They want to Hunt Whales Again
 

:|

Whaling commission backs resuming hunt
ADAM RANEY

Associated Press

FRIGATE BAY, ST. KITTS — The International Whaling Commission narrowly approved a resolution in support of resuming commercial whaling, but pro-whaling nations still lack the numbers needed to overturn a 20-year-old ban.

With a vote Sunday of 33-32, Japan and a collection of supporters in the Caribbean and Africa pushed through the symbolic resolution saying the moratorium on commercial whaling was meant to be temporary and is no longer needed.

Although another vote supported by 75 per cent of the 70 IWC members would be required to overturn the ban, pro-whaling nations said they were energized by the resolution. They have argued that the IWC should return to its roots as a group that manages the world's whale population, rather than trying to prevent the killing of whales altogether.

“We will not take revenge against anti-whaling nations,” said Joji Morishita, chief spokesman for the Japanese delegation. “This is the beginning of a rational process of returning the IWC to a management organization.”

Japan and other pro-whaling countries, which include Norway, Iceland and Russia, were to hold a meeting Monday to set a strategy for recasting the organization's mission.

The United States, Australia and New Zealand voted against the measure.

The pro-whaling countries had lost four previous and more significant votes at the meeting. But with each vote, conservationists have become increasingly worried that pro-whaling nations will eventually control the commission.

Delegates from small Caribbean and African countries said the resolution — the first of its kind since the ban — was needed to force the IWC to take up its original mandate of managing whale hunts — not banning them altogether. The backers have been pushing to lift the ban, saying it was a way to protect fish stocks from whales and give their small islands food security.

Environmental groups have accused developing nations of voting with Japan in return for money for fisheries projects — which Japan and those countries have repeatedly denied. Pro-whaling nations have spent years encouraging small and developing countries to join the IWC.

Vassili Papastavrou, a whale biologist for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, said he believed nothing would change following the vote since Japan and Iceland already hunt whales under the auspices of scientific research — which critics call a sham — and Norway ignores the 1986 IWC ban altogether.

“Vote or no vote, 2,400 whales will be killed in the next twelve months,” he said.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...International/

Well, I was surprised when I posted about the feeling of disgust I had towards the Canadian Seal hunt that a great many people didn't not share my sympathies towards animals.

Well, now it appears that they are going to resume hunting whales again.

I am greatly disappointed to hear that such majestic and intelligent gentle creatures are on the agenda to be hunted down once again.

If the Japanese push this through, they can be assured that this camper will never buy a japanese car, or any other Japanese product again.

I don't care less about culture, saving fish stocks (absurd), or whatever other excuse they come up with.

As long as the whale population is closely monitored to make sure it is staying at a maintainable level I don't really care whether they hunt them or not.

As far as I know, a lot of these countries are basically ignoring the rules anyway, so if switching from ban to management will get them to listen, then do it.

I find the whole idea of hunting whales & seals nauseating!

I don't understand what the big deal is with whales. I mean they are just animals like cows, chickens, etc. I don't want them to be extinct or anything, but if someone wants to hunt them then I say go for it.

I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn I am sure you would be interested in.

Quoted for truth. And I think a boycott on Japanese products would be absurdity if you are wanting to take a stand.

Really?

Ask the French wine makers about the effects of American boycotts on their product.

The 56th meeting of the IWC (International Whaling Commission) is due to take place next week, 19th to the 22nd July in Sorrento, Italy.

Oceans in crisis
The oceans are in a very different state to when the IWC was formed in the 1940's to manage whale stocks . Whales, and other cetaceans, now face an array of threats; it is estimated that some 300,000 cetaceans die as a result of human activity each year. Most are innocent victims of unsustainable fisheries, and end up as bycatch in fishing nets, but they are also at risk from pollution, severely depleted fish stocks, the effects of climate change and even ship strikes.

Some species and populations, such as the North Atlantic right whale, the baiji, the vaquita and the Western Pacific population of gray whale, are likely to become extinct this century unless drastic action is taken to address the environmental threats responsible.

The IWC and the Conservation Committee
For the first time the IWC will have a Conservation Committee. First established last year in Berlin the Committee could herald a brand new direction for the IWC: switching focus towards a stronger conservation agenda which can evaluate environmental threats and provide strong and meaningful conservation measures. This conservation angle of the IWC was bitterly opposed by the pro-whaling nations and if they gain increases in their voting power this year there could be moves to weaken or even abolish this crucial committee.

The IWC & Vote Buying
As in many recent years the controversial issue of vote buying is still posing a threat to the world's whale populations. Whaling nation governments, such as the Japanese Government, continue their efforts to get pro-whaling decisions passed by offering fisheries aid packages to some of the Commission's poorer countries in return for pro-whaling votes.

A recent paper from a Japanese Government working group states that "As a result of efforts of the Japanese government and industry, the balance of power within the IWC ... has become almost equal[1]." Initiatives that are currently desperately needed to protect whale populations such as the Conservation Committee and Whale Watching subcommittee could be under threat if the pro-whaling nations hijack the IWC to solely promote the interests of commercial whaling.

Southern Ocean Sanctuary under threat
The Southern Ocean Sanctuary undergoes a 10 year review this year after its creation in 1994. The pro-whaling nations are pushing to weaken the status of this sanctuary that is home to a huge proportion of the world's whale populations. Yet even in this sanctuary the blue whale population is a mere 1% of what it was before commercial whaling began. Japan already kills minke whales under the guise of 'science' in these waters, and if the pro-whaling nations had their way they would abolish it entirely.

Whale watching as a solution
Whales are worth a lot more alive than dead; whale watching currently contributes more than US$ 1 billion per year to the economies of coastal states, with 9 million participants each year. Nowhere is the choice between whaling and whale watching clearer than in Iceland, a country that has recently decided to restart 'scientific' whaling. In Iceland, the very whales that are hunted are crucial to the survival of the whale-watching industry - an essential part of Iceland's huge tourist appeal.

> Greenpeace believe whale watching, if managed on sound ecological principles, combines economic, educational, scientific and conservation benefits. Whale watching will be an issue discussed in both the plenary and the Scientific Committee of the IWC.

With this backdrop Greenpeace believes it is crucial that commercial hunting of cetacean species should be stopped and that the IWC use their global reach and scientific expertise to protect and not exploit whales & other cetaceans.

Greenpeace Oceans campaigner Willie Mackenzie said:

"The world's whales are under attack from all sides; from the impacts of fisheries, climate change, pollution and even ship strikes. Whale populations were devastated in the 20th century. Today the IWC has the opportunity to embrace it's conservation agenda and protect the world's last remaining whale populations - and promote truly sustainable alternatives to whaling such as eco-tourism."

Greenpeace will be attending the IWC under observer status and will also have campaigners in the UK and at the IWC venue in Italy available for interview.

Link:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/content...enuPoint=D-H-A

Yea, with today's moral stands on not letting any creature we have a chance at saving get hunted to extiction, or ever protects or endangered really, I don't have much of a problem with it. I drive a Japanese car now, and I will probably drive a Japanese car then.

To me it's about the product not so much the morals, especially if it doesnt violate my morals. Can't say I side with the gushy lefts on damn near anything.

I think it's incredibly stupid to hunt whales if their population has not recovered. I don't see how you can justify hunting an endagered species. Once their population level is higher, you'll get a greater yield and not wipe them off the face of the Earth.

I'm not convinced that the whale population is at a state were you could start hunting them commercially (and the commercial benifits will be greater if you wait). Maybe some species are at a population were it would be feasible, but I heard on the news they wanted to hunt endagered fin whales as well.

The scientific merit of hunting whales is very questionable. The only information that yo u exclusivley obtain from killing a whale is it's age, everything else can be obtained from observation or by collecting feces.

As for the cultural aspect, that is also questionable when they start serving whale burgers to try and re-ignite demand for whale products. There's also a push from this industry to increase the catch to drive down the price of the whale meat to attract more customers.

You can buy whale at sushi shops in Tokyo, it isn't on the menu though, you have to ask for it.

Not hidden at all.

There is a big difference between hunting seals that are plentiful in their populations and hunting whales that are endangered.

The whale hunters, if given their way, will hunt them back to the brink of extinction (and likely beyond).

I see no reason, whatsoever to condone the mass hunting of whales.

Iceland is very concious of their place with regards to over fishing and stocks.

There are 300,000 Icelanders, of which a small percentage of them eat whale meat.

The foundation of their economy is fishing. They understand overfishing the stocks as they have to go out further and further for longer and longer times to get same amounts of catches.

As far as them exporting it, that's a different story since the market for whale meet is large.

Some of these cultures it was something done for generations. Personally, I don't care what any of these countries do about the fishing and whales. The oceans don't belong to anyone, who are we to tell anyone what to do or not to do?

If whale numbers are not plentiful and stable, then I see no reason to sacrifice a species for food--it's not like that's all the Japanese (or anyone else) can eat.

If whale numbers are plentiful and stable, well, I personally could happily live the rest of my life never eating whale meat but I suppose it's not my place to deny that of others.

I don't see that whale numbers have reached that point yet.

And yes, killing whales for "scientific reasons" is a load of bull. They're not friggin' lab rats.

Agreed. Whale populations are not strong and they take a long time to reproduce. It is very easy to cause a species of large, slow breeding animal of low numbers to go extinct. we also have a hard time monitoring whale populations as they are always at sea. Seals, on the other hand, currently have a large, well monitored population and seals breed more quickly and readily than whales.

This is not an emotinal issue, for me, it is a scientific one founded in fact. Hunting whales is monumentally stupid.

ban=black market

management is better.

And that is why there are so few BigBen's around...

*rimshot*

But seriously folks, is there any reason to hunt whales? I remember history, and how whale bones (or was it their teeth or something like that??) was an essential industrial component, as was whale oil used for a thousand different things.

I have never tasted whale meat, but I imagine it would taste pretty gamey.

I don't support whale hunting, but I am not going to go to an extreme length to prevent it. I have faith in the elected officials in office to make the right decision, given all the facts. That is why they are there. They do the work so I don't have to.

I'm gonna ask a question because I just don't know the answer... and don't read into the question.. .

What purpose do whales serve? other than they are kinda cool looking animals, and smart but Free Willy was an annoying movie... Do whales help the environment? I'd imagine they eat a ton of fishies in an area that's already overfished...

All species have a place to balance out nature. Just because people may not understand the importance of brine shrimp, for example, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to wipe them out.

Exactly. For example, you have 3 species of animal in an environment. A large carnivore, a mid size omnivore and a small herbivore. The omnivores eat the small herbivores but never wipe them out because the large carnivore eats enough of the omnivores to keep their populations in check. Balance is maintained.

Man comes to the environment, hunts the large predator to mount its skin and head on a wall somewhere and what happens? The populaton of the omnivores explodes, their being no one to prey on it, and the omnivore goes on to wipe out the small herbivores, dooming itself in the process. This situation has been documented in environments invaded by man in the last few hundred to few thousand years, notably on various islands from Madagascar to Polynesia.

The same thing may occur if whales are destroyed or severely hunted. They are very vulnerable to extinction. The whaling countries all know this, but don't care.

So whales are keeping the dangerous plankton population in check? We kill all the whales, (which doesn't seem to be what the IWC wants to do...), the plankton population increases exponentially and becomes the catalyst for some sea borne cataclysmic event?

I like whales as much as the next guy...All creatures great and small, good karma and all that jazz. There's a certain grace to them and they sing nice, but, in the end, they're still animals and while I think that cruelly killing or killing for fun is pretty distasteful, I have no problem with killing animals in general.

I would think that a large, parliamentary body such as the IWC would know a lot more about whales and the briny sea than me sitting on my butt in a library. So, I'm probably going to trust them when they say 'this needs to be done' regardless of how much I hate those fucking Finns. :)

Would killing them off adversely affect sea environments? Probably, but I don't think that the serve a purpose any more than any other animal (humans included) serves a purpose.

I do agree that eliminating a species will likely affect an ecosystem. I don't think that nature balances itself, nor do I think that all species "have a place". (Other than in the sense that species interact with one another and eliminating one will likely affect another).

From a biological perspective, humans are just one more (particularly powerful) selective force to which other animals must adapt.

From a human perspective, we should probably be careful not to wipe out other species. Eliminating a species may have an adverse affect on us.

And these whaling countries confided this in you?

We have to be careful not to put words in the other parties mouths, just based on our moral view of the situation.

If the populations are healthy I don't have a problem with this at all. However, I doubt the populations are really that great.

And that fact comes from...
I have no problems with whale hunting as long as the hunting is sustainable, something hard to know when all the info that one can find about it in the media comes from Greenpeace, who, in the words of Cartman, are nothing but a bunch a tree hugger hippies.

Yes. Because Cartman is such an authority on Greenpeace...

Exactly. Being that we are not the ones who put whales on this earth, we don't have any right to remove them, or any other creature from exsistance.

What purpose do human being serve?

Do we help the environment?

Hump backs eat plankton by the way.

Haha, he of course isn't, but for the most part, I personally agree with at particular statement, as would a lot of others. Maybe this thread could use a small dose of humor...

http://henrisch.free.fr/jpegs/greenpeace.jpg

You trust very easily.

See, I have been working in the big bad real world for 20 years. I can assure you that everything that happens happens for one reason and one reason only.

Money.

Corporations would sell you dog shit wrapped up as twinkies if they could get away with it. In the corporate world, the ONLY thing that matters is the bottom line. It's all about increasing sales, growing the business and cutting costs. Morality never ever enters the equation. (They might say it does, but I can assure you, it does not.)

The IWC is only interested in one thing. Money.

To trust them to regulate the whale population is akin to trusting the arsonist to run the gas station.

http://www.zacharyemig.com/photos/wi...WhaleSushi.jpg

Mmmmmm whale sushi. I wonder if I can get that with a side of baby seal?

While I'm young yet, and have yet to see more than a small sample of the corporate world, I'm sorry you're so cynical about it. I've worked for several companies that, in addition to "just saying they care" also spend a good amount of time justifying that statement, and a large sum of money as well.

In the end, you're right in that were profits to decrease, those funds would stop going toward good things, but hey, we all gotta make a living right?

But Guthmud makes a very good point. I doubt theres a single person on this board that is a whale/whale breeding expert. We are, for the most part, ignorant of all the details, and spouting off at the mouth based on our morals.

They wanna hunt whales, and be responsible about it? As long as theres a market, go for it.

You're making very extreme parelells where such paralells may not exist.

I find reading so many posts here so utterly disheartening.

I am probably more conservative than most, yet I find the notion of ever hunting whales repugnant.

The logic seems to be, "well, if the population can sustain it, it's ok to hunt them and kill them."

I'm sitting here thinking, how utterly disappointing it is to think that most of you are ok with hunting and killing a species that is intelligent, capable of thought, capable of communication between members, and is gentle and beautiful.

I am sure that I will hear, "well, how is this any different than killing a cow for dinner?" My response is that it is different. It just is.

I seem to be the only romantic on this board. Most of you seem to be purely based on mathmatics and logic.

Don't worry kiddo, you'll find out. You mentioned sitting in a library, so i assume you are at college or university somewhere. It's not being cynical, it's called reality. I deal with it every day.

I mentioned sitting in a library??

Actually, I'm currently sitting in Kansas City Interning at a fortune 500 country, but close!

And I am a total supporter of reality, but the reality is, it doesn't hurt you one bit for some japanese man to be eating whale for dinner if it's his preferance. At one point or another, that was the single biggest, most efficient form of food there was on that tiny little chain of islands. After all, they can't have cows there. They would graze all the land available out in months.

Why not a little local sea cow? Or whale, whatever's handy.

I am not a fan of whale hunting.

Looks like it's time for me to join Greenpeace again.

Personally, I'm not fond of whale hunting (or dolphin hunting, or non-human primate hunting or human primate hunting:) ), but I understand why people hunt whales and why people eat whales. I think that it is reasonable as long as the population can sustain it. It's what I believe. I don't think that it is any less valid than a belief based on romantic notions of non-human animals.

I've been out of college for over a decade and I still find this kind of language mildly offensive. Kiddo? Reality is reality. 18 year olds deal with reality just as much as 40 year olds. It's just a different reality from yours. Age alone doesn't make someone's opinion less valid.

Wow.

Well... when they domesticate the whale and have feed lots for whales... let's talk about the equivalence of whales to cows. Until then, realize the whales are still an endangered species.

Greed and avarice will hunt them to extinction. It is always, "what's one more going to hurt?" until they are no more...

You know, I'd love a little passenger pigeon pie... What's one more going to hurt?

If people want to be ignorant let them... in years to come they will see the effects of their lack of caring. Perhaps we should have open season on humans as well? We as a species are grossly overpopulated. After all we are only animals like cows and whales right?

Just like the tobacco companies knew smoking was bad.

I think there are enough articles one can Google to see that.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/23/whales/

Yup - the sky used to be black with passenger pigeons. Flocks of tens of millions of fastbreeding, widespread birds. Imagine what happens to a few thousand whales that take years to produce litters when hunting resumes (not that the Japs and Norwegians don't already do it under a variety of excuses).

To me people's ignorance and lack of respect for animals and their lives is perhaps the greatest tragedy of all.

We as a human race seem to love the fact that we have the capabilities and the power to hunt and kill whatever it is we please. Be it human or animal, just because we can, we do.

Having the resources to be able to do something does not justify the act itself.

The more I think about this...

Why not:

Elephant
Lion
Gorilla
Leopard
Giant Panda



It's just meat... let's eat!!!

I'm just curious of what you think of the tribes that have hunted whales for generations, never depleting stocks, using all the parts etc. Some of the tribes revere the animals with such reverence and respect .

Whales are cute. They have those big eyes, they are sleek and graceful, they sing songs.

I want to save the endangered Guatemalan Tree Slug. You too can help this animal by going to the Guatemalan rain forest and picking up Tree Slugs and putting them in a basket. You see, it takes several years for mating pairs to get together, due to their slow speed. By trapping them in baskets and then releasing them in a pile at night, you help the breeding population immensely.

Of course, that would take effort and money to save an ugly animal. Not as sexy as whales.

Oh, and to all those posters who say that healthy populations should be open for hunting, I ask this: What about over-population? In that case, there should be an open season on humans... Killing a few billion of us would help the environment more than saving whales. Or any other endangered species.

I'm sitting in a library...because I work in a library, which, by the by, isn't just a safe haven for starry-eyed, college-age idealists and damn, dirty hippies. Of course, money makes the world go round and I'm sure it's doing its part to keep the IWC chugging along; I never suggested otherwise, but if we were to write off the notion of doing..well, anything simply because someone might make a buck off it, then I imagine we'd all probably still be hanging out in caves eating grubs. Then again, you've got 20 years experience in the 'big, bad, real world' so, what the fuck all do I know?

I don't know much about whaling, but if 30 some odd countries think it might be a good idea to start hunting whales again, then maybe it might be a good idea to start hunting whales again. The idea here seems to be conservation. If culling the whale herd responsibly serves as a catalyst to bring illegal whaling into line, and works to serve as compromise between the whaling industry and the conservationists, then kudos to the IWC.

Gentle and beautiful? Sure, but how are whales any different from any other species that exhibit similar characteristics? Species, I might add, that we seem to have no problem eating and working in the fields.

Exactly. Here's a list of extinct animals (well, a list of lists...) from wikipedia that have gone missing under our stewardship. Well, just over the last 500 years or so...not too much on record before that. I guess we couldn't be bothered.

I think we do a pretty good job of culling the herd ourselves without setting a date for open season. In any event, that presumes that humans and animals should be subject to the same rules.

This is where this issue takes a double standard for me. If a person is starving, has no other means to have food, and makes use of every possible part of the animal.....who am I to say not to kill it?? Odviously if an animal is respected in the way that you mentioned then there is not much of a worry for extinction.

I really think that is an exception though and RARELY occurs in this day and age within our modern society.

baby seals are the best. I was watching a show on polar bears the other night and finally, after 30 minutes the bear finally got one of those baby seals. He looked like he was having fun eating it. He looked like he could have used a coke.

What I don't understand is that usually the same people who fear the world is going to end soon because of global warming and human actions also want to save the whales and whatnot. I ask, whats the fucking point? If the worlds going to end hunt whales all you want because they're gonna die in the sulfuric ocean anyway.

Look, I din't say they should be hunted to extinction. People poach them already. They arn't going to poach more if its legal. If it's legal, and we (and I do not mean us, or the US) place restrictions on it, I don't see the overall problem.

I realize I can't compare them directly to cows, but hey... Food is food. I hunt deer, and eat those... Does that make me a morally wrong person? No. Granted deer can now be compared to pests, they produce so rapidly, but still. I don't feel it unjustified to eat something else, regardless of what it is.

Keep in mind that in the middle east you could be shot for eating a cow... At least whales aren't religiously sacred!

And btw If you offered me each and every one of those cooked on a plater, I would try every single one of them. If they tasted good, I'd ask for more, if not I wouldn't.

Of course, BigBen is right...

Out of context, but... If you want to help all those endagered species, the best idea would be eliminating humans. We kill more shit through building cities than we do through hunting.

Intersting the IWC already addresses this issue directly:

I don't have a problem with "aboriginal subsistence whaling" that is an entirely different thing to the industrial harvest of whales.

Much agreed Charlatan. There is a fine line between "NEED" and "GREED" in this world.

Australia is to present what it says is proof that Japan's scientific whaling programme is cruel, to the meeting of the International Whaling Commission.

Environmentalists who filmed Japanese boats whaling in the Antarctic say that some animals took 30 minutes to die. Japan says these cases are exceptions.

Caribbean nations have criticised the West for a "colonial" attitude.

Australian Environment Minister Ian Campbell is due to present the report during Sunday's deliberations.

Early sessions on Sunday saw a fourth straight defeat for Japan, this time on a motion calling for the abolition of the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary.

Japan currently conducts "scientific" whaling there as it is permitted to do under IWC rules, but commercial hunting in the Antarctic would not be possible while the sanctuary exists.

Time to death

During the last Antarctic whaling season, which saw a doubling of Japan's annual "scientific" catch to just over 1,000, Greenpeace filmed a number of kills at close range.

It's simply impossible for the harpooner to hit the whale close enough to the brain to ensure a reliable clean kill in all cases

Vassili Papastavrou, Ifaw
The footage has now been analysed by scientists working with another conservation group, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw).

"We found that for one whale the time to death was over half an hour; we found that the average time to death was 10 minutes," said Ifaw's Vassili Papastavrou, "and in two out of the 16 occasions, asphyxiation was the likely form of death."

The whales were asphyxiated, he said, because harpoons entered their bodies near the tail and the animals were held upside down in the water.

Link to rest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5091674.stm

You know, lots of you throw the term 'whale' around as if there was only one type of whale and that it was endangered.

This is obviously not the case.

There are at least 76 species of whale.

Ten are protected by the endangered species act.

Did anyone complaining in this thread, think to ask, WHAT whales are in question here?

I detect more of a 'I don't like hunting' than a 'I have a clue about whales' vibe going on here.

I have no desire to eat whale meat, but I am not going to let my local bias decide what is best for the rest of the world because I find the thought of eating them 'icky'.

I find it also disgusting that Asians eat dogs and that Europeans eat horses, lets work on whining about that too.

Yea I was going to say do anyone know what whales they are talking about
I know they aleast talking about the minke whale and somewhere i read there was a population around 130000 species.
Then there is the pilot whale which tastes veery good. I have had some!! and I swear any of you would not know it was whale NO you would say wow thats got to be the best piece of beef I have every had (I know thats what I said when I had it).
Anyway it has been interesting reading ppl's ideas and opinion.

Just dont trust everything GP says they have more than an agenda and will squeev the truth cheat, steal and lie to their benefit ONLY

I third Ustwo and Peladinho...

I also feel that this thread has degenerated to an argument, where very few peoples minds are open. It's more of people shouting they're moral beliefs, and trying to push the facts to the back side. Or using just some of them to support their beliefs, rather than look at the whole picture.

Hell, most deer taken down in legal hunting die of asphixiation... How you say!? Because you lodge an arrow or bullet into the kill zone, which is dominated by the lungs. Ideally they bleed out, and die that way, but most times they drown in the blood pouring into the lungs.

According to a hunters safety course, after you take a deer, you are supposed to wait 30 minutes to an hour before tracking the deer, because they can take that long to completly bleed out, and die.

No matter what, hunting of anything is a violent thing. Regular fish get killed by asphixiation too, how do you think those fish netted in, or hooked, and tossed in a bin die?? They drown in the air of course.

The non whaling nations seem to survive just fine without hunting whales. I love all animals but I understand the fact that as a human I am a predator, so I am not above using animal related products (foods, medicne, etc.) but it seems that there are substitutes, synthetic and natural, for whale products that the killing of whales seems obsolete. Why kill an animal that is already dying out?

Sorry, but how is Greenpeace benefitting themselves? Are they lining their pockets with filthy lucre? Are the people in Greenpeace living in palatial estates? Are they seeking fame? I don't understand what you are saying here...

If you *are* suggesting that they use any method available to forward their cause, then I might agree with you. But I would like to throw that back and ask how that differs from *any* corporation out there. They actually have been known to "lie, cheat and steal" to benefit themselves...

If I had to choose between two types of organizations that "lie, cheat and steal" I know which organization I would choose...


------------------------
Ustwo: once more, there is a big difference between eating dogs, deer and horses which are abundant and, in the case of some, thoroughly domesticated. It isn't a matter of to hunt or not to hunt. I have no problem with hunting.

It's a matter of the nature of whales and what over fishing will do to their numbers (regardless of the breed).

I don't need to know what kind of whale is being hunted to know that I disagree with the fact that they are indeed hunted and some almost to extinction.

Yes, I disagree with hunting in general. While that might be a personal opinion and not one based on what is "good for the world" that is what discussions are. I doubt many people enter a discussion and simply state facts without also stating their own feelings on the matter.

I see so regardless of the fact how many differing types of whales there are, we nearly destroyed them and now that their populations are starting to get to a healthy number we find the need to hunt them again.

While I am not violent mayhaps the future wife does have an idea, there are far far too many greedy, self serving dumbfucks on this planet, man after all is the most grossly overpopulated, destructive species known, so let's just round up the greedy fucks give them the Bikini Islands and a couple other Atolls we tested the nuclear bombs on and let them just fucking hunt each other.....

I mean I don't see whales thinking it's ok to close up shop, move out of town for cheaper labor and destroy whole towns in the name of greed and how much a CEO can make.

Who said they would be overfished (well over hunted)? Where did you glean this information?

If there is a sustainable number which can be harvested without endangering the species then there is no argument to not hunt them besides not liking the practice itself.

I see a lot of emotionalism, Pans post being a classic example of it, but no 'facts' beyond that.