US government hates whales (2 Viewers)

[Isurus]

Katy can I ask you if you are aware of any interrelation between the IWC and CITES - where does CITES stand on the whales and would a different CITES listing have any effect/precedence over the IWC verdicts?

 

[Tyke]

Which is your right. But it would have been more honest of you, Colin -- or to use your own words, less hypocritical -- to simply say that you condemn all whale killing regardless of reason rather than to try to rationalize your opinion about aboriginal subsistence hunts with selective and out-of-context information.

Thanks Katy
I do condemn all whaling-I wish you did.

I associate myself entirely with Dan's knowledgable view on native whaling.

I have tried to reach some understanding of sustainability in order to at least have some sympathy with the concept of cultural killing.Your detailed information on sustainability is interesting. Unless you can provide me with the evidence for sustainability where you assert it I remain sceptical.

I note that whilst "sustainability" is used in support of Native hunting, you do not use it in mitigation of Minke hunting by the Japanese. Yes I know your platform is breach of Treaties. Mine is a personal attempt to understand the reality. The whales have signed no treaties, and cannot distinguish whether their deaths are legal, illegal or cultural...merely I suppose that they are painfull.These distinctions are indeed arbitrary from the whales' point of view.

It seems to me that if whaling were banned entirely, USA & Canada could join the international condemnation of Japan , without being compromised. This may help bring Japan to book perhaps.

Colin

 

[Katy Penland]

Katy can I ask you if you are aware of any interrelation between the IWC and CITES - where does CITES stand on the whales and would a different CITES listing have any effect/precedence over the IWC verdicts?

All cetacean species, with one local exception, are listed as Appendix I, meaning that they are all considered to be threatened with extinction and no commercial trade in them is allowed. The single exception is the West Greenland stock of minke whale, which is listed as Appendix II (not threatened with extinction, but its trade must be controlled so that their survival is not threatened). I believe, but I'm not sure, that the West Greenland stock was excluded from App. I in the '80s (when all other cetacean species were put in to App. I) because of aboriginal hunting on that particular stock. The App. I listing for cetaceans coincided with the global moratorium on commercial whaling, which was proposed by IWC in 1982 and enacted in 1986.

The relationship between IWC and CITES is very real, with CITES taking into account IWC Scientific Committee research when making decisions on proposals to downlist cetacean species from App. I to App. II, and other considerations. It's also much, much harder to get any whale species downlisted at CITES than, say, at the IWC because there are vastly more member countries in CITES -- 169 -- than the 50-something members of IWC.

So, as of this moment, the whales, dolphins and porpoises are given the most protection CITES offers. However, sadly, there apparently is a process by which member countries can take reservations to certain species, which is how Japan is getting around the App. I listing of the whales its killing. I don't understand this process -- have never been to a CITES meeting nor done much research into it -- but I'd be happy to look into it if you're interested.

 

[cayoncreekman]

Thanks Katy
The whales have signed no treaties, and cannot distinguish whether their deaths are legal, illegal or cultural...merely I suppose that they are painfull.These distinctions are indeed arbitrary from the whales' point of view.
Colin

I agree completely.

I also get irritated when I hear white people justifying their sport hunting with the phrase afterwards "we're responsible hunters, we eat the meat". So?...why does a dead animal care if you ate him or let his carcass be? In fact, maybe letting it rest where it was killed would provide some nutritional meals for the bears, wolves, ravens, etc. If someone wants a meal then go and get a pizza or a burger at Mcdonalds and let that nice bull Elk or Moose alone to do whatever it was doing before it was shot and killed. The animal didn't suffer less or is any less dead because he's the center of attention at a Barbeque.

 

[Katy Penland]

Thanks Katy

I do condemn all whaling-I wish you did.

This is the kind of emotional non sequitur I have never understood. I am against all whaling. However, I am not against the right of people to eat the food they need in order to survive -- the food they have always eaten, regardless of how it may conflict with our cultural view of things. As I already asked in this thread, and it wasn't necessarily a rhetorical question: What are these high-latitude groups to do? They may not be living in igloos anymore, but they're also not near the kind of shopping described earlier in this thread. I truly do not understand your or anyone else's difficulty in grasping the difference between "subsistence need" and "cultural tradition," the latter of which is, IMHO, a bogus reason to kill any animal. But when there's a true need? I think this is arrogance of the first water to presume to dictate to any living being what can or cannot be eaten when it's a matter of survival and when the species killed are in no danger of extinction or even extirpation.

I associate myself entirely with Dan's knowledgable view on native whaling.

Fair enough.

I have tried to reach some understanding of sustainability in order to at least have some sympathy with the concept of cultural killing. Your detailed information on sustainability is interesting. Unless you can provide me with the evidence for sustainability where you assert it I remain sceptical.

Let me reiterate: I am and always have been opposed to "cultural" killing, regardless of whether we're talking about eagles or whales; regardless of whether such killing is "sustainable"; and regardless of this word being added to the IWC's definition of "aboriginal subsistence whaling." I do not believe there is a moral or ethical justification for killing anything for some cultural "tradition."

If you'll accept the IWC's Scientific Committee and the US National Marine Fisheries Service data on bowhead whale abundance for the Chukchi-Bering-Beaufort Sea stock, those figures, as I've mentioned before, have been estimated to be in the 10,000-14,000 range. The latest estimation for which I could find documentation right away was for 2001 at 9,860. The annual recruitment rate (rate of reproduction) for this stock has historically been 3-3.2%, or about 250-300 whales per year. The aboriginal subsistence quota allowed by the IWC is 280 whales over 5 years, or 56 whales per year, shared (but not equally) between the Alaskan and Russian Inuit. Also, assigning a quota does not necessarily mean that that many whales will be taken. In many years, quotas are not reached usually due to bad weather and early closure of sea ice.

I hope you'll agree that at least in this one subsistence hunt, the size of the hunt is sustainable.

As to the other aboriginal hunts I've enumerated, I cannot defend any of them. I think there is undoubtedly a real subsistence need in Greenland, but their hunts are unsupervised and more species are being taken that are not sanctioned and at rates that even the IWC has said are unsustainable. It's this kind of lack of management that gives all subsistence hunts a bad rep.

I note that whilst "sustainability" is used in support of Native hunting, you do not use it in mitigation of Minke hunting by the Japanese. Yes I know your platform is breach of Treaties. Mine is a personal attempt to understand the reality.

If you mean because the global minke whale population seems to be high enough to support Japan's hunting, I draw your attention back to my post about the latest data indicating that this species isn't just one big lump of a few hundred thousand individuals, but that they may very well be comprised of genetically and geographically discrete stocks. Meaning, that if Japan takes 900 minkes (their self-assigned "quota" for this year) out of a stock that is comprised of, say, 10,000-15,000, without knowing what the recruitment rate is or if, in fact, Japan is only taking as many as they say they are, then what the Japanese are doing is unsustainable in terms of the Antarctic hunt.

I'm a little dismayed that you seem to think "breach of Treaties" isn't as important as some mitigation scheme. Are you saying that if Japan's hunt were sustainable (based on stock abundance), it would be okay for them to continue to hunt in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary?

The whales have signed no treaties, and cannot distinguish whether their deaths are legal, illegal or cultural...merely I suppose that they are painfull. These distinctions are indeed arbitrary from the whales' point of view.

I couldn't agree more but that's not what I understood you to say. And I'm sure that even in an aboriginal hunt where the whale is needed for food, and even as grateful as the hunters may be, if the whale were asked if it wanted to die, I'd know what it's answer would be. While I'm not an animal rightist, I have also never believed in that quasi-religious axiom of "man has dominion over the earth." Whoever wrote that didn't ask the whales, either.

It seems to me that if whaling were banned entirely, USA & Canada could join the international condemnation of Japan , without being compromised. This may help bring Japan to book perhaps.

First of all, Canada isn't going to engage Japan as it has no reason to, nothing to gain by it, and because Canada isn't an IWC member. Secondly, aboriginal subsistence hunting is never going to be "banned" as long as there are sub-Arctic indigenous populations of humans who rely on whale meat for survival. Thirdly, Japan would simply try to find some other avenue to coerce compromise. The fact that they've taken their vote-buying strategy so seriously has made one expert in international treaty law say that never in the history of international accords has one country so single-mindedly and for so many years worked so hard at "treaty-busting."

I wish we'd throw the book at Japan.

 

[Tyke]

"What are these high-latitude groups to do? They may not be living in igloos anymore, but they're also not near the kind of shopping described earlier in this thread. "

Katy-would you be so kind as to point me at any data which decribes the way of life & need to consume whale in the communities you mention.

"I hope you'll agree that at least in this one subsistence hunt, the size of the hunt is sustainable."

This -I understand -is the IWC position on Bowheads
The IUCN position is "vulnerable":-
http://www.sarkanniemi.fi/oppimateriaali/form.html
How confident are you that the IWC "quotas" for this species will not push Bowheads into the IUCN "endangered" category?

"Are you saying that if Japan's hunt were sustainable (based on stock abundance), it would be okay for them to continue to hunt in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary?"
No . I have been trying to understand the topic for myself on the basis of the data.I find the IWC proceedings & classifications confusing -but that's my problem.Since it is Biodiversity which (IMHO) is important, sustainability of hunts could clearly be an argument in mitigation.So I tried to understand the data -for all whale species being killed.It seemed to indicate that the Bowhead population-a species which can be "legally" killed, is being impacted to a greater extent than Minke-a species which cannot be "legally" killed-at least not by the Japanese!.( forgive me for not being word perfect on the IWC regulations)
This seemed to me to be an inconsistent regulation, which may mitigate against the moral high ground required to persuade the Japanese to stop hunting.

"While I'm not an animal rightist"

Nor am I-at least not in the sense it is practised in UK.

"Japan would simply try to find some other avenue to coerce "compromise."

Yes I suppose so-so I can understand the need for whalestock "management" law I suppose-it's just that I feel that law is not applied consistently.-that's just my view & I'm stuck with it.

"I am against all whaling. However, I am not against the right of people to eat the food they need in order to survive"
You accused me of using a non-sequitur!
You clearly prefer to sit on the above fence.I have tried to come off it -but I don't know if I jumped to the correct side yet!!

Colin

 

[snowyowl]

Anyone else on here that is old enough to remember when whale meat was being sold in London butcher shops? That, to a great extent, was for survival.
If anyone truly needs to kill whales in order to survive, I wouldn't like it, but neither would I condemn them for it. I can't prove it but tend to think that survival is much less a factor than tradition. If it is a survival issue then surely it would take far less energy and effort to kill seals than to hunt whales? Seals are an exploding population (although they may take a hit in this area this year because so far there doesn't seem to be any ice for them to whelp on).
Here there is a native lobster fishery than was intended to be for cultural reasons. It has become an issue for a number of reasons but one is because there is out-of-season harvesting for re-sale. That hurts the reproductive process by removing breeding lobster. This sort of thing is definitely done for cash not culture. No one objects to a few lobster being taken for ceromonial use but it has gone way beyond that.

To move the thread away from pure conservation, I'll throw this out.
I'm not sure how to phrase it but I believe that whales are different than other species in that they may be sentient beings just as humans are. I hope that I've used the right word, what I mean is they may be self-aware. They are certainly highly evolved. I believe that they deserve a better fate than to be slaughtered. There now, anyone who wishes to are welcome to have a good chuckle at my strange view of whales.

 

[Tyke]

"To move the thread away from pure conservation, I'll throw this out.
I'm not sure how to phrase it but I believe that whales are different than other species in that they may be senient beings just as humans are. I hope that I've used the right word, what I mean is they may be self-aware. They are certainly highly evolved. I believe that they deserve a better fate than to be slaughtered. There now, anyone who wishes to are welcome to have a good chuckle at my strange view of whales."
__________________

Not for the first time Dan, you have articulated the thoughts in my mind.

You just missed a "t" out:-

Self-aware, choice-making consciousness. Humans and cetaceans (dolphins and whales) are the two sentient species on earth.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sentient?view=uk

Well said Dan. :clap:

Colin

 

[London Birder]

think I'd throw some primates in there also

 

[Tyke]

think I'd throw some primates in there also

Prompting thoughts of Bushmeat, about which there is an international outcry!

Colin

 

[snowyowl]

"To move the thread away from pure conservation, I'll throw this out.
I'm not sure how to phrase it but I believe that whales are different than other species in that they may be senient beings just as humans are. I hope that I've used the right word, what I mean is they may be self-aware. They are certainly highly evolved. I believe that they deserve a better fate than to be slaughtered. There now, anyone who wishes to are welcome to have a good chuckle at my strange view of whales."
__________________

Not for the first time Dan, you have articulated the thoughts in my mind.

You just missed a "t" out:-

Self-aware, choice-making consciousness. Humans and cetaceans (dolphins and whales) are the two sentient species on earth.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sentient?view=uk

Well said Dan. :clap:

Colin

Thanks, Colin. Someday I'll learn to proof read. Of course now I've edited my post so people will wonder what you're talking about.

 

[TexasFlyway]

50 governments hate whales ???

I'll stand by my comment, tongue-in-cheek though it was, that the US government hates whales. Not in and of themselves, but that it's such an insignificant policy item to them that, as the US Commissioner said at the 2004 IWC meeting in Italy, "Whales are not on the radar." It's a sad day indeed when another country's Commissioner comes up and says to you that "the US used to be the leader of the like-minded at the IWC" and that "if the US doesn't take the lead on some of these issues, Japan will eventually win."

Although you could have titled your message "50 governments hate whales." As only 16 of the 66 IWC membership signed the demarche.

A demarche (an official diplomatic letter from one country to another) has been sent to Japan signed by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, protesting Japan's most recent whaling foray in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary off Australia. Notice whose name is conspicuously absent?

Most conspicuously absent from the list were both Denmark and South Africa which presently hold the posts of Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively. So if leadership is what is needed perhaps looking to the IWC leadership might be a good starting point.

Perhaps the 50 non-signatories were also aware of the futility of handing another country a piece of paper. I doubt Japan was quivering in fear upon receiving it. Why should they? Here is an explanation of Convention Article 5.3 directly from the IWC site.

“THE OBJECTION PROCEDURE (Convention Article 5 (3))
Any government can 'object' to any decision which it considers to seriously affect its national interest, provided it is done within 90 days of notification of the decision. Should this happen, further time is allowed for other governments to object. The government or governments that object are not then bound by that particular decision. This mechanism has been strongly criticised as rendering the Commission 'toothless', but without it the Convention would probably have never been signed. In addition, without such a right (common to many international agreements), a government would still have been able to withdraw from the Convention and thus not be bound by any of the regulations. “

So while Japan is a member of the IWC, it can ignore any decision the Commission renders while adhering to the IWC rules, or simply withdraw and not be bothered.

Why would Japan take the demarche. any more seriously than a public relations ploy from an organization that it knows is powerless to do anything to curtail their activities.

 

[SueO]

Human arrogance astounds me. Our measuring devices are dismally inadequate when it comes to deciding what 'sentient', 'self-aware' beings are. Wolves show more self awareness in their ability to work together (almost psychically) and breed according to environmental pressures than 80% of the people I've met. Just because other animals don't get into their BMWs in the morning to go work, doesn't mean they aren't self aware.
Peregrinator

 

[Tyke]

"I think there is undoubtedly a real subsistence need in Greenland, but their hunts are unsupervised and more species are being taken that are not sanctioned and at rates that even the IWC has said are unsustainable."

Katy-this is from Wikipedia on the Greenland hunt:-

"Anti-whaling groups such as Greenpeace and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society have remained neutral on the Greenlandic hunt. Greenpeace says "[we do not] oppose (but nor do we support) aboriginal subsistence whaling." This has led nations in favour of a commercial hunt such as Japan and members of the High North Alliance to accuse anti-whaling bodies of hypocrisy. Much of the Greenlandic hunt is carried out using modern explosive harpoons and substantial boats rather than the single man canoes and spears as in the past. Moreover the Greenlandic hunt has a commercial aspect - whale meat can be purchased in shops in northern Greenlandic towns such as Ilulissat. Japan has said that it regards this silent approval of the commercial Greenlandic hunt by the IWC but continued opposition to coastal hunting in Japan as "racist" and reeking of "cultural imperialism", particularly because the Japanese plans indicated that the local catch would be consumed locally. This apparent double standard has caused fury amongst the Japanese public more than even the prohibition of commercial whaling."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_whaling

Unless consistency is applied in IWC rulings , I cannot see how Japan will ever be persuaded to act as we would all wish.

Colin

 

[snowyowl]

Human arrogance astounds me. Our measuring devices are dismally inadequate when it comes to deciding what 'sentient', 'self-aware' beings are. Wolves show more self awareness in their ability to work together (almost psychically) and breed according to environmental pressures than 80% of the people I've met. Just because other animals don't get into their BMWs in the morning to go work, doesn't mean they aren't self aware.
Peregrinator

If this is a shot at me then go for it. I expected some people to laugh, I did not expect to be called arrogant. Yes, our tools for measuring such things are inadequate and someday they may be developed to a point where we really know the answers but meanwhile I stand by what I said. Instinctive behavour, no matter how worthwhile and highly developed, is not the same thing as being self-aware. I think that whales are probably as highly evolved as humans but I can't prove it.

 

[SueO]

If this is a shot at me then go for it. I expected some people to laugh, I did not expect to be called arrogant. Yes, our tools for measuring such things are inadequate and someday they may be developed to a point where we really know the answers but meanwhile I stand by what I said. Instinctive behavour, no matter how worthwhile and highly developed, is not the same thing as being self-aware. I think that whales are probably as highly evolved as humans but I can't prove it.

I would never take a shot at a snowy owl.
When I wrote of arrogance, I was not pointing at you, I was referring to our (humans) long standing and generally accepted view that other species couldn't possibly be self aware.
I didn't believe it when I was taught it as a kid, and I don't believe it now.

At least whales are being accepted by many (most?...I haven't got a clue on statistics) people as being self aware. Maybe because we have measured the size of and convolutions in their brains.

Sorry, I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. I just had a raw nerve jump and a wild hair itch. Must be all this confrontational reading I've been doing.

Keep standing by the whales. Have we gone off this thread by just a bit?

 

[lucznik]

Warning: This is a novel.

...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... 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...

...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.’)

...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.

Ordinarily I would never even consider posting on such a topic as this. However I thought that (while avoiding the politics of whales and whaling) I might point out a few things here. To be fair and honest however, I must first disclose a couple of things about myself. I am a hunter. I enjoy engaging in the chase for prey and I love to eat the things I kill. (If for no other reason, the meat is of so much higher quality when I take care of it myself as opposed to commercial packaging facilities.) I also believe that sportsmen are the world's only true conservationalists. Sportsman spend many times as much money, time, effort, etc. in protecting wildlife, wild places, and traditional values than any other people on the planet. The science of proper "herd management" including sustainable hunting is far more successful, and far more beneficial to the animals than any of the simple "Save The ______" campaigns put on by GreenPeace, Sierra Club, etc. etc. etc. I don't tell you these things to get in to a debate over proper hunting but, just so you will understand where I'm coming from.

Now to the point(s)---

1st. Insulting the administrator will never help you get your point across. It just makes a person sound childish.

2nd. If a forum devoted to conservation issues is the wrong place for me to come to "get my questions answered" about conservation issues, then all of you "consevationalists" are going to have a hell of a time getting your message across. Your arrogance over your self-proclaimed level of understanding of the issue also does not help to engender you to those you need to recruit if you are ever to be successful.

3rd. You cannot possibly believe that I am (or anyone else is) going to actually follow this nightmarishly long list of things to do. Perhaps you are so bored and alone as to have nothing better to do with your time, but I'm not. If doing all this is truly necessary for me understand , then you'll never get my support for your issues.

4th. You cannot simply use the word "science" as if that were the end-all of any argument. Science is not infallible and scientists are not necesarily all "humble seekers of the truth." Just look at the recent fiasco created in South Korea over stem-cell research claims that have proven to be utter fabrications.

Finally, please pay attention to Katy's posts. They may sometimes be long, but they are informative. They don't beg for help, insult fellow posters fighting for the same causes, or involve a lot of overt political posturing. They present facts as they are known to her and she presents herself as open to healthy and reasoned disagreement. People like me like to talk to people like her so that we can understand the logic and reasoning behind her beliefs (even if we have to "agree to disagree" in the end.) Responses like yours simply cause me to tune out and chalk you up to being another one of the many unreasoned "left wing, immoral, wacko envionmentalist nutcases." (That's what we "right wing, religiously fanatical, gun-totin', redneck, S.O.B.s" tend to call you people) :king: :'D :bounce:

 

[Isurus]

All cetacean species, with one local exception, are listed as Appendix I.......

Thanks for the CITES/IWC explanation Katy its answered my questions perfectly.

 

[snowyowl]

I would never take a shot at a snowy owl.
When I wrote of arrogance, I was not pointing at you, I was referring to our (humans) long standing and generally accepted view that other species couldn't possibly be self aware. .................................

Sorry, I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. I just had a raw nerve jump and a wild hair itch. Must be all this confrontational reading I've been doing.

Keep standing by the whales. Have we gone off this thread by just a bit?

No problem! I agree let's, for once, stay on thread.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Now to the point(s)---

1st. Insulting the administrator will never help you get your point across. It just makes a person sound childish.

2nd. If a forum devoted to conservation issues is the wrong place for me to come to "get my questions answered" about conservation issues, then all of you "consevationalists" are going to have a hell of a time getting your message across. Your arrogance over your self-proclaimed level of understanding of the issue also does not help to engender you to those you need to recruit if you are ever to be successful.

3rd. You cannot possibly believe that I am (or anyone else is) going to actually follow this nightmarishly long list of things to do. Perhaps you are so bored and alone as to have nothing better to do with your time, but I'm not. If doing all this is truly necessary for me understand , then you'll never get my support for your issues.

4th. You cannot simply use the word "science" as if that were the end-all of any argument. Science is not infallible and scientists are not necesarily all "humble seekers of the truth." Just look at the recent fiasco created in South Korea over stem-cell research claims that have proven to be utter fabrications.

Finally, please pay attention to Katy's posts. They may sometimes be long, but they are informative. They don't beg for help, insult fellow posters fighting for the same causes, or involve a lot of overt political posturing. They present facts as they are known to her and she presents herself as open to healthy and reasoned disagreement. People like me like to talk to people like her so that we can understand the logic and reasoning behind her beliefs (even if we have to "agree to disagree" in the end.) Responses like yours simply cause me to tune out and chalk you up to being another one of the many unreasoned "left wing, immoral, wacko envionmentalist nutcases." (That's what we "right wing, religiously fanatical, gun-totin', redneck, S.O.B.s" tend to call you people)

Coming from the other end of the spectrum, being a non-hunter, I would say this post is both reasonable and true in much what it says. Actually it is just commonsence.

I also believe that sportsmen are the world's only true conservationalists. Sportsman spend many times as much money, time, effort, etc. in protecting wildlife, wild places, and traditional values than any other people on the planet.

But, of course, don't agree with this bit Whilst I don't doubt sportsmen and hunters have been of great value to conservation, I certainly wouldn't label them as the world's only or true conservationists!

I am not too hot on issues in the States, but I appreciate hunters have been instrumental in the establishment of reserves, etc there, as they have elsewhere in the world (African game parks, Bharatpur, etc, etc) but in the context of whales, the issue of this thread, I don't think the history of whaling speaks volumes for the link between hunting and conservation.