Katy Penland said:
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.
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.Isurus said: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 said: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
Tyke said:Thanks Katy
Tyke said:I do condemn all whaling-I wish you did.
Fair enough.Tyke said:I associate myself entirely with Dan's knowledgable view on native whaling.
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."Tyke said: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.
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.Tyke said: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.
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.Tyke said: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.
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."Tyke said: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.
London Birder said:think I'd throw some primates in there also
Tyke said:"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
Katy Penland said: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."
Katy Penland said: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?
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.Peregrinator said: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
snowyowl said: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.
flybefree said: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.
Katy Penland said:All cetacean species, with one local exception, are listed as Appendix I.......
No problem! I agree let's, for once, stay on thread.Peregrinator said: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?
lucznik said: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)
lucznik said: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.