I have just checked my dictionary on the meaning of bigot. It says “obstinate and intolerant adherent of creed or view”.
Glenn Inwood describes New Zealanders as bigots because they are opposed to whaling. He was writing for the Sunday Star Times in New Zealand last Sunday.
It’s a passionate piece and begins:
You asked for an article that explains why I have chosen to work on the side of the whalers; why I provide strategic public relations advice to the organisation that, according to our Conservation Minister, “slaughters the magnificent whales” in the Southern Ocean.
The simple answer is because they have the right to do it. That’s not to say that I don’t think whales are magnificent creatures. I just don’t believe they are sacrosanct – despite the best efforts of the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 to make them so. The other answer is more complicated but is related to the environmental belief that the best way to monitor and protect whale stocks and achieve transparency is to end the moratorium and bring about a return to commercial whaling where the regulations are obeyed and seen to be obeyed.
We Kiwis were passionate whalers once. We joined the rest of the world in taking our share when whale oil was a high-priced commodity, and we only ended the practice in 1964 when it became uneconomic to continue – not because whales were running out; but because there was no longer the need for whale oil, which had been replaced by petroleum-based products.
Anthropological studies have also shown that pre-European Maori were the southern-most whalers in the world, with evidence of small cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) caught using stone-tipped harpoons and utilising beached whales for food. There is still debate over whether we should in fact push beached whales back out to sea: an insult to Tangaroa some say.
Whaling these days is for food for a very limited market. Some people love lambs because they taste good with a dash of mint sauce. Some people, however, enjoy a whale steak or whale sushi. So why can we not accept that of others? When did we begin to think that our beliefs should override those of others? How did we turn into a nation of bigots? Why is whaling bad and watching them the only commercial thing that should happen to whales?
For years we have been told that all whales are endangered and need saving. It is a view that fits the fundraising aims of numerous environmental groups because the public feels good when contributing to such a cause. But it is a view that goes by unchallenged. We don’t have a whaling industry to satisfy so there’s no need for the Government to correct the information. And our Conservation Minister jollies us along with every public statement condemning the “slaughter” of whales by Japan. (Apparently, whales are only ever slaughtered, never hunted or killed!)
But that doesn’t seem to matter. Now that ‘save the whales’ is imprinted apparently into our national psyche, we don’t seem to question the veracity of that statement. We let our politicians and environmentalists tell us ‘slaughtering’ whales for research is wrong if that research is used to determine whether a commercial whaling regime would be sustainable. Yet our media is quick to print allegations from Forest and Bird that we aren’t doing enough science on our own fishing industry and we should stop fishing. Our Government on the one hand establishes a Ministry to ensure we get the right science for our commercial fishing yet we decry another country’s decision to do the same thing for whales. The hypocrisy is quite outstanding.
New Zealand originally quit the International Whaling Commission because it ended commercial whaling and no longer needed to belong. However, it joined again in 1976 on a preservationist stance justified on our history of commercial whaling. But there is no denying the fact that the role of the IWC is to find a way to end the moratorium and permit the resumption of whaling when it can be demonstrated to be a sustainable activity. Our Government is resolutely one of the blockers towards achieving that legally binding requirement.
Happily, I don’t believe your average (mainstream) Kiwi is a bigot. I believe that most New Zealanders are reasonable people who would say, “If whaling has no effect on the status of the population, then what’s the problem? It’s just like killing (slaughtering) a cow or a sheep.” It’s clear that minke whales are ultra-abundant and even taking a few thousand out of the Southern Ocean isn’t going affect the population of those stocks.
When I travel overseas, one of the things I most look forward to is sampling the local cuisine. I have eaten things in other countries that I can’t even name. Our dietary custom is one of the things that make us who we are. I recall the words a Norwegian friend who said, “I love whales, but I couldn’t eat a whole one!”
My first blog post on whaling was in June last year and followed my pondering that food really is cultural, click here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jen – Are you willing to share with us
(a) why you buy free range eggs (barn or free ??)
(b) what scientific and ethical obligations do you think Australia and broader world community has to conserving wildlife – principles?
(c) how do you think we should treat populations that are recovering from an endangered status
(d) would you be happy in principle to eat gorilla, panda and/or have tigers killed for herbal medicine
Or anyone else?
Phil,
My position on most of these issues has already been articulated including at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au see my piece on whaling and also ‘Let’s Eat Kangaroo’.
Are you a vegetarian?
I have a lot of time for Andrew Bartlett on these issues because he is a practising vegetarian.
surely the real issue is highlighted by Phil’s question: how do you think we should treat populations that are recovering from an endangered status?
the intellectual rigour of most proponents of whaling is highlighted by the quote from Innwood’s piece –
“We let our politicians and environmentalists tell us ‘slaughtering’ whales for research is wrong if that research is used to determine whether a commercial whaling regime would be sustainable”
hmmm yes, of course, surely we must need to hunt and kill whales in order to ascertain whether there’s enough of them to hunt and kill.
and Jennifer, i haven’t found a reference in OnlineOpinion to your view on eating pandas and gorillas. It goes to the very heart of this debate.
Would you do it?
Lamb, cattle, poultry, etc…can be raised privately – both stocks and slaughter can be carefully managed and humanely slaughtered.
Commercial whaling has no such safeguards. You cannot kill a whale humanely. You cannot manage the stocks if open whaling is permitted. Too many species are already endangered – with Japan infringing upon those remaining animals as is, how do we protect from extinction if Norway, Iceland and every other barbarian wants in on the act?
There is also the matter of common morality.
The great nations of the world, of which Japan ostensibly aspires to, have established among themselves common standards of behavior on everything from educational opportunities to nuclear power.
These same nations of the world have declared commercial whaling to be illegal and immoral. And that is a just decision – if for no other reason than that these same nations have all agreed that as a body they have a right to collectively make those decisions.
Japan is a signatory to both the UN and the IWC – yet it constantly undermines both agencies on the grounds of “cultural preservation”. Someone has to tell these barbaric pains in arse they can’t have it both way. Either you are a great nation or you’re not. Allowing an immoral act on the grounds of “heritage” or “ethnicity” destroys those bonds the world has struggled to build.
I would also ask Mr. Inwood a simple question…
…what scientific interest can Japan possibly have in studying the economci viability of a waterway not its own?
What right do they think they have to treat an international / Australian territory as their own personal ATM?
Would the Japanese dare undertake such a “scientific” study in American waters? In British?
One could argue that whaling is legal inside the Japanese EEZ. There is absolutely no argument that can be made to justify commercial whaling (which JARPA is and its stated aim to be) in an international sanctuary.
Hi Bob,
I do NOT like the idea of eating gorillas or pandas … or dugongs.
But, as I will respect the right of indigenous Australians to eat dugong, I would probably respect the rights of others to eat gorillas and pandas on the condition the harvest was sustainable. This would probably require a quota system.
I outline my position at online opinion on dugongs as follows:
“Dugongs, like whales, are long lived marine mammals. They feed on sea grass in northern Australian waters and are slow breeders, suckling a single calf for over 18 months.
Two papers published last year in the British Journal Animal Conservation indicate that dugong populations in the Torres Strait are grossly over-fished. The Australian Government accepts that about 1,000 dugongs are killed each year by indigenous communities and that this is probably ten times the estimated sustainable harvest.
I respect the rights of indigenous Australians to hunt dugongs and I respect the right of Norwegians and Japanese to hunt whales and trade the products of their slaughter. But the activity must be sustainable. It would seem that in this regard the Australian, and perhaps also the Japanese, governments could learn from the reasoned and scientific approach taken by the Norwegians.
The same four principles could be applied to the harvest of dugongs in Australian waters under a strict quota system. The issue of Aboriginal subsistence whaling needs to be acknowledged and discussed. Australian Aboriginals and Danish Farosese fisherman may kill the animal with a traditional weapon, but they do this from motorised boats. And perhaps it is time Australians started to acknowledge that our aversion to whaling is cultural, based on a new-found love of whales, and that we simply don’t want to apply reason or science here.”
Jen – wan’t an aggressive set of questions.
More a philosophical exploration of the issue.
From my memory (pls correct me if I have it wrong).
You appear to have sympathy for the welfare of chickens as evidenced by your stated preference for free-range eggs. So therefore I assume you have some sensitivities or ethical considerations to the suffering of animals.
(of course we could do a sidebar on pecking order behaviour in open spaces and how much chickens “feel”).
You can see some people struggling with the issue at the supermarket – the hand wavering over the more expensive eggs product – eyes shut as they have a little prayer asking for guidance. Muttering “I’m sorry” if they buy the cheaper product. Of course most just grab the cheap Woolies on special product.
Then of course we have unexplored blog issues of stalling sows, sheep mulesing, branding, tail docking, removal of milk teeth and a range of other animal husbandry practices that I have seen, know about and have even been a party to.
I assume by your editorialising of the issue here that you don’t have a problem with the Japanese hunting whales and eating them.
I am not a vegetarian myself but my son was for a number of years which caused some significant research and an exploration of values. At the limits it becomes very difficult with things like leather shoes and the presence of bone charcoal in things like sugar.
So you can easily throw the hypocrite angle at this point.
However we do specifically farm and generate our herds of beef cattle and sheep, chickens etc. Not everything is afrmed of course.
I think as I visit the fish markets at Raptis – how long can we keep this up – what sort of production regime the Chinese Vannemi prawns come from – how many mangroves are levelled for Woolies and Coles to keep the year round supply.
I did notice that Raptis do make statements about sustainability and do use turtle exclusion devices in their Gulf operations. Should I buy the Australian product. And how sustainable our own fisheries are starts to concern one – so you find yourself collaring DPI&F guys and grilling them.
Our activities as humans have directly or indirectly caused the extinction or decline or many wild species. I personally believe we have an ethical responsibility to do something about it (and not at the total expense of ignoring human suffering, poverty and bad health either – can hear Rog loading the rhetorical Uzi).
So we have historically hunted whales to the brink of extinction. To me it seems barbaric the way they harvest them. I don’t see it as necessary. Young Japanese don’t see it as necessary. I don’t think it is enlightned to treat a recovering population in this way. Has the population recovered to stable genetic levels. What incidental catch of endangered whale species are occurring. How do we really know what levels they’re harvesting at and of what species. Why would you trust the ICR with its vested interest in this matter.
Ask me about dugong harvesting by aboriginal inhabitants – my opinion – shouldn’t be doing it.
Yes I find our treatment of gorillas and tigers also problematic.
I think we will find as the generations of Australians go on, that consumption of animals and animal products, the treatment of animals within our care will become increasingly common. So yea – food is cultural – is subject to ethical analysis and subject to change.
And for the capitalists, there will be eventually more money in observing and photoraphing wildlife than shooting at it and eating it for fun. He who has the best assemblage of habitat, flora and fauna to visit wins.
Commence return fire !
The mention of traditional Maori whaling is important. An ABC documentary a short time ago, Killers of Eden” (will get the details in next post) has made it clear that coastal whaling in Eden NSW was essentially a blackfella’s industry. Most of the crewmen in the longboats were blackfellas and none of them were willing to do all that rowing only to come home empty because they allowed a bumbling whitefella to throw the harpoon. The Davidson’s merely owned the boat and the boilers and dealt with the marketing and distribution of the end product.
The co-operation between the killer whales and the whalers, in which the Orca’s herded passing whales into Twofold Bay and then sent one of their group to slap the water and wake up the whalers, was a relationship that had been established long before white settlement. And it was a bond that was only broken by two events;
1 an outsider killed a beached Orca (and left town in grave fear of his life), and
2 the skipper of the newly arrived steam boat refused to follow the tradition of leaving the harpooned whale overnight so the Orca’s could feed on the tongue as their share of the venture.
Soon after the mortified blackfellas moved away and the industry went into serious, terminal decline.
But this raises a significant ethical issue for Australians. For indigenous people not only have rights to their resources guaranteed to them under UN covenants but they also, under Article 15 of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, have the right to “(b)enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications”. See; http://austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1976/5.htm
And this would indicate that blackfellas, of the NSW South Coast in particular, and generally, have the right to merge their traditional whaling methods with new technology and applications. As they have already demonstrated.
They also have a right to re-establish those traditional uses when populations have recovered to a point where harvesting is sustainable.
At a time where native people were killing whales for life and death reasons perhaps the small amount of whales they took was sustainable.
I just think that in 2005, where there is no-one starving for the lack of whalemeat, there should be one species of animal that humans do not eat.
Why, as long as a species is there, do we have to eat it. For all we know we may be killing and eating a sentient being – we just cannot communicate with them.
We have plenty of animals specifically bred for us to eat – why not leave whales alone. I also do not see anything cultural about standing on the deck of a 10 000 ton ship and shooting whales with a harpoon gun. The whale dies in agony and has no chance of escape. If the Japanese and Norwegians want to revive their culture then let them hunt whales in open boats with hand thrown spears.
Ender, I think that a hand thrown spear would be more painful than an explosive harpoon, which should cause instant death. That said, I wonder how humane whaling actually is? Are the whalers tracking the whale with sonar so they’re right on top of it when it surfaces? Or do they have to pursue them to exhaustion so the whale is unable to spend much time under water?
From my memory of “Moby Dick”, the early whalers harpooned the whales with a barbed harpoon attached to a line. The whale would dive and pull the whale boat along until it was exhausted, when it would be dispatched with a long killing lance. Risky, but not very humane.
Ian’s explanation of the decline of whaling in Eden omits the other causal factor: the decline in whale populations. Fewer whales to whale – meant that nearing the end, the whalers could only find the whales when they were led by the orca.
Is there any historical precedent for sustainable commercial whaling? If not, we’d better lean on the side of caution in estimating population numbers and sustainable yields. What if every nation just took an allegedly insignificant percentage as the Japanese Institute for Commercial Research claims to do?
Glen Inwood has covered the key points on his PR brief as follows:
1. “they have the right to do it” (to whale) even though whales are “magnificent”.
RESPONSE: Japan’s alleged right to whale is presently receiving international criticism, goes against the IWC resolution, and has the express disapproval of most countries. Who is Glen, in PR, to claim they have a ‘right’?
2. commercial whaling is “the best way to monitor and protect whale stocks” and will result in regulations being obeyed, unlike the current moratorium which is being ignored. (Conflicts with point 1 where he claims the Japanese have the right to whale. Does he recognise the moratorium or not?)
RESPONSE: The majority of whale biologists and the IWC and John Howard have condemned the need for lethal research to monitor whale stocks. GIven that the Japanese ICR repeatedly wants to whale more than it is permitted to, why would commercial whaling see them observing the strict quotas that would be necessary? And if all nations joined the feeding frenzy…?
3. Whaling these days is for food for a very limited market
RESPONSE: meaning that elitism justifies whaling?
4. Whaling is no different to “commercial fishing” or “killing (slaughtering) a cow or a sheep”
RESPONSE: Cows and sheep are killed more humanely than whales are. Whales are vastly more intelligent, have more complex social structures and awareness. Earlier in his piece Glen called whales magnificant. Are sheep ‘magnificent’? Whales are not fish or cows. Why not equate it to killing people? After all, whales have larger brains then people and a 4th lobe which human brains lack.
5. He doesn’t “believe your average Kiwi is a bigot” therefore they will agree with him to avoid being branded a bigot
RESPONSE: this is a manipulative communications attempt to push the reader between a rock and a hard place so they are forced to agree. Unfortunately for Glen’s PR attempt, the mainstream population is proving capable of thinking for itself and it disagrees with his PR position.
6. He (Glen) likes to eat local cuisine when travelling overseas (irrespective of whether or not it is actually ‘local’ or whether there is actually an accepted cultural history of eating that food)
RESPONSE: another elitist argument that in no way justifies whaling. Good attempt to ‘personalise’ the message though, in an communications tactic of trying to get the reader to identify with his humanity and the tone of his piece.
I’m not aware that the average Japanese citizen has a cultural background of eating whale, perhaps a tiny minority (& is that minority participating in the current whaling effort? If not, can they afford and do they buy the whale meat?)
(good & balanced post by Phil above btw, is anyone brave enough to respond in kind, ie expose their shades of grey on the matter?)
Paul I read (in some lefty greeny commentary no doubt!) that the whales are pursued until they’re exhausted then shot when tehy come up for air.
Aiming the harpoon can apparently be tricky, particularly given variable wind direction and weather conditions. Often the whales aren’t killed outright, sometimes they escape with grave injuries, or they have to be electrocuted or shot to finish them off. There are regulations plus ongoing monitoring to try to make the killing method as humane as reasonably possible but there’s clearly quite a bit of suffering in the time between first harpoon shot and the eventual death (including the whales “screaming”).
aren’t the japenese primarialy targeting minke whales? are they considered endangered? based on some of the numbers ive seen lately (and i dont know how accurate they are based on the medias interest in the issue) the japenese are taking .02 percent of the population. this does not sound to me to be a excessive harvest of the resource.
i dont care if my eggs are farmed or free range. though free range do taste better. but i dont eat farmed salmon. definitely prefer the wild ones.
if the pygmies of africa want to eat gorilla who am i to say no. they have been doing it for generations. not sure i’d be able to do it. and ive eaten some strange stuff. muktuk, stinkfish, seal oil…
tiger in a “herbal medicine” seems like an oxymoron.
if an animal population has recovered from an endangered or threatened designation then i feel that a limited harvest is not a problem provided that when numbers are seen to drop below a certain threshold then the harvest should stop until that time that the population has once again recovered. i think thats what game management is all about. as wally hickel (former govenor of alaska) said. “you cant just let nature run wild.” alright so maybe that was a joke. but he did say that.
do you know what the eskimo definition for vegatarian is? poor hunter.
to kill something humanely is simply to do it as fast as practical. killing any animal is never painless. shot placement is critical. by harasssing the harpooners into taking a less than perfect shot greenpeas are actually increasing the suffering of these whales if the harpoon does not hit its mark on the first shot.
they’re also targeting fin whales this year, & humpbacks (humpbacks starting next year i think)
there is a distinction between different populations of minke whales, eg the antartic popn v’s common minkes.
For all whales that were previously hunted and therefore went through a narrow population bottleneck (ie dramatically reduced the gene pool), it is now important to preserve as large a population as we can and as much genetic diversity as we can. Therefore locally distinct populations need to be protected. The issue is much more complicated than just total population numbers of a given species (in some cases the scientists still lack sufficient information on the degree of variation across sub-species or individuals).
les I heard that the eskimos have a new definition of vegetarian. = victim of artic thawing
The most popular recreational activity in Australia is fishing.
The end result of such an activity is (sometimes) the catching of a fish which has been dragged through the water then dies. Humanely killed?
I cannot see any moral or ethical difference between blowing up a whale or catching a fish, the outcome is the same …a dead creature.
Some argue that the killing of whales should somehow be viewed differently from the killing of fish, prawns, crabs, lobsters, scallops, oysters, dugongs, turtles, goannas, possums and crocodiles, cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens etc. Why?
All are a source of protein, the consumption of which brings not only enjoyment to a lot of people but in some cases, sustains life.
The vegetarians and vegans are at least consistent when they oppose whaling;they object to the killing of all animal life.
I don’t think anybody seriously believes that the current whaling activity of the Japanese will result in the extinction of any species of whales. So why the vehement and in some cases violent opposition? Is because of the size of the whale and/or its intelligence? Therefore killing whales bad, dugongs not quite as bad, ditto seals, but barramundi ok and whiting definitely OK.
I support the preservation of humpback whales for the reason they are worth a lot more alive than dead..their value deriving from the enjoyment they provide to the many people who pay good money to see their annual migration up the coast.
Hpefully the end result of the current protests will be the establishment of internationally enforceable quotas for killing whales which will also enable the continued operation of profitable whalewatching in Qld and elsewhere. Opposing the killing of all whales on principle doesn’t seem a good starting position.
Blair: Although you conclude that the killing of whales should not be opposed on principle, you started your post by defending the killing of whales on principle: the principle that it’s morally and ethically no different to killing any other creature. If you’re going to argue based on your personal principles then allow others to do so. However, this argument doesn’t rest exclusively on principles…
Blair how do you propose to achieve the “establishment of internationally enforceable quotas”? Should majority international opinion determine the quota? If a few rogue countries want to whale at levels the majority of countries and scientists declare is unsustainable, then how would you enforce the quota?
Currently the IWC is the international body for the process that you describe: the IWC’s international members reach consensus on the sustainable management of whale stocks. However, Japan refuses to confirm with IWC’s scientifically-based resolutions. This is not a matter of principle as you claim, but a matter of most scientists maintaining that whale populations have not sufficiently recovered and Japan’s desired quotas include endangered species and critical genetically distinct populations.
Dear “Think before you rant” do I presume if Japan and other whalecatching and eating nations cease whaling until “whale populations have sufficiently recovered” then you personally would support controlled killing of whales?
The point I tried to make is that the ardent opposition to current whaling activities is largely based on the underlying belief that it is morally wrong to kill whales irrespective of their threatened status etc yet OK to kill other animals.
Not only are Kiwis bigotted they are blind, whilst standing on a beach and praying to animist gods their feel-good economy is tanking;
“Business confidence has slumped to its lowest level since before the 1987 sharemarket crash, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) said on Tuesday in its quarterly survey of business opinion (QSBO).
The independent organisation said a net 61 per cent of firms expected conditions to deteriorate over the next six months.
This compared with a net 32 per cent of pessimists in the last survey in October. Not since March 1986 has the economy’s mood been so downbeat. NZIER director Brent Layton said the survey increased the likelihood of a recession.
The seasonally-adjusted figure was even more dire with a net 71 per cent pessimistic against 34 per cent in October. This is the most pessimistic in 35 years and possibly of the 45-year history of the survey, one of the most respected in the country.
The silver lining of this could be that the Reserve Bank may hold off raising interest rates again next week when it reviews the official cash rate.
“The results of this QSBO survey suggest the economy is in the throes of a potential acute slowdown,” Dr Layton said.
Although it pointed to a recession, it was not likely to be a deep one, he said.
The economic landing would be harder than expected three months ago and even harder if the Reserve Bank raised interest rates again…..
http://afr.com/articles/2006/01/17/1137260031947.html
I nominate the Cane Toad as the one species we do not eat (bring on the whale sushi).
Blair has fallen for the standard whale watching industry hype. The fact that 50 humpbacks will be taken next year, or even every year, will have absolute zero impact on the whale molestation business. And it is grossly misleading and downright dishonest to present the issue in an either/or context. There are at least 7000 humpbacks on the East Coast alone.
The term sustainable whaling refers to the harvesting in a way that, at least, MAINTAINS the herd or allows herd numbers to vary within a range determined by ecological conditions. Any suggestion that sustainable whaling will reduce those numbers to a point where the whale molestation industry is no longer viable is crap.
Indeed, the only foreseeable threat to the viability of that industry is an oversupply of operators.
Geez Ian you are being a tad harsh. Surely the only reason there are now at least 7000 humpbacks on the East Coast is because of the restrictions on commercial whaling in place over the past 40+ years. I am certainly no whale ecologist but I could envisage there being a conflict between whalers and whalewatching operators if some sort of controls were not in place; the level of whales needed for the profitable operation of whalecatchers would I think be somewhat lower than the level of whales needed for the profitable operation of whalewatch charters.
I thought the main reason whaling had fallen away is that there is little demand for the product. The restrictions only tidied it up.
No-one contests the fact that past whaling was unsustainable but that does not mean that a recovered, or recovering, population cannot continue to expand while a level of harvesting is taking place. A herd of cattle can undergo gradual increase and replacement of aged animals while still selling off a third of the herd each year. And if there were a cattle watching industry there would be no threat to its viability.
And in relation to blackfellas recommencing whaling, if they chose to, and if the resource had recovered sufficiently, it would appear to be illegal for the Australian government to stop them.
They could start a few whale/roo/padaemelon (yum)meat restaurants and the resulting publicity would be worth about $5 million and guarantee annual sales well in excess of that.
Blair my prime concern is survival of the species, above & beyond welfare of the individuals. Not that I like the idea of whales suffering as they do, but plenty of people also suffer under horrible conditions and I wouldn’t elevate animal suffering above human suffering.
I’d like to see that the various whales and their sub-species/genetically distinct populations are maintained at an ample level for their ongoing survival, factoring in generous allowances for risk from potential drops in krill, the increasing number of accidental ship kills, pollution and additional risks from their gene pool having been reduced from surviving a population bottleneck (when they were nearly sent extinct). (Whale societies are complex and their breeding behaviours are quite different to the cows that Ian keeps comparing them to.)
Commenters keep referring to the % take by the Japanese but the Japanes would like to take more. If every nation took the same number of whales as Japan, would it be sustainable? Japan should restrain itself and respect consensus until it is generally agreed that all nations who want to whale can do so sustainably.
So as you ask, I’m not dead against sustainable whaling, although I wouldn’t personally support it. On the topic of principles and killing some animals yet not others, I don’t understand why we would kill and eat sentient, intelligent whales with such huge brains and 4 lobes, but not people who have smaller brains and only 3 lobes. I come back to this, as no-one has yet explained to me why we eat whales and not people (particularly mentally retarded people). Can you? People are likely to be a good source of protein also, and as you say, the end result is the same, a dead creature.
perhaps I should clarify, we would kill the people as humanely as possible before eating them
Think, you ask. “If every nation took the same number of whales as Japan, would it be sustainable?” Again we see the use of hypothetical improbabilities to try and prove a point. That is no test of sustainability. Indeed, if every person in the world spent their time on blog posting, would it be sustainable? No, but that does not mean that this blog is unsustainable.
And as for your ramblings on the ethics of eating humans, all up, one is bound, with all due respect and good nature, to again reflect on the extent to which your head appears to be lodged up some nether orfice with resulting impairment of peripheral vision.
Anyone who thinks Kiwis are bigots, clearly has not visited the Land OTLWC. Kiwis would have to be bugots. Of course, if the word were spelt begot, it would be pronounced bigot, just as edge is pronounced idge. I recall spinding a wundy widnesday in Willington, wuth a girl called Windy, before I caught the firry to Pucton. But they do have lovely mountains…
Ian what’s your proposal for achieving sustainable whaling then? Should we allow each nation to whale as much as they feel like, whatever species they want, anywhere they feel like whaling?
btw, I’m not interested in exchanging insults. It’s a childish last resort that suggests that you’re frustrated because you can’t justify your stance.
I am frustrated by the need to respond to cyber stalkers who cannot distinguish between a 40 tonne whale and a human being. And it is no small irony that the most “sentient” whales appear to be Killer Whales who have demonstrated their higher intellect by forming mutually beneficial partnerships with other species, ie humans, for the purpose of hunting and eating other whale species.
I like whaling.
Spin doctors come in all shapes and disguises.
Why not visit the sea shepherd site, greenpeace, wdcs, ifaw, madmermaids. and see the truth
Japan are buying the right to whale, through aid to small nations. they are doing it through false pretences, research vessels.
Half of the people in Japan havnt got a clue whats going on, the press dosent cover it.
Show videos of the slow deaths to children in school instead of forcing them to eat the meat.
and no unlike some people I’m not getting paid for this blog