Japanese officials have publicly condemned the eating of dolphin meat especially in school lunches due to mercury contamination:
“We tested some samples purchased at the Gyokyo supermarket in Taiji and Super Center Okuwa in the nearby city of Shingu …
One dolphin sample had a mercury content 10 times above the health ministry’s advisory level of 0.4 parts per million, with a methylmercury readout 10.33 times over the ministry’s own advisory level of 0.3 ppm.
Another dolphin sample tested 15.97 times and 12 times above advisory levels of total mercury and methylmercury, respectively.
The results prompted the two officials to describe dolphin meat as ‘toxic waste’.
Despite health concerns Taiji’s Mayor promises to build a new dolphin processing factory…
You can read more in the Japan Times
Earlier this year Norwegian media reported there was a growing problem with bioaccumulation of toxins in minke whales and that some parts of the whales contained higher concentrations of toxins that were recommended by health authorities.
When Keiko (Free Willy) died in Norway, children wanted to bury him on the beach. However, this was not suitable according to the health authorities due to danger from contaminants. Keiko was also consider ‘toxic waste’.
Cheers,
Ann Novek
Sweden
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
A comment here on Keiko.
When Keiko died he was mourned by Norway, according to their biggest paper Aftenposten. However, some whalers were angry with the pampering of Keiko and stated it had been better to make whale meat balls of him and send them to starving children in Africa. Of course this was only sarcasm!
Another Icelandic paper wrote when Keiko died ” Willy free finally !” This was of course sarcasm as well.
As we know orcas are the most contaminated animals in the Arctic, so they are not very suitable for consumption.
However, I’m not aware of the ” normalization” plans that Rune mentioned in a previous thread and if orcas are a future targets for whalers.
I read in a Norwegian paper that might be the case. The statement was from a spokesman from Greenpeace.
Having swam with Dolphins twice in Florida and the Bahamas, and seen 2 wild Dolphins interact with us on a boat trip in Kefalonia, I can’t understand why anyone would want to eat them. Forget toxic – it’s barbaric!
” Forget toxic – it’s barbaric ” – Paul
Well, the NGOs say the dolphin drive hunt is barbaric and the authorities are letting down the Japanese , not telling their own people that the meat is toxic.
So what’s more barbaric? The killing methodes or ” poisoning ” school children?
Jennifer – They eat DOLPHINS in SCHOOLS?????????????????
A similar story from Reuters :
http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=T63591
You can see the ‘barbaric’ nature of the dolphin hunts here:
http://www.glumbert.com/media/dolphin
Travis,
I couldn’t watch to the end of the above link. Seeing the old man go back to ‘finish off’ the bleeding dolphin on the shed floor was too much.
David@Tokyo,
Is this typical, or misrepresentation of ‘modern’ dolphin hunts?
There is some effort put in to making the death of minke whales humane … what is the typical story with the dolphin hunts?
Jennifer touches my next question.
Which hunt is more cruel, the dolphin drive hunts or the minke whale hunting ?
What’s Libby’s opinion on this ???
“No Government agency is studying the problem – no scientist in Japan want to study the subject, it’s very political”.
The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare could surely be categorized as a “Government agency”, so this statement was a bit odd. The ICR has also got pages on it’s web site about their studies in this area.
Jennifer,
I’ve no idea about how a typical dolphin hunt looks, like everyone else I’ve only seen the selected videos that people choose to put on the Internet and publicise. So I can neither confirm nor deny anything about the circumstances under which the worst videos out there were taken.
Some of the videos I have seen were surprisingly tame though, although the makers had added spooky music and captions to try to make a slaughter scene look like a concentration camp, etc (I think it’s a video from EIA that is springing to mind here).
I don’t know whether what you can see here is representative or not either (being from PETA I guess not though):
http://www.savethesheep.com/
http://www.cowsarecool.com/
Seeking to improve animal welfare standards should be natural for all thinking humans (i.e., probably not all humans are thinking ones), but using edited videos of certain individual cases of gory slaughter to try to push a “no slaughter at all” agenda is manipulative. Nonetheless it will continue to happen, and each industry should therefore keep an eye on these things and pull those letting the team down in to line.
Ender,
Yes, they evidently eat dolphin meat in schools in some areas where it has traditionally been consumed. Most of the cetacean meat on the market in Japan is baleen whale though (probably around 70% or more now).
Ann, your statement “the authorities are letting down the Japanese , not telling their own people that the meat is toxic”, is a bit rich, given that it is Japanese authorities that have released the story.
The video footage is not much different to what happens in any abattoir. Indeed, any beheaded chicken convulses in the same way. If you can’t take it then hold off on your next satay chicken meal.
A fox or dingo kill of lambs or calves is far more gruesome and involves much longer suffering and even greater distress to the rest of the group. So if you can’t cope with nature then all you are left with is sucking your thumb in the foetal position.
Note that the video speaker claimed that the Dolphins were asphyxiating, as if they were fish out of water.
And as this hunt takes place in the same location and at the same time each year, the much claimed “parity of intellect” between Dolphins and Man is looking a bit suss, don’t you think? Surely, a bunch of fully sentient beings would have the nous to avoid the place the following year and tell all their mates about what goes on there.
By the way, Paul, which part of Kefalonia did you visit? Did you get to Fiskardo?
” Ann, your statement “the authorities are letting down the Japanese , not telling their own people that the meat is toxic”, is a bit rich, given that it is Japanese authorities that have released the story.” – Ian
Well Ian, this statement comes from a joint statement made from some other NGOs ( methinks it was from ELSA( a Japanese ant whaling organisation), Blue Voice and Earth Island Institute).
Re the Japanese authorities. I mentioned in my draft article to Jennifer ,that it was very brave and ” un Japanese ” of the two independent Japanese officials to make such comments about toxic cetacean meat. Jennifer chooses to edit my article ( I asked her to do so) , so in this case it disappeared…
And Nature is indeed cruel. David wants to compare minke whale hunting with orcas killing a baby whale . The only difference or ” defense ” of orcas in this case is that the orcas ” stunn” their victim with a knock( that’s what I have heard).
I don’t intend to blame the orcas, I just find it odd that people think humans are so terrible for not being able to kill a whale instantaneously absolutely every single time where as it’s entirely normal for orcas to take several hours to do so.
“Which hunt is more cruel, the dolphin drive hunts or the minke whale hunting ?
What’s Libby’s opinion on this ???”
Sorry Ann, IMHO to me cruelty is cruelty and should be minimised at all costs. Isn’t compassion and altruism something humans use to place themselves above other beings?
“The video footage is not much different to what happens in any abattoir. Indeed, any beheaded chicken convulses in the same way. If you can’t take it then hold off on your next satay chicken meal.”
The footage shows animals that have been taken out of their natural environment for which their physiology is designed. They are trucked and left on floors and no doubt suffer whilst waiting to be garroted. Comparing one form of killing to another is a good way of easing one’s conscience and letting things go along as they always have.
“A fox or dingo kill of lambs or calves is far more gruesome and involves much longer suffering and even greater distress to the rest of the group. So if you can’t cope with nature then all you are left with is sucking your thumb in the foetal position.”
Foxes and dingos (and for that matter orcas too) kill to eat and kill what is available to them. Are humans of the same empathetic and intellectual capacities as foxes and dingos? Often large carnivores do kill prey swiftly in the form of a bite to the neck. This happens when humans are attacked by them too. Humans in western countries have a wide range of foods available to them, and can choose to kill humanely or not. If people wish to be on the same level as foxes, dingos and orcas, perhaps their plasma screens and microwaves should be taken away from them. You can’t be above all animals and on their level at the same time.
“Note that the video speaker claimed that the Dolphins were asphyxiating, as if they were fish out of water.”
I did not hear most of the voice over but watched the footage instead. When cetaceans are out of water their skin dries out and cracks and they can be crushed under their own body weight when lying on their sides. I am assuming that was what the narrator was referring to.
“And as this hunt takes place in the same location and at the same time each year, the much claimed “parity of intellect” between Dolphins and Man is looking a bit suss, don’t you think? Surely, a bunch of fully sentient beings would have the nous to avoid the place the following year and tell all their mates about what goes on there.”
So when animals have been limited in their range for resources (food, calving grounds, resting locations, etc) either due to their own biology, environmental reasons or anthropogenic forces they are now stupid? One could reason too that certain posters here post ignorant remarks without first checking up on basic facts despite the fact they are proven to be wrong and made to look silly, again and again.
Not on the toxic theme, but this is quite a good read (with some familiar names)
http://news.scotsman.com/aberdeen.cfm?id=1212282007
Not looking to start a “whales eat fish” debate, but this article states in its “Minke whale statistics” section that : “[minkes] feed on whatever food source is most abundant in the area … small fish like herring.”
” Humans in Western countries have a wide range of foods available to them, and can choose to kill humanely or not”.
Aaah, my favorite topic!
Rant, rant , rant…either you’re a vegetarian, consumer of organic farm slaughtered meat or consumer of meat hunted from the wild with a clean head shot, in all other cases you contribute to animal ctuelty.
Unfortunately most meat and dairy products now adays are factory farmed or include transports to abattoirs( taking away animals from their home environment and putting the animal under psychological stress).
Ummm David your point is?
Ann, are we again comparing animals and slaughter methods here? Once you accept there is animal cruelty on all levels except vegetarianism, you lose sight of what can be done to make the situation better for individual species. This is even more abhorrent when there could be simple ways to ease animal suffering in some cases but nothing is being done because what exists is standard practice. (That’s my opinion anyway).
“kill humanely”
A good topic indeed.
I think a much stronger emphasis than is the case needs to be placed on the lives animals live before we take it away from them for our benefit.
>I think a much stronger emphasis than is the case needs to be placed on the lives animals live before we take it away from them for our benefit.
I would have thought multi-skilling was something humans were easily capable of.
” Ann, are we again comparing animals and slaughter methods here? ” – Libby
Well, this just popped out of my mind… we should discuss slaughter methods etc. on another thread!
So back again to the topic with toxic cetaceans .
Do we know if the toxins have an impact on the cetaceans well being?
Does the contamination issue have an impact on the whaling issue, will whaling quotas and small cetacean hunting numbers decrease?
> I would have thought multi-skilling was something humans were easily capable of.
Indeed, like I say there seems to be a lack of emphasis that area. To me at least it’s weird that there is what seems to be a disproportionate focus on the humaneness of our killing (particularly by those whom have nothing to do with it, although they have problems closer to home to be worried about). The vegans have a point that killing can never be “humane”.
But anyway, with respect to whaling, if one puts a whale’s life into perspective, lets say it lives 50 years. That’s 18250 days, 438,000 hours, or 26,280,000 minutes. I would estimate that more than 99% of whales die of causes not related to directed human killing, but of the less than 1% that are killed by directed human hunting using the best techniques available, even in the worst cases which are the exception rather than the norm, a whale might take 30 minutes to die.
Well I punched the number into my calculator but we are talking such a minute fraction of the whale’s life that I can’t even get a comprehensible number out.
But if I assume the whale is killed at the age of 20 instead of 50 I get this fraction out:
0.000003
To those with poor eyesight it may look like a string of zeros but actually there is a THREE on the end of that, six places after the decimal point. Not significantly different from 0, even though I’m talking about worst case scenarios.
Yet I put “animal cruelty” into google and I find information about whaling within a few pages. Strange, considering that the ratio of the whale’s life spent suffering due to humans is 0.00003. Oops, no sorry it was only 0.000003.
Indeed many humans spend a much greater ratio of their lives suffering, as do I imagine many of the animals that humans raise in captivity for eventual slaughter.
Taking a more appropriately proportioned approach to improving animal welfare would seem to be the humane thing to do.
Just for the record, assuming the average kill time is 2 minutes, we are talking about a fraction of a whales’ life that is:
1.9025875190258751902587519025875e-7
Say we improve that by 400% (i.e., get the average down to 30 seconds):
4.7564687975646879756468797564688e-8
Geeez David, are you into some kind of competition with Motty????
“Indeed many humans spend a much greater ratio of their lives suffering, as do I imagine many of the animals that humans raise in captivity for eventual slaughter.”
What is your definition of “suffering”? Perhaps wondering what shirt to put on in the morning, preparing for a wedding, hearing others of your kind calling out in fear and pain, learning your mother is dying, having cancer?
What does a cetacean consider to be “suffering”? Perhaps wondering where the next school of fish is, the males that are gang-raping you, hearing others of your kind calling out in fear and pain, the loud noise from the fishing trawlers in your home site, being pursued by a shark, the fact you have parasites in your stomach and feel sick, being entangled?
What does a captive animal consider “suffering”? The fact it has just been desexed, having nothing to do, cramped conditions, fear ever time a human or dog is around, hearing others of your kind calling out in fear and pain, being sick?
Why do you seem to consider a “disproportionate focus” on animal welfare standards regarding euthanasia a bad thing?
“(particularly by those whom have nothing to do with it, although they have problems closer to home to be worried about).”
I have absolutely nothing to do with the refugees of Darfur, or the flood victims in India, or the living conditions of street urchins in Indonesia. However, I take an interest in people and their welfare and will help out with donations or basic necessities where I can. If I do not have an interest, or do not do what I can to help when I am aware there is a problem, what does that say about my humane-ness?
“Taking a more appropriately proportioned approach to improving animal welfare would seem to be the humane thing to do.”
Why can’t we do both? As Travis mentioned humans can multi-skill. If you eat chickens, why can’t you improve their living conditions and slaughter methods? I find this compartmentalising very odd.
“Strange, considering that the ratio of the whale’s life spent suffering due to humans is…”
You are assuming that this whale has not had any other negative influence as a result of human activity. Is that a fair assumption?
Your calculation is equally applicable to any human being. A woman on the bridge in Mississippi took 2 minutes to die, a fraction of her life, but what did she go through in those last 2 minutes? Does it mean that her death and what she went through is insignificant compared to her life?
Hahaha, no Ann. Just on the toxins thing, I remembered this part of a Japanese report put together in advance of the ministerial ordinance that was revised to allow whales by-caught in set nets to be sold, under a part of the report entitled “Dealing with dioxin issues”, it says “regarding judgement whether (the by-caught whale) is suitable for use as food, this should be determined by the related persons, and in such case as a whale is handled as food when it is unsuitable to be used as such, the related persons will naturally be held responsible”.
(my translation).
I guess a similar rule applies with regards to directed hunting.
I see that we can’t let go the issue of different killing methods and the subject of pain and suffering.
So I join you.
Libby doesn’t want to compare different kinds of cruelties against each other , such as dolphin drive hunts vs. minke whaling.
Ian and David have pointed out the cruelties in the Nature.
The Nature seems cruel, but Libby pointed out as well that many predators kill their prey in a swift way.
I have heard that when a lion kills an antelope , the antelope switches on a mechanism so it doesn’t feel much pain. There is also the chemical mechanism with endorphines, nature’s own morhphines in play with hunting and when you’re inflicted with a trauma , such as being severly injured( I know a farmer who fell out of a tractor and got his leg completely crushed, he didn’t feel anything).
Of course there are different kinds of pains and suffering. We must differ between the suffering of fear, anxiety, boredome, being kept in captivity, depression etc. vs . physical pain.
Which is worse???
Hmmm, Nature can be cruel Ann, but how often have you read on these pages that we are above Nature?!
Sorry about the detraction from pollutants. From memory there is limited stuff on belugas and orcas (reduced fertility, a number of orcas washing up dead around Vancouver), but in most of the papers on PCBs etc you read about the possible effects, rather than actual ones. There are of course heaps of papers on levels of pollutants from cetaceans, but these animals are very hard to re-sample or observe due to the environment they live in. The “urban” and resident orcas and other dolphins would be the best to study.
> What is your definition of “suffering”?
I’m talking about millions of children dying of starvation for example, and honestly this is VERY hard to compare with the killing of a few thousand whales each year.
> As Travis mentioned humans can multi-skill.
Exactly right as I noted, and recognising that we can’t give 100% to everything, I’m talking about the grossly disproportionate attention given to the “humane killing” issue regarding whaling (also have to remember for some reason the whalers that do a relatively good job cop most of the flak whereas the whalers of the world’s richest nation hear hardly a whisper). Humane humans with some time and resources to care about problems around them will determine their priorities as they see fit, this is what I’m talking about. Criticising those people related to problems close to home, or those from the other side of the world a safe distance away? Caring about one’s own species, or other species? Caring about very big problems, or (relatively) very small problems? Of course, if people had infinite time they might expect to address all problems to perfection. But time and resources are limited – I think the prioritization needs work.
> You are assuming that this whale has not had any other negative influence as a result of human activity.
Those causing distress to whales in other ways are a different story with nothing to do with whaling. And now that you do mention it I seem to recall somebody questioning Norway’s motives for raising the issue of entangled whale TTDs at the last IWC meeting, even despite the huge amount of effort that Norway has put into their killing efficiency over the years.
> Does it mean that her death and what she went through is insignificant compared to her life?
For her individually it’s not insignificant but if you have time and resources to burn are you going to put them towards learning how to build safer bridges, complaining that whales harpooned aren’t killed humanely enough (in addition to being against whaling regardless), finding a cure for cancer, or helping alleviate the problem of human starvation?
Thanks Libby,
One more small input re the ” cruelty issue”.
Different kinds of animals have different ” thresholds of pain”. For example birds have a very high treshold of pain.
I’m not aware of this issue re cetaceans.
I sense a common argument that those that care about animal suffering put it above and beyond that experienced by humans. Of course this is a ludicrous argument.
I see no point whatsoever in saying that because there are “millions of children dying of starvation” people can’t try and make the killing of cetaceans or other non-humans humane. Besides, what about the millions of adults or elderly that are dying of starvation, or are you just concerned about a proportion of the human population?
“Criticising those people related to problems close to home, or those from the other side of the world a safe distance away?”
The world is a very small place, but there are many things that tie us together. The advent multimedia has made it possible now for people to be aware of just how small this world is, not to mention views of our orb from the Moon. Zimbabwe is a long way from Japan, but does that mean you are not critical of Robert? I can assure you there are issues close to home I am critical of, for example the issue of our indigenous people, cruelty to animals here.
“Caring about one’s own species, or other species?”
I find this bizarre. They do not have to be mutually exclusive. In fact I really wonder why some people can only deal with one or the other.
“Caring about very big problems, or (relatively) very small problems?”
Well, I study whales, and some of my study animals are about to get killed this summer, so I don’t consider this a small problem. Again, it is possible for people to care about big and little problems. If there are people who are choosing suicide, it is a little problem compared to the millions starving, but it doesn’t mean humans shouldn’t want to stop this from happening. Sometimes little problems are tied in to much bigger ones, such as suicide showing a sad trend in human society. There are many people in the world and many problems. Should we all be focussed on the same things?
“Those causing distress to whales in other ways are a different story with nothing to do with whaling.”
What if those people are seasonal whalers and seasonal fishers who occasionally lose their gear? What if they dump plastic bags at sea?
“And now that you do mention it I seem to recall somebody questioning Norway’s motives for raising the issue of entangled whale TTDs at the last IWC meeting”
Indeed. It was a similar thing to what is happening here – a comparison to justify current practice. Norway has indeed done the best work to date on reducing TTD.
“For her individually it’s not insignificant but if you have time and resources to burn are you going to put them towards learning how to build safer bridges, complaining that whales harpooned aren’t killed humanely enough (in addition to being against whaling regardless), finding a cure for cancer, or helping alleviate the problem of human starvation?”
Well, I am not a bridge engineer by trade and know nothing about bridge design and safety; I am not a doctor let alone an oncologist; I am not rich or have huge resources at my disposal. But I do donate food to Aboriginal communites in Sydney, I do donate money to research into illnesses such as Parkinson’s, heart disease and cancer, I am putting a Malaysian teenager through school and helping his family who are now out of the slums and living in their very first house, I do help teenagers who suffer from depression, donate regularly to organisations like UNHCR and volunteer my time for certain events that help humans (to name a selection of things I burn my time and resources on). I also assist animals such as whales at strandings, which will likely have zip effect on the population as a whole, but I have the expertise and see no reason why they should suffer if there are those there to help them as best they can.
The way humans treat animals often says a lot about the way they treat fellow humans. I believe there are studies in the literature to back this up. I believe there are religions and cultures that say similar things.
I guess the group hug is over…
Hey I am putting a boy from Jakarta through school. His Mum suffers from stress and depression and they live in a shany town. I have spoken elsewhere about my friend in jail there. I provide him with money too so he can actually get something to eat.
I agree that it is weird that some people get so offended at the thought of their own kind caring for animals. What’s wrong with caring about animal suffering AND human suffering? Maybe it says more about the people that get offended? Maybe they feel they themselves should be doing more to help others but find it easier to criticise others?
Hey , interesting topic,
I try to do my share of helping animals and humans as well.
I take care of local birds and small mammals and feed my neighbourhoods animals during the winter.
I sometimes donate a small sum of money to Doctors without borders and homeless people.
Some days ago I wrote a letter to the editor to my local paper. The town authorities considered town birds as pest. Sure , sometimes their numbers could be a bit too much , and maybe culling is needed. My point in this case was that old and lonely people often have only the ducks , pigeons and gulls as company and feed them everyday .
So I asked the authorities firstly not consider the town birds as ” pest” and secondly I asked the authorities to think about the old and lonely people who only had the birds as company .
I can’t seem to get my point across clearly 🙁
“I think the prioritization needs work”
A lot of work actually, this is what I am getting at. Given all the un-perfect things in the world today, the “humane killing” aspect of whaling by nations like Norway and Japan gets such a disproportionately large amount of attention. If there’s no disagreement on that point then I’m done.
The solution that people who criticise tend to propose is also entirely unconstructive – “end whaling”. That’s not proper solution, thats just an agenda. If the problem is “slow painful death” the solution ought to be aimed at achieving “rapid painless death”. This way the people who benefit from the slaughter of whales don’t lose those benefits (oh does it depend on whether I’m talking about “aboriginal subsistence whalers” or other whalers here? I guess it probably does).
I quite sympathize with Aussies who for whatever reason don’t want humpback whales that migrate up the Aussie coasts to be killed in the Antarctic, but there is a limit to my sympathy when the government they elected chose not to negotiate the matter at the IWC earlier this year and there has subsequently been no questioning of the government’s decision. Instead what I hear is only the ridiculous suggestion that the humpback whales were being held “hostage” by the Japanese. Whales? hostages?! First up from dictionary.com… “hos·tage –noun
1. a person given or held as security for the fulfillment of certain conditions or terms, promises, etc., by another”
I don’t know exactly to what degree 50 humpbacks being killed each year will effect what you do (you can tell me more about it), but I wonder how much sympathy is out there for the hardships that whaling peoples have been placed under over the past few decades (I don’t recall it ever being discussed here). It’s bizarre to me that some can empathize with and be accepting of humans in one’s own country who benefit from dealing with and ultimately killing animals in some ways using the best technology available for the task (perhaps because one is or knows such beneficiaries), but not with humans who developed in different environments in other parts of the world who benefit from dealing with and ultimately killing other types of animals in other ways. We are talking about our fellow human beings. I don’t think there is a place for such intolerance in the “small place” you describe the world as, and I do hope as it gets even smaller we’ll see a world more tolerant and understanding of such plain and simple diversity. And before I’m taken wrong again – this is not to say that anyone involved in handling animals is excused from attempting to improve their treatment of animals: Problems should not be used as excuses to push ulterior agendas which disregard the benefits to fellow human beings of different pursuasion or background.
> I find this bizarre. They do not have to be mutually exclusive
I’m wasn’t suggesting that they need be, I was talking about prioritization. I give humans priority, but hey I know you spend time with whales and like them more than you like whalers and people who eat whale (don’t know how many such people you know though) so I can understand your personal preference. Why is mine different? Because I learnt to speak a foreign language etc when I was a wee tot? Just my innate sense of justness? Dunno. Perhaps it’s because I’m pure evil!? 🙂
> The way humans treat animals often says a lot about the way they treat fellow humans.
I wonder what can be said about humans who keep animals in captivity and do stuff like artificial insemination on them before slaughtering them (all, eventually) in a certain set of conditions, versus other humans who don’t keep animals in captivity before slaughtering a small number of them in a different set of conditions?
If we are mutually intolerant I think there is much to say in both directions, and neither will accept the claims of the other.
Back to Japan.
As I have mentioned in a previous thread , killing methods of dolphins in the drive hunts by throat cutting seems now to be banned by Japanese authorities.
However, Libby pointed out that this custom probably was still in use. The Japanese authorities had banned this custom due to complaints from animal welfare organisations.
Well, people tend to be digusted by all the blood in cetacean slaughter, but there is much blood because the main arteries are cut off.
I’m not aware exactly how they kill dolphins nowadays in Japan.
Faroe Islands have got much criticism in the past for its inhumane killing methods. The TTD is still not instant, it normally takes about 30 seconds to kill the pilot whale.
The pilot whale is killed by cutting the dorsal area through to the spinal cord with a special whaling knife. During the cut of a pilot whale’s spine their main arteries are also cut.
Well, during the discussions here , it actually amazes me that strong anti whaling nations complain about cruelty in whaling when they don’t treat their own farm animals in a more humane way.
Are the Japanese, Norwegians and Icelanders more cruel than other people?
Can’t speak for the Japanese but the Nordic people have very strong animal protection laws and btw re Iceland, which nation keeps their horses out on the pastures and in the semi wild without fences???
“I can’t seem to get my point across clearly :(”
I know the feeling.
Enuff of the head butting for tonight. I think we managed to have a break from it all longer than Tom and Jerry though (re the last thread).
“it actually amazes me that strong anti whaling nations complain about cruelty in whaling when they don’t treat their own farm animals in a more humane way”.
It sometimes amazes me Australians want to go to Africa and set up schools and homes with sanitation and power when about 40 Aboriginal communities in NSW alone don’t have adequate water and sanitation and power. However, good on them for making a difference somewhere. No, the point doesn’t get across (sigh)…
Ann I will see what papers I have re pollutants and if any mention actual effects.
One of my favourite songs from the 80’s was “Life in Tokyo” by the group Japan. There was a line that “life was cruel in Tokyo”. I never understood what that meant – just joking:) (I think I’m over-tired!)
We have heard quite much about mercury, heavy metals, PCB and DDT contamination of sea life.
A new threat has entered the arena, the brominated flame retardants.
Bromide compounds stop or diminish fire. They are used in products as diverse as cars , computers , textils and television sets.
These chemicals , which belong to the group of persistent organic pollutants( POPs), have already infiltrated the food chain and reached the depths of the oceans.
In the fatty tissue and livers of dolphins , whales and seals , scientists have found considerable concentrations of these substances.
They can boost the carcinogenic of other substances and interfere with the endocrine system.
Snails have undergone sex changes and in Spitzbergen , scientists come over more and more hermaphroditic polar bear cubs , due to exposure.
To Libby,
Re my statement ” it actually amazes me that strong anti whaling countries complains about cruelty in whaling when they don’t treat their own farm animals in a more humane way”.
Here’s an example from Europe:
“Veal Calves
Intensive veal units were developed in the 1950s to deal with the dairy industry’s surplus male calves and skimmed milk. Narrow veal crates were banned in the UK in 1990. However, they continue to be operated on a massive scale in Europe and the UK still imports the resulting meat. A typical veal production unit in Europe deny calves of dry feed thus preventing normal rumen development and predisposing to chronic indigestion. The intake of dietary iron is withheld and some calves become anaemic. They are solitary confined to wooden crates and may not be able turn round, groom themselves or adopt a normal sleeping position. The incidence of infectious diseases are very high and kept under control only by the liberal and repeated use of antibiotics. Calves develop stereotypical behaviour patterns such as tongue rolling, crate-licking or mutual tongue sucking”
Still the UK ( a very strong opponent of whaling and especially cruelty in whaling) exports their 2 week old veal calves to Europe on long and cruel journeys.
Btw, looking forward to read your papers on contaminants.
Gosh, Libby lets loose a diatribe and convinces herself that she has scored a rebuttal. Lets look at the notion that the Japanese dolphins are restricted in their movement by? What, they don’t have a visa to move up to Sakhalin while the dolphin hunt is on? Give us a break.
If they were anywhere near as sentient beings as many eco-gooses would have us believe then surely they would have managed to learn SOMETHING from such an enduring sequence of events. Surely, if their much vaunted “social networks” were working then some of them might start warning the others about hanging around? Nope. Not a trace of evidence.
And sure, a breached whale is placed in great stress when out of the water by their own body mass but Libby will need more than a simple switch to using the term ‘cetacean’ instead of dolphin to convince anyone that the body mass of a dolphin applies a similar stress on them.
Another interesting observation from this thread is that most contributors are not able to distinguish between the actual death and the “death rattle” that takes place after death.
In the video, the plunging of the knife was sufficient to sever major arteries and the substantial, and immediate, loss of blood would render the animal unconscious in a very short time. The subsequent convulsions take place after the animal has lost consciousness, and indeed, after they are dead.
It is similar to what is called “the dead cat bounce”. And any suggestion that the presence of these responses amounts to some sort of extended cruelty is the pure bull$hit of the uninformed observer.
“convinces herself that she has scored a rebuttal”
I do? Now why would I do that Ian when I know that sooner or later you will write something from your vast collection of experiences and unlimited knowledge to prove me wrong?
“If they were anywhere near as sentient beings as many eco-gooses would have us believe then surely they would have managed to learn SOMETHING from such an enduring sequence of events. Surely, if their much vaunted “social networks” were working then some of them might start warning the others about hanging around? Nope. Not a trace of evidence.”
a) What do you know of the animals that live in this area and are involved in the fisheries Ian? I guess you know that not only bottlenose dolphins are involved. I guess you know their seasonal movements, pod associations, etc. When you see the footage of the drive fisheries, whole pods are driven into the shallows. It is quite conceivable that there are no other animals in the vicinity left to warn. Why do odontocetes mass strand when mysticetes don’t (unless it is in the movie Whale Rider)? It appears to have something to do with those “social networks”. You know, relatedness, altruism, all those feel good things. Hence why whole pods wash ahore, or get caught up in the drive and suffer for their mates.
“And sure, a breached whale is placed in great stress when out of the water by their own body mass but Libby will need more than a simple switch to using the term ‘cetacean’ instead of dolphin to convince anyone that the body mass of a dolphin applies a similar stress on them.”
My, there’s that sneaky switch to the term cetacean again. I surely don’t know what I am talking about do I? It’s all smoke and mirrors. I assume you mean beached, Ian, not breached. There is a difference. When you have been to strandings of large and small cetaceans, come back and tell me what you have learnt. Of course these animals aren’t going to be returned to the sea, they are going to be killed, so it doesn’t matter what happens to them.
“And any suggestion that the presence of these responses amounts to some sort of extended cruelty is the pure bull$hit of the uninformed observer”.
Was anyone here talking about the “plunging of the knife”? They were referring to what happened up to that point. Perhaps you have had experience with severing a DOLPHIN’S major arteries Ian and know how easy/difficult it is and what their reactions are?
Speaking of “bull$hit” Ian, I await the next truckload from you.
Ann,
I don’t need veal examples, there are plenty in my own country. For example Australia’s battery animal operations are outlawed in many European countries. Yes, Australia is a strong anti-whaling country. So are you suggesting we forget about the whales and concentrate on our farm animals? Again, why can’t we do both? There are a number of organisations in Australia fighting for better conditions of farm animals, much like there are those that want better conditions and stricter regulations on animals in research. I am sure you would be familiar with the type of people and resistance these organisations come up against. It doesn’t mean they should stop fighting, and small in-roads are being made.
Re movements of delphinids in areas where drive fisheries take place, it appears that some of these drives occur to take advantage of migratory movements of animals. As migration is usually not carried out on a whim but rather tied to seasonal requirements of animals, these dolphins need to pass through these locations.
There are a number of cetacean fishery operations in Japan. There is small-type whaling, which takes Baird’s beaked whales, short-finned pilot whales and Risso’s dolphins. The dolphin drive fishery concentrates on social species to take advantage of the drive (ie, these animals will stick together, making driving more successful). There is also the hand harpoon fishery which takes dolphins and porpoises, and this also includes the cross-bow fishery. Dall’s porpoises are the main species taken. David would be able to give recent numbers for this, but there was a peak of 45, 600 Dall’s taken in 1988 which coincided with commercial whaling ending and a quota system for small cetacean fisheries. Finally, there is trap-net fishing. Whilst cetaceans caught in these trap were considered to be bycatch, this was changed in 2001 when the Fisheries Agency permitted the selling of whales found in traps. Blue whales, bowheads and finless porpoises are not allowed to be sold for profit, and DNA samples much be collected from all animals caught. There have been reports of 120-130 minkes taken annually in trap nets, in addition to other small cetaceans and species such as western gray whales, humpback whales and right whales. David would be more up-to-date on this.
Ann,
I mentioned some papers on flame retardants and marine mammals in one of the other threads (check archives). Papers I’ve seen have concerned polar bears and orcas.
Regarding pollutants, there is heaps of stuff out there. There was of course the Faroe Island study we have both referred to previously. One study looking at dietary consumption in north Greenland noted that “The consumption of locally produced food has decreased in Greenland during the last 30 years and this has led to a reduction in the daily intake of contaminants. However, the concentrations of contaminants in local food items have not decreased, except for PCB and Lead. Therefore, we recommend that the consumption of local products is not increased beyond the present level, until the level of contaminants is reduced to a safer level.” (Deutch et al., 2006).
A study on organochlorines in Mediterranean bottlenose dolphins showed over a 25-year period showed the overall levels of HCB, PCB and tDDT were high relative to other areas, but that there was “a significant decline over the study period in the concentrations of all the compounds analyzed.” (Borell and Aguiler, 2007).
There is a paper “Endocrine disruption induced by organochlorines (OCs): Field studies and experimental modles, by Ropstad et al, 2006, says that in polar bears from the Svalbard area PCBs were associated with increased progesterone levels in females. A paper looking at polar bear skull pathology from East Greenland notes in the first sentence “East Greenland and Svalbard polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are heavily polluted with long-range transported organochlorines such as PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls).” (Sonne et al, 2007).
A paper looking at finless porpoise and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins in Hong Kong waters found that when their samples were analyzed and measured against the Reference Dose (RfD), which is often used in human health risk assessment, and the Toxicity Reference Value (TRV), which is based on terrestrial mammals the risks to the dolphins and porpoises of 13 trace elements found in stomach contents were “generally low and within safe limits using the values based on the TRV..” Using the “RfD-based values the risks associated with arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel and mercury were comparatively higher.” (Hung, et al 2007).
I have been VERY brief here, which is not really fair to those doing research in this area or readers who want to learn more about pollutants in cetaceans and other marine mammals. The journal Marine Pollution Bulletin, as well as many others on toxicology, have a lot of good information.
” So are you suggesting we forget about the whales and concentrate on our farm animals? ” – Libby
No, not at all….methinks it’s good with organisations that keeps the authorities on the toes and improve all animal standards.
The point with my statement ( and what prowhaling nations state) is that anti whaling nations are keen on criticing other nations and not looking at their own backyard.
Protesting against whaling is a means to appeal to voters without having to do anything at home.
( You know protesting against a powerful lobby/ industry).
And thanks for the info on pollutants etc, good ones!
It seems as well that different organisations are working very actively to ban different kinds of flame retardants and Washington is the first state to ban them.
Re pollutants in cetaceans. I hardly don’t think the health authorities in whaling countries will ban cetacean meat and blubber.
It’s still probably to political and sensitive .
I have an example from Sweden.
It’s about advisory levels on dioxins. Fishermen and consumers are still allowed to sell Baltic herring in Sweden despite the dioxin levels exceed the EUs advisory levels.It’s all about employment and traditions….
Libby does a sidestep, again. If dolphin-kind are so clever how come they don’t tell each other about the threat from the dolphin drives?
She provides quaint little snippets of info to imply that she knows what she is talking about but misses the point. If most of the dolphins that are taken are migratory species then a fully sentient species would surely have the nous to spread the word about risks along the migratory route?
It is not a particularly complex communication task, one that any number of bombed out feral dropkicks have managed to do on the Asian ‘hippie trail’ for decades now. Unless, of course, dolphins are really no more intelligent than sheep or cattle, in which case it would be quite beyond them.
And nice try with the spin on the lead up to the dolphin killing. A ride in a truck may be a bit distressing but it cannot, under any circumstances, be truthfully regarded as part of the killing process. For the cognitively challenged, an extended death must start with an action that will actually cause death and end with the actual death. So the death of the dolphins in the video was quite quick.
Cut off the head of a chook and it will run about like a public servant on judgement day. It’s body certainly gives an impression that life is still present but the head, the key determinant of life, will remain on the block, dead as a Dodo.
It is quite clear that the whale wankers have been trying on another blatantly deceptive representation of the facts to advance their position.
“If most of the dolphins that are taken are migratory species then a fully sentient species would surely have the nous to spread the word about risks along the migratory route?”
Humans going out to get food, find work, get medical help etc in war zones and risking their lives being taken by snippers, long-range missles or suicide bombers are non-sentient beings. They have obviously either not communicated to each other of bad experiences, not learnt from observatiosn of others, like to play Russian roulette or are just plain stupid. The same logic must apply Ian. Note conveniently ignores that possibly all in the pod are killed during drives and how this system actually works…
“And nice try with the spin on the lead up to the dolphin killing. A ride in a truck may be a bit distressing but it cannot….”
Read what has been written here. I know it’s challenging, but you may see that the points raised are regarding suffering and animal welfare, not how long it takes for the final act of death.
Sidestepping is when I avoid treading in $hit Ian, usually your verbal own. The only point I miss is the common sense that should tell me not to engage in anything written by someone who has the intellectual capacity and maturity of a sweet potato rotting in a cupboard. I’m sure even it would recognise its use by date and irrelevence.
Cruelty to vegetables! At least a sweet potato is useful for some of its life.
Nice try with the war zone analogy but the big difference is probability. Even in a pitched battle between armed forces the probability of death for combatants is only in the order of 3%. The risk to civilians from snipers and suicide bombers is in the very low range (ie 0.000001 or less) and, also being very much a territorial species, humans weigh up this risk as worth taking. They also ensure that almost the entire planetary population get to hear about that risk.
The numbers involved in the dolphin hunt appear to be much higher, with a much greater probability of mortality. It is certainly a level of risk that migratory humans would avoid if they could (see travel advisory). Note tourist numbers in Bali after the bombing.
It is all very well to trade on a few perceptual similarities of some people, some of the time, but that will never amount to evidence of intellectual parity. When the Cetaceans Union gets together and forms a multi-species attack on isolated fishing boats we might give them some recognition for approaching cognitive parity.
The best they can muster at present is the sympathy of a bunch of bombed out eco-nutters who have descended so far down the food chain that they can no longer decide if they are animal, vegetable or mineral.
I’m not going into this topic right now if cetaceans are unintelligent or not when returning year after year to the killing grounds.
However, they can’t be that stupid when humans still haven’t discovered for example the North Atlantic minke whales’ wintering grounds. It’s still a secret but scientists believe it’s in the Mediterranean.
Elephants do however avoid old killing fields and an old cow will always remember where they are.
Studies from war torn African regions also indicate that elephants avoid danger zones such as zones with land mines. Scientists suggest they have witnessed their fellows loose trunks and legs and have learnt a lesson.
BTW, according to a Danish study minke whales have most brain cells of all animals after humans ( see old archive).
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/memories-of-the-hunt/2007/08/03/1185648145772.html?page=2
Excerpt from your Aussie paper:
The former whaler stated:
” He believes that Japanese whalers will have little trouble approaching Australian humpbacks in the Antarctic, where 50 are to be harpooned in the coming summer.
Because they haven’t been chased , they are very trusting. They come and have a look at the boat. But if they are being killed, their behaviour will change.
That happened with the sperm whales. They got very flighty over only a couple of seasons. For the whale-watching business in Australia , it won’t make it any easier.”
Another excerpt from the article:
” The master-gunner watched as the bull slowly turned side-on and looked up at him, then slid under the hull and came up behind the stern. Some sperm whales seemed to do that deliberately – resist panic and instead survive by using the ship itself as a shield.
We had it once seven times with the same whale. We just couldn’t get him. I think the sperm whale is very clever.”
Whatever Ian, you’re boring.
Thanks for the link Ann. Amazing that I need someone in Sweden to tell me what is in my local paper! I’m sure David will have something to say about the content.
“Then, the master-gunner Kase van der Gaag admits: “I shot it. Aagh – I’m not proud of it. It was 32 feet (almost 10 metres). It was ghostly white. We were chasing cows and I could have shot another one. Oh, and it happened when Greenpeace was here…”
I wonder if the same will happen with Migaloo? Make an excellent research specimen and fantastic footage with white and red.
And if humpbacks are as clever as elephants they will know to distinguish between a boat load of rubberneckers in the tropical winter and an industrial whaler in the southern oceanic summer.
Libby is boored now. What a classic cop-out. Run along now, and rejuvenate your prejudices, free of any, apparent, contradictions.
“What a classic cop-out.”
Yes Ian, you’ve won. Whatever scenario will make you happy and give you delusions of grandeur, masculine superiority and unrivalled intelligence! What do you do again? LOL!!!
” Amazing that I need someone in Sweden to tell me what is in my local paper! ” – Libby
I check out a Norwegian animal welfare site everyday and they have whaling news from the entire world!
Btw, this is not ” official” yet, but I’m going to publish a guest post at Jen’s blog every week or every 14 day for some months for a starters on
1) Whaling in the North
2) Ethics, politics and whaling in general
3) ” The cruelty issue”
4) Pieces from Scandinavia on the environment, conservation etc. etc.
So hope you will all join the discussions !
I have access to a Norwegian site btw on whaling and fisheries that only people with a Scandinavian telophone number can read .
Spare me the baggage, Libby.
Look forward to it Ann. Do you have Halal meat available in Sweden?
No baggage Ian, I just find you a waste of space and time. You do it on every thread with those you don’t agree with. The posters here rarely if ever go over to other threads on AGW, logging etc. They know their limits and are sensible enough not to sprout bulldust just for the sake of having their name on every thread. You on the other hand are an apparent expert on everything. But where has it got you? You have a reputation as being sulky, abusive, and most of all WRONG! Your ideas on tagging “baby” whales was about the most hysterical thing I’ve heard lately, and yet you still persist. The only difference with the whaling threads is that there is such a lack of female contributors on this blog that those you disagree with get the full onslaught of stupidity and verbal abuse. I have to really wonder what sort of baggage you have Ian! Scary stuff.
Ritual/ religious slaughter of animals is banned in Scandinavia, Libby.
This has caused an hot debate/ outcry among jews and muslims.
Re the Sydney Herald article etc. It seems like the whalers are real experts on different whales’ behaviour etc. It might be very useful information that hopefully they will share with scientists , conservationists etc.
Hi Ann,
“Ritual/ religious slaughter of animals is banned in Scandinavia”
That’s interesting. In Australia most Halal butchers have to stun animals unconsious before the throat is cut, but apparently there are some exceptions for a small market that considers stunning not in line with Halal practice and can therefore do away with it. I wish were were as strict on this as you guys, but for Australia it is all above the dollar and our precious trade, hence why any babbling about whaling from our politicians is just that.
re the whalers, I once did a whale survey with one of NZ’s last old -time whalers. He was remarkable, with so much knowledge. It was to their utmost advantage to know as much about each species’ behavioural quirks as possible. They can teach us a lot, and that goes for present day whalers as well. I hope to catch up with some Tongan whalers this year and learn more about their methods and attitudes.
> I’m sure David will have something to say about the content.
Hmmm, OK 🙂
(quote) “Van der Gaag is annoyed that Japan whales now. “They don’t have to. A couple of Eskimos killing them, that is understandable. But the Japanese don’t need to. They should stop.” (end quote)
Funnily enough this is along the same lines as I mentioned earlier. I don’t understand why it’s understandable for Eskimos but not for Japanese. Eskimos see whales swimming around so they go and hunt some for food. Japanese people see whales swimming around so they go and hunt some for food. Many generations later, here we are today – what is so strange?
When it comes to pelagic whaling of course the situation is different, and while I personally have no problem with sustainable pelagic whaling, Australia which does decided not to try to negotiate to stop pelagic whaling in the Antarctic, instead insisting that Japan stop whaling even in it’s coastal waters while Americans continue to hunt in their’s largely unopposed.
This was also interesting:
(quote) But if they are being killed, their behaviour will change. That happened with sperm whales. (end quote)
Sperm whales must be pretty clever, at least as clever as Lion / Cheetah prey on the savannah who seem to be able to sense when it’s time to run from danger as well. Apparently what applies for sperm whales applies for humpback whales, from this story. Time will tell of course, I know not who will be right and who will be wrong, only that Australia’s government (and people) prefer to fight an unwinnable battle against a (friendly!) sovereign nation which will continue to catch whales in their own part of the world at least, regardless.
(quote) “I think you will find that the average number of shots per animal was at least three, maybe four. It’s cruel. (end quote)
Maybe he should have said “It was cruel”, as today’s hunts employ better techniques which I would imagine take on average between one and two harpoons. Still not pretty, but quite a significant improvement.
>Maybe he should have said “It was cruel”, as today’s hunts employ better techniques which I would imagine take on average between one and two harpoons.
It would help if we had more up to the minute data from the Japanese on sperm whale TTDs. This was mentioned in a previous thread somewhere.
“We”? What use would you have for such data?
I recall it being mentioned on a previous thread that discussions at the IWC working group based on voluntarily provided data tended to be of an unconstructive nature (i.e., people against whaling criticising anything and everything, as opposed to people concerned about improving the welfare of those whales that are killed). This (in what may be the beginning of an emerging trend) seems to have led to data being made available to and discussed at another forum instead.
So if you can’t sustain a debate, Libby, it must be a woman’s right to defame? Our readers are not stupid. They can all go back over the threads and see that my insults are directed at a general cohort, not individuals. While yours are all directed at whoever has earned your wrath.
And frankly, your opinions on the future potential for whale tagging are not worth two cents. If it is currently economic to tag a 20kg sheep for management purposes then there is a lot of scope for new technologies that will enable the tagging of 20 tonnes of whale.
Travis and David,
If whaling countries can show up improved stats for TTDs , methinks unlike the Japanese that it isn’t unconstructive ( getting criticism all the time).
We see from Norway that even hardline antiwhalers praise Norway for improved TTDs and transparency.
I see for example that a hardline animal welfare organisations writes that indeed the killing methods have improved over the years in a positive way.
Ann, they have improved, and have provided the data. They developed the original penthrite grenade which was a huge improvement on previous methods employed (by those who today criticise the hell out of whaling nations), by the mid 1990’s they had improved the instantaneous death rate (IDR) to just under 30%, and by the time they introduced an “improved” penthrite grenade in the 2002 JARPA season the IDR had improved to over 50%, and the TTD down.
There’s simply no point in discussing it at the IWC anymore, that’s all. As from the 2006 IWC report:
“Denmark had hoped to learn something new from the workshop, such as new ways to kill whales more humanely, but found that it was largely a meeting where different points of view were presented. It suggested that this demonstrates that either a situation has been reached where whale killing methods cannot be further improved or that participants do not really care, using the occasion only to further their political aims. In this regard, Denmark expressed concern regarding the quality of some of the papers and considered that much of the information now being requested has nothing to do with refining killing methods but rather to attacking those nations taking whales, as reflected at the end of the summary prepared by the workshop Chair.”
>”We”? What use would you have for such data?
Plenty. I’m sure others would be interested too. Your paranoia gets the better of you sometimes David.
>(i.e., people against whaling criticising anything and everything, as opposed to people concerned about improving the welfare of those whales that are killed). This (in what may be the beginning of an emerging trend) seems to have led to data being made available to and discussed at another forum instead.
Sounds like something our current PM would say. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. As Ann has rightfully pointed out, Norway has been very open with its TTD data and researching better killing methods.
Ian you are like a runty little mutt with a postman’s leg. Let it go and go under the house and stay there. Frankly I would listen to Libby’s opinions over yours any day. Get a life.
OK David, but methinks Norway got much praise this year from the IWC for its thorough reporting on killing methods, TTDs and IDRs.
> Plenty.
mmm, now there’s a concrete answer.
You are also confusing your not knowing where to find data with data not being available. If you were that in need of the data you’d surely have found it by yourself already. But yeah I guess I’m paranoid, not just plain stupid.
>But yeah I guess I’m paranoid, not just plain stupid.
Uncalled for David.
I have the Report of the Working Group on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues printed out.
Firstly I see that Japan submitts stats to NAMMCO and they are public( actually didn’t know that).
Secondly,the Netherlands asked Japan, if it was true that Japan used underwater sounds to herd dolphins into drive nets FOLLOWED BY LIVE TRANSPORTS of the dolphins to a sight where they were killed.
If this was a true description of the hunt, the Netherlands view was that the hunt was not ethical.
The Netherlands asked Japan to improve the hunting method.
Japan responded that this was an issue of small cetaceans over it believe IWC doesn’t have competency. It therefore requested that The Netherlands directed its question to the Government of Japan in a bilateral fashion.
Hey, I’m either paranoid (according to you) or if not then I’m stupid (according to me). I’ll take which option I like thanks.
Speaking of the Netherlands I have some correspondence that says the Netherlands has never given SSCS the right to fly the Dutch flag. I was surprised to read this given that it was widely publicised that they had.
So David are all the JARPA/JARPN whale killing stats public info? (Yes I am being lazy, sorry).
See Ann’s post at 02:58 PM.
Libby,
URL to the NAMMCO website : http://www.NAMMCO.no
Think you can obtain a copy of the workshop report
FYI the WGW death the other day was a female. Hajime Ishikawa of the ICR thinks it’s probable that it was a natural death but they haven’t finished analyses of the biological samples yet.
If you care to run it through a web translation site the link is here:
http://www.muromin.mnw.jp/murominn-web/back/2007/08/03/20070803m_08.html
Thanks David and Ann. I visited the NAMMCO site some time ago. Big shame about the WGW being female.
” I can’t understand why anyone would want to eat them. Forget toxic – it’s barbaric!”
Sample size = 1
Tastes good ( minke whale meat)
Tastes Great ( fin whale meat )
Loverly grub ( Humpback – or so I am told by one who has tasted it )
Call me a barbarian anytime you want Paul – let it all out, you`ll feel better I`m sure ;op
The only data I could find on Japanese killing methods was data on ” struck and lost whales”
( There might be more. I have e-mailed NAMMCO and asked specifically about this, might get a reply.)
http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/Nammco/818.pdf
See above link.
” Status of struck and lost in Japanese whaling”
page 44.
Trawling through the Working Groups report , I found the expression ” stinky whales”.
Spurred by reports of the odorous whales , US and Russian toxicologists began testing tissue samples of stinky whales in 2003.
The samples show a slew of more than hundred volatile compounds, including hydrocarbons, sulphur and nitrogen compounds.
Yet the results are unclear and do not implicate human activity.
It’s possible that a change in prey due to climate change is forcing the whales to change their diet and this is causing certain biochemical reactions within them.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/06/070606-stinky-whales_2.html
Watch the news, I’m sure you’ll be hearing about something very nasty today…
Oh you are such a tease.
In the meantime, here’s some pretty average propaganda from “Science Alert”:
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/features/20070708-16171.html
They should stick to their strong points. For example, “part of the next generation of whales” that 262 unborn minke whales represents is less than 0.01% of the estimated abundance.
Rather than release such poor quality propaganda you’d think this guy would be calling Turnbull and begging him to get negotiating with the Japanese again if he is truly concerned.
Has anyone here tried writing to Turnbull about it?
Norwegian paper Fiskeribladet writes this morning that the whalers might lose about 40 million Norwegian Crowns this and next whaling season due to the Gov’t decision to ban coastal whaling in the middle of the wahling season due to recommendations from the IWC.
The loss of profits will come from not used penthrite grenades and deals made with the processing factories and retailers that now must be cancelled.
Revenues from whaling this year are about 22,4 millon NOK.
The season is running in the end phase and ” only” 541 whales have been harvested out of 1052.
As usual no whales have been hunted in the Jan Mayen zone out of a quota of about 150 minkes.
There’s been literally dozens of postings on fisheries here with not one single trite bout of handwringing from either Libby or Ann on the average time to death of a typical sardine or other species.
This literally involves billions of individual (unique, intelligent, family based, yadda blah)animals and strikes me as further proof that this maudlin fascination with perceived (and hyped) cruelty and time to death as it applies to whales, seals (and any other species the animal protest industry finds lucrative) is nothing more than a cultural conceit based on thinly veiled aesthetic prejudices.
It certainly isn’t an environmental issue.
” There’s been literally dozens of postings on fisheries here with not one single trite bout of handwringing from either Libby or Ann on the average time to death of a typical sardine or other species”- Iceclass
If you check out the old thread on choosing between a kangaroo, whales or whale steak, you will find that Gavin provided a link on humane fish killing methods. We also mentioned that fish are not ” those stupid creatures that can’t feel any pain”.We mentioned intelligence and family structure.
I have mentioned in discussions that most farmed fish aren’t happy and that wild caught fish usually tastes better because they are ” happy”.
It has been made studies on this in Norway.
I have discussed environmental impacts with tuna fattening farms , I have also mentioned it’s more difficult to farm cod than salmon and that to cage a cod is equal to cage a golden eagle.
FYI I have mentioned in almost all threads that I see all animals as equals and DON’T differentiate between sea mammals vs. other animals. This is the policy I work with when it comes to animals.
FYI, I have also personally never liked fishing. I did that as a kid with my brother and cousins. I never liked to bait the earth worms but we learned how to kill the fish as fast as possible ( breaking the neck). I really hated this!
Ooops , read ” Choosing between a Kangaroo, Whale or Beef Steak”
One more point. On another forum I have marvelled over the tuna fish intelligence and beauty . I have also been disgusted by the way they use hooks when they drag the tuna onboard the fishing vessels.
To make you even more amazed. I have never personally liked the way people eat tuna sandwitches and only thinking about the dolphins.
A short notice here on the label ” caught with dolphin friendly methods”. This could be a good thread but I have heard from environmentalists that this labelling actually ain’t that good.
The bycatch of juvenile fish, turtles and sea birds is larger with ” dolphin friendly ” labelling.
Well put Ann. Issues of animal cruelty that do not involve marine mamals have been mentioned previously. I work with researchers studying fish intelligence. On the basis of your previous comment regarding European house wives, your comment is hardly surprising. Your accusations of cultural conceit and species-ism are based on your own laziness and personal biases.
” It certainly isn’t an environmental issue. ” – IceClass.
You’ve already pointed out on a previous thread that animal welfare issues are not environmentalism.
Libby told you that these day they do overlap.
I can give you some examples:
1) Hog farms. The ” animal protest industry( your own words) have pointed out the cruelty with factory farming, where the animals are kept under cramped conditions.
This do have an impact on the environment. The manure is kept in big lagoons , they leak ammonia etc. to the ground water. The lagoons emit as well a large amount of CO2 and methane.
2) Fish farms. Cramped conditions. Fish escaping to the wild with sea lice and ruin the genetic diversity.
3) Poultry farms. Origin of bird flu.
4) Cattle kept in cramped conditions. This makes spreading of viruses more easy. See footh and mouth disease in the UK now.
We can also make the reverse. Habitats contaminated with pollutants make animals more susceptable to diseases. This is a fact especially with sea mammals.
Fatuous crap, Ann. Pegnant Pigs in the wild seek out small, confined spaces as nests for their litter. If you really want to see a sow under real stress then leave her in a large open paddock with no nest sites. Sows behaviour in pens (like gnawing the walls and scraping the ground etc) was, and still is, mistaken for a response to confinement. But when lots of straw is added they continue the behaviour but do it with the straw to form a suitable nest.
In fact, this preference for confined spaces by pregnant females is very common, almost universal, for many species.
In cold weather you will also find that free-range cattle will seek out confined spaces where their “cramped” conditions keep them warm. Farmers are generally not stupid. It costs a whole lot of extra money to house cattle in cramped conditions and they only do so when conditions demand it. To fail to do so would be negligent cruelty.
So, please, spare us the lists of simplistic drivell masquerading as valid opinion.
And farmed fish are unhappy? What, have they been watching too many Bergman movies?
Absolutely no news of HSI’s case, although the news that I thought would hit the western media yesterday hasn’t turned up either.
Well Ian I did mention some well known facts and GOSH!!! I must admit that you have made some correct observations.
A simple translation from a fish farming site in Norway( note not an animal welfare site ):
” Happy salmon tastes better. If salmon can live with accordance with its natural habitat , the fish is less prone to diseases. They grow better, the meat tastes better and all this makes the fish farming more profitable. Different species adapt differently to farming.”
http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2007/februar/1172493477.7
Dr Peter Corkeron has directed me to a recent paper he has co-authored which is not only on-topic, but deals with cetaceans AND fish. The paper involves a study of Norwegian killer whales and the transfer of contaminants from their major food source – herring. A range of contaminant compounds were analysed, including toxaphenes and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs, or flame retardants).
Several studies have indicated halogenated organic compounds (HOCs) may have adverse effects on the endocrine and immune systems of marine predators. Killer whales in western North America have levels exceeding 200mg/kg for PCBs.
Levels of all contaminant compounds were high in the 9 study animals, even compared to known studies on harbour seals, white whales and polar bears. “Overall, contaminant levels in Norwegian killer whales are currently among the highest recorded for any arctic marine mammal species”, and they are the “most polluted European arctic mammal.”
The link with the Norwegian killer whales’ food –herring- showed 10-15 times higher HOC levels than polar cod from Svalbard, which is the major food of white whales. Killer whales from the Northeast Pacific have comparable or higher HOCs levels. When comparing the diet of killer whales with white whales, overall contamination levels are 6 to more than 20 times higher in the killer whale diet.
Killer whales may be better able to metabolise a range of contaminants than other cetaceans can, such as white whales. The results suggest that although PCBs, chlordanes and DDE accumulate to some degree in killer whales, toxaphenes and PBDCs may be partly broken down. However, regardless of being able to metabolise a range of compounds, contamination of their food source (herring) results in “record high pollution levels.”
I think it is fair to say this is a fish, marine mammal, human and environmental issue.
The paper also points out that Norway had an annual catch of 57 killer whales between 1938 and 1980, and culled over 700 animals between 1969 and 1980 in response to the collapse of the Norwegian herring stock.
David are you going to fill us in on this piece of news?
Thanks a lot Libby and Peter for this piece of information.
” The paper also points out that Norway had an annual catch of 57 killer whales between 1938 and 1980, and culled over 700 animals between 1969 and 1980 in response to the collapse of the Norwegian herring stock”.
It might as well be interesting to know that local people in Norway , who were afraid that the killer whales should eat the herring called the killer whales ” the whales that eat herring”. Don’t recall the Norwegian name right now.
As we are back up in the Arctic again with Libby’s and Peter’s post , I want to adress IceClasse’s post again.
He believes that only European house wives are protesting against sealing etc. FYI , I have a video here:
http://www.svalbardposten.no/nyhet.cfm?nyhetid=846
from the world’s most northern paper , Svalbardposten ,showing how local people up in Svalbard rescue a white coat.In a seal slaughtering country.
Libby: Nah, maybe the western media deserve more credit than I give them. I guess you’ll hear about it sooner or later though.
In other news, hey can’t they take a biopsy for DNA purposes?
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22210355-5005961,00.html
I wonder by the way, how much money is spent on disposing of dead whales in Australia each year, and who pays for it.
PS, the story about the Baiji seems to have come up again via Reuters:
“One really needs to learn from this to make sure future conservation efforts are more dynamic,” he said. “There has always been so much focus on ‘save the whale’ and ‘prevent whaling’ that it has led to these range-restricted shallow cetaceans slipping through the crack.”
Where are our priorities…
“Nah, maybe the western media deserve more credit than I give them. I guess you’ll hear about it sooner or later though”.
One wonders about the filtering process here and what purpose it serves.
“I wonder by the way, how much money is spent on disposing of dead whales in Australia each year, and who pays for it”.
Probably nowhere near as much as is spent disposing of road killed wallabies, wombats, cats and dogs. When a badly decomposed animal is washed ashore, it has to go somewhere and someone has to pay for it. I do not see this as Australian or anti-whaling-nation specific. As the report says, councils usually take care of the carcass after it has been reported to the relevant state wildlife authority. Quite often they are buried on a beach or nearby and exhumed later for museum collections. This is then a collaborative effort between the local council, state parks/wildlife body and sometimes volunteers and museum staff. Depends on location, species, state of decomposition, staff availability, risk to public health, etc. It’s not uncommon for carcasses to be left where they are, remembering how much of Australia’s coastline is near human habitation and recreation.
I’m sure the baiji would not like to be remembered as “shallow”.
It’s not a “filtering process”, I’m just trying to get away from off-topic sideshows.
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2007/08/09/1417_gold-coast-news.html
“Because of the time it’s been in the water, the samples that are taken would not be of a quality that can be tested.”
I guess he means dead in the water as opposed to just in the water.
“QPWS workers told one curious passerby who attempted an on-the-spot autopsy by cutting into the carcass that the whale was still a protected species even though it was dead.”
No kidding? So how is messing with a dead carcass causing anyone any harm?
“I’m just trying to get away from off-topic sideshows.”
Hmmm, and stranded dead minkes in QLD are on topic?:)
“No kidding? So how is messing with a dead carcass causing anyone any harm?”
DEH says: It is an offence to kill a whale, dolphin or porpoise in the Australian Whale Sanctuary. It is also an offence to injure, take, trade, keep, move, harass, chase, herd, tag, mark or brand a whale, dolphin or porpoise in the Australian Whale Sanctuary without a permit.
The issue of OH&S is separate. Each state and territory has their own legislation regarding wildlife, but generally many native species are regarded as “protected”. This means that it is basically illegal to smack a snake over the head, capture a koala, keep a wallaby skull or take a sample from a dead whale without a permit or license. It is designed to stop people trading in animal parts or mutilating wildlife. It also means that when museum staff and researchers wish to take samples from certain specimens the public aren’t allowed to get there first and hack into a carcass. Sperm whale teeth, for example, are highly prized by many people. Believe it or not, many people collect animal bones, skins etc. People may wish to carve up a whale for dog food or fish bait. There are health aspects also related to this.
Don’t you worry, the news that I thought would break in the west is much less on topic than dead whales (minkes, western grays) washing ashore.
If we are talking about endangered species I can understand these rules, non-endangered species? But I guess in Australia all whales are still “endangered”.
They also have the “problem” with the jaws of stranded sperm whales getting sneakily cut off in New Zealand. Active hunting is one thing, but for me passive utilisation seems harmless from a conservation perspective. Finders keepers!
“But I guess in Australia all whales are still “endangered”.”
No, just like brown snakes are not endangered.
“passive utilisation seems harmless from a conservation perspective. Finders keepers!”
Sperm whale teeth are similar to elephant ivory. What starts as “passive” becomes a trade by the greedy and unscrupulous. Where do you draw the line? If you worked in a museum, native flora and fauna protection organisation or research facility you may not hold the same views. The easiest comparison I can make is archaeological or palaeontological specimens. Consider how much valuable knowledge of cultures and species has gone due to people wanting to collect objects or make a buck.
Whoops, I started up a debate that should be in the tigers thread.
The way I see it there are lots of greedy and unscrupulous people in the world, but the solution hasn’t to be to ban business.
Well, there is a permitting system so business isn’t totally banned. You just have to justify it.
By someone’s criteria, yes.
“All native mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians and many species of native plants are protected in NSW by the National Parks and Wildlife Act.” -DECC website.
To further show no bias towards cetaceans, at least in NSW.
Beluga whales contaminated by flame retardants in Canada:
“MONTREAL — The threatened belugas of the St. Lawrence have failed to grow in number despite decades of protection efforts, fuelling worry among scientists who fear for the animals’ survival.
The pearly white whales, known as the canaries of the sea for their whistled song, were the object of international alarm in the 1980s when they were brought to the edge of extinction.
According to new estimates, the beluga population at the time had dipped to 1,100 — the same number that survives today.
“The beluga population isn’t growing, and it’s cause for concern. We don’t like to see a species disappear,” said biologist Veronique Lesage, a beluga specialist at Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
“If a population is stable at 6 million, it isn’t serious,” Lesage said in an interview this week. “But when it’s stable at 1,000 and it’s been that way for 20 years and it’s confined to the St. Lawrence estuary, then the population is vulnerable to all sorts of catastrophes.”
Scientists say the reason for the whale population’s stagnation remains a mystery, but pollution and human harassment remain leading possibilities.
A study led by Quebec researcher Michel Lebeuf, published in the September issue of the journal Science of the Total Environment, found that contaminants such as DDT and PCBs had decreased slightly in the St. Lawrence belugas after years of pollution controls.
But Lebeuf, an environmental chemist at the federal Fisheries Department, has also discovered non-controlled chemicals such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, widely used as flame retardants, in St. Lawrence belugas. Their toxic presence in the animals has grown substantially”
Link to the above on topic excerpt from an article:
http://article.wn.com/view/2007/08/08/Canadas_belugas_remain_in_peril/
A few days ago I read as well that Russian belugas were in peril due to the current energy race in the Arctic.
However, fortunately locals in the Norwegian- Russian border had observed a large pod of belugas some days ago.
According to an article in Norwegian paper Verdens Gang , have Greenpaece’s Ocean’s Campaigner made the statement that ” we are not planning to do any direct actions against whalers. We have changed tactics. Now we are working to change peoples opinions.
Killing methods have improved a lot recently and ” bloody” and cruel whaling is not an argument against whaling. But whaling has not the right of life. ( Not sure what he means with this statement.)
We must now focus in the whaling issue on other topics , such as climate change and reduced availability of feed for whales. ”
The statement was made in July and it will really be interesting if Greenpeace will be back in the Southern Oceans this year again!!!!
After two seasons in a row I’m guessing they will take a break this year, but with humpback whales being hunted I guess there will be demand from supporters for them to turn up and wave banners and stuff. I’m picking SSCS to have trouble getting out of port, so that’s another reason GP may decide in favour of going.
Re Sea Shepherd. Isn’t it funny that they still have the Icelandic campaign on their main page when they are not going to Iceland????
The HSI case goes before the federal court in September.
Off topic again.
I saw that David and Libby discussed what was allowed or not with whale carcasses.
As in Australia it is not allowed to take whales tooth for personal purposes in Norway as well. The whales belong , together with some other species to the State.
http://www.svalbardposten.no/nyhet.cfm?nyhetid=50
Ooops, read the whales teeth!
“Iceclass believes that only European house wives are protesting against sealing etc. FYI , I have a video here:
http://www.svalbardposten.no/nyhet.cfm?nyhetid=846
from the world’s most northern paper , Svalbardposten ,showing how local people up in Svalbard rescue a white coat.In a seal slaughtering country.”
First of all, I never said that “only” European housewives protest and I have explained this comment enough for you to stop using it dishonestly.The preponderance of western, middle class and largely urban money involved in funding the animal protest industry ensures that their campaigns will reflect a largely urban, middle class and western values and that campaigns will largely be framed within THEIR cultural reference points. (This is amply demonstrated IMHO by Libby’s comments to David@tokyo on how she would bypass accountable government agencies and appeal to a western pop-star)
Others have pointed out how this can translate into racist wildlife policies and ones that ignore local needs and concerns over those of the funding demographic.
Hence, the housewives and friends can get their knickers in a knot over sustainable Canadian sealing but blithely walk past rows of critically endangered species of fish lining the marble slabs of every high street. It’s cultural hypocrisy.
All thinking people of an environmental bent should see this as a primary obstacle to be done away with and ensure that the influence of the big money western animal protest industry is kept well clear of environmental policy development.
“Sperm whale teeth are similar to elephant ivory. What starts as “passive” becomes a trade by the greedy and unscrupulous. Where do you draw the line?”
More of the usual slippery slope rubbish.The only similarity is that both are made of ivory.
There is no major market for whale teeth beyond an informal barter and trade system.
Teeth are small and don’t allow for larger carvings as do elephant tusks.
If libby’s slippery slope argument had any validity then why aren’t people being mugged to have their teeth stolen. (I can just imagine the 80’s era style EIA “documentaries” complete with chilling music and allusions to teeth being chainsawed out of their victimes etc)
“The easiest comparison I can make is archaeological or palaeontological specimens. Consider how much valuable knowledge of cultures and species has gone due to people wanting to collect objects or make a buck.”
Great except that we’re talking about recuperating whale teeth from a washed up carcass.
These are not archaeological specimens.
Need some more straws to clutch at?
In my current part of our world, animal parts are a major part of the traditional and localised economy.
There is no market for whale teeth or even walrus teeth for that matter.
I collect walrus teeth myself either from hunts I have participated in (not too often as I don’t enjoy the taste of walrus)or from scavenging leftovers on remote beaches or floating carcasses or old dead animals. These I give to an old member of the family who in turn makes them into small objets d’art for my collection.
I pay him for his work and he in turn makes once almost worthless teeth into valuable art.
In my case, I don’t resell them as I collect the carvings for my descendants.
Neither my collecting nor his adding value to the teeth from his carving has created any kind of run on either whale or walrus teeth.
The cash realised from these once worthless teeth did however help sustain his family.
This option would be off limits to him if folks like Libby had the ability to impose her narrow values on my community.
” Humans in Western countries have a wide range of foods available to them, and can choose to kill humanely or not”.
Seeing as the FAO has already pointed out that the bulk of our food comes from an alarming and an ever diminishing pool of species and plants as well as the fact that there is no definition of “humane” I would counter that you are wrong on both points.
Ann,
You have repeatedly latched onto my comment about “housewives” for cheap points but I seem to remember back in the late 90s when there was a scandal around the millions paid out to Brian Davies (Founder of the IFAW and arguably the creator of the modern big dollar animal protest industry)for use of his image (The colonel Saunders of animal porn agit-prop?)that your friend and beneficiary of the big dollars raised Sydney Holt exclaimed dismay as it would tarnish the image of an organisation that raised it’s funding from “school kids and little old ladies”.
Am I recalling this correctly?
“Having swam with Dolphins twice in Florida and the Bahamas, and seen 2 wild Dolphins interact with us on a boat trip in Kefalonia, I can’t understand why anyone would want to eat them. Forget toxic – it’s barbaric!”
So you hassled some dolphins, had a little wildlife moment and now you want to take an entire food species away from people??!!
Don’t stand next to any cows when you’re feeling a little emotional.
BTW, Ann, I checked out your url for the Svarlbad seal saving. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any movie there, just a picture of a ratty looking seal pup.
Beyond that, I’m unsure what your point is here.
As a counter, i might also mention that I’ve witnessed hunters risk life and limb, not to mention considerable time and resources to save a musk-ox from drowning after breaking through thin spring ice into a lake.
These same hunters would have been out harvesting musk-oxen for meat and hides (amazingly warm hides – I seriously covet a couple myself as camping mattresses)within a few weeks.
So, what’s your point?
” All thinking people of an environmental bent should see this as a primary obstacle to be done away with and ensure that the influence of the big money western animal protest industry is kept well clear of environmental policy development.”- Iceman
Well, the rich Western NGOs certainly need to be investigated and kept after in a similar way that journos look after politicians.
I have sometimes been ” merciless ” against Greenpeace here , but in the whole I support NGOs and the ” animal protest industry” as they are the ones that point out to the public where problems can be found. Even at whale eater as George mentioned once that in some cases he might support ” the evil NGOs”. Methinks he was thinking about the cetacean entanglement issue.
I have a good example where the cooperation between NGOs and ” local” ” not NGO” people work jointly very well.
In Scandinavia there is this big fish retailer Findus. Greenpeace together with some investigating journos ( with risking their lives) investigated pirate fishing in the Barents Sea together with the support of Norwegian authorities and the Norwegian Coast Guard.
This policy has been working very well. So now your despised middle class, urban house wives are boycotting the fish retailers that sell ” black market / pirate fish” from notorious companies and transferring ships. This helps coastal Norwegian fishermen( far from being NGO types , involving and supporting whaling and sealing).
A rewarding cooperation in this case that firstly enlighten ” dumb” Western middle class housewives and secondly helps financially straight fishermen and finally help the nothern Atlantic cod population.
” I can just imagine the 80’s era style EIA “documentaries” complete with chilling music and allusions to teeth being chainsawed out of their victimes etc)” – IceClass
Well, the link I provided on sperm whales teeth and carcasses mentioned that the sperm whale they featured had its teeth chainsawed out.( Norway)
It was not long ago when some museum employees were involved in an international scandal involving illegal trade with whales teeth.
Trade in wildlife body parts is huge and should be looked after in a stern way.
Where I live, people , especially from Germany, collect rare eagle and falcon eggs. This is a HUGE business that endangers the bird populations and survival.
“Ann,
You have repeatedly latched onto my comment about “housewives” for cheap points but I seem to remember back in the late 90s when there was a scandal around the millions paid out to Brian Davies (Founder of the IFAW and arguably the creator of the modern big dollar animal protest industry)for use of his image (The colonel Saunders of animal porn agit-prop?)that your friend and beneficiary of the big dollars raised Sydney Holt exclaimed dismay as it would tarnish the image of an organisation that raised it’s funding from “school kids and little old ladies”.
Am I recalling this correctly?” – IceClass
Might be perfectly right and I despise such people and look at them as lowlife that are ego centred and ruining the reputation of honest people and NGOs.
As a matter of fact I have encountered a similar case.
I worked once for a little well functioning NGO that employed a CEO who embezzled all the money which was donated by good hearthed people. So I do am very suspious re fundraising etc.
Amnesty Sweden’s CEO was put into prison as well for embezzlement of money….
” So, what’s your point?” – IceClass
I also pointed out there could be empathy among hunters etc re wildlife, Rune has as well provided a link about pilot whale rescue.
However, methinks that you in the sealing thread spoke about seals in a very unsensitive and cruel way and this is also visible when you’re reluctant to adress the TTD issue as something important( you think it’s only something the evil animal protest industry is interested in).
“(This is amply demonstrated IMHO by Libby’s comments to David@tokyo on how she would bypass accountable government agencies and appeal to a western pop-star)”
Having already gone through the “accountable government agencies”, I am hardly “bypassing” them. This is how I know it is a waste of time.
“Hence, the housewives and friends can get their knickers in a knot over sustainable Canadian sealing but blithely walk past rows of critically endangered species of fish lining the marble slabs of every high street. It’s cultural hypocrisy.”
Your housewives in western countries are a lot more educated now on endangered fish stocks, etc and can make better-informed choices. Your failure to recognise this is an artifact of your own prejudices.
“More of the usual slippery slope rubbish.The only similarity is that both are made of ivory.
There is no major market for whale teeth beyond an informal barter and trade system.
Teeth are small and don’t allow for larger carvings as do elephant tusks.”
Your comment shows your ignorance. Sperm whale teeth are still valued and good scrimshaw is highly prized. The size does not matter, in fact a lot of carvings (even from your adopted home) are tiny. Check the internet. The difference between shooting dead an elephant and hacking out its tusks and digging out a sperm whale’s teeth is that it is easier with an elephant. How often do sperm whales strand, how are you going to shoot one dead in its natural habitat unless you are working on JARPN II? When one does wash ashore it is a race against time to prevent the teeth from being taken, including from still-living animals.
“In my current part of our world, animal parts are a major part of the traditional and localised economy. There is no market for whale teeth or even walrus teeth for that matter.”
And can these ivory trinkets be taken to Australia or the UK by tourists visiting your adopted part of the world? No. How much would they be making from their trinkets if they could? How might that change things?
“This option would be off limits to him if folks like Libby had the ability to impose her narrow values on my community.”
You can readily purchase fossil walrus and mammoth ivory in Australia, NZ, Tonga and in other parts of the world which originate from your adopted country. So the people there are able to make money from wealthy westerners this way. The pieces are not cheap, so presumably good money is made. If you think your views are somehow broader IceClass, perhaps you should really get out more.
“there is no definition of “humane”
Well we know there isn’t in your books, but there is a big wide world out there (see above).
“Great except that we’re talking about recuperating whale teeth from a washed up carcass.
These are not archaeological specimens.
Need some more straws to clutch at?”
I actually work in a museum IceClass, so unlike you I don’t need straws to clutch at. From my small museum biological specimens have been stolen. This was no done by some kids, but by poeple in the know who are aware of the value and the buyers. I have assisted in investigations dealing with this and a recent large horrendous theft of priceless specimens from a world-class city museum. A sperm whale jaw that I recently acquired for my museum, teeth included, was targetted by a number of people. As Ann has tried to point out to you, it is an international illegal trade, rcognised by all, it seems, but you.
“So you hassled some dolphins, had a little wildlife moment and now you want to take an entire food species away from people??!!
Don’t stand next to any cows when you’re feeling a little emotional.”
You assume (again) the dolphins were “hassled”. Let’s forget the part about the reproductive biology of domesticated terrestrial animals, stock management, etc. Simplistic to say the least. Wildlife can exist for people to enjoy visually, not simply as a culinary experience for expats. I have not ignored the welfare issues here Ann, but we have addressed them before.
“So, what’s your point?”
Some Japanese save stranded whales. Some Australians rescue kangaroos. Some New Zealanders shoot seals. So what is yours?
Libby,
We have no idea who this IceClass dude is, maybe he just want to make himself interesting pointing out that he eats walross and musk oxen meat???
That beats the whale eaters by miles!!! Maybe he’s just a Mc Donald guy??
” So you hassled some dolphins, “- IceClass
Meanwhile some ecotourism could really be under all criticism, I wonder what criteria you yourself use IceClass?
Are you not one person that encourages polar bear trophy hunting by rich Americans? Now that’s what I really call hassle of wildlife….
“We have no idea who this IceClass dude…”
Hi Ann,
Interesting? Hmmm…Well I have visions of a western poorly-educated geek dressed up in seal skins. He was picked on at school and used to stick fire crackers up cat’s backsides, severely misogynistic, perhaps denying his homosexuality and having aggressive and cruel tendencies because of it. The attitude that world wide wildlife is there simply for human utilization is outdated, and suits his Neanderthal thinking perfectly.
Don’t know about you Ann but I have to wash the dishes, scrub the floor and get myself down to the local fish monger to pick up some Patagonian toothfish. I really hope they put a pick through its head to kill it.
” I collect walrus teeth myself either from hunts I have participated in (not too often as I don’t enjoy the taste of walrus)” – IceClass
So IceClass is involved in illegal hunting. Methinks the walrus hunt is only open for the Inuits????