Whale wars

[DocK]

I eat steak, bacon, lamb chops, fish etc and have no problem with killing animals for food. I also buy free range eggs and would boycott any meat product if I was aware that the animal had been killed inhumanely, or kept in cruel circumstances. Perhaps that makes me a hypocrite, but I feel I'm among many who see no problem with eating animals that have been farmed for that purpose, kept in agreeable circumstances and then killed as humanely (read painlessly/quickly) as possible.

My issues with whaling are:

1. Yes they are "cuddly", but so are lambs, and I eat those. Perhaps the issue is that they are not "farmed" but are spectacular giants of the ocean credited with having greater intelligence than fish. Dunno, but if it were possible to domesticate and breed them in a farmed fashion, like cows, pigs, chickens etc - I wouldn't have such a problem seeing them as "food".

2. They are being hunted in waters far from the territorial waters of the country of the whalers. Whether Australia has a legal claim to the waters or not, they are international waters, not Japan's, and are supposed to be protected waters - regardless of ownership.

3. I'm not an expert, I will freely admit, but it seems to me that the method of harpooning whales to kill them leads to a slow, painful death, and would not be classed as "humane" to most people. Footage shown by media (and I'll admit there would be a bias in what footage is seen) often shows baby whales next to the mother whale just harpooned - would they survive or perish? At least farmed animal's offspring are weaned prior to the slaughter of the parent.

4. While I support the protestors purpose, I don't agree with their methods, and agree that the truth is being used quite selectively by them. Reports of them trying to foul the propellors of the whaling ships do them no credit at all. However, the whalers would earn a little less scorn from people if they dropped the "scientific purposes" bull#### and just came right out and said they intend to hunt whales for consumption regardless of any other nation's opinions on the subject. I have nothing but disdain for the way they are attempting to put a scientific "face" on what is clearly (to the rest of the world) a financially motivated business.

 

[Sdajii]

Dock:

1) So, despite the fact that if wild caught foods (for example, the vast majority of the fish humans eat) millions, maybe billions of people would starve, you don't like wild caught foods... or maybe you are just happy to only fuss about it when you don't like what's happening, while not complaining at other times? I don't particularly think it makes much difference to the whale, or sardine, or duck, whether it was farmed or wild. When it is killed for food, it is killed. You may not personally like it, but if I said I personally don't want you to eat apples or chicken any more, just because, oh, I can't really put my finger on it, but, oh, I just don't like it... you would probably call me a moron, and you would be entirely correct! Personal preference is fine, and for personal preference I do and don't do many things, but I don't try to enforce that on others. Whales would quite likely prefer to swim the open ocean for a few years rather than in a net cage before being eaten. My personal preference is for wild rather than farmed meat, but hey, I'm not going to tell someone else what they can or can't do because of some vague personal preference. Every Hindu believes that when you eat beef it is as bad as killing a human. Do you expect the Japanese to take you seriously if you don't take the Hindus seriously?

2) If they're illegally being harvested due to location, sure, it's illegal. But if a massive renewable food resource sits around unused, sooner or later someone is going to start using it, because sooner or later most people are going to be finding it difficult to get their hands on food. If there is no legal system for utilising a food resource at the moment, there should be. I agree, it is 'wrong' for some people to exploiting a resource which they don't own, but the situation is ridiculous. If I put out a platter of food each night, and my very hungry neighbour knew they could come and take it, and they knew I would not take any action against them for the theft, I would be very stupid. If a massive food resource exists and someone knows that if they illegally take it and no one will do anything, of course they are going to keep taking it. Duh. If you think it's valuable you either need to protect it or use it yourself. If you are stupid enough to think a resource will sit there untouched, just because you want it to be, stop locking your car and house, send all the police home and if you're stupid enough to keep thinking that the criminals are to blame rather than yourself, you're treating things in the same way we're currently treating the whaling issue.

3) I think you are rather naive if you think all domesticated animals are weaned before their mothers are killed. Ever heard of veal? I have not seen what most harpooned whales go through, but if you saw the very worst of what domestic food animals (fowl, swine, etc) go through and were told that it was the norm, you would be utterly horrified. If you think you can eat meat and not cause any animal suffering you are probably quite the sheltered city boy and have probably never slaughtered your own mammalian meat. This probably describes most Australians, who are very naive when it comes to the origins of what they buy from the local butcher or supermarket.

4) Yes, the protesters and the whalers are both quite dishonest. However, similar to point two, if someone is telling a blatant lie and everyone is believing it, who is the stupid one and do you expect the lies to stop? Neither side has any credibility, and because both sides are going too far, neither side is willing to be the first to compromise. The whalers will keep saying "scientific" for as long as the rest of the world says "You are not allowed to use this resource for food". I am sure the whalers think it is as ridiculous to say "Don't eat that massive piece of food" as we (and they!) think it is to say "Yeah, it's for science". I am sure they are laughing at the stupidity of the western world.

Incidentally, what are you a doctor of?

 

[Wysiwyg]

I eat steak, bacon, lamb chops, fish etc and have no problem with killing animals for food. I also buy free range eggs and would boycott any meat product if I was aware that the animal had been killed inhumanely, or kept in cruel circumstances. Perhaps that makes me a hypocrite, but I feel I'm among many who see no problem with eating animals that have been farmed for that purpose, kept in agreeable circumstances and then killed as humanely (read painlessly/quickly) as possible.

Hearing human beings scream as they are being "harvested" does do something to our thinking.

 

[IFocus]

I said that you rarely hear anything rational, I pointed out that most of what you hear comes from tree huggers or economists, and that people in the know do exist, but are relatively rare and are even more rarely publicised by the media.

Reason is simple talk about facts to do with our oceans health, condition of just about any fishery world wide and you will find bad news, the media hate bad news.

Obviously as an ex whaler you are an exception and more informed than the vast majority of people

Couldn't disagree more when Nioka was whaling maybe, all these years later I suspect its just bias from bygone era. I wonder if Nioka stopped because he though that the whaling was over done or because the law said stop.

and I agree entirely that sustainable whaling is (rationally) an unquestionable possibility which would allow more food to be produced without risk of extinctions.

Excellent idea what the hell why don't you include mountain gorillas as well as already said the eat every thing for food mob are alive and ignorant IMHO.

The two problems are the 'cuddly factor' as you put it, and the greed of whalers (who usually don't want to stick to reasonable quotas, as is the case with many fisheries).

Ah the simple problem of the Japanese screwing our oceans to death.........too many here want to kiss their butts.

The exact same issues exist with seals, and many other 'cuddly factor' animals, and the reason we stand by in relative silence while fish species are taken beyond sustainable levels is that they aren't as cuddly.

Sad, the problem with the oceans and their environments is they are simply not visible hence the damage, threats not in everyone's faces.

 

[nioka]

Couldn't disagree more when Nioka was whaling maybe, all these years later I suspect its just bias from bygone era. I wonder if Nioka stopped because he though that the whaling was over done or because the law said stop.
[/QUOTE.

The law never said "stop". Whaling ceased because it became unprofitable. I was out 2 years before whaling ceased. (I was employed as a consultant, after whaling ceased, by three different companies still interested in catching whales.)

No maybe. Actual fact.

Bygone era ?. No way. However, like many opportunities on the stock market, I can see the business sense in sustainable whaling.

As for eating whale. Anyone who ate margarine during the whaling era almost certainly ate whale as the whale oil was mainly used by Australian margarine manufacturers in their product. I know that for certain because after I finished with the whaling company I was employed by a margarine manufacturer as a production manager.

 

[Sdajii]

IFocus: The media love bad news. Our fisheries are in a mess, obviously, but while we happily overfish finned species, we avoid some populations (particularly anything which is a sea mammal) even if they are breeding like flies.

I'm fairly sure nioka hasn't stepped inside a box and stayed there since he stopped working in the whaling industry. No doubt he still takes an interest and stays up to date. He certainly sounds like he does. The information is out there if you care to look further than the mainstream media or the biased publicity sites. However, if it isn't sensationalist, most people don't want to bother looking.

Mountain gorillas are not stable enough to be harvested sustainably. They are suffering from habitat loss, are already being over hunted and are endangered (actually endagered, not like the pretend endangered status of many whales). If you're going to use an extreme example to make a point, it might work better if you choose one that makes sense. Primates are hunted for food in many areas, the locals see no problem, and when it is sustainable no one kicks up a fuss. Even in the case of primates the cuddle factor doesn't generally stand in the way (probably because primates other than humans aren't common in western countries, and when food is scarce, even you or I wouldn't be too squeamish about tucking into monkey stew). Have you ever gone a few days without eating? I have, and I tell you what, you will be willing to expand your menu in that situation. That's a common reality for many people outside the western world, and in the not too distant future, it will be for us too, or if not, our children.

You complain about people wanting to kiss Japanese butt. No one is doing that. We aren't helping them, we just aren't stopping them. If a resource is there and there is no reason for them not to utilise it, someone is going to. If someone else wants to claim to own the whales, they can use them. If everyone who owns the whales want to vote on it and they choose to leave them alone due to the cuddly factor, they need to actively protect them. Ever seen what happens when a law goes unenforced for too long? I am not kissing Japanese butt, I think we need to wake up and use the whales ourselves. What will end up happening is we will run out of food and at some point probably end up wiping out the whales in desperation.

You say that fisheries are in danger but we are all oblivious. This is true of many species of fish, but while we exterminate some in the face of indifference, others proliferate because we refuse to eat them. I would rather eat a few whales and a few fish rather than a lot of fish and no whales, with the result of the fish being wiped out and the whales then being turned to out of necessity, and then wiped out because there is nothing else left. If you ignore the cuddly factor, it is plainly obvious that we're silly to leave something massive in the ocean to swim around eating what we could eat, rather than eating that, and the big thing itself. If you genuinely care about the collapse of fisheries, why aren't you complaining about the overfishing of finned fish, and advocating a switch to seals and whales to make up the gap? In time, this would result in an increase of the amount of food we could pull out of the ocean for ourselves, and protect biodiversity.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Sdajii, I can understand your beliefs based on any species not endangered being fair game. Trouble is, we left the caves tens of thousands of years ago. Modern man is focused on farming food for human consumption and food that has been farmed for thousands of years. Doing this better is the way forward.

You talk of upcoming food shortage problems. Have a look in the "out of date" food bins at coles and woolworths and tell me there is going to be a food shortage. Modern societies waste massive amounts of food every day!

With the evolution of intelligent beings; the balance within nature is sadly up to us. Leave the wildlife be.

 

[Sdajii]

Sdajii, I can understand your beliefs based on any species not endangered being fair game. Trouble is, we left the caves tens of thousands of years ago. Modern man is focused on farming food for human consumption and food that has been farmed for thousands of years. Doing this better is the way forward.

You talk of upcoming food shortage problems. Have a look in the "out of date" food bins at coles and woolworths and tell me there is going to be a food shortage. Modern societies waste massive amounts of food every day!

With the evolution of intelligent beings; the balance within nature is sadly up to us. Leave the wildlife be.

So are you suggesting that we completely ignore the entire ocean as a food source? That is utterly ridiculous! The ocean covers two thirds of the surface of the planet, is extremely productive, and 99% of it can not be used for aquaculture. Are you saying that we should stop eating seafood? Do you know how many people would die if we did that?

You may believe that farming food is ethical and wild harvest is not, but... um... actually, if that's what you think I doubt there is any point in discussing it with you. Yeah, no worries, in some magical way it is somehow more ethical to wipe out an ecosystem and turn a stable, biodiverse area into an unstable monoculture. Ever visited a pig farm? A chicken farm? I dare you to do so and tell me that farming animals is more ethical than wild harvest. Goodness! Human ignorance is staggering. What's it like having a firmly held opinion based on absolutely nothing but imagination? Are you simply living in fantasy land in order to try to convince yourself that you're not actually having an impact on the planet or something?

So, because we're wasting food now we're never going to run out of food? This is even more absurd than saying we should only eat farmed food. People used to waste oil, it was cheap, it was abundant, they seemed to think it would never run out. People used to say 512k of RAM would always be enough for any computer. People used to think that water was always going to be super abundant. Yeast in a bottle of sugary water gobbles it up like it will never run out... up until the point where it actually does. History tells us that we are about as stupid as yeast, and you are confirming that many have not learned. The fact that something is abundant today does not mean it always will be.

If you don't want humans to stop changing the balance of 'nature', stop eating, stop using electricity, stop breathing. You know the building you're in right now? It wasn't always in a city, it was once wilderness, with wild animals running around. You know that land your food grows on? It was once wilderness, with wild animals running around. You know that rubbish you put into the bin at home? It ends up in a rubbish dump which was once wilderness. Know what happens when you go to the toilet? You know that computer you're using right now? It comes from a factory, which itself uses water from dams, minerals from mines... You know that electricity you're using, it comes from... maybe you get the point. When we're up against the wall, at least there will be the comfort that people like you finally get it.

 

[Sean K]

With the evolution of intelligent beings; the balance within nature is sadly up to us. Leave the wildlife be.

I think we've tipped the scales over already and we can not help but effect nature. I think I read somewhere that 3 billion was a sustainable number of humans coexisting on the planet. Might have been a pluck, but we might need a good culling one day unless we start drastically changing the way we live.

 

[Mofra]

I think we've tipped the scales over already and we can not help but effect nature. I think I read somewhere that 3 billion was a sustainable number of humans coexisting on the planet. Might have been a pluck, but we might need a good culling one day unless we start drastically changing the way we live.

Less than a billion was quoted as the maximum number of people we can support in the 17th century. Fact is there is enough food to feed current & existing numbers of people, however the distribution of resources is the major problem.

 

[Ageo]

unless we start drastically changing the way we live.

There are many thousands of animals each yr that we cull and leave to rot which are perfectly good for human consumption. Perhaps consuming them would be a start.

 

[Agentm]

In part you can blame the greenies for the pine forrests and the loss of many koala fodder. By the continual theft from the foresty department of native forrests for national parks they have forced the forestry industry towards,clear felling, monoculture and pine trees. If sustainable harvesting of native forrests had been promoted then there would still be more native forests. Same could apply to whaling. The whale watch industry creates no value apart from entertainment. You cant be entertained if you are starving. only food can do that. I whalc consumes 5000lbs food a day. One whale equals 20 tonnes of food.

At one stage in my early career I was hired by the royal family in Tonga to design a whaling station for Tonga with the main aim to supply food for the Tongans. I also did the same for the Cook Islands. The jobs fell through because of the demise of the whales.

P.S. The Tongans never paid their bill.

nioka

i understand whales consume vast quantities of food, but is it daily?

a whale will feed only in certain zones and from what i understand will stop feeding and live almost entirely on the vast reserves stored in its bulk,

its fair to say whales dont consume daily, but have periods when they are feeding and storing up reserves? is that correct?

 

[Sdajii]

There are many thousands of animals each yr that we cull and leave to rot which are perfectly good for human consumption. Perhaps consuming them would be a start.

An obvious suggestion. It is an insane waste at the moment. The resources we squander are huge.

Agentm: One way or another, massive animals like whales don't grow up and continue living without eating massive amounts of food, whether they eat every day or once a month. Different whales have different strategies. Some eat seals, some plankton, some eat massive giant squid, some eat basically anything. Some more often, some less often, some are highly seasonal, some not so. All massive animals eat massive amounts of food though, and regardless of ecological strategy, no whale is an exception.

 

[Wysiwyg]

So are you suggesting that we completely ignore the entire ocean as a food source? That is utterly ridiculous! The ocean covers two thirds of the surface of the planet, is extremely productive, and 99% of it can not be used for aquaculture. Are you saying that we should stop eating seafood? Do you know how many people would die if we did that?

No. I love seafood BUT I only take what I will eat. The problem exists when too many of me do the same thing. As was pointed out in another post it is the numbers of people and more precisely the area of land or sea that is needed to sustain those numbers. Reading your logic here it is about taking more and more. A cure rather than a prevention.

You may believe that farming food is ethical and wild harvest is not, but... um... actually, if that's what you think I doubt there is any point in discussing it with you.

Yes I am conservation minded so no need to discuss this.

Yeah, no worries, in some magical way it is somehow more ethical to wipe out an ecosystem and turn a stable, biodiverse area into an unstable monoculture. Ever visited a pig farm? A chicken farm? I dare you to do so and tell me that farming animals is more ethical than wild harvest.

Yes I (still) do think it is right to farm animals and plants for human consumption. The conditions in which they are grown is an ongoing battle in some parts of the world but dignity and decency, although silly human traits as you may perceive, will ensure the inhumane treatment of farmed animals is discouraged and/or punished. As a boy I fed our wild pigs in a pen, fed our chooks and inevitably watched them killed, scraped, plucked, strung up, cut open, gutted and carved up.

So, because we're wasting food now we're never going to run out of food?

The wasted food would first become less to non-existent before any food shortage situation arises. If you see this start to happen let me know, otherwise keep your abstract thoughts in check.

This is even more absurd than saying we should only eat farmed food. People used to waste oil, it was cheap, it was abundant, they seemed to think it would never run out. People used to say 512k of RAM would always be enough for any computer. People used to think that water was always going to be super abundant. Yeast in a bottle of sugary water gobbles it up like it will never run out... up until the point where it actually does. History tells us that we are about as stupid as yeast, and you are confirming that many have not learned. The fact that something is abundant today does not mean it always will be.

Again abstract to support the initial comment of which you have no evidence. You could save yourself some time by supporting your claim of food shortage in our or next of kin's life with some evidence instead of abstract comparisons that camouflage your lack of knowledge.

If you don't want humans to stop changing the balance of 'nature', stop eating, stop using electricity, stop breathing. You know the building you're in right now? It wasn't always in a city, it was once wilderness, with wild animals running around. You know that land your food grows on? It was once wilderness, with wild animals running around. You know that rubbish you put into the bin at home? It ends up in a rubbish dump which was once wilderness. Know what happens when you go to the toilet? You know that computer you're using right now? It comes from a factory, which itself uses water from dams, minerals from mines... You know that electricity you're using, it comes from... maybe you get the point. When we're up against the wall, at least there will be the comfort that people like you finally get it.

Oh I get it alright. Human being (mind) is the most wantonly destructive organism on the planet.

 

[nioka]

nioka

i understand whales consume vast quantities of food, but is it daily?

a whale will feed only in certain zones and from what i understand will stop feeding and live almost entirely on the vast reserves stored in its bulk,

its fair to say whales dont consume daily, but have periods when they are feeding and storing up reserves? is that correct?

Certainly not daily but the "fuel" their body uses daily is supplemented from fat stored from days of heavy feeding. On the treck north a humpback whale will yeild an average of 10 tonnes of oil. On the return voyage the yield is around 7 tonnes. The feeding they do on the migration doesn't replace all the blubber. They do not stop feeding if there is feed around.

 

[nioka]

There are many thousands of animals each yr that we cull and leave to rot which are perfectly good for human consumption. Perhaps consuming them would be a start.

You start on the road kill. I'll stick to my quality beef,chicken,fish and lamb.

 

[Sdajii]

Wysiwyg: You win, there is no food shortage coming, there's no point worrying about that until we go to the supermarket and there's nothing to buy. Until then, you're right, if I don't give you evidence, there is no problem! Hooray!

We can all eat only the seafood we catch ourselves which makes it okay because it is wrong to harvest wild food (??????? care to explain that one? I will accept "I was smoking dope while I posted it" as an answer).

Apparently, the fact that I want to sustainably harvest food from the sea rather than knock down rainforest and farm cattle on the land until it is desert, then knock down some more, etc, means that I am interested in destroying the planet. While you would rather leave resources sitting around unused, while we force the land to produce more food than it already is, despite the fact that it is already producing food at a completely unsustainable level, forcing more land clearing (ie, the extermination of ecosystems and the extinction of species) and that makes you a conservationist. Okay, again, you win.

You want to mock me for pointing out that people are short sighted, and also say that we needn't worry about a food shortage until the point where we actually see a shortage of food on the shelf at the supermarket. Wow, point taken, again, you win.

You ask ME for evidence that a food shortage is coming? I suppose if I said something crazy like "Without air and water we would all die" you would want evidence for that too. I find it very difficult to believe that you are genuinely that ignorant.

Yes, humans are the most destructive species on the planet, although only because we have the power to be. Our methods are basically the same as any species, the majority of us lack the foresight to manage our situation until after the problem has started smacking us in the face, and if someone points out a coming problem (a human capability) the majority act like animals and figure that if it isn't already hurting us, we have no reason to think about it. Enjoy your sugar while it lasts.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Wysiwyg:

Sdajii: You use comparative language which unfortunately doesn't make you a clever human being nor does it provide any pertinent information. You jump to conclusions, assume people believe certain things and assume people are ignorant of worldly events. For example ....

You ask ME for evidence that a food shortage is coming? I suppose if I said something crazy like "Without air and water we would all die" you would want evidence for that too. I find it very difficult to believe that you are genuinely that ignorant.

See how you use an abstract comparison to present your case? It doesn't make you the smart human you think you are.
and this ....

You want to mock me for pointing out that people are short sighted, and also say that we needn't worry about a food shortage until the point where we actually see a shortage of food on the shelf at the supermarket. Wow, point taken, again, you win.

Yes, I win. Your visionary talents have come to the fore, expanding on the boundless knowledge of human affairs including dietary preferences, food supply/demand data and sustainable culling of wild animals.

Yes, humans are the most destructive species on the planet, although only because we have the power to be.

Insightful.

Our methods are basically the same as any species,

Wrong! Humans take more food than they need (to the point of and to extinction), use more habitat than they need, use resources wastefully and pollute the environment.

the majority of us lack the foresight to manage our situation until after the problem has started smacking us in the face, and if someone points out a coming problem (a human capability) the majority act like animals and figure that if it isn't already hurting us, we have no reason to think about it.

Yes that I do believe. The Industrial Revolution has a cost though [hint] the real problem is exponential population growth. The multiplication factor.

p.s. ... I have led this thread way off topic so I am required to track back to "Whale wars"

 

[IFocus]

An obvious suggestion. It is an insane waste at the moment. The resources we squander are huge.

Agentm: One way or another, massive animals like whales don't grow up and continue living without eating massive amounts of food, whether they eat every day or once a month. Different whales have different strategies. Some eat seals, some plankton, some eat massive giant squid, some eat basically anything. Some more often, some less often, some are highly seasonal, some not so. All massive animals eat massive amounts of food though, and regardless of ecological strategy, no whale is an exception.

Sdajii the most efficient way of food production is through agriculture that is in terms of energy efficiency and sustainability.

This has been the very basis for rapid expansion of populations across the ages not hunting.

The Japanese are not going to starve if they don't hunt whales and those that will starve certainly wont be getting any whale meat to sustain them.

I am sure few here have actually been very close to whales in the wild, their size and grandeur is some thing way beyond the so called cuddly factor IMHO.

 

[IFocus]

I think we've tipped the scales over already and we can not help but effect nature. I think I read somewhere that 3 billion was a sustainable number of humans coexisting on the planet. Might have been a pluck, but we might need a good culling one day unless we start drastically changing the way we live.

Unfortunately this is the real problem