'Sound science' on the whaling grounds
At the International Whaling Commission meeting in Madeira
My bet is that by the time we finish this week's IWC meeting, just about every delegation in the room will have extolled the virtues of making decisions based on "sound science".
Japan has long argued that questions of whether or not whale stocks are robust enough to allow some hunting should be based on "science, rather than emotion" - a stance endorsed by other hunting countries including Iceland, whose IWC commissioner once argued in a memorable quote that "we should not make decisions on the basis of the survival of the cutest".
Now, as discussions continue over whether or not Japan should be allowed to introduce what is effectively a new category of hunting - on a small scale, by coastal communities with a whaling history, and for local consumption [pdf link] - scientists affiliated to one of the organisations most implacably opposed to commercial whaling in any form, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw), have also appealed for such decisions to be based on science.
By this they mean deciding on regime for managing this hunt, including catch quotas, using a complex process devised by scientists over many years and endorsed by IWC member nations called the Revised Management Procedure (RMP).
Looking at the situation, you might conclude that everything was sweetness and light, with Japan's Fisheries Agency and one of its fiercest critics snuggled up together, feeling the love (for science, of course) after decades of snarling strife.
Think again; the rocks in this bed are as cold and jagged as ever.
Securing agreement on coastal whaling is, for Japan, a necessary ingredient of a larger deal with anti-whaling countries - a deal that could reduce the overall number of whales being killed each year, and a deal that some powerful forces are very keen to achieve.
Ifaw's concern is that the process of allocating a coastal catch quota may be driven by politics more than science - that science may be short-circuited in the drive to make a deal, resulting in a quota that is unsustainable.
For Japan and the other whaling (or would-be) whaling nations, this appears a rich irony indeed.
The RMP was agreed in 1994, but has never been introduced - according to pro-hunting nations, because anti-whaling forces blocked it, realising that its implementation would effectively end the 1982 moratorium on commercial hunting.
Japan and its allies dispute the moratorium's scientific validity; and it's certainly the case that some experts argued against the need for a blanket ban at the time, and that others have argued since that some species could be hunted sustainably.
Then there is the years-old dispute about Japan's use of regulations permitting hunting for scientific research to take annual quotas numbering many hundreds.
Is it science, commerce or politics? All these motivations are cited by some.
So what should we make of the use of science - or of the word "science" - in this context? Can either side really claim to hold the torch of scientific purity, and justifiably accuse only the other of using it as a convenient political fig-leaf?
One way of looking at it, I think, is to consider that the same curtain that separates societies into those that won't countenance whaling and those that will also divides scientists along similar lines.
Many of the younger generation, especially, came into the issue with a passion for live cetaceans and a desire to protect them - to use research for conservation of live animals only.
By contrast, scientists who work in hunting nations learn their trade cutting up dead whales, as did researchers of decades gone by in Britain and the US.
The avowedly anti-whaling generation charges that this research produces virtually nothing of benefit. In an age where the major threats to cetaceans come through issues such as climate change, entanglement in fishing nets and being hit by ships, they argue, what use is catching hundreds of them and cutting them up?
One long-time observer of the issue told me here that the IWC's scientific committee - which is supposed to be apolitical - is now more polarised than ever.
That's hardly surprising when you consider that its membership includes researchers who spend their time in government-sponsored Tokyo laboratories dissecting bits of dead whale, and others whose working lives are funded through donations to avowedly anti-whaling organisations such as Ifaw.
From the perspective of scientific output, both approaches include projects that use scientific method; both generate data.
But a meeting of minds? I don't think so.
Purity might be a scientific ideal but in many fields - take climate prediction or alternative medicine - it can rarely be disentangled from the politics of the issue and the scientists' motivation - or, on occasion, their funding.
Whales and whaling perhaps provide the example par excellence.
We should be not surprised if science comes out of this less than squeaky clean; but it might help us to make more sense of the issue if on occasion, parties made clear that when they talk of "sound science" they usually mean "the science that suits us".
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~40~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
To add to the debate, this weeks New Scientist has commented on Japanese scientific whaling. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227136.100-why-japans-whaling-activities-are-not-research.html
Nichola Raihani and Tim Clutton-Brock writing in New Scientist note that '...The scientific impact of the research is also limited. Relatively little research is published in international peer-reviewed journals, compared with research programmes on other marine mammals such as dolphins. According to the ICR, scientific whaling has produced 152 publications in peer-reviewed journals since 1994. However, just 58 of these papers were published in international journals. The rest were IWC reports or articles published in domestic journals, largely in Japanese. Most of the findings are not circulated among the wider scientific community, and the failure to subject papers to impartial review renders the value of much of this literature questionable...'
Complain about this comment
Richard Black.
just saw your item (from Madeira) on the news channel.
and the pictures show exactly where the problem lies: lack of tradition.
if only whalers had to forsake the use of technology to hunt; use only hand-thrown harpoons, sailing and rowing boats, no sonar, no satnav -- under those circumstances whaling might be a lot more acceptable.
but as it stands, whatever the "scientific merit", it's slaughter.
Complain about this comment
It's a good idea junior (I think the Canadian Eskimos get to hunt for whales, but apart from an outboard and metal rather than bone harpoons, they use traditional ways).
However it isn't "more acceptable".
It just makes it risky enough that the whalers won't be able to kill so many so cheaply.
Complain about this comment
The idea that the hunting of Whales by the Japanese is for scientific research is Orwellian in the extreme.
I would have thought if you wished to carry out scientific research you would study the whales whilst alive and should one die of disease or natural causes then you may use the carcass to dissect and study.
Complain about this comment
Yesterday evening I wrote twice my comment, but it never appeared, so -lucky you- I'll try once more but keep it "short":
before talking "what science", they should start talking about "What IWC":
it's still (like it or not) the International WHALING Commission, so it's main subject is "Whaling".
"Whaling" is not acceptable? Ok, but then change the rules of the organisation!
Complain about this comment
"WHALING Commission, so it's main subject is "Whaling".
"Whaling" is not acceptable? Ok, but then change the rules of the organisation!"
Uh, if you're going to want to reduce whaling, aren't whalers at least allowed a word?
Yes? Well, they'll need an official word, then, won't they.
Some sort of commission.
Now *responsible* whalers don't want to see the whales removed. You don't cut open the goose that lays the golden eggs to get two eggs there and then, do you. You shear the sheep to get its wool, not butcher it to get it.
But not all whalers are responsible.
So the commission may find itself arguing FOR some of its members AGAINST others of its members. And it may be doing so because what some of its members are doing is, you know, *wrong*.
Complain about this comment
jr4412, in general, whale hunts (including the subsistence hunts of the Inuit and Inupiat) are encouraged to use modern methods of killing whales as they result in a shorter time to death and are therefore judged more humane - although some of the subsistence hunters do still use traditional boats.
Complain about this comment
Richard Black #7: "...more humane..."
I'm not sure how reliable the "Humane Society of the United States" is; but the following page includes descriptions of various methods of killing whales (modern included), none of which seem particularly humane...
"The Fallacy of Humane Killing"
http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/save_whales_not_whaling/learn_more/fact_sheets_on_whaling/the_fallacy_of_humane_killing/
Apart from "Humane" I think part of the preference for older methods is that the prey often gets a chance and occasionally gets the better of its attacker.
Tied in with this is the notion that modern methods turn the tables on natural selectivity. Natural predators often take the weaker members of the prey population and leave the stronger individuals. Modern hunters with hi-tech gadgets tend to choose the bigger stronger targets and weaken the prey population.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Just for interest the Norwegian whaling fleet has had to stop its hunting today because of 'a lack of demand' saying that its the worst year for 15 years of hunting. Seems that the market is saying something about the subject
http://www.wdcs.org/news_stop.php?select=398
And those of you who read Norwegian the official statement
Complain about this comment
Richard,
I thank you for the insightful article. In my view, you have done a fair job of presenting both sides of the issues, without a particular bias.
I particularly liked your last paragraph:
"We should be not surprised if science comes out of this less than squeaky clean; but it might help us to make more sense of the issue if on occasion, parties made clear that when they talk of "sound science" they usually mean "the science that suits us".
Cheers for that. Please apply the same to "climate change and AGW"
L Kealey
Sugar Land TX USA
Complain about this comment
"Cheers for that. Please apply the same to "climate change and AGW""
Why?
It's denial of AGW that's wallowing in the slime. See, for your example, the research you've stated in another thread, claiming that the increase of CO2 from 280ppm to 390ppm is a 4% increase.
This is not even ATTEMPTING to be right, is it.
Complain about this comment
Further to #2 I remember a BBC report that they were selling whale meat for pet food since there weren't enough people who wanted to eat whale meat to use up all their catch.
In Japan.
And a few years ago.
The message has been out there fore AGES.
But what do you do with a whaling ship and whaling ship crew if you don't send them out whaling? You can't use the ships for pleasure cruises...
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #8.
excellent, particulary the last paragraph. food for thought for all conservationists.
Richard Black #7.
thanks. what do you think of #8?
yeah_whatever #11.
"..increase of CO2 from 280ppm to 390ppm is a 4% increase. This is not even ATTEMPTING to be right."
390 is 139.28% of 280, ie. an increase of 40% approx. I'd say it was a typo.
Complain about this comment
Why is it when millions of cows are slaughtered with a bolt to the head, no one in the US or the UK says a word (except the folk at PETA)? Or when thousands of fish are taken in nets, the Aussies are silent.
Yet when relatively insignificant (and almost certainly sustainable) portions of certain whale populations (e.g. Minke) are taken by the Norweigians, the Icelanders, or the Japanese, all these countries raise a hue and cry?
Isn't this just pure species-ist bias? Why is it ok to kill bugs(roaches)? raise and slaughter cows? but not whales (especially the non-endangered sub-species)?
Complain about this comment
Junior, #13, I would have considered this too, but he repeats it in another thread and in answer to the question posed.
Doesn't look like a typo. At least not one he knows of or will admit to.
Complain about this comment
Mind you, junior, it could be like cuckootoo did, he's making the numbers up (or the one who wrote the paper is) and mixing things that don't go together.
Remember his 0.3%? That was comparing the total carbon available (including that locked in animals and plants) to the annual emissions of humans.
That you can't do that comparison (it's not even apples to oranges, it's more apples to "the descartian philosophy of 'I think therefore I am'").
In any case, there's a huge lack of salt being taken, despite larry saying he took it.
Complain about this comment
As to the question posed at 14, cetaceans are recognized in article 65 and 120 of the United Nations law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as special in the sense that countries have to cooperate in their conservation and the management of human actions that could affect them. Not sure the other species get such a mention, though moves to have multilateral management of fisheries is increasing (I don't include the disastrous CFP, - though there appears to be a new commitment to radically alter it coming from the EU)
Your claim that the whales being taken are sustainable is open to debate and I understand that the Japanese hunting on O, M and J stocks does impact highly endangered populations, according to the IWC Scientific Committee.
Complain about this comment
To #17
Thank you for the clear answer.My point here is that it's hypocritical
The very UNCLOS articles are themselves biased in that they protects certain species (which are not currently hunted by these countries) and not others. As you mention, fish also move across national fisheries but there seems to be little political will to enforce limits on them- maybe something to do with the political muscle of the EU, US, and other coutries still extant fishing fleets?
Also, let us recognize that some of the countries that are championing a total ban on whaling are the very same that, in their race for whale oil, drove these giants to the populations that exist today. Isn't it typical that, having exploited them when they wanted to, they now seek to say to others "you can't do what we did"
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever at point 6: what you write is very reasonable and was the reason for creating the "Scientific Committee" whose meeting (of which nobody seems to be aware of) is held before the "political" meeting. Originally this was done in order to give the scientists the possibility to meet and work together and then "feed" the politicians their results. And there is a lot of good science done by the Scientific Committee. Unfortunately the reality is not as reasonable: scientists work, politicians follow their "agendas".
So I'd really like to know which nations, which are against whaling, would be favourable of "responsible whaling"! And of course the whaling nations say that they are "responsible"!
The truth is they are either for or against it: black or white ... nothing in between. Prove me wrong!,
Complain about this comment
At 18. krishnamahesh, I guess its about an evolution of international awareness and international responsibility both to the environment and humanity as a whole - and how this is reflected in international law and norms.
There was a global acceptance of slavery amongst humans but this was eroded and almost completely outlawed (I note still practiced in various ignoble ways today) but just because it was practiced historically by the British did this mean that they did not have the right to challenge the US on it in the nineteenth century? And before anyone shouts at me for comparing whaling and slavery, I am simply illustrating how international norms change over time.
In Iceland, Icelandair and the Icelandic tourism industry has come out against Icelandic whaling. I would suggest we can no longer talk about these being 'whaling nations' - they are nations that have 'whaling interests', like Hvalur in Iceland, - but Hvalur does not represent Icelandic identity however it may like to.
I noted earlier that the Norwegian market for whale meat has collapsed this year - it would seem that things do change however much a few individuals want to fight to keep their dying practices.
Complain about this comment
@AcquaticHerbie (#20)
I must reject the analogy. Slavery is an absolute moral wrong (almost no one would disagree), OTOH, killing animals (for meat, hide, products) is not recognised as morally wrong (or,to some, even questionable).
I we take as a given that killing animals is NOT *morally* wrong, any law that must exist must be based on "convenience" or "preference" (ergo fishing "ok", whaling "bad").
In this atmosphere, it's just certain groups seeking to limit the freedoms of others in actions that do not harm any other person. If one argues aesthetics ("the majesty of the gentle giants" ,etc.) then all kinds of other actions can be banned by a majority that finds actions of a minority "unpleasant" to witness.
I believe this will be an ongoing debate but fear that, much like public opinion killed DDT, non-scientific emotion will lead to downstream disaster (e.g. whale populations CAN seriously affect fish stocks in certain areas, etc.). Much like Ms. Carson's campaign indirectly caused the death of millions around the world
BTW, I don't think Japan's current whaling takes are really motivated by science but I do think ANY limits that are imposed on anyone should be (and open to real scientific scrutiny and review)
Complain about this comment
re17, aquaticHerbie, I would posit that it's more the people who make up the community, not the country. However, Iceland don't seem to be all that hot on large-scale whaling "as a country". Most of the ones doing this because that's how they live (Esk's etc) have been hit by unsustained whaling. They'll be against it too.
But I would consider it most likely that the whaling companies themselves will, based on whether they can see the end of the line being hastened by irresponsible working or whether they prefer to pretend it isn't a problem. I suspect that the Japanese have the most companies in that. Maybe in their case because they would be dishonoring their ancestors if they said what HAD been done was bad (see their continuing inability to admit to atrocities: this doesn't stop some monks praying for the souls of those they repent the treatment of by their ancestors in WW2).
But maybe a lot of just plain old greed too.
Find the members of the Whaling commission and the members to the meetings. Check their history and their aims. I don't think there's anything more than hand-waving about divvying this up into countries.
Complain about this comment
@21 krishnamahesh, I was not equating slavery and whaling, I was simply trying to say international norms and laws change, so please feel free to reject the comparison.
I am not sure its just right to say certain individuals or groups trying to limit others, its actually developing international law like UNCLOS (see my note @ 17) that places restrictions and conditions on countries that wish to exploit cetaceans. Global society (whatever that is) has decided that these often highly migratory species belong to no one country, but to all. That, I would argue justifies nations being able to hold others to account.
@22 yeah_whatever, - believe it or not the coastal whaling operations in Japan are actually owned by one company operating out of the north of the country, but they are further subsidised as they are commissioned to take part in the JARPA 'scientific whaling' programme.
Also in the 1960s, Japan was happy to close down a large number of small whaling companies because they were competing with the larger oceanic fleet, so I am not sure about 'dishonouring ancestors' or anybody for that matter, holding them back from change.
Complain about this comment
@23, I can believe it.
That closing down was someone ELSE doing the redundancy. That's not the company themselves deciding to close down.
It's the difference between getting sacked and resigning. Except in reverse.
Complain about this comment
@23 - but doesn't that make a mockery of the concept of Japan defending its 'culture of whaling' when whole, so called 'whaling communities, were thrown to one side because they were competing with larger companies. Japan selects its arguments to suit the time and place. The recent attempts to blame whales for 'eating all the fish' is just a continuation of this 'tradition' of rhetoric.
Complain about this comment
@25.
Nope.
Several options.
a) That's one justification. Ever justified eating the second cake "because I've been good recently"?
b) Nope, it's fine to diss someone else's ancestors.
c) Doesn't everyone select their arguments to suit? It's called "reasoning". I don't explain my stance on copyright by explaining how the sun is a big burning ball of gas and that causes many effects on earth.
d) Try reading it all again. Here's a clue:
"But maybe a lot of just plain old greed too."
e) See also:
"this doesn't stop some monks praying for the souls of those they repent the treatment of by their ancestors in WW2"
f) They aren't a gestalt being. That's only happened in Akira. There are many people with many personalities and if you try to aggregate them you will consider them insane (see "Yes Minister" when Sir Humphrey sets Bernard straight as to why the Civil Service don't take on the minister's mandate).
Complain about this comment
The short version is: it may be *uncomfortable* for them to change (the source could be as I said).
And if given any reasonable opportunity to convince yourself that doing something (better, NOT doing something) will be fine will be gratefully taken.
If you know why someone is acting oddly (against their best interest) then you can work out better how to change it.
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #8:
You wrote:
"Apart from "Humane" I think part of the preference for older methods is that the prey often gets a chance and occasionally gets the better of its attacker."
------------
Agreed! It takes a man to hunt - industrial whaling is not hunting.
-------------
From Antoine de Saint-Exupery; "Wind, Sand and Stars":
"To be a man is, precisely, to be responsible. It is to feel shame at the sight of what seems to be unmerited misery. It is to take pride in a victory won by one's comrades. It is to feel, when setting one's stone, that one is contributing to the building of the world."
----------------
I used to hunt martens in the Laurentian Mountains of Quebec, to collect their fur and tails, one of which I made into a keychain. I was then in my early teens.
One day, after a long chase, a marten turned to face me from the crook of a tree branch. As I was about to squeeze the trigger, the marten bared his teeth at me in anger. Suddenly, I realized this creature was alive, and wanted only to live. I grew up in that instant, and I allowed the marten to go his way. After all, I already had my keychain.
Man is a top predator, a hunter. There is no dishonor in this. But to kill needlessly, or for sport, is a child's game. There are many childish adults in our civilization, for they have not been tempered in the natural world. Our rites of passage are trivial, or non-existent.
Is Japan or Iceland behaving honorably, like men should?
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Addendum to #28:
Antione de Saint-Exupery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_de_Saint-Exup%C3%A9ry
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits, lions also hunt.
But they can't wield a pole-axe. I'm pretty sure that eating a cow alive would be considered inhumane for humans, so we kill them quick and painless (well, the theory is painless). But if you can kill a whale quick and painless, you can go on to catch the next whale much earlier than if you take your time to kill it.
So we have two competing needs when it comes to hunting as you say is the only way that counts as hunting:
1) As little pain on the animal as possible
2) Don't use modern methods
But you can't fulfill #1 whilst following #2.
We have a very limited idea of what the practicalities of whale hunting are.
IMO, there's no NEED to go whale hunting. Not for most of us. For those where the only reliable source of energy is a whale, yes, but with global warming, they're already going to be stuffed long term.
So I don't berate them on their methods (factory fishing), I berate them on fishing at all (since there's no need).
And the reason is the fight between those two needs noted above.
Complain about this comment
To yeah_whatever:
"Death is always and under all circumstances a tragedy, for if it is not, then life itself has become one."
- Theodore Roosevelt
Man has grappled with the inhumanity of killing since we became human. It is, I think, what underlies much of the ritual of the hunt. This ability to empathise is a two edged sword. Being human is hard. Where to find sanity? The natural world, and an intimate knowledge and experience of it, is my own sounding board, and is all I can really offer on this.
But if one hunts with lance and kayak - there will be few who feel the need, of this I am sure.
As for the pain of the kill - the idea that it can be made painless, and thus absolve us of guilt. I think it's self-correcting. Maybe it's too easy with industrial methods. Perhaps it is of the utmost importance to remind ourselves, and our children, that we are human, and to actually feel this in everything we do, and to actually experience this personally.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #31 "Man has grappled with the inhumanity of killing since we became human"
Hi manysummits; I'd like to elaborate on that in a slightly different way.
My feeling is that as carnivore pack hunters we were most likely quite comfortable with and even enjoyed the hunt and the kill. There is much evidence that when the change to sedentary farming occurred these inherent instincts found relief on other ways; albeit rather perverse. I don't have a comprehensive list to hand, but the ancient gladiatorial "sports" in Rome, and even in more recent times bull-baiting, bear-baiting and cock-fighting all bear witness to our "blood-lust". Even today, sports like football seem to act as proxy substitutes for the pack in pursuit of prey and attract massive interest and support. How else could one explain the interest in watching a bunch of people kicking a ball around. Other sports bear similar relationships to our long distant "savage" past but in a packaged, watchable way and with a rather less violent result.
At the same time, our more humane nature, initially reserved for family and friends has been able to become more dominant and even expected as the norm. The killing of prey is sanitised and generaly kept out of sight with remaining tendencies in that direction vented via the aforementioned spectator sports.
This humane side of our character is possibly rather uneasy, being only a part of our full personality. It leaves us perplexed and guilty about the need to kill. Our more savage (even selfish) side is left lurking in the wings and I can imagine that the fact it is kept dormant so much of the time could mean that we seldom face it, don't fully understand it and don't have the proper control over it. With the result that under pressure, it can manifest itself in criminal and in-humane activities even today.
Does that make sense?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #32:
Yes, entirely.
I believe this 'not truly' knowing who we are, and not experiencing this personally, is the cause of much of civilized neurosis. It manifests in many 'perverse' ways, as you put it.
I have an expression which seems to fit, and I apply it to myself:
"Let the animal run."
I remember a big German Shepherd I knew well a long time ago. He was a magnificent dog, old and with more than a trace of arthritis.
But once he worked out the kinks, he would take off across the fields like a young pup, and return panting, tongue hanging out, with the pure joy of the run shining in his wonderful eyes.
And I thought - yes - that's us too.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To manysumits, but eating someone alive is not a good thing.
Isn't that what a lot of horror in the human literary history all about? Being eaten alive by zombies?
When the state sanctions an execution, should we crucify them? After all, the criminal is still dead? Maybe someone should beat them to death with a truncheon.
Both methods are considered bad and complex methods to end it quickly are taken. Electric chair, gas, injection, firing squad, guillotine, etc.
But why?
If there's no difference in HOW something dies, why bother poleaxing cows? Why worry about slaughterhouses killing quickly and "humanely"?
Why, in fact, have people jailed for torturing people to death for longer times than someone who just kills the same number of people? They're still just as dead.
Complain about this comment
To yeah_whatever:
I think human behavior is exceedingly complex, which is double-speak for 'we don't understand.'
Take North American Native rituals - the sun dance for example. Great pain was inflicted and endured - and considered a good thing!
I have a friend whom I am working with - from the Sudan in Africa - a tribal Dinka. As he came of age, several of his teeth were ceremonially knocked right out of his mouth - by his tribe!
I could go on ad infinitum, but the point is it's hard to put oneself in the shoes of another culture, either from far away in time or space or culture.
There are two articles in the BBC news this morning - coincidentally:
1)'Oldest musical instrument' found:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8117915.stm
2) Gulls' vicious attacks on whales
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8116551.stm
1) So here are our ancestors, playing flutes made out of bird bones and mammoth ivory, out-competing or perhaps killing their Neanderthal cousins.
2) And here are modern dinosaur cousins eating whales - alive! Note the judgement - "Gulls' vicious attacks. With high confidence, one can be sure the Gulls are not being vicious - they are just hungry, and being Gulls.
--------------
I am always reminded of Robert Pirsig's discertation on pre-Socratic Greek thinking. We are too judgemental - schooled in the 'Church of Reason' by Socrates/Plato et al, whereas Protagoras and his Einsteinian view - 'it's all a matter of perspective' - is at least equally valid.
I say again - in my own life I find the natural world the most dependable sounding board, and when people are truly in this natural world of - 'imminent death unless one keeps one's wits about one' - it is only then that I recognize sanity.
In the book I am reading now, "Wind, Sand and Stars", by the pilot and philosopher de Saint-Exupery, he describes the desert, its austerity, yet magical hold on mens' minds - in timeless prose. It strikes home because I too am in thrall to the desert.
Why is this? (Highly recommend this book!)
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
"I think human behavior is exceedingly complex, which is double-speak for 'we don't understand.'"
But what about yours?
Do YOU think that cows should be beaten with clubs until dead (because that's what we used to do when hunting their ancestors) or allowed to bleed to death from pierced wounds and this is OK since they're just as dead, or do you think that anything that kills quicker without pain should be used to cull cattle even if it's not how we used to do it?
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #36: "...do you think that anything that kills quicker without pain should be used..."
Since you pose the question, you can have my answer whilst awaiting manysummit's.
I think it is important to define the conditions under which the two alternatives ("slow & painful" vs. "quick & humane") are applied.
Starting from scratch...
(a) If your "humane" method still involves chasing a wild bovine over treacherous ground, risking life and limb to catch up with it, giving the beast a maybe 30% chance of escaping; and THEN somehow killing it quickly. Then yes, quick rather than slow.
(b) If your "humane" method involves sitting in comfortable all-weather clothing, 1 mile away with a rifle and telescopic sight. Then no; get your club out and start running.
(c) If your "humane" method involves catching living specimens, caging them up, breeding them selectively for years to obtain the most rapid growth rates possible, feeding them on contrived foodstuffs, disposing of all unwanted males or castrating them to satisfy our needs better, killing off most wild variants of the species (and related species) because we don't want them, and THEN killing them quickly rather than slowly. Then no; don't bother.
(d) If you've already gone and done everything in (b) then you may as well be "humane" anyway.
Does that answer your question?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
killing whales is absurd.with the advances in aquaculture/agriculture,there is no sound reason for killing marine mammals/they are not needed for a source of food,so when norway/japan/iceland decide to hunt whales in the name of science its hogwash.the complete gaul of these nations,to insist we believe theres science behind the hunt.the rest of us should ban ALL trade with these nations refuse to co-operate on any research/development. withdraw our envoys,and use warships to sink and kill whalers,no quarter.
Complain about this comment
Sorry; (d) above should of course read...
(d) If you've already gone and done everything in (c) then you may as well be "humane" anyway.
Complain about this comment
to think the EU lobbied so hard to condemn the seal hunt,c,mon now do you see any bias here?how dare you complain about our seal hunt,the EU is full of bull.clean up your own backyard,before sticking your ever so rightious face in ours,the utter gall of you people.really!
Complain about this comment
re 38, not entirely true.
Japan? Yup. Norway? Yup.
They have resources elsewhere.
But if you live in north canada where nothing other than seals and whales go, you don't have much in the way of local sainsburys to go to. Far north Russia? Same deal. Some places are just too darn remote for anything other than what swims walks or flies by to be part of the menu.
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #37:
Thanks! Well said.
----------
To yeah_whatever #36:
My behavior is every bit as complex and hard to understand as most other human beings, I presume.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
re 37, thanks for the complete answer.
Now whales swim. They are big.
This requires a boat and a big one.
And a big freaking gun (version 9000, maybe) if you also want to do it humanely.
But the big boat and quick kill make it also easy to hunt whales on a tremendous scale.
So you can't just go saying "well, you have to do it the old way with small boats" because that's just going to have fewer whales killed with far more pain.
Maybe nice for the whales *as a species* but not so nice for the whale in question.
So be careful what requirements you make: your end result is more than likely (in the current meme du jour on here) to result in far less humanity to the whales.
Japan doesn't NEED it. Norway doesn't want it. Closing the fleet is the sensible solution, but who is going to agree to be laid off just because some soft pansy westerners who don't know a thing about whales (this harpoon may make whale hunting safer, but it kills whales in 15 seconds tops, meaning far less suffering!) demand we be sacked?
Where are we supposed to live with no money, eh?
So they'll dig in.
Solve the human problem. The whale problem is solving itself: people aren't BUYING whale meat any more in the numbers the commercial whalers want. The only think left is to make the people who you want redundant not mind it.
Maybe by showing they are still useful and not unwanted.
Solve the human issue.
Demands to give up their job isn't it.
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #43 "Solve the human issue...Demands to give up their job isn't it"
Now you are using the old "Only doing my job mate..." argument as if it can justify anything.
I thought you'd know better than that.
yeah_whatever #43 "So you can't just go saying 'well, you have to do it the old way with small boats' because that's just going to have fewer whales killed with far more pain."
Actually yes; we can say that; and you hit the nail on the head "...going to have fewer whales killed...". Well done.
We are not "soft pansy westerners" as you say; who think that nature is pain free. Nature is as "cruel" as it is "blind". Nature is full of suffering; it's probably the main driving force for survival.
"Pain free death" doesn't help a species when it's extinct.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
""Pain free death" doesn't help a species when it's extinct.
/davblo2"
And the survival of the species means bupkis to a tortured animal.
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #45 "And the survival of the species means bupkis to a tortured animal"
I think you are grasping at straws there (or just trying to have the last word).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr
"The term martyr (Greek martys "witness") is most commonly used today to describe an individual who sacrifices their life (or their personal freedom) in order to further a cause or belief for many."
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
"I think you are grasping at straws there (or just trying to have the last word)."
Nope, Whales don't read Wikipedia. All the whale means is that they are in pain and dying. They don't know that this is the "preferred method" to reduce the catch of whales and therefore their suffering is good for their species.
Do you want to make up a set of reasoned statements or just hand-waving rhetoric?
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #47 "Do you want to make up a set of reasoned statements or just hand-waving rhetoric?"
So your #45 was a "set of reasoned statements". I don't think so.
You had my reasoned statements in #44 but didn't respond to most of them.
------
yeah_whatever #47 "Whales don't read Wikipedia. All the whale means is that they are in pain and dying. They don't know that this is the 'preferred method' to reduce the catch of whales and therefore their suffering is good for their species."
Quite true. They don't have to know. Most species don't understand "Survival of the fittest" and general principles of evolution. But that doesn't stop it working.
Why would their "not knowing" make it wrong?
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
" Why would their "not knowing" make it wrong?
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
/davblo2"
Uh, because their pain isn't reduced. A human who gives up their lives for another (B5) or who dies for their religion (Joan of Arc) can accept it.
The whale is left feeling torture.
Yeah, nice way to treat whales.
Look, if you just want whale hunting to STOP, then say you want it to stop.
And I don't understand why you want whales to undergo torture.
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #49: ...
In answer...
(a) Torture is an emotive word and suggests the pain is being inflicted for the sake of causing pain. That is not the case here.
(b) The whale feeling pain is not going to worry about whether it knows why it is suffering or not.
(c) Whales are not the only prey. The word is full of prey being killed by predators. We don't have control over the pain those prey feel and evolution endowed prey with the capability of feeling pain because it serves a good purpose - survival.
(d) In the limit context of remote coastal villages surviving with primitive fishing and whaling, (distasteful as it may be to us); it would be hard to complain that it was anything other than a natural cultural lifestyle, of which there are many diverse sorts in the world.
(e) The cause of concern is not small coastal populations, neither is it the individual whale, but a predator (man) who has begun using fantastic equipment and enormous vessels and set about mopping up prey all over the globe to the extent that many risk extinction.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #50.
or, in other words, "(e) The cause of concern.." is the industrialisation of killing.
Complain about this comment
But if the problem is, boiled down, the industrialisation of killing, then we have a problem back again in the cattle ranch and slaughterhouse.
It's industrialised killing.
And any humane way of killing whales is no different from the current way of killing whales that has huge fleets going out and overkilling.
I mean, I quite *like* the idea of telling them to go out in little boats and risk themselves, but that's because I don't think they should be (because they don't need to be) killing whales for food.
But it doesn't make for half as much sense overall as removing unnecessary whale hunting. And getting the whalers to agree requires we work on their objections and not make villains out of them.
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #52.
"..problem ... slaughterhouse."
correct, the whole of the chain is wrong, from clearing pristine rainforest in Brazil for ranching through to buying cheap cuts at Tesco.
the onus is on us (the consumer) to buy locally produced foods, ascertain where possible that the ethics are ok.
"..I quite *like* the idea of telling them to go out in little boats and risk themselves.." me too, but for the reasons given by davblo2 earlier, ie. because then the result of the hunt is not foregone, the prey has a chance.
also, widening from whaling to fishing in general, factory ships are the worst; nets measured in kilometres, sonar used to track the fish, etc. as manysummits pointed out elsewhere (and in the MayDay Declaration), world fisheries are on the brink of collapse. prohibiting the use of large vessels and hi-tech could help prevent that.
"..unnecessary whale hunting." again, if there's the culture and the tradition, why not? since, as you and others pointed out, consumer demand is dropping, the practice will come to an end anyhow.
Complain about this comment
"..unnecessary whale hunting." again, if there's the culture and the tradition, why not?
Because it isn't necessary.
There was a culture and tradition of painting yourself with woad and invading the neighbouring town.
There's a culture and tradition of female circumcision.
There's no need.
Same with whaling.
So what if it's "a tradition"? If you don't actually NEED whale meat (and Norway and Japan don't. Norway aren't selling the meat and Japanese whalers are selling it as petfood to get rid of their catch), then why do it?
But if you are way north and it's eat whale meat or starve because your nearest Tesco is 3000 miles away, then there IS a need there.
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever.
tell me, are you a vegan/vegetarian?
Complain about this comment
Nope. Quite the opposite.
I really don't like vegetables and I should have died from scurvey decades ago.
Tell me, are you a nosy little runt?
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever & jr4412
I notice we have two different contexts for "culture and tradition of whaling".
In my posts I used it in the context of small remote coastal villages, as per #50 (d), which matches YW's "long way to Tescos". So I guess we are agreed about that situation, because there is a genuine need for human survival.
The other context is Norway and Japan having historical traditions of whaling; presumably there was once a need (why else risk it) but it has long since disappeared. That's an interesting progression from a local essential need to an acquired taste of an entire nation. I guess the small coastal whalers succumbed to the possibilty of exporting their produce to the folk inland, (near Tescos), who didn't really need it but were prepared to pay for it. From then on, downhill to factory ships. So I think I'm reconciled with YW's #54 "If you don't actually NEED whale meat"
So that I wouldn't defend. But I don't hold out much hope of making things better by telling the Norwegian whalers we really like them but suggesting they take up alternative employment. I think the tradition is more ingrained. See...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/06/at_the_international_whaling_c_1.html#P82109985
Also it begs the question of how our entire production and supply of meat operates, as per #51 & #52 "industrialised killing"; that's a much bigger question.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever #56: "Tell me, are you..."
And I thought we were having an intelligent discussion...
Complain about this comment
So did I.
Junior asked a stupid question.
I notice he didn't answer, too...
Complain about this comment
"But I don't hold out much hope of making things better by telling the Norwegian whalers we really like them but suggesting they take up alternative employment."
You don't. Doing that would make you sound like their nanny.
You work on showing the decline in need, the decline in stock, the problems they are already encountering (this is part of what the science team in the IWC is (or should) be doing).
You then find/help fund alternatives.
Science research that is about *tagging* whales. Some of the smaller operators may be interested in that. Or tracking them. Sitting and watching them go by.
There's tourism. Especially for the ones with the prouder members (prouder of what they are, rather than what they do): Low catch but with tourists paying to be part of it. If there's going to be some whale catching, this would be more employment for more people and more money coming in to do so, with the same level of whaling as is acceptable.
Others may take new boats and track tourists over the places they used to hunt.
Others will have to find other employment, but if you can show that this was happening to them ANYWAY and this way they keep their pride and instead of being sacked, they left.
Work the people on this. You're trying to ruin their lives.
Heck, just think how much max and the other denialists keep whinging about how AGW will see stone age level technology "forced" upon them by the enviro-nazis.
Imagine trying to tell them they have to be unemployed for it!
Complain about this comment
yeah_whatever.
#55 "..are you a vegan/vegetarian?"
#56 "Nope. Quite the opposite."
#59 "..a stupid question."
anwered, regardless.
"I notice he didn't answer, too..."
yet. the difference one word would have made. anyway, cannot be online 24/7, there's more to life.
reason I asked the question was to find out whether your concern about whales is one of principle, or of "romanticism".
you indicate that you eat meat/fish. so, how come you're all outraged by some people eating whale meat, or even feeding it to their pets?
why should whales be protected, but, say, eating herring is ok? if you can catch it, and you don't waste any, what's the difference? and spare me the "majestic animal, intelligent too" argument. either you're principled, or you're not. black and white, no inbetween.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS