I used to think moderate whale hunting was acceptable, until I read these comments from a Reuters article:
[quote] “In every other food production business there are rules. For whaling there are none,” Davies of the London-based WSPA told Reuters. He said farm animals like pigs or cows faced a more humane death in a slaughterhouse.
[The report] says harpooning methods were little changed in over a century and quoted from a British ship’s surgeon, Harald Lillie, from a whaling trip to the Antarctic in 1947:
"If we can imagine a horse having two or three explosive spears stuck in its stomach and being made to pull a butcher’s truck through the streets of London while it pours blood into the gutter, we shall have an idea of the present method of killing.
“The gunners themselves admit that if whales could scream, the industry would stop for nobody would be able to stand it.” [/quote]
Seriously, I wish the Navy would go out and sink every whaling ship they can find and then machinegun the survivors in the water. This is the 21st century and there is absolutely NO REASON for this barbaric practice to continue. And screw so-called Japanese cultural values. :raspberry:
(And I’m perfectly aware other nations have whaling fleets…send them ALL to the bottom. I just hate the Japanese wrapping “culture” around murder.)
Reminds me of the old debate about rice and how Japan could not allow imports because of cultural factors until the US negotiator suggested the US might be willing to consider autos as “culturally” important to the US since the industry has been part of the landscape of Detroit for nearly a century. Funny, don’t recall what ever was the final result of those negotiations.
Wow. second time today I wholeheartedly agree with Blueface. Must be something I ate.
yes, I would support sinking all whaling ships. at the same time, make the US stop using the ultrastrong sonar equipment that may or may not be causing further deaths of marine mammals. the cold war is over, there are no phantom submarines lurking in the depths waiting all these years to launch an attack on Georgia. There is no reason for this stuff.
They want to scream “Aghhhhhh!” but it comes out “glub glub glub”
Come on, these things have the intelligence of pigs. And what do we really need whales for, anyway? I hope I can try some of their meat before they go extinct, though.
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]They want to scream “Aghhhhhh!” but it comes out “glub glub glub”
Come on, these things have the intelligence of pigs. And what do we really need whales for, anyway? I hope I can try some of their meat before they go extinct, though.[/quote]
If the lack of intelligence will be used to determine whether one should be subjected to a tortuous death, I’d be nervous if I were you.
BTW, the pot-bellied pig is considered to be a very intelligent animal.
But seriously, killing animals for meat almost always involves subjecting them to painful deaths. I mean, how did you think the chicken got to your table–blindfolded and marched to a guillotine while drums rolled? I know that sounds like something an animal rights person would say, but actually I’m comfortable with that (thought I wouldn’t want to tour the meat factories, thanks very much).
Now of all the species of animal threatened with extinction, why do you suppose people fixate on whales? Because they’re big and pretty, I guess. And of course the New Agers think they have human-level intelligence. (If whales–or pigs–are so smart, then why do we eat them instead of vice versa?)
The anti-whaling industry, the bane of traditional life forms and societies in the high north. Remember Iceland, Greenland and the Faroes, not to mention Norway?
Greenpeace is a business, sucking its blood (money) out of gullible American citydwellers, who have nerer seen an animal being slaughtered. Remember the gruesome pictures of baby seals being clubbed? That was a pretty neat piece of acting, with actors paid by guess who?
Not to mention their pathetic campaign against the culling of kangaroos, where the graphic “evidence” was once again manufactured by greenpeace themselves.
They used to depend partly on whaling, and Iceland has for the last 50+ years shown that they are moew than able to cull their whale populations in a responsible and long-term manner. (IE, then only fire explosive spears into a few whales, not every one they see).
Responsible hunting and sustainable consumption of renewable resources such as whales should be encouraged - not protested against by a bunch of city slickers.
The most pathetic thing here is to read Blueface’s post. Bleeding heart liberal on the old days or too many beers in your Bali bar?
Ralph Waldo Emerson said “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” As far as I can tell, there are basically two ways to be genuinely “consistent” when it comes to the ‘animals for food’ issue:
Prohibit the use of any animal for food. (To be really consistent, we probably ought to outlaw the use of all living things for food - I mean, who knows whether orange trees feel pain when we pluck their oranges, eh? However, I think even Vegan vegetarians would have trouble subsisting in this case, so we’ll probably have to stick with banning animals.)
Allow the use of any and all living things as food. Monkey brains? I like mine fresh! Tiger penis? Gets me all fired up! Dog meat? MMMMMMM. Placenta soup? Good for the skin! Oh wait, you don’t want to allow humans into that? Hm
[quote=“Vay”]Having noted your acquiescence to my above premise and given up your quest for foolish consistency, I now submit that we stop hunting whales because: a) whales are astoundingly beautiful, intelligent wild mammals with highly-developed nervous systems b) they’ve already been hunted to the brink of extinction, so how about giving the poor beasts a break? and c) there are already plenty of animals which have been bred and raised domestically as food for thousands of years.
[/quote]
For me the arguments that hold weight are primarily the endangerment one (although do note that NOT ALL whales are endangered) and the cruelty aspect, though that would also preclude battery hen farming and I’m sure the meat production industry in general isn’t all that ‘humane’, even if there are rules.
Beauty, intelligence and wildness - deer are beautiful and wild, pigs are smart. Still dinner. And while there are plenty of animals already raised for food, so are there thousands of plants. One could equally do away with meat altogether if that were the argument.
But I basically agree - it’s all an emotional thing. I won’t eat deer or rabbit, and that’s emotional, not logical, since I will eat lambs, which are pretty cute. I don’t see anything wrong with eating whales as such. I think it’s as a valid a ‘cultural’ thing to do as eating beef. I don’t see people giving up beef because Hindis consider the cow sacred. But if the whale species hunted was not on the endangered list, and it was done to reasonable ‘standards’, I don’t see why not.
AFAIK its only minkes that are hunted in any numbers these days and they’re not endangered.
Far, far worse in environmental terms is the sea life killed and wasted as “by-catch” and the fragile nature of some of the fish species now within the reach of commercial fishermen thanks to improved technology.
That really is a problem of monumental proportions, but since the creatures aren’t considered “cute” or “intelligent” by the PETA types they don’t get the publicity that, say, the whale-catchers get.
This is not to say I agree with whaling, just that I think there are far more pressing problems that should be addressed with regard to ocean resources.
Ooh, that struck a nerve - orange roughy, anyone? They’re a fish that live a kilometre below the surface, live up to 150 years, and don’t even breed until 20-40 years old. They’re fished under quota now, but still under pressure because of how slowly they reproduce and grow. I did stop eating them out of guilt once I was more aware of the situation but my, they were delicious
Ooh, that struck a nerve - orange roughy, anyone? They’re a fish that live a kilometre below the surface, live up to 150 years, and don’t even breed until 20-40 years old. They’re fished under quota now, but still under pressure because of how slowly they reproduce and grow. I did stop eating them out of guilt once I was more aware of the situation but my, they were delicious [/quote]
Thaat’s exaactly the species thaat were in my mind when I wrote thaat post.
You haven’t seen a DVD set produced by the BBC and narrated by David Attenborough called “The Blue Planet” have you? There are a couple of hour-long programmes on it that make for very sobering viewing indeed, and one includes a segment on the orange roughy.
The thing is, that’s only one out of many species that are in exactly the same position.
[quote=“sandman”]Thaat’s exaactly the species thaat were in my mind when I wrote thaat post.
You haven’t seen a DVD set produced by the BBC and narrated by David Attenborough called “The Blue Planet” have you?[/quote]
Actually, no - it’s an issue that’s been discussed in the Australian ‘food press’, along with the caviar restrictions.
“Why should we back down?” said Shuya Nakatsuka, a Fisheries Agency official in charge of Japan’s international whaling agreements. “It is those who oppose whaling who should change.”
An animal only need be culled when it’s population exceeds it’s habitat. Since the worlds oceans are not in any danger of being overfilled with whales, I see no sense with this argument whatsoever.
Pigs, chickens, and cattle are domesticated animals specifically bred for the purpose of human consumption.
Why don’t you ask this ‘researcher’ what is going to happen to the many tons of whale meat after their ‘specimens’ are blown up with explosive harpoons? Hmm…Let me guess, dinner anyone?
You also mentioned that Canadian baby fur seal hunting was a farce set up by Greenpeace?..
Sandman had a good point earlier saying that there are more important tag species than whales. But on the other hand, is there any REAL reason in 2004 to consume whale meat?
