Is whaling ethical?

[Mr Rayon]

What is the purpose of whaling?

(e.g. by the Japanese)

 

Is it a relatively new development? Did people used to go whaling in the 'olden days'?

 

Should it be stopped? Do we have enough whales to continue allowing people to kill whales?

 

Why does the news of whaling make so many people upset?

Edited March 22, 2011 by Voltman

[lemur]

Couldn't you replace the word "whales" with "humans" in the OP and ask all the same questions?

[Mr Rayon]

Couldn't you replace the word "whales" with "humans" in the OP and ask all the same questions?

 

No, humans and animals are different. They don't have the same rights. What's ethical to do with animals doesn't necessarily mean that it's ethical to do on humans (e.g. in laboratory experiments). I think whaling is ethical now though for our time period. It's horrible how the Japanese are being demonised for hunting whales for scientific purposes.

 

Anway, does anyone know what the pros and cons are for whaling? I want to know more why whaling should be considered by a larger proportion of the global human population to be 'okay'.

 

If you had to convince someone that whaling is alright, that it's not so bad, what would you mention to convince them so?

[mooeypoo]

I'm one of those who get quite upset about whaling, but I am not sure I'd go as far as comparing whales to humans.

 

The reasons I am against whaling are quite simple:

 

First, these animals are endangered - very much so actually - and just like we prohibit the hunting of pandas, we prohibit the hunting of whales. The fact they are at sea makes no difference in that matter.

 

Second, the way the whalers operate is shameful. In the matter of Japan, for instance, they are hunting in places that are designated as marine reservations. Also, they don't care about killing or hurting the baby whales even though they don't use them for anything later. In fact, there are times they do that just to get the mothers riled up and easier to catch.

 

Third, the hunting itself is excessive. Japan used to whale 20,000 to 50,000 whales per season, which is a number the whales can just not recover from. We're not talking about 100 whales a season; they're decimating the populations and pods.

Whales take a while to reproduce and reach maturity, so the number of whales you kill needs to be balanced with new whales that reinvigorate the pods, otherwise there will be no more whales left.

 

Finally, there's not a lot of reason to do it. The only "real" reason is the meat, and with due respect, there's enough alternative of animals we breed and are not under danger of completely disappearing off the planet that we can replace this with. The blubber used to be a commercial issue too, but not quite anymore, there are synthetic replacements for it.

 

So while I wouldn't compare humans to whales so readily, and, quite frankly, I'm not against hunting in general (when done within certain limits) I do think this is a senseless hunting for a senseless use, and it's risking the environmental balance.

 

There are quite a lot of other animals the world decided not to kill despite the fact their meat might be tasty to someone. Whales are no different.

 

~mooey

[Leader Bee]

 

If you had to convince someone that whaling is alright, that it's not so bad, what would you mention to convince them so?

 

Whales eat people

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby-Dick

[Mr Rayon]

First, these animals are endangered - very much so actually - and just like we prohibit the hunting of pandas, we prohibit the hunting of whales. The fact they are at sea makes no difference in that matter.

 

Are all whales endangered or just specific species of whales?

(don't know)

 

Second, the way the whalers operate is shameful. In the matter of Japan, for instance, they are hunting in places that are designated as marine reservations. Also, they don't care about killing or hurting the baby whales even though they don't use them for anything later. In fact, there are times they do that just to get the mothers riled up and easier to catch.

 

Does the killing method they employ result in a quick death for the whales? How long does it take for the whales to die?

 

Third, the hunting itself is excessive. Japan used to whale 20,000 to 50,000 whales per season, which is a number the whales can just not recover from. We're not talking about 100 whales a season; they're decimating the populations and pods.

Whales take a while to reproduce and reach maturity, so the number of whales you kill needs to be balanced with new whales that reinvigorate the pods, otherwise there will be no more whales left.

 

Which particular type of whales are the Japanese hunting?

And how many of the whales that they are hunting are left out there?

 

Finally, there's not a lot of reason to do it. The only "real" reason is the meat, and with due respect, there's enough alternative of animals we breed and are not under danger of completely disappearing off the planet that we can replace this with. The blubber used to be a commercial issue too, but not quite anymore, there are synthetic replacements for it.

 

What about all the scientific reasons? What exactly are these 'scientific purposes' that we hear about? Do you know what they are?

[mooeypoo]

Are all whales endangered or just specific species of whales?

(don't know)

Here's a helpful article from the UN:

 

excerpt:

In 1986, a moratorium on the commercial whaling industry was put in place to replenish whale populations that had been hunted to the verge of extinction. The Indian Ocean has been declared a whale sanctuary in an effort to stem this trend. Even with these conservation efforts, seven of the 13 great whales remain endangered as new threats contribute to their plight.

 

Catch limitations are often set too high to allow whale pods to reproduce quickly. Fishing operations in Japan and Norway profit from the sale of whale meat, which can fetch up to US $350 a kilogram. Hunting figures have been falsified and there was even an incident of using a "scientific study" as a front for commercial whaling.

 

Source: http://www.un.org/works/OLD/environment/animalplanet/whale.html

There are more articles out there, mainly from Greenpeace and Sea Shephard and other organizations that are active against whales, but I wanted to look for something that we could all agree is balanced. Still, most organizations have figures and quite a number of substantiated research on their sites about this.

Does the killing method they employ result in a quick death for the whales? How long does it take for the whales to die?

It's more about the method they employ *until* the whales die. Shooting the whales with harpoons and letting them bleed to death is not something that would count as humane in most definitions. The whales do NOT die immediately.

 

Also, many of those methods use under water explosives that scare the whale before it dies. As such it might not be considered cruel on its own, but the problem is that since whales are incredibly sensitive to noise, these practices destroy other pods in the area, confuse them, and is said to be tied to quite a number of whale beaching (whales that get disoriented, confused, and swim up to the beach and die).

 

You should look up some videos on youtube on whaling. The pictures aren't too nice. Of course, that's an emotional appeal, I'm aware. Still, they're not dying peacefully. They're not even dying painlessly.

 

Which particular type of whales are the Japanese hunting?

And how many of the whales that they are hunting are left out there?

Mainly Minke and Fin whales, but I'm not sure about the accurate figures. You can find them online.

The main problem is where they're hunting; Whale Wars (the show) is centered in the southern ocean in an area that was designated as a whale *reserve*. As in, a safe haven for whales. The Japenese are completely ignoring that and hunting regardless.

 

They *claim* they hunt for science, but that was shown to be false quite a number of times, and the fact they're whaling excessively only goes against their claim.

 

What about all the scientific reasons? What exactly are these 'scientific purposes' that we hear about? Do you know what they are?

 

Sure. Hunt 100 whales for science. Why do you need 20,000? Also, hunting for scientific reasons requires some documentation. Hunt the whales and do research - but then *account* for what you're doing with these whales, right? Account for the killing. I'm not against scientific research, and if killing is necessary for it, I find it sad, but I won't compeltely argue against it. But then, I want to know the research is actually done and that results are produced from this killing, or it's just senseless killing.

 

The companies that do this do NOT do research. They never publish anything, they don't account for their kills, and they overkill way above what you would expect seasonal research would require.

 

They make a whole lot of money on their whales and produce zero scientific gain. So, no, I don't see any scientific reason for whaling like the whaling is done.

 

On the other hand, there's quite a lot of scientific research done on *live* whales. That seems to be successful. I can see an occasional reason for requiring a dead whale (like autopsy) but then again.. kill limited amount and account for those kills. Also, no reason to kill off whole families if that's the case.

 

They do none of that.

 

~mooey

[lemur]

No, humans and animals are different. They don't have the same rights. What's ethical to do with animals doesn't necessarily mean that it's ethical to do on humans (e.g. in laboratory experiments). I think whaling is ethical now though for our time period. It's horrible how the Japanese are being demonised for hunting whales for scientific purposes.

I think you're assuming a lot, and failing to state your basis for claiming what is ethical about treating animals with less respect than humans. What is logical about saying, "these beings are different than these beings so it's ok to kill them?" Doesn't there have to be more reason to justify killing or protection than saying that one species or group deserves to kill another because it's different?

 

Having said this, I think you have a point that it may be unfair to demonize people more for whaling than for other forms of hunting or domestic animal slaughter. The question is whether it is ethical to prioritize certain animals lives more than others on the basis of subjective aesthetics. Ok, so you find whales, polar bears, and giraffes beautiful, majestic creatures. Does that mean you're a saint for protecting them while you eat your steak and gas the doves in your city to keep the droppings-level under control?

 

 

[Marat]

All life on earth is possible only because of killing. Humans kill animals of all sorts when they build roads, construct houses, eat vegetables which farmers protect with traps and poisons from other animals, exterminate vermin, slaughter microbes by the million with antibiotics to combat infections, etc. Much of this killing produces terrible animal pain and suffering which is much less visible than that caused by hunting, such as when foxes die from slow starvation because increased home building for humans has displaced them from their hunting grounds. There has even been research published showing that insects might well feel pain much more intensely than any mammal, so if humans are ethically obligated to diminish animal pain, all road building, home building, and other construction must stop forever, given the terrible pain it must inevitably cause to the insects crushed in the process.

 

But if we have an ethical duty to avoid inflicting animal death and suffering, then why shouldn't we have a parallel duty to diminish animal death and suffering caused by other animals rather than just by us? With respect to humans, we feel an ethical duty not just to avoid murdering people, but also to heal them if they become sick. So with animals, we must be ethically bound to prevent cats from sadistically toying with mice before eating them, or without even consuming them, and we must limit all carnivore killings by substituting food in their diets which does not require the death of other animals.

 

This whole argument offers a reductio ad absurdem of the entire notion that there are ethical obligations to animals, for if we have to respect them, the whole of human society will collapse. The entire notion that animals have rights which we have to respect if we are not to become 'species-ist' arises from an idiotic over-extension with the public obsession with racism over the past 40 years, which has now spilled over into the ridiculous idea that anti-racism (originally, a term used in reference only within the human species and in relation to human interactions) requires that no differences between any things be recognized, so now not just Blacks and Whites, but turtles and people, and perhaps next toilet paper and scientists, have to be treated equally.

[lemur]

so if humans are ethically obligated to diminish animal pain, all road building, home building, and other construction must stop forever, given the terrible pain it must inevitably cause to the insects crushed in the process.

But wouldn't they then also be obligated to diminish human pain insofar as humans are animals?

 

So with animals, we must be ethically bound to prevent cats from sadistically toying with mice before eating them, or without even consuming them, and we must limit all carnivore killings by substituting food in their diets which does not require the death of other animals.

At the point you get overwhelmed with all these ethical "requirements," you might consider a different approach to ethics that involves voluntary intervention at the discretion of individuals. I consider this more ethical, anyway, since requiring people or animals to do things causes them more pain than allowing them to act on their own will.

 

This whole argument offers a reductio ad absurdem of the entire notion that there are ethical obligations to animals, for if we have to respect them, the whole of human society will collapse.

But isn't the same true of ethical obligations to humans?

 

The entire notion that animals have rights which we have to respect if we are not to become 'species-ist' arises from an idiotic over-extension with the public obsession with racism over the past 40 years, which has now spilled over into the ridiculous idea that anti-racism (originally, a term used in reference only within the human species and in relation to human interactions) requires that no differences between any things be recognized, so now not just Blacks and Whites, but turtles and people, and perhaps next toilet paper and scientists, have to be treated equally.

Anti-racism doesn't seek the elimination of all difference, just the elimination of attributing difference to categorical-determination instead of viewing individuals as uniquely constituted from multiple influences. It would be species-ist to say that dogs are loyal because they're dogs instead of recognizing that part of the loyalty of each dog individually comes from socialization with the people or other animals they are loyal to. The problem with racism or other group-isms is that they reduce individuals (humans or animals) to mere iterations of a category. This automatically subjugates individuals to group-knowledge regardless of whether the group-identity is being recognized as one's own or that of another.

 

Individuals of any "sort" are not "unnatural" when they behave in ways that are not recognized as typical according to group-imagery. All individual behavior is a potential expression available to the organism as a result of all the means available to it from all sources, including genes, environmental factors, socialization, luck, etc. Thus the individual should be seen as defining one possible expression of all "sorts" it may be associated with instead of being evaluated according to criteria attributed to a certain group-identity that is given definitional primacy in its contextualization. E.g. Toto is as much part of the set "Dorothy's friends," which includes the scarecrow, tinman, and lion as he is part of the set, "dogs," "residents of Oz," or "beings that have traveled in a flying house carried by a tornado." Toto is a unique individual whose individuality is shaped by all these aspects of his identity. Sorry for the silly example, btw, but it just came to mind as an easy example.

Edited March 22, 2011 by lemur

[mooeypoo]

I think you're assuming a lot, and failing to state your basis for claiming what is ethical about treating animals with less respect than humans. What is logical about saying, "these beings are different than these beings so it's ok to kill them?" Doesn't there have to be more reason to justify killing or protection than saying that one species or group deserves to kill another because it's different?

Of course you're entitled to your beliefs, but I think the "problem" that he (and I) raise here is the consistency. From what you're saying, you should be completely vegetarian.

 

This, of course, is a valid point of view. I *personally* don't quite agree with it, but as long as it's consistent, it's valid.

 

And, for the record, I'm using the 'vegetarian' aspect as an example. We could argue the validity of vegetarianism or veganism in another thread.

 

Having said this, I think you have a point that it may be unfair to demonize people more for whaling than for other forms of hunting or domestic animal slaughter. The question is whether it is ethical to prioritize certain animals lives more than others on the basis of subjective aesthetics. Ok, so you find whales, polar bears, and giraffes beautiful, majestic creatures. Does that mean you're a saint for protecting them while you eat your steak and gas the doves in your city to keep the droppings-level under control?

 

 

I would agree in general with this, but I think that the "demonizing" is less about the act of hunting itself and more about what and how they are hunting it.

 

There is a huge difference between hunting deer (who are not endangered, who, *usually* are killed immediately, and who are not hunted inside natural reserves) to hunting whales (who *are* all the above). Ethically speaking, there is a difference.

 

Also, whales are on a higher level of sentience than, say, deer. I'm probably going to get a bit of flack over this statement (I'm ready for it) but there is a large body of scientific research showing a very complex set of language in Whale pods and a complex family structure. It is more similar to, say, chimpanzees and apes than deer or cows.

 

That makes it different ethically too. You don't hunt chimpanzees, even though I'm quite sure someone, somewhere, probably likes their meat. You don't, because of very similar reasons why whale hunting is considered immoral - because they're more sentient, because they're endangered, and because we really don't have any reason to (there *is* other meat we can eat that isn't sentient or endangered).

 

 

I don't think we can claim that there's no difference between a human being and an animal. I am actually a tad surprised you raised the issue that there isn't any distinction, lemur, (and I am not saying this to judge, I'm just curious) since you're a man of faith, and, I thought, even that on its own would separate us from animals.

 

But that said, the fact they might not be completely like humans ethically speaking does not mean that we should ignore the ethical question itself. For that matter, I have no problems with the research of whales. I would even go as far as to say that I don't quite have a problem with having to kill whales for research (though I am not really supporting it either). But this is not what is done at all. The killing is disproportional, produces zero scientific gain, and is cruel and inhumane. Those are the main reasons I see against these hunting practices. Those, and the fact that these animals are endangered.

 

It isn't the first time we stop (or "pause") the hunting of a species to let the species grow back to an acceptable number before we hunt it again. It's just one of those times where a few groups ignore that attempt and risk the extinction of an entire species.

 

~moo

 

All life on earth is possible only because of killing. Humans kill animals of all sorts when they build roads, construct houses, eat vegetables which farmers protect with traps and poisons from other animals, exterminate vermin, slaughter microbes by the million with antibiotics to combat infections, etc. Much of this killing produces terrible animal pain and suffering which is much less visible than that caused by hunting, such as when foxes die from slow starvation because increased home building for humans has displaced them from their hunting grounds. There has even been research published showing that insects might well feel pain much more intensely than any mammal, so if humans are ethically obligated to diminish animal pain, all road building, home building, and other construction must stop forever, given the terrible pain it must inevitably cause to the insects crushed in the process.

Sure, Marat, but the question is not about just killing, it's about how the killing is done and what the killing is for.

 

We are about to drive an entire species out to extinction for no other reason than just because we don't care. There's no use for the meat, really, and there's no scientific research. Are you seriously suggesting we should ignore it because killing happens throughout the world?

 

 

But if we have an ethical duty to avoid inflicting animal death and suffering, then why shouldn't we have a parallel duty to diminish animal death and suffering caused by other animals rather than just by us?

I think that's a fair question. Personally, I don't think we have an obligation to diminish animal death and suffering, but rather we, as sentient beings who aspire to our own morality standards, should try to avoid suffering as much as we can.

 

If there are two options to hunt - one produces suffering and the other does not - we should choose the one that doesn't produce suffering. Otherwise, there's no meaning to anything "ethical" we discuss. We do it because we evolved beyond mere animalistic instinct to think and philosophize about our own ethical systems.

 

I, for instance, believe that some animal research is actually needed. I'm not a die-hard animal activist who goes around protesting against any and all hurting of animals. There are cases where it's necessary, I acknowledge that. But I would like to think that even in those situations where death and/or pain is necessary, we at least try to think of alternative options.

 

With respect to humans, we feel an ethical duty not just to avoid murdering people, but also to heal them if they become sick. So with animals, we must be ethically bound to prevent cats from sadistically toying with mice before eating them, or without even consuming them, and we must limit all carnivore killings by substituting food in their diets which does not require the death of other animals.

Your logic doesn't quite follow, you're making generalizations that are not supported by one another.

If you want to equate humans saving humans to humans saving animals you first must show that humans and animals *are* the same.

 

I argue they are not. It will be hard to show that they are, but perhaps you can substantiate that in what is important to this particular debate, they are equal. That's what "staunch" animal activists are doing. Personally, I disagree, but at least they try to make the argument before making a generalization.

 

This whole argument offers a reductio ad absurdem of the entire notion that there are ethical obligations to animals, for if we have to respect them, the whole of human society will collapse.

You're the one making the reductio ad absurdom, Marat.

 

I don't think many said that whales should not be killed at all, or that whales should be cuddled and guarded from sharks or other natural dangers. Whaling is not the same as hunting, as I pointed out above. I'm not pushing the issue to the absurd at all, I'm pointing out how this issue is *different* than other cases where hunting and suffering might be warranted. This *is* different, though, hence why I think it should NOT be warranted.

 

Where's the absurd?

 

When you generalize animals and humans and make the statements that you did above, it's you, in fact, that makes the fallacy.

 

The entire notion that animals have rights which we have to respect if we are not to become 'species-ist' arises from an idiotic over-extension with the public obsession with racism over the past 40 years, which has now spilled over into the ridiculous idea that anti-racism (originally, a term used in reference only within the human species and in relation to human interactions) requires that no differences between any things be recognized, so now not just Blacks and Whites, but turtles and people, and perhaps next toilet paper and scientists, have to be treated equally.

You know, we're discussing issues here that might push some emotional buttons, but I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't generalize the views against yours and flatten them out into a strawman account, let alone call them "idiotic".

 

We're all adults, and we can all argue properly without dropping to ad hominem or strawman statements. Your last paragraph had both fallacies in it, and impllies, really, that anyone who takes a stand for animals (big stand or small stand, or partial) is a fool. Let's not get down to that level, okay? Explain your point of view, rather than shooting cheap-shots at the opponents.

 

~moo

 

[Mr Skeptic]

What is the purpose of whaling?

 

Meat and blubber

 

Is it a relatively new development? Did people used to go whaling in the 'olden days'?

 

No, whaling was done plenty back in the old days, more for the blubber I think than the meat.

 

 

Are all whales endangered or just specific species of whales?

 

Several species are endangered. Others not.

 

Does the killing method they employ result in a quick death for the whales? How long does it take for the whales to die?

 

It is a long and painful death, because you can't just pick up a whale and euthanize it. Harpoon it and wait for blood loss and exhaustion to kick in, then you can kill it.

 

Which particular type of whales are the Japanese hunting?

And how many of the whales that they are hunting are left out there?

 

 

What about all the scientific reasons? What exactly are these 'scientific purposes' that we hear about? Do you know what they are?

 

An excuse because of a loophole in a whaling ban.

 

 

Anway, does anyone know what the pros and cons are for whaling? I want to know more why whaling should be considered by a larger proportion of the global human population to be 'okay'.

 

If you had to convince someone that whaling is alright, that it's not so bad, what would you mention to convince them so?

 

Whales take a long time to reproduce; as fellow mammals we empathize with them more; because of their size we cannot offer them a quick and humane death (quite the opposite); many whales are Endangered. Whales aren't fish, so eating them rather than fish might not have those health benefits (not sure of that; it could be the ocean diet that gives the fish their oils).

 

The common minke whale is classified Least Concern. The trophic level of baleen whales is 3.2-3.4, whereas for our favorite carnivorous fish like tuna it is 4.4-4.8. From an ecological perspective, you can eat 1 lb of tuna, ~10 lb of baleen whale, or ~100 lb sardines using the same amount of resources. I've never seen anyone argue for replacing tuna with whale meat though.

[lemur]

Of course you're entitled to your beliefs, but I think the "problem" that he (and I) raise here is the consistency. From what you're saying, you should be completely vegetarian.

For being a complete vegetarian to be completely consistent, you would have to believe that there is absolutely no violence done to plants to use them for consumption. I found it somewhat difficult to understand the philosophies that recognize all life as entailing violence/destruction because I wanted to find an ethics that transcends violence/destruction. Then, when I did come to terms that it was impossible to totally avoid/transcend violence, I wondered why not accept everything as ethical, including homicide for pleasure or cannibalism. I finally came to the conclusion that it is ethical to reduce violence when and how possible, but that some amount of violence will always be occurring in some way or other and being at peace with that is one facet of resisting violence (because reacting to violence is another form of violence).

 

There is a huge difference between hunting deer (who are not endangered, who, *usually* are killed immediately, and who are not hunted inside natural reserves) to hunting whales (who *are* all the above). Ethically speaking, there is a difference.

So if whales were abundant and could be killed quickly, that would be as ethical as hunting deer? I would say at least you are thinking in a critical way. I have a feeling that many people have a sacred view of certain species that is purely aesthetic and they bolster their own egos by protecting those so they don't have to feel bad about being responsible for the slaughter of thousands of chickens in their lifetime to underwrite their KFC fetish.

 

Also, whales are on a higher level of sentience than, say, deer. I'm probably going to get a bit of flack over this statement (I'm ready for it) but there is a large body of scientific research showing a very complex set of language in Whale pods and a complex family structure. It is more similar to, say, chimpanzees and apes than deer or cows.

I have the same reasoning to justify eating fish, although they exhibit complex behaviors too. Whale song was thought to be complex language (I believed it was after Star Trek IV) but recently I've heard that they only do it during mating competitions to intimidate each other to go away so they don't have to fight. In other words, it may just be grunting the loudest, like when cats stand off. But what if whales are no more sentient than cats? There are laws against unnecessary cruelty to cats, aren't there? Stray cat hunting is not allowed, is it? Ultimately, I think any unnecessary intervention in the lives of animals is somewhat unethical, but the complex part is weighing the ethics of protecting one animal against the ethics of allowing another (including humans) to intervene in its life and even torture/kill it.

 

I don't think we can claim that there's no difference between a human being and an animal. I am actually a tad surprised you raised the issue that there isn't any distinction, lemur, (and I am not saying this to judge, I'm just curious) since you're a man of faith, and, I thought, even that on its own would separate us from animals.

There are many differences between different animals but I think that it's a bit naive to think that distinctions that radically differentiate humans from other mammals aren't anthrocentric. After all, it is HUMANS who are romanticizing humans as being special. For me, it doesn't make a big difference ethically because I don't think that I can control the world. So my ethics are primarily geared toward minimizing violence against others in my own actions and social-economic participation. Would I personally kill a whale? I'd avoid it, but if I was stranded on a desert island with no other possible food and a shipwreck load of starving people, I might then. What if I was a fisherman and the whales were consuming all the fish? Maybe I would fight the whales for the fish or maybe I would look for a new fishing area with less whales. It all depends on the specific circumstances. What I WOULDN'T do would be to declare it categorically ethical to kill whales under certain conditions because I would respect the life of each individual whale and think twice before killing one at the moment the decision was necessary. This is an anti-systematic approach, I know.

 

But that said, the fact they might not be completely like humans ethically speaking does not mean that we should ignore the ethical question itself. For that matter, I have no problems with the research of whales. I would even go as far as to say that I don't quite have a problem with having to kill whales for research (though I am not really supporting it either). But this is not what is done at all. The killing is disproportional, produces zero scientific gain, and is cruel and inhumane. Those are the main reasons I see against these hunting practices. Those, and the fact that these animals are endangered.

I agree with everything you say here except the endangered part. I don't see why something not being endangered should automatically legitimate its killing. How would you feel if someone decided one day that humans in your area weren't endangered so there's no problem with killing one or two and the government started selling licenses while in another area there were precious few people so those people were all protected? Killing should have to be justified by reason, imo, not legitimated by default of abundance.

 

 

[Marat]

It is the crime of murder, for which you will spend the rest of your life in prison, if you kill an anencephalic infant with a lizard brain which has about as much IQ as a blade of grass. This is because it is arbitrarily defined as 'human' because it has roughly the same shape as human babies, though its head and face are grossly deformed. In contrast, if you kill a much more intellligent dog that has considerably more intelligence and emotional life, you are guilty only of damage to property, for which you would get a suspended sentence and a fine.

 

What this argument suggests is that the ethical value we assign to living entities has nothing whatsoever to do with their intelligence or emotional experience, but only with highly informal, culturally-determined, arbitrary definitions of what our language/culture decides to classify as human or not.

[lemur]

What this argument suggests is that the ethical value we assign to living entities has nothing whatsoever to do with their intelligence or emotional experience, but only with highly informal, culturally-determined, arbitrary definitions of what our language/culture decides to classify as human or not.

Or maybe overly formal.

[October]

Do The Whales Die Immediately;

 

No. According to uncut video taken in 2009 by Animal Planet for use in their Whale Wars show, it's been proven that it takes on average 45 minutes for a whale to die. The process is inhumane. The Japanese are using harpoons with tips that explode upon impact, and even a clear shot to the head doesn't result in instant death. The whales often struggle violently while pouring blood. IE:

you can clearly see a juvenile Minke whale blowing blood from it's blow hole and struggling on the end of the harpoon. The cause of death is exanguination while conscious. IE: the animal dies due to bleeding out not due to a quick kill. In hunting and commercial cattle processing the animal is killed by a captive bolt to the head which renders them brain dead before immediately being hung up and bled dry. Other methods also include the animal being rendered completely unconscious, again, before being cut and bled dry and thus do not feel pain or shock or fear associated with the slaughter process; http://en.wikipedia....nimal_slaughter

 

Once the whale is towed up close enough to the ship, they are commonly repeatedly shot with high powered rifles.

 

Now in the case of slaughter that is conducted by "drive fisheries" such as the annual cull of Pilot Whales in the Faroe Islands or dolphins in Japan, the animals are driven into very shallow water where they either strand or cannot elude molestation and are speared with either gaffing hooks or hand held harpoons and allowed to bleed to death. In many cases the weakened animals are pulled to shore and are cut open to have their spines severed while still alive and struggling;

(please fast forward to around 3:26 to avoid photographs.

 

To the question of sustainability;

 

Year after year great numbers of animals are constantly taken from the same areas. The Japanese repeatedly set quotas of over 900 animals, mainly Minke whales which they claim are of a plentiful population according to their unsubstantiated reports during their "scientific research" findings since 1987. According to the Japanese there's nearly 700,000 Minkes. According to other sources anywhere between 100 - 300,000. The IWC stated in 2010 that there's no answer and that they will be looking into a true number of these whales. (http://www.iwcoffice...on/estimate.htm) IE: A recent full census has never been conducted by an outside source in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary where ICR's JARPA and JARPA II programs claim to be running since 1987. Science knows that all species of cetacea (whales, dolphins) have extremely low reproductive rates producing a calf every three to five years with a suckling period of five months to three years. In the instance of Killer Whales. These animals, we know, have a sexual maturity rate very similar to humans. They tend to reach that maturity around 8 to 15 years of age depending on species. IE: Humpback - http://en.wikipedia....le#Reproduction - Minke: http://en.wikipedia....le#Reproduction

 

Japan continues to take Fin, Minke, and even proposed a catch of 50 Humpbacks which was shot down quickly due to protest written to the IWC.

 

Whale slaughter in the Faroe Islands and small cetacean slaughter in Japan often wipe out entire pods (family groups) of dolphins and whales including pregnant females and juveniles without bias. See Faroe Video posted above.

 

 

RESEARCH?

 

The year after the IWC said "no more whaling. period." Japan issued itself a permit for "research" whaling and took a quota of 825 minke whales and 50 sperm whales every year for ten years. Despite the fact that the IWC scientific committee rejected its research proposals, Japan continued whaling. (see Ellis, Richard (1999). Men and Whales. The Lyons Press. pp. 408–409. ISBN 9781558216969.)

 

The IWC adopted a resolution in 1987 recommending Japan not proceed until disagreements over its research proposals were resolved. A second resolution was also adopted on February 14, 1988 recommending Japan not proceed. On February 9, 1988 Japanese whalers killed the first minke whale in Antarctic waters under the new self issued research whaling permit. U.S. President Ronald Regan responded by cutting off Japanese fishing privileges in U.S. waters on April 6, 1988 under the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment (letter; http://www.reagan.ut...988/040688e.htm) (Ellis, Richard (1999). Men and Whales. The Lyons Press. pp. 490–491. ISBN 9781558216969.)

 

 

Japan has since conducted research whaling programs in the North Pacific (JARPN 1994–1999, JARPN II 2000–Present) and in Antarctica (JARPA 1988–2005, JARPA II 2005–Present). The IWC has asked its members that conduct research whaling programs to demonstrate that the research provides critical information, that the research is needed for whale management purposes, and that non-lethal research techniques are not able to provide the same information. The IWC has issued at least 19 resolutions criticizing Japan for failing to meet these conditions and asking it to stop issuing permits. (http://www.lclark.ed...r_work/whaling/) " The IWC has created rules, in a non-binding resolution, relating to the conduct of scientific research whaling. The resolution asks any IWC member that conducts a research whaling program to demonstrate that the research will provide critical research needs, that the research is needed for management purposes, and that non-lethal research techniques cannot provide the same information. The IWC has issued at least 19 resolutions since 1987, the year Japan began scientific research whaling, condemning Japan for failing to meet these conditions and asking it to stop issuing permits.

 

QUOTE: "Because Japan refuses to meet the conditions imposed by the IWC for scientific research whaling, and on behalf of more than 100 groups from around the world, IELP prepared a petition pursuant to the Pelly Amendment of the U.S. Fishermen's Protective Act, 22 U.S.C. §1978, asking the U.S. Department of Commerce to certify Japan as diminishing the effectiveness of the IWC and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). On the day that IELP intended to submit the petition, however, the Department of Commerce certified Japan on its own. That certification gave the President the authority to impose trade sanctions against Japan."

 

 

Conservationists are eagerly awaiting the results of the 2011 IWC meeting after the 2010/2011 Japanese Whaling season ended with only 5% of their quota being taken due to activist interference and the compounding evidence that there's nothing "scientific" about what's being done in the Southern Ocean when compared to work done studying live populations of whales such as the Southern Resident Killer Whale population as outlined by Dr. Kenneth Balcomb and the Center for Whale Research in Washington State ( http://www.whaleresearch.com ) that has studied feeding habits, environmental impacts, acoustics, reproduction, and individual recognition without conducting lethal research.

 

This is all compounded with the fact that Japan is hunting in an internationally recognized "whale sanctuary" that was established to give these animals a rest zone for reproductive, feeding, and to reduce catch pressures on the animals living within it. This particular one was established in 1938 http://www.iwcoffice...htm#sanctuaries. The Faroe Islands, and subsequentrly their parent nation of Denmark, are in direct violation of the European Union's ruling on whaling and is in a direct violation of the Berne Convention. The Faeroe Islands are a territory of Denmark, the Faeroese people are Danish citizens, and therefore the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Denmark is in violation of the Berne Convention, of which Denmark is a signatory.

 

All of Japan's whale meat is processed and boxed on board the Japanese "mother ship" the Nisshin Maru and arrives frozen for delivery to restaurants and super markets. The ship is marked "Research", as are the other the harpoon and spotter ships, but is registered for the purpose of fishing and is owned by Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha which is an off shoot of Nippon Suisan/Nissui which are a marine products company (IE: fish meat etc). (http://en.wikipedia....n_Suisan_Kaisha - http://www.nissui.co...lish/index.html ) which sure just go to show you just how "scientific" this is. Perhaps the science of how many recipes can be made? How much money can be made? The animals are processed and rendered aboard after being harpooned and killed by harpooning vessels. Japan issued itself a law stating that every part of the animal must be used... A fact that was over turned by the IWC after video of whale entrails being thrown over board was submitted by Animal Planet and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

Edited March 26, 2011 by October