Does any one watch Whale Wars??

[Racer x]

the Japanese Suck for killing Whales Period. Ya it is a dumb show. But it towers over any housewife crap or 90 % of the other drivel that comes out of the idiot box

The Japanese are not hunting whales for research they sell the meat in shops.These hippie people are not going to change a cultured of whaling that goes back hundreds of years.
The Japanese should be ashamed .

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by Racer x

the Japanese Suck for killing Whales Period. Ya it is a dumb show. But it towers over any housewife crap or 90 % of the other drivel that comes out of the idiot box

The Japanese are not hunting whales for research they sell the meat in shops.

Actually, the research exemption was specifically to research viability and sustainability of the population FOR hunting.

Originally Posted by Racer x

These hippie people are not going to change a cultured of whaling that goes back hundreds of years.
The Japanese should be ashamed .

Why should they be ashamed? They have always responsibly hunted sustainable species, unlike westerners.

[dubojr1]

Originally Posted by CZroe

Actually, the research exemption was specifically to research viability and sustainability of the population FOR hunting.

Why should they be ashamed? They have always responsibly hunted sustainable species, unlike westerners.

But didn't Japan issue their own permits for their own fishing quota???

[almost40]

and the poeple in INDIA think we suck because we eat cows.
Cows are sacred to Hindus.
I think Paul Watson is not fit to command a row boat........ in 3 foot deep creek.
He is going to kill someone sooner or later.
Can you be stoned enough to not realize that??
I would never step foot on a ship under his command.

[Liber]

Originally Posted by CZroe

Why should they be ashamed? They have always responsibly hunted sustainable species, unlike westerners.

And that's why duck and deer populations are out of control. Duck populations are at an all time high this year. We had one of the best deer seasons in a long time last year.

The situation in the oceans is far and away different from the situation on land. On land, or at least in the US, strong private property rights exist. Most people take care of their land and have it managed by professionals that excel at maximizing long-term sustainability in order to maximize land value and profits.

The oceans fall prey to a phenomenon known as "the tragedy of the commons". Rivalry exists in that one party's use keeps another party from using it, but it is extremely difficult to exclude parties from any particular area. As a result, like in most fisheries, there is often over-harvesting. Licensing kind of alleviates this problem, but doesn't get down to the root causes.

Problem is, until fusion power or converting saltwater into freshwater becomes economically viable, sea water really isn't that useful. As a result, no private party would pay for the rights to any particular section of the ocean at this point in time. There are several other issues like enforcement, but modern technology allows us to minimize these costs.

Whaling would become very expensive if people had to lease a section of the ocean to hunt on, much like we have to lease land to hunt on in the US.

[Racer x]

Originally Posted by CZroe

Actually, the research exemption was specifically to research viability and sustainability of the population FOR hunting.

Why should they be ashamed? They have always responsibly hunted sustainable species, unlike westerners.

So they kill the whales to see how many they can get away with killing. That sounds good

They should be ashamed because they are hunting and killing indangered species to sell as a delicacy .There is nothing people NEED from killing whales. So the shame comes from the waist.

[Liber]

Originally Posted by Racer x

So they kill the whales to see how many they can get away with killing. That sounds good

Actually, they are seeing how many can be hunted without destabilizing the population. If you have a problem with trying to locate an efficient long-term equilibrium, then you may as well stop using wood/wheat/corn/beef/poultry/pork/rice/etc. products right this moment.

Should anything be hunted/harvested to extinction? nope. Should people be barred from hunting? nope. There is a middle ground and it works pretty well.

It doesn't matter if people NEED something. The only thing that matters is if they WANT something and are willing to pay the price to obtain it. Problem is, goods garnered from killing whales are probably under-valued. These researchers are trying to help find what the correct value is. The eco-fascists try to stop them.

[dubojr1]

Originally Posted by Liber

Actually, they are seeing how many can be hunted without destabilizing the population. If you have a problem with trying to locate an efficient long-term equilibrium, then you may as well stop using wood/wheat/corn/beef/poultry/pork/rice/etc. products right this moment.

Should anything be hunted/harvested to extinction? nope. Should people be barred from hunting? nope. There is a middle ground and it works pretty well.

It doesn't matter if people NEED something. The only thing that matters is if they WANT something and are willing to pay the price to obtain it. Problem is, goods garnered from killing whales are probably under-valued. These researchers are trying to help find what the correct value is. The eco-fascists try to stop them.

So who is regulating the whalers especially if they are issuing their own permits for quota? Theoretically they could just hunt them to extinction. BTW...this is not a defensive question. I'm asking to be educated more on the subject.

[Liber]

Originally Posted by dubojr1

So who is regulating the whalers especially if they are issuing their own permits for quota? Theoretically they could just hunt them to extinction. BTW...this is not a defensive question. I'm asking to be educated more on the subject.

That's what I'm talking about. That's what the tragedy of the commons is. There is no regulation because it is international waters. It's a flaw in the set-up of international waters treaties, and until some kind of regulatory body can oversee and enforce private property rights in the ocean, then the problem will continue.

Some countries issue licenses for how much meat you can bring back to their ports. This works somewhat, but there are obvious loopholes.

[rockstarcordova]

Originally Posted by RhinoJC

And you seem to have missed a part of the Whaling in Japan wiki you linked.

The Japanese quota includes 935 minke, 50 fin and 50 humpback whales per season.

"In 1986, Japan introduced a similar proposal and later issued itself a scientific permit to take 825 minke whales and 50 sperm whales every year for ten years. Despite the fact that the IWC scientific committee rejected its research proposals, Japan continued whaling."

"The IWC adopted a resolution in 1987 recommending Japan not proceed until disagreements over its research proposals were resolved. A second resolution was also adopted on February 14, 1988 recommending Japan not proceed. On February 9, 1988 Japanese whalers killed the first minke whale in Antarctic waters under the new self issued research whaling permit. U.S. President Ronald Reagan responded by cutting off Japanese fishing privileges in U.S. waters on April 6, 1988 under the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment"


I dont know if you missed that Rhino but evidence can be shown that they have gone against "recommendations" and one other piece that is under research whaling

"Japan has since conducted research whaling programs in the North Pacific (JARPN 1994–1999, JARPN II 2000–Present) and in Antarctica (JARPA 1988–2005, JARPA II 2005–Present). The IWC has asked its members that conduct research whaling programs to demonstrate that the research provides critical information, that the research is needed for whale management purposes, and that non-lethal research techniques are not able to provide the same information. The IWC has issued at least 19 resolutions criticizing Japan for failing to meet these conditions and asking it to stop issuing permits"

I also realize wiki is wiki and not the best imperical evidence considering info can be changed. When I get some time i can definitly look into this the resources provided. Essentially my argument is Japan operated illegally and against recommendations and moratoriums and even privliges were 100% revoked by the U.S. A "militia", "eco-terrorists" , "pirates" or "vigilantes" have risen up and are financially backed by citizens around the world to show support for the injustice happening in our oceans. These are not people in fear backing a dictator like hitler or extremists manipulating the word of Allah for their own jihad on innocent americans, these are people with the same concerns you, they, and I have about our planet's natural balance being knocked off. The people are speaking out. Even today people in Japan are seeing first hand because of people like SSCS and documentary's like The Cove exposing what they are doing is wrong. The line between what is right and wrong and politically correct is blurred immensely due to the politics involved as well as the profits. Now this issue is not clear cut and I do not stand on my soapbox to tell you or anyone else different but if it opens someone's eyes to research a little further and make their own judgements off actual evidence from both sides and provide themselves with the tools to make an educated decision and take that stance, then that's what matters. Disagreeing with something from a TV's perspective is just shallow and uninformed thinking. Again Rhino, not directed at you but i have seen those comments from other people in this thread and youtube comments and what have you. I appreciate you having a civil conversation with me and exploring both sides of the issue. You, my friend, provided healthy discussion that I hope turns people on to seeing this issue in depth. : )

[dubojr1]

Originally Posted by rockstarcordova

Again Rhino, not directed at you but i have seen those comments from other people in this thread and youtube comments and what have you. I appreciate you having a civil conversation with me and exploring both sides of the issue. You, my friend, provided healthy discussion that I hope turns people on to seeing this issue in depth. : )

[Racer x]

I grew up on the Chesapeak Bay. If whaliers are like watermen they will kill the last whale and act like it is not there fault.
I think they are lying about reserch .They probubly are lying about the numbers . They are killing the whales and are doing it against international law.
They will kill every last one then look for something else to make a buck from.

[almost40]

Those evil corprate bastards. God forbid they try to make a buck. And all those BAD BAD men on the whaling ships. They and there family should starve and or be unemployed and locked up in prison.
Ironic that nobody gives the crab fishermen on the Deadliest Catch a hard time.
They bring back hundreds of thousands of pounds of crabs over and over and over. (Thru regulation of course.) There are still crabs in the sea. LOTS OF THEM.
The ocean is a BIG place. I highly doubt the Japanese could make all the hunted whales extinct by killing their self imposed quota on a yearly basis. Ill bet they could triple the quota and it wouldnt even make a dent.
Lets not get holier than thou here.
Like I said before, You offend a Hindu everytime you eat a burger.
What offends me is that the anti-whalers feel the need to risk the life of everyone within a 5 mile vacinity of their vessel. The whalers are just trying to eeeeek out a living.........Just like YOU. What gives Paul and his crew the right to risk the life of the whalers who are just trying to do a job?? Thats the ILLEGAL act IMO.

[Racer x]

So killing indangered species for no good reason .And doing it illeagly is the same thing as a dairy farm?

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by Racer x

So they kill the whales to see how many they can get away with killing. That sounds good

They should be ashamed because they are hunting and killing indangered species to sell as a delicacy .There is nothing people NEED from killing whales. So the shame comes from the waist.

An endangered species is NOT a "sustainable" one. They have no interest in scarce species because they are interested in the renewable resource (meat) and not value driven by scarcity. IOW, they are only interested in hunting sustainable species. They did not drive Sperm Whales to the brink of extinction for a little bit of oil to use in expensive perfume. You are still attaching the stigma from OUR irresponsible behavior to THEIR responsible hunting.

If they accidentally kill an endangered whale while hunting for a different type, it's really no different than accidentally killing an endangered fish when fishing for tuna. If the population of endangered whale species is growing at all, the fact that they aren't targetting them means that they aren't measurably reducing the population.

The only argument remaining is that whales are smart or that eating meat is wrong or something equally opinionated and hard to argue. Many cultures eat dogs. Dogs are generally smart and friendly, so it disgusts us, but we eat pigs. Pigs are actually smarter than dogs and can be friendly domesticated pets just the same. Double standard?

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by Racer x

So killing indangered species for no good reason .And doing it illeagly is the same thing as a dairy farm?

They AREN'T endangered and it ISN'T for no good reason. IT'S FOOD. That's like saying that fishing for tuna is for "no good reason." Uhh... what?

[almost40]

Originally Posted by Racer x

So killing indangered species for no good reason .And doing it illeagly is the same thing as a dairy farm?

No...........but what we hold dear to our hearts in the USA, isnt the same in other countrys.
Lets try a different route for fun
So our culture here in the US is the ONLY accepted civil society?? Its our way or the highway??
The Japanese culture has been around for eons. There are lessons to be learned from the Japanese culture that would benefit the US. Im guessing that whaling isnt one of the lessons in your book and thats fine with me. Im not a fan of whale meat either. Thats beside the point.
Are the eskimos being protested as they hunt whales?? Its part of there culture.
Guess we need a one world government to police this stuff right??

BTW
I have heard that horse meat is better than cow.
Anyone ever try it?? Had me an ostrich burger once. It was GOOD.

[RhinoJC]

Rockstarcordova,

While I did skim a good portion of the wiki you linked (it was late and I was tired), I did see the portions you quoted. Now there's a little confusion about the whole thing. Japan has issued a quota, meaning the whaling is sanctioned by their government as long as they stay within that quota, and the IWC hasn't done anything to block it, meaning the whaling is legal. The IWC can condemn or criticize it all they want, but until they take action to block it, Japan has every legal right to continue.

What the SSCS is doing is not legal. Not only are they adopting an extremist mentality by ignoring proper channels and endangering themselves and the lives of others for their own agenda, but what they're fighting against isn't even illegal. Not only are the SSCS's actions illegal, but they aren't even going after the right target. Even if they were to kill the whalers and sink the boats, they would just be replaced. The only thing the SSCS is going is slowing down the operation. If they really want to stop the whaling, they need to go after Japan directly. Essentially, all they are doing is shooting the messengers. As far as the Butyric acid part we discussed earlier, let's think about that for a minute. The whales have already been killed, nothing is going to bring them back. Whether that whale was killed for food or research, it was killed for a reason and its death has a purpose. By tainting the meat, it makes the death of that specific animal pointless.

Now let's look at Japan for a minute. Japan has roughly 40% of the population of the US, but only has roughly 4% of the landmass the US has, and that's not taking into consideration how much of Japan's landmass isn't habitable. They simply aren't capable of farming and raising enough food to sustain themselves. Last I read (and I could be way off), Japan takes roughly half of it's food from the oceans. If research can be done on whales without killing them, great, I'm all for it, but not if Japan's population is going to starve to death in the process. While non-killing methods may be available, what are the timetable comparisons between the two? Keep in mind that this is the country which recently developed the **** burger as a potential food source.

As far as the civil discussion, I extend my thanks to you as well. We're simply two people with differing opinions on how a particular situation should be handled. As I see it, there's no reason to be uncivil.

[Liber]

One funny thing is, International Law can claim something is illegal all it wants, but until someone enforces it, it is de facto legal. The other funny thing is there is only really one entity in the whole world that could even hope to enforce maritime law almost anywhere, and that's the US Navy. (and even that's stretching it) The Chinese are too busy posturing in their own waters. The Japanese are too worried about the Chinese to bother enforcing anything. The Europeans tend to stay in the Atlantic/Mediterranean, and the Russians are busy trying to remain relevant.

Both sides can throw all the temper tantrums they want. The eco-fascists are messing with Japanese researchers, which are weak sauce. Eventually, things will get violent, and the so-called "peaceful" contributors to this hooliganism on the high seas will be funding violence and death. Apparently they think the ends justify the means.

[RhinoJC]

Originally Posted by Liber

One funny thing is, International Law can claim something is illegal all it wants, but until someone enforces it, it is de facto legal.

Sketchy, but not technically accurate or inaccurate.

International waters have no legal restrictions because there's no governing body. But just because there's no law saying something is illegal, doesn't technically make it legal. The actions of a person while in international waters is generally dictated by the country the person claims allegiance too. Although since countries can't really dictate a person's actions outside of that country's boarders, it's difficult to prosecute people who commit crimes in international waters. Although I believe the US has prosecuted for crimes committed in international waters a few times in the past.

[ducducgooseit]

I see the possibility of excruciating irony. The US Navy is forced into the posture of defending the Japanese whaling research vessels against piracy undertaken by the anti-whalers. The USA populace is then forced to pay for military costs of defending another countries citizens against its own.

[Liber]

Originally Posted by RhinoJC

Sketchy, but not technically accurate or inaccurate.

International waters have no legal restrictions because there's no governing body. But just because there's no law saying something is illegal, doesn't technically make it legal. The actions of a person while in international waters is generally dictated by the country the person claims allegiance too. Although since countries can't really dictate a person's actions outside of that country's boarders, it's difficult to prosecute people who commit crimes in international waters. Although I believe the US has prosecuted for crimes committed in international waters a few times in the past.

Every post-industrial country has prosecuted people for violating maritime law at one point or another. The point that I'm making is that it's nearly impossible to enforce maritime law until the violators dock at the port of a country that intends to enforce that law; that being one of the loopholes I mentioned earlier. The US Navy is really the only entity with the resources and manpower to enforce the law in the oceans. However, the Navy doesn't really have the time to shadow whalers to ward off hooligans when pirates are killing and robbing entire vessels, on top of all the other BS, i.e. tsunami recovery, support of the Wars in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, etc just to name a few.

Originally Posted by ducducgooseit

I see the possibility of excruciating irony. The US Navy is forced into the posture of defending the Japanese whaling research vessels against piracy undertaken by the anti-whalers. The USA populace is then forced to pay for military costs of defending another countries citizens against its own.

I guess so. Depends on who's breaking the law. In this case, the Japanese are following their country's law. Japan is a democratically elected government and a recognized sovereign nation state. It would take a literal act of war to stop the whalers from whaling, since they are sanctioned by there own government. Therefore, any issue that anyone has with Japan's policy, should take it up with the Japanese government.

On the flip side, the eco-hooligans are on the wrong side of the law, since their actions are not officially sanctioned by their country(They are based in Washington state). Though I'm sure this administration has very little problem with it, their actions in the future completely rely on the willingness of the US Government to prosecute them.

The thing that leads me to believe that all of this is staged and that they researchers are actually compensated, and thus taking part in the drama is this:
The Japanese could sue the hooligans in US District Court, but I don't think they've done so.

[dubojr1]

I'm not sure who's keeping up with the show but the Sea Shepherd and support ships have managed to run the Japanese home early for this whaling season with less than a third of their quota. Word is too that they will not be returning in the years to come to the Southern Oceans.

[rockstarcordova]

Originally Posted by dubojr1

I'm not sure who's keeping up with the show but the Sea Shepherd and support ships have managed to run the Japanese home early for this whaling season with less than a third of their quota. Word is too that they will not be returning in the years to come to the Southern Oceans.

I actually got word of this back in April when Capt. Paul Watson was a keynote speaker at a Social Justice summit. He reported the 15% quota to the summit. I don't think this will be the last season, i feel the Japanese will just add a couple extra ships to keep SSCS's 3 ships busy. Though it would be great for the japanese whaling industry to disppear entirely : )

[GeneJunkie]

Originally Posted by dubojr1

I'm not sure who's keeping up with the show but the Sea Shepherd and support ships have managed to run the Japanese home early for this whaling season with less than a third of their quota. Word is too that they will not be returning in the years to come to the Southern Oceans.

I saw the season finale last night and granted I already knew that they had a successful season of stopping whaling
http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showp...6&postcount=20

I was so happy to see it