#270106 - Mon Jun 20 2005 05:48 PM
Whales
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Mon Feb 10 2003
Posts: 2167
Loc: Sydney
NSW Australia
|
Quote:
Japan and its pro-whaling allies have narrowly lost a vote that conservationists feared would lead to the end of a two-decade ban on whale hunting.
The vote came during the opening of the International Whaling Commission (IWC)'s annual plenary session in Ulsan, South Korea.
Tokyo had previously announced it would increase the number of whales it kills for scientific study before selling their meat.
Australia, New Zealand and conservationist groups, including Greenpeace, oppose any expansion of whaling.
The United States criticised Japan's decision to increase its research whale hunts, calling them scientifically unnecessary........Japan and its allies, which include poor Caribbean and African nations including St Kitts and Nevis and Gabon, say secret ballots protect smaller countries from intimidation by larger ones.
Japan's opponents, including Australia and New Zealand, and conservationist groups including Greenpeace oppose any expansion of whaling.
The United States criticised Japan's decision to increase its research whale hunts, calling them scientifically unnecessary.
The United Kingdom say secret ballots fly in the face of the need for transparency in international organisations.
Joji Morishita, Japan's chief negotiator at the meeting and in many ways the face of the country's whaling program, took heart that this year's margin of defeat of three votes on secret ballots was less than last year's five.
From here.
The fact that the japanese and some few other countries eat whales is something I have come to terms with and can accept. The fact that japan wants secret ballots is something that I find offensive.
Quote:
"It now means that this organisation continues, in my view, to have some credibility," he told AFP. "If secret ballots had come in, we would have lost that accountability that is so critical to a transparent process," he said.
A member of the Japanese delegation played down the failure to pass what whaling nations said was a democratic proposal to protect small developing countries from intimidation.
"It's disappointing because so many developing countries continually have pressure put upon them to vote in a particular way," the spokesman said, asking not to be identified.
"A secret ballot would have put a stop to that."
Here
The "asking not to be identified" bit seems to be part of japans culture.
Japan is currently bribing poorer nations to vote its way whilst stating that it isn`t and the secret vote is yet another attempt to hide their less than honourable efforts.
Australians have a fantastic environment minister, Ian Campbell, at this point in time who has been absolutely straight to the point when describing japans actions........ Quote:
"The world today will either be stepping forward into an era where conservation and environment really matter or will be stepping back into the dark ages where people of the world think that the slaughter of whales with grenades, using electric lances and shooting them with rifles is something we should accept."
Here.
The U.K.,the U.S.A. and New Zealand are all also taking action against commercial whaling.
I spend at least one day a week whale watching with my daughter in winter here and find it amazing to see whales breaching and playing.
Edited by damnsuicidalroos (Mon Jun 20 2005 05:59 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270107 - Mon Jun 20 2005 06:52 PM
Re: Whales
|
Moderator
Registered: Tue May 15 2001
Posts: 14384
Loc: Australia
|
I'm with you, Roos.
Funny thing I heard, and don't know as to it's truth but part of the "research" was to find out how many whales there were. Ummmm, am I the only one who can't see the logic in that?
Edited by Copago (Mon Jun 20 2005 06:53 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270108 - Mon Jun 20 2005 07:15 PM
Re: Whales
|
Prolific
Registered: Fri Jun 06 2003
Posts: 1336
Loc: Mumbai India
|
I thought it would be interesting to see things from the Japanese perspective: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fl20050621a2.htmWhat the pro-whaling folks seem to be ignoring while making all their arguments is that whales are migratory animals (as mentioned in several news articles I came across)- they travel from one country's water to another's- and are not, therefore, any one nation's "property". Maybe Norway, Iceland, and Japan and its cohort of minions can be allowed to hunt whales in proportion to the total population of these countries.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270109 - Mon Jun 20 2005 09:36 PM
Re: Whales
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Mon Feb 10 2003
Posts: 2167
Loc: Sydney
NSW Australia
|
That is an interesting news article Achernar and fairly typical of the empty arguments used by japan and people making money out of japan to illustrate their point. Quote:
But believe it or not -- like it or not -- Japan's case for the resumption of commercial whaling is strong enough to have IWC nations reconsidering their positions. Change is unlikely to occur this year, due to the two-thirds majority required to effect it, but it's on the horizon.
The only point to be believed is that japan has been buying votes as fast at it can, no change is on the horizon till japan can buy the moral fortitute of some more less economically fortunate little countries.
Quote:
Contrary to the stance of countries like Australia, the IWC acknowledges that information pertaining to age and reproduction cannot be determined without lethal catches to, for example, analyze ovaries.
That the IWC allowed japan to slaughter whales for "scientific research" was simply a yes man approach to japans "need" to kill whales. That one of the most scientifically and technologically advanced countries wont acknowledge the scientific evidence produced that shows simple dna testing will provide any and all research data required is sickening.
Quote:
In Japan too they occupy an important place in the country's psyche. Masayuki Komatsu, alternate commissioner for Japan at the IWC, writes about Japan's whale culture. At Koganji temple in Yamaguchi Prefecture, the souls of over 1,000 whales are interred, along with 75 whale fetuses on the top of a hill, where he says, they can "command a view of their ocean home." He goes on to point out, "An approach where the Japanese accord the whale (the) status of a person because of its integral role in sustaining human life can clearly be contrasted with the view of cattle in the West, where no such status or respect is conferred."
Wow so they show respect to animals.......... but still kill them. "75 whale fetuses".......What to say?
Quote:
In 1947, whale constituted about 47 percent of Japan's protein, according to the ICR. Whale meat had proved a solution to a country in dire food shortage. This has left a strong impression on Japanese.
The reason japan was suffering a food shortage was simply because they had thrown so much energy into a war they started, they were beaten and had to stop killing humans so whales must suffer to this day?
Quote:
Moreover, the destruction wrought by cattle farming on the environment ought not to be underestimated. In a report released last week, the United Nations FAO estimated that South America's forest will decrease by 18 million hectares by 2010.
I found that comment to be foolish in the extreme. What the writer is saying is that because there is already one environmentally damaging action there should be another.
Quote:
When the world's forests are being depleted, and half its population doesn't have enough food, it seems indulgent for wealthy nations to call whales off limits because whaling "is no longer required to meet human needs
Yes we have all seen pictures of starving japanese...not.
That whales are migratory animals is a great point achernar, the whales should be shared, but as tourist attractions not dinner .
_________________________
Responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270110 - Tue Jun 21 2005 06:57 AM
Re: Whales
|
Prolific
Registered: Fri Jun 06 2003
Posts: 1336
Loc: Mumbai India
|
Quote:
Wow so they show respect to animals.......... but still kill them.
LOL...we Hindus claim to respect cows, yet we allow them to live on diets comprising almost entirely of polythene.
The article also mentions that although over a billion people in the world consider cows "sacred", people in anti-whaling countries eat beef, which implies that they have no moral authority to condemn Japan's consumption of whale meat. What they seem to have forgotten about completely is that:
a) Cows are not, as per current scientific evidence, migratory creatures.
b) Cows are usually reared on farms, and not hunted in the wild.
c) There is no significant threat posed to cow populations in the world.
d) Hindus don't even care about other people eating beef, they (and that too, only the ultra-conservative ones) just consider them "im-pure".
n.b. I don't eat meat but not for religious reasons.
Like you showed, Roos, most of their arguments can be easily refuted- and even if they can't, the fact that so many of them can makes them lose all credibility and respectability.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270111 - Thu Jun 23 2005 01:23 AM
Re: Whales
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Mon Feb 10 2003
Posts: 2167
Loc: Sydney
NSW Australia
|
You are certainly not the only one that cannot see any logic in that particular claim Copago. The majority of the members [perhaps the smaller country members also have a problem with it but are being paid too much to vote against it] of the IWC has problems with Japans latest proposal and has voted to not accept it. Quote:
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has rejected a bid by Japan to resume commercial catches of minke whales in the Pacific Ocean.
Japan proposed to commercially hunt 150 minkes from the Pacific.
The Solomon Islands and Palau again backed Japan but the vote was 26 for and 29 against.
A three-quarters majority was needed to pass the amendment.
The result is another setback for Japan's pro-whaling push.
Over the past three days it has lost a number of key votes, including an attempt to overturn a 19-year ban on commercial whaling.
Denmark is expected to produce another proposal at the IWC this afternoon that would see a resumption of commercial whaling if passed.
From here.
Quote:
d) Hindus don't even care about other people eating beef, they (and that too, only the ultra-conservative ones) just consider them "im-pure".
Achernar that is certainly good news for me and something I didn`t know. I had always thought that Hindus were pretty down on we beef eaters." Impure" from the ultra-conservatives is something I can live with.
_________________________
Responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270112 - Thu Jun 23 2005 08:07 AM
Re: Whales
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Nov 12 2003
Posts: 2165
Loc: Nebraska USA
|
Just as an aside, I think there are a number of cultures who DO show much respect to animals, and DO still kill them. The Native American culture fosters a reverant respect for animals, especially the ones they use (kill, eat, make clothing out of...). I don't see how this could be considered contrary.
As for Japan, well, whaling WAS an important part of their society. Much like other island and coastal people of the Pacific the animals have held importance in a number of industries throughout the last 1300 years at least. Their attitudes and methods in sidestepping the rules of the IWC seem inappropriate, but IF sustainable commercial whaling CAN be accomplished, like most hunting, it should be allowed in a controlled manner, especially to those peoples with a long history of use of (and yes, even respect for) the animal in question.
The effects on the environment of large-scale agriculture should not be scoffed at in this situation. It's direct and indirect negative impact on the environment is not only well-documented, but may be fairly called one of the greatests threats to world ecology, like it or not. It IS fair to weigh the potential effects of bovine and other farming on island nations against the potential effects of a strictly limited amount of commercial whaling. The scales may certainly tip dramatically against whaling. But they may also tip the other direction.
I personally don't see how bringing WWII into the discussion is particularly useful. Whaling and Japan's reliance on the whale existed long before their dependance on it in the middle of last century. Neither the author of the quote itself nor the person replying to it here can add anything useful to the discussion by including it. It may be true that those times made a lasting impression on the Japanese. I'm sure whaling is not the only example of that lasting impression, as we can all well imagine, and I'm also sure that because of whaling's significance before that event, there isn't any kick-the-dog syndrome going on here. In times of trouble, whether self-inflicted or helped along by crippling and devastating damage to the environment thanks to someone else, or a combinatin of both, a country MUST do what it can to sustain itself, if it is going to sustain. Whale is, in addition to being a beautiful and valuable creature, an excellent source of food. Who could possibly fault the Japanese in that situation? And why bother?
But as for continuing the practice even now, I'm sure I could find examples of similar situations here in the US. It is a tradition, and one founded in sound logic, too. The whale is entirely useful. Changing an entire societies views to adapt to ecological neccessities is not an easy thing to do, as we Americans are well aware. And I can tell you there are plenty of rabid and angry people in the US still struggling to keep a firm grasp on a number of practices both personally and ecologically unhealthy, simply because we've always been able to do it up until now, and why should we stop. And this even in the face of piles of evidence showing the destruction such behavior can cause.
Now, as I said before, IF the Japanese can show that a limited amount of whaling is sustainable, I simply do not understand why it should not be allowed. That is, if it can be shown that a limited amount of whaling will not have a negative impact on the species or their environments. If there might be no negative impact, then why would one object, except that one might really like whales, which is understandable.
Personally, I really like whales. My intended field of study when I was a biology major was cetacean research. I am in support of conservation efforts. And while I may have to force myself to do it, I have to keep a bit of objectivity here. In any case where hunting is debated, the impact of hunting on a conservation effort must be taken into account, and if a limited amount of hunting would not hurt a conservation effort, it SHOULD be allowed. I'm not exactly neutral on the issue of whaling. I don't FEEL neutral, anyway. Like I said, I like whales. But maybe my stance is more neutral than I suspect.
_________________________
Goodbye Ruth & Betty, my beautiful grandmothers.
Betty Kuzara 1921 - April 5, 2008
Ruth Kellison 1925 - Dec 27, 2007
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270113 - Fri Jun 24 2005 01:29 AM
Re: Whales
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Mon Feb 10 2003
Posts: 2167
Loc: Sydney
NSW Australia
|
More good news [or bad news if you support the torturous death of whales]. Quote:
Danish bid for commercial whaling fails
A Danish proposal to resume commercial whale hunting has failed at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in South Korea.
The proposal to resume a limited commercial whale hunt was originally backed by six countries but when it went to the floor Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland withdrew their support.
The final vote saw just two countries in favour, with 27 voting against and 26 abstaining.
The plan had been described by Denmark as a balanced compromise.
The IWC has now carried a motion to discuss the issue of commercial whaling at ministerial meetings over the next 12 months.
Federal Environment Minister Senator Ian Campbell says he would like to see governments from around the world take the issue of whaling more seriously.
Senator Campbell has just returned from the IWC meeting, where he says only a small group of countries sent their environment and conservation ministers.
He says he was particularly disappointed with the delegations from Nauru and Solomon Islands.
He says the Nauru delegation refused to speak to him for the period of the conference, while the Solomon Islands delegation appeared not to follow its own Government's directions.
"I simply can't see how nations who take leadership on environmental reforms in every other area of the biosphere and every other area of biodiversity can send delegates along who vote vigorously and speak vigorously and lobby vigorously to slaughter whales and see them drown in their own blood," he said.
From here.
I`m really starting to like our Environment Minister and see him him as the kind of person we should should have defending the environment against what I see as backward practises. I hope he is as strong when it comes to other problems like logging and pollution etc. Maybe we might even get around to ratifying the Kyoto Protocol soon.
_________________________
Responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270114 - Wed Jun 29 2005 08:04 PM
Re: Whales
|
Participant
Registered: Wed Jun 29 2005
Posts: 7
Loc: Florida, by way of Alaska
|
I believe that whale populations are limited and sensitive enough as to preclude commercial whaling. The only instance in which i would support whaling of any sort is where it is done for subsistence purposes by members of a culture who have practiced whaling without interuption to this day.
One example of this is Eskimos in Alaska (and I would imagine Canada and ussia as well.) Not only was whale meat a 'traditional' component of their diet - there was no point at which that ceased being the case. It is utterly farcical for Japan to make such a claim. Their society has since departed the subistence lifestyle and whale is now a luxury food as opposed to a nutritional necessity.
It is dependant on the population. Take salmon for instance. They too are a migratory marine animal. Their population is massive though, as opposed to the extremely limited population of whales. Their life cycle and age of sexual maturation is also much shorter / lower, thus allowing for a much more rapid rebound of their population in the event of depletion.
Basically what i am saying is that for the most part, whales should be left alone, not so much because they are neat and easy to feel sympathy for (though that is why they are na issue with signifigant following... insert the same exact situational parameters for, say, squid ad the world would likely not care), but because they are A) an ecologically important species, B) their population is extremely limited, and C) it takes a very long time to repair damage to their population once it is sustained.
As in all situation, a balancing of cometing intersts must take place. However I fail to see any situation in which the interest of commercial whalers would supercede the massive risk imposed by depleting whale populations. I am inherently suspicious of commercial ventures that draw their income form a depletion of natural resources. If commercial whalers destroy the whale population, they will profit off of it. They may kill their revenue stream, but all they are out is continued money inflow. Subsistence whalers depend for their very livlihoods on the continued existance of whales, and as such they are infinitely more likely to engage in the practice with a greater sense of responsibility.
I have seen the difference between comercial and subsistence interests firhand in the salmon fisheries in Alaska. Commercial fleets fished them literally to collapse. I see little reason to believe that commercialization of a vastly more sensitive species would have any different results.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270115 - Thu Jun 30 2005 06:31 AM
Re: Whales
|
Multiloquent
Registered: Wed Nov 12 2003
Posts: 2165
Loc: Nebraska USA
|
All agreed, Lonagon. Whales are a sensitive population, in addition to being a fascinating species. I don't believe commercial whaling is a great idea, and certainly not for luxury items. I think I said that. I may not have said it in so many words. But as with other species, like salmon, I do still believe that IF an amount of commercial whaling could be done without negative impact on the species, it should be allowed. I don't know if or when that will ever happen.
_________________________
Goodbye Ruth & Betty, my beautiful grandmothers.
Betty Kuzara 1921 - April 5, 2008
Ruth Kellison 1925 - Dec 27, 2007
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270117 - Mon Oct 31 2005 05:03 PM
Re: Whales
|
Forum Champion
Registered: Tue Jan 18 2005
Posts: 8717
Loc: Arkansas USA
|
Sounds like common sense from here, roos.
_________________________
A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is just putting on its shoes - Mark Twain
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index