obvious signs of intelligence. while nowhere near our level, whales and pigs are more intelligent than other food species such as cows, sheep, chickens and fish.



IMO brain size does not determine intelligence, I'd say it's how much "brain power" is actually used, I'd say dogs are very smart, intelligent animals, even the little ones, with little skulls that contain little brains.


----------



## Ageo (14 November 2007)

Pat said:


> This sould read "unnecessary hunting of any animal".




Pat i understand your love for animals but forget todays Metro Age for a second and think of how people use to harvest their food years ago? hunting is much more than what you think (killing and slaughtering), hunting is conservation in a big way i.e culling feral animals to protect native animals from becoming extict, provides incomes for farmers where like now goat and roo meat are a growing demand and the roo and goat numbers are out of control (so while they keep these numbers in check they also provide an economy). 

Hunting also provides a food source, i have enough meat in my freezer thats worth in the shops for around $2000 (retail price). Why should i pay for meat thats no where as good quality when i can hunt it for free and get fresh quality meat.

People tend to forget how we got to this day and age, i hate slaughtering, but i enjoy hunting and theres a big difference between the two).

Sorry about the off topic btw


----------



## Pat (14 November 2007)

Ageo said:


> Pat i understand your love for animals but forget todays Metro Age for a second and think of how people use to harvest their food years ago? hunting is much more than what you think (killing and slaughtering), hunting is conservation in a big way i.e culling feral animals to protect native animals from becoming extict, provides incomes for farmers where like now goat and roo meat are a growing demand and the roo and goat numbers are out of control (so while they keep these numbers in check they also provide an economy).
> 
> Hunting also provides a food source, i have enough meat in my freezer thats worth in the shops for around $2000 (retail price). Why should i pay for meat thats no where as good quality when i can hunt it for free and get fresh quality meat.
> 
> ...



Sorry Ageo, more emphasis is required on the word "unnecessary". I totally agree, as long as what your hunting ain't about to disappear. I'm all for shootin rabbits, fox's even roo's, some species anyway, just not to the point where there's nothing left to hunt. Conservation goes pretty deep, from animal protection to eradication...


----------



## nioka (14 November 2007)

disarray said:


> i don't approve of unnecessary hunting of intelligent species. whales have large brains, communicate with each other and form social groups, exhibiting obvious signs of intelligence..




Have you actually seen the size of a whales brain? I have seen plenty. They are not very big. They have no more intelligence than a cow or a sheep. Most animals communicate with one another, protect their young. and form social groups. They are just another animal, I admit they are big and spectacular and create a lot of interest because of that.The females have more sense than the males. If they were travelling together and the male was shot the female shot through like a Bondi tram. If the female was shot the male hung around and was bagged as well. 
 People at sea in small boats at night see them as a danger now because of the increasing numbers so they look at them differently. I have just spoken to a friend who has just returned in a yacht from Cairns and he said he had a problem, particularly at night, with whales that got in the way. Says they are much "tamer" than they used to be. He considers them the biggest danger now at sea. The law doesn't allow us to approach them but it is a one way deal.


----------



## disarray (14 November 2007)

nioka said:


> They have no more intelligence than a cow or a sheep.




you will find plenty of opinions on both sides to support either argument. without more scientific analysis this point remains hung.

http://seashepherd.org/ocean_realm/ocean_realm_aut97.html

the following makes some interesting points though -



> We willingly accept the idea of intelligence in a lifeform only if the intelligence displayed is on the same evolutionary wavelength as our own. Technology automatically indicates intelligence. An absence of technology translates into an absence of intelligence.
> 
> Dolphins and whales do not display intelligence in a fashion recognizable to this conditioned perception of what intelligence is, and we are blind to a broader definition of what intelligence can be.






> Interspecies comparisons focus on the extent of lamination, the total cortical area, and the number and depth of neocortex convolutions. In addition, primary sensory processing relative to problem solving is a significant indicator; this can be described as associative ability. The association or connecting of ideas is a measurable skill: a rat's associative skill is measured at nine to one. This means that 90 percent of the brain is devoted to primary sensory projection, leaving only 10 percent for associative skills. A cat is one to one, A chimpanzee is one to three, and a human being is one to nine. We humans need only utilize 10 percent of our brains to operate our sensory organs.
> 
> The cetacean brain averages one to twenty-five and can range upward to one to forty. The reason for this is that the much larger supralimbic lobe is primarily association cortex. Unlike humans, in cetaceans sensory and motor function control is spread outside the supralimbic, leaving more brain area for associative purposes.
> 
> Humans have the rhinic, limbic, and supralimbic, with the neocortex covering the surface of the supralimbic. However, with cetaceans we see a radical evolutionary jump with the inclusion of a fourth segment. This is a fourth cortical lobe, giving a four-fold lamination that is morphologically the most significant differentiation between cetaceans and all other cranially evolved mammals, including humans. No other species has ever had four separate cortical lobes.




i read elsewhere though that maybe dolphins have large brains because they don't have REM sleep which means they need more room for connections we "houseclean" during the night. either way it is a fact that our knowledge of neural physiology is rudimentary at the moment, so we can hardly make broad sweeping statements about whether or not animals of the higher orders possess intelligence or not.

so until it becomes clearer i still think its ethically wrong to harvest animals which demonstrate evidence of higher intelligence, especially as it is not necessary for our survival to do so.

and it must be truly terrible for your yachting friend to have to share the entire ocean with another species. if it is truly a problem then i'm sure we can come up with an ingenious way to minimise any danger sailors may encounter with whales.


----------



## Pat (14 November 2007)

disarray said:


> ...and it must be truly terrible for your yachting friend to have to share the entire ocean with another species.



 Not sure if Nokia has made reference to sharing the ocean, but a whale to a small yacht could be seen as a living iceberg 
Anyway, save the whales, kill a fat chick...en.


----------



## Ageo (15 November 2007)

Pat said:


> Sorry Ageo, more emphasis is required on the word "unnecessary". I totally agree, as long as what your hunting ain't about to disappear. I'm all for shootin rabbits, fox's even roo's, some species anyway, just not to the point where there's nothing left to hunt. Conservation goes pretty deep, from animal protection to eradication...





Mate i totally agree, eradication is not the answer although it is for some animals (feral animals mostly as they threaten the native species).


----------



## Stan 101 (15 November 2007)

Who Dares Wins said:


> For all the fools out there who sucked it up I am aware that whales aren't technically fish.
> WDW




Technically? LOL... Oh that's right, they both share aquatic environments...All the rest with regard to their physiology is just a technicality. hahaha


But for some perverse reason, I like you. You're "special" in the way only people who tell inhouse jokes and expect outsiders to understand can be.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 November 2007)

Stan 101
I have a friend just did this..
In fact in polynesia, he was scuba diving on one occasion ( near reef) when a massive shadow passed over - and sure enough, there was a whale. 

http://www.swimwithwhales.com/
http://www.divevavau.com/
Click whale watching to see a photo of baby swimming over mother’s head
http://www.dolphinspiritofhawaii.com/tonga/maps.html


----------

