Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
in your plea for consistency. So you want to use a global carnivore consistency to defend your country's inconsistency with the rest of the world regarding the ban on whale hunting.

On the subject of comparative animal pain:


Is hunting whales cruel ?
Minke whales are hunted using an explosive harpoon. These replaced the "cold" (non explosive) harpoons because they killed the animals more quickly. However, the whales may still take a considerable length of time to die and there is widespread agreement, especially when it is compared to methods used to kill farm animals, that whaling is inhumane.
LINK

Sirocco, you assume that I am [almost] a vegan on ethical grounds. My motive was based on nutrition and health before ethics. Like any biological creature, my first imperative is to survive, and animal fats do clog up the arteries which can lead to coronary arterial diseases. Not to mention, that there is a proven relation to breast cancer and eating animal fat.

Justifying the Norwegian whale hunt because other domestic animals are killed and eaten is not justification at all. You would have to prove that Norwegians were being deprived of protein and needed whale meat to sustain themselves. In fact your argument is self-defeating because you give examples of other forms of animal protein that are available to the people of Norway proving that they do not need to kill whales.

As to whether or not the Minke whale is endangered or not, I could throw some numbers at you, like the annual increase in the Norwegian whale kill, like the decline in all whale populations even the Minke (due to global warming especially), the enormous profits that Norwegian whalers are making exporting whale meat to Japan but those numbers are available to you via Google if you want them.

The Norwegian whale hunt is a greedy exploitation of an animal that is endangered world wide.

 

To thine ownself be true. W.S. CANADA

by sybil on Fri Aug 26th, 2005 at 12:53:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is irony in your plea for consistency. So you want to use a global carnivore consistency to defend your country's inconsistency with the rest of the world regarding the ban on whale hunting.

Try as I might, I don't understand what you're driving at.

I am simply asking how feeding on minke whale is intrinsically worse than feeding on all the other kinds of meat eaten every day the world across. That is all.

As to the alleged cruelty, I agree this is a valid concern but am aware of no 'widespread agreement' that the hunt is inhumane.

I have noted that some 80% die instantaneously. Some take longer; these are put to death with rifles. And importantly, they aren't necessarily conscious just because they are alive. On the contrary, most are knocked unconscious by the shock from the harpoon grenade. In fact, even the small minority that remain alive and conscious for more than seconds are not necessarily in deep pain, thanks to endorphines. Think about how soldiers wounded in combat often report having felt little or no pain for minutes - typically, until the immediate threat had passed and the situation calmed down.

Your near-veganism and its motivation is not at issue. What is at issue is the double standards of decrying the whale hunt in principle, but accepting the consumption of other beasts, without explaining what makes the difference.

The question is particularly acute given that, as mentioned, harvesting this natural resource is a vastly less polluting and energy-intensive way to acquire meat than the production of livestock.

Justifying the Norwegian whale hunt because other domestic animals are killed and eaten is not justification at all. You would have to prove that Norwegians were being deprived of protein and needed whale meat to sustain themselves. In fact your argument is self-defeating because you give examples of other forms of animal protein that are available to the people of Norway proving that they do not need to kill whales.

But this is like saying that the people of Britain don't need to slaughter sheep. True; so what?

As to whether or not the Minke whale is endangered or not, I could throw some numbers at you, like the annual increase in the Norwegian whale kill, like the decline in all whale populations even the Minke (due to global warming especially), the enormous profits that Norwegian whalers are making exporting whale meat to Japan but those numbers are available to you via Google if you want them.

No, here you are asking me to do your work. If you wish to challenge the recommendations of the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Committee, go ahead. But you can't expect me to take on that daunting task on your behalf, would you say?

And, once again, you are wrong about exports to Japan. There is no such thing at present, AFAIK (and I searched the Net in two languages to find trace of any). The 'enormous profits' are in any case a figment of the imagination.

The Norwegian whale hunt is a greedy exploitation of an animal that is endangered world wide.

Here we go again, with unsupported claims which, to all appearances, are false. How exactly do you propose to back this up?

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Fri Aug 26th, 2005 at 02:40:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I posted a comment above on the Norway exporting whale meat to Japan with links.

The IWC numbers of minke whales in the North Atlantic have been disputed. I have some material on Minke Whale numbers if you want.

I backed up my final statement about greed with the proof of exports to Japan.

I am simply asking how feeding on minke whale is intrinsically worse than feeding on all the other kinds of meat eaten every day the world across. That is all.

It is not comparable because whales cannot be bred domestically for human consumption, their numbers are declining and cannot be replaced.

Since the Minke whale meat sent to Japan by Norway has been found to contain toxins like PCB's there is no point in promoting its consumption. Only 2% of Norwegians eat whale meat, they think it is so 'yesterday.'

Now please stop stating that my statements are "false" because you do not agree with them. I have backed up everything I posted.

Thanks for the discussion.

I'm off.


To thine ownself be true. W.S. CANADA

by sybil on Fri Aug 26th, 2005 at 04:36:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The IWC numbers of minke whales in the North Atlantic have been disputed. I have some material on Minke Whale numbers if you want.

Disputed by whom, then? On what basis?

I backed up my final statement about greed with the proof of exports to Japan.

No, you didn't. Your linked-to items note, correctly, that (i) Norway lifted its self-imposed ban on export of legal whale products in 2002; (ii) Japan at some point considered importing Norwegian whale meat. They do not show that any substantial export has actually occurred; let alone of:

the enormous profits that Norwegian whalers are making exporting whale meat to Japan

- or that:

[Norway] kills whales as an expensive export product to make money. Greed fuels the whale hunt not necessity.

These allegations have the dual distinction of being: (i) undocumented by anything you have put forth; and (ii) inconsistent with your own claim that:

the trade did not go well when the meat was found to be contaminated by toxins like PCB's.

You also dismiss my comparison to consumption of farm animals thus:

It is not comparable because whales cannot be bred domestically for human consumption, their numbers are declining and cannot be replaced.

Actually, it isn't correct that minke whales cannot, in principle, be bred domestically. And in fact, the Japanese have recently been considering creating enormous off-shore minke whale farms. Let's get clear on something here: Suppose this was done. Would you still object to the harvesting of this resource?

As to the declining numbers, you still haven't provided a single source for your claim that the minke whale is endangered in Norwegian waters.

Now please stop stating that my statements are "false" because you do not agree with them. I have backed up everything I posted.

Sorry, but I beg to differ.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Sat Aug 27th, 2005 at 03:02:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series