Warning: This is a novel.
Hello to Everyone.
Okay, I've got a little time to start replying to Katy's reply and then I have to leave. I can come back in later and go step by step. Very interesting forum here. I am sure there are people who read and simply want information without sarcasm or any other unprofessional comments and Andy's comment was entirely sarcastic and unprofessional -you want people believing I don't know what paragraphs are?
Again, this issue is SO complex. It’s a mad dog. Trying to dissect whaling issues is akin to having a conversation about the Bible. It is THAT complex. I suggest to anyone here who is not knowledgeable on this issue, to continue asking questions to anyone you trust but I would say that your questions are better taken outside this forum. This is a birdforum, and particularly a forum on the net on conservation issues, which are entirely debatable and filled with bias. This is not a forum or place where people are hired for their expertise on whaling issues. Those questions are better answered by experts. I do not consider myself an expert. I consider that I am only more informed than the general public –not necessarily the people on this forum. This just happens to be a big beef of mine so I try and stay on top of it. I have a bias. I am not a hunter. I am not okay with hunting birds or whales. The whaling issue brings up serious implications and problems with Innuit, Indians, native populations and I cannot write expert opinions to that here.
We could go back and forth for a hundred years. In my opinion, the only thing of any real significance is HOW DO WE, at this forum, HELP SAVE THE WHALES. That is NUMBER ONE. Re: information on whaling, *Anyone* can get this information. If you have the capacity to go to IWC meetings, excellent, but keep in mind these meetings do not stop the general public from knowing about this issue. The meetings only exist annually. The whaling industry lives and breathes nonstop.
*****
Pull up court documents. Look at federal register notices. Track the MMPA if you live in the US. Log onto Lexus-Nexus if you have that capability. Get court documents for this issue in your country. Google everything. Google scholar everything. Call attorneys employed by conservation organizations and environmental organizations. Listen to them respond to your questions with entirely different beliefs. Ask them for their time to explain their stance, say you are interested. Watch documentaries. Read magazines. Read a term used here at this forum and then google scholar it. Google scholar 'whaling,' 'cultural whaling' and you will see how complex this issue is. Find the difference between what it means to believe in saving a population of whales and what it means to believe in saving an individual whale and watch the worms crawl out of the can. This is science, conservation arguing against regular people who are vehement in the environmental movement and have HUGE lobby efforts. Google or Lexus-Nexus 'global warming whaling or whales' and you will find threads that never end. If it doesn't show up there, change the wording around. Whales are at the top of the food chain in water, which comprises most of this planet. The effects of whaling are never ending. Every env. issue you ever heard about will come up at some point. You will never stop. You will never get bored. It is fascinating. Read journals (Intn’l Wildlife Law and Policy, Env. Biology of Fishes, Journal of Env. Law and Litigation, Mammal Review, California Coast and Ocean, Cultural Dynamics, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Forbes even –they had an article on ‘Blubber Capitalism.’)
OK, now...
To reply to Katy’s post in a way that is more readable, will someone tell me how to separate in ‘chunks’? (and why you’re at it, the smiley faces, too) I have said before that I do not know how to separate with a ‘red line.’
Please understand, I am working with laymen’s terms. This is more sensible to me.
1) I wrote that the IWC was created “to have an organization set up for whalers that made sure whale populations could withstand hunting.”
Katy replied:
“To be accurate, the IWC was formed "... to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry."
I don’t see how my laymen’s terms is inaccurate. ‘Proper conservation of whale stocks’ is similar to ‘[so] whale populations could withstand hunting.’
The following is taken from the IWC web site. This is the ‘convention’ text from the ICRW, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling; 1946, which essentially started the IWC. This is not the IWC that came about as a result of the environmental movement to ‘Save the Whales.’ These were all pro-whaling signatories, including the US -as opposed to now, when the IWC has strong anti-whaling signatories. (This is at the IWC web site.)
It reads:
“Recognizing the interest of the nations of the world in safeguarding for future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks;
Considering that the history of whaling has seen over-fishing of one area after another and of one species of whale after another to such a degree that it is essential to protect all species of whales from further over-fishing;
…and it goes on and on.
Notice it refers to “over-fishing”, a term I later used -and should have been more clear about. I thought you would have gotten my gist. Over-whaling is not a term but perhaps it would have been more clear. In any case, over-fishing threatens whale populations. ‘Over-fishing’ decreases whale stocks to the point of endangerment or even extinction. I hope that helps.
I wrote (and you blocked off, as if to correct) “Japan gathers other countries to join the IWC that don’t even have a stake in whaling b/c they’re inland, like Mali. All these countries vote at the IWC and if Japan can gather enough, their whaling –vested- interests are kept well. Tokyo is the world’s market for whale meat.
You then supposedly ‘corrected’ me by saying:
“Japan’s sole interest in buying IWC votes is to obtain a 3/4 majority, which is needed to lift the global moratorium on commercial whaling.”
Your statement, in no way, changes what I wrote. This is a tactic to confuse? I don’t get it. You did this over and over again. Nothing I wrote is incorrect.
I wrote: “And Japan has a -legal- 'scientific exemption' to hunt whales, which means they don't have to have an aboriginal subsistence exemption' or even a 'cultural subsistence exemption.’
You wrote: “Don’t confuse ‘scientific’ whaling with ‘aboriginal subsistence whaling.’ Who is confused? My statement never confuses the two. You are working to discredit my statements and you have no specific comments whereby you are able to do so. Japan does not have an aboriginal subsistence exemption. That’s what I wrote. That’s the truth. So this feels very competitive and very female-like, cat-like. Very much like you are the only knowledgeable whaling person in the room. Why? If we worked together, we could save the whales. Why would you want to discredit someone who actually agrees with the way you think? If you want to say that I am mistaken, please present yourself to me in a different way and only tackle me where I deserve to be corrected. I would take those corrections willingly.
2) Lastly, (I need to go so I cannot come close to finishing and would like to tackle this in ‘boxes’ so it’s clear and I can go step by step.) Hopefully, someone will explain how to do that. But lastly, because this is another way you have of trying to discredit. I see this as catty, egotistical, stepping on your toes. God help the person who has no intention but to post an informed reply and steps on the administrator’s toes. They will be met with the intention to discredit… I am stating this as a valid concern. But lastly, if like you say, Japan is only threatening to leave the IWC as a paper tiger move to ‘return’ to commercial whaling, then you have lost two serious points. (1) your original post speaks of Japan retaliating. This is the push-pull dynamic between the USA and Japan I referred to in my first post that you said you knew not of. And you did not define what it is that Japan will retaliate with; you simply posted the post. How specific can you be in your definition? What exactly is the retaliation? I don’t know where you obtained the information so I cannot reply to the specific concern, instead I replied to what is a concern amongst many. Anyone can google or google scholar this stuff. My perspective is that the bigger retaliation is them leaving the IWC. That would be the worst thing they could do –for the whales sake. I don’t think it’s professional to discount that fear. It’s real. Not the fear –the threat. Why? Because Japan is whaling under a moratorium on whaling when the only other countries allowed to whale are whaling under exemptions that involve subsistence hunting. Hunting whales for food because of a need. A subsistence need. But what is the paper tiger hunting under then? Hmm…let me think. YES! Science? A scientific exemption. So, the question becomes: What is a scientific exemption to kill whales if it is not commercial whaling? It’s the exact same thing. That’s the paper tiger you’re referring to. The paper tiger is already commercially whaling. You could discount this, too, and give the IWC definition of commercial whaling. I could, too. I could post all kinds of smarty pants quotes and definitions. Why? Anything not subsistence is essentially commercial. And no, any country cannot –realistically- whale under a scientific exemption. The US is bound by the MMPA. BTW, Remember Moby Dick? This was commercial whaling at its height. This was not too long ago. The uses of whale meat and whale products have changed throughout the years. They have not disappeared. I fear that commercial whaling may resume. I hope it does not.
Goodbye. Must go. Hello to everyone.
