Viewing Thread:
"Iceland to resume whaling"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3128863.stm


To study the whales impact on fish stocks? Would it not be better to revise the well documented effect that humanity is having on them instead?

It is us that is killing off the stocks that thousands of other species depend upon, not the other way around.

And what difference would the results of this "scientific catch" make?

"Oh, there's too many whales and not enough fish or something, so we can hunt a shedload more of them!" is the only answer I can see them looking to find.

The ignorance of Pro-whaling countries never ceases to disgust me.

I don't wish to get embroilled in this debate but would just like to stick my two pennies in here for what it is worth.

Practical Magic wrote:
> There is a different logic Light, Iraq was hurting and killing
> innocent people, that's not tolerable or acceptable anywhere at any
> time.

Iraq wasn't hurting it's citizens, a country is not capable of this. However, people in power were hurting them and it is the same in other countries. Be it a power or religious struggle innocent people will always be caught in the middle but at least they are aware of what is happening and can choose to take sides if they wish. Animals who are hurting and being killed do not, as far as I am aware, have the same luxury of understanding.

> Whaling is/was part of the culture of many nations, as fox hunting is
> in ours. People in the UK hunt foxes, Iceland wants to hunt a number
> of whales, what's the problem ?

Are foxes an endangered species? Have we managed yet to kill most of them off as we have with many other species?

> When we've put a stop to the suffering of people, then I'll start
> caring about animals. Until then I find the enthusiasm of animal
> rights type campaigners misdirected.

Then you will never care for animals. I am not an animal rights activist but I am glad that there are some people in the world who do care enough to make a lot of noise about it. The human species as a whole is a parastic life form. We exist and thrive only because we have a tendancy to destroy everything in our way and it is only recently that we are taking a step back and thinking about the damage our actions cause.

Light wrote:
> It's needless. We are talking about killing for sport. How is hurting
> and killing an innocent animal for sport, especially an endangered
> species, any better than killing a human being?

But isn't whaling killing for a livelihood, an economic activity, whereas fox hunting is killing as a sport.

> Another problem is that the vast majority of people oppose both whale
> and fox hunting. I seem to recall that, during the debate about Iraq,
> you were very keen to point out that a majority of people supported
> war. Well, in this instance a majority of people support a total ban
> on hunting. So what's the difference between the two, other than the
> strength of your feeings on one compared to the other?

A typical divide between pro and anti hunting supporters is location, where they live. It's fair to say that a majority of urban dwellers do not understand a great deal about the countryside. It's also fair to say that a majority of the UK's population lives in urban areas. A minority of the population live in the countrside, where foxes actually impact on the economy and area, and it's fair to say that these minority areas are where the pro hunt supporters come from. So with fox hunting you're seeing a divide based largely on the population's living area.

The split in opinion with Iraq was quite obviously not based so much on where people lived, more on media coverage and political side stepping and speeches. But with hunting it's essentially a majority which may not fully understand the impact/activities of foxes in the countryside, shouting down those who do and have to live with them.

> I should also point out that the brutality of the Ba'ath regime was by
> no means a new innovation in Iraq; that kind of oppression has been
> going on for centuries. In other words, it was part of the culture of
> Iraq. Yet we intervened. Why? Taking it further, both Burma and
> Indonesia hurt and kill innocent people all the time, and there is a
> culture of oppression there, yet there was no intervention of any kind
> there. Why?

There is no intervention because no one would support it, it'd be the right thing to do, but the media would turn on the country which proposed it, political suicide. The other obvious factor, drawing on my quote from Ralph Peters in another topic, is that there is no will from those who could act, to do so. How much are those that can willing to spend, to fight, to die, for those who cannot do so themselves ? I believe it's time that those who can, started doing it. I honestly believe the first step to doing so would be the dissolution of the United Nations.

The UN has no real respect, no one nation takes it seriously any longer, right from the start it's been a political gambling house and economic advantage grabbing institution. It needs to be replaced by a smaller (administratively and decision making wise) organisation with it's own forces, transportation, everything. Right now, it relies on american hardware and support, alongwith largely smaller nations actual troops. It cannot send troops where they need to be with the rules of engagement they need to make a difference because no council member wants it's forces involved in a drawn out war in some place that has little impact on it.

That's why no one intervened in Iraq, back in the late 30's it's why no one intervened in Germany, and so on, all through history's wars. We stand now at a time when we have the technology and the power to make a real difference in the world for everyone in it, if only we have the will.

> Misdirected? Wanting to stop the suffering of living creatures? You
> can't just divide life up like that I'm afraid; saying that a culture
> can be kind to human life whilst remaining cruel to animal life is
> pretty barbaric. Isn't it better to want to put a stop to suffering,
> period, rather than setting completely subjective priorities?

I'm being realistic, an end to all suffering of anything living is not going to happen if resources are divided. Human life will always come before animal life. Who fixes animals that are injured ? Treats those with disease ? Cares for them ? Humans, hence they have priority in my opinion. Without prioritising you end up with little achieved. Think of all the campaigns there is focusing on one aspect of animal welfare, each with staff, admin, premises. Think how much more could be done it there was one organisation and that was it. Same goes for other charities. One charity for all human rights abuses would be better than many, same for famine relief, disease, everything. Too many replicate each other in all but small details, others try to do what official agencies should already do - like the NSPCC - technically Social Services are responsible for child welfare, if they aren't doing the job then get them sorted out, not have numerous charities getting in on the act. This kind of activity - the displacing of official government services by NGO's, is particularly prevalent in Africa and other poorer nations.

Firebrand wrote:
> It was once perfectly acceptable to make innocent people suffer. I
> recall some rather extreme methods of controlling unemployment in the
> not-so-distant past. Workhouses and what not.
>
> Besides, I could also quote instances of black slaves being thrown
> overboard from the ships carrying them, with weights attached, because
> there wasn't enough food to go around.
>
> Humans were once treated as livestock, pawns and pests. The situation
> today isn;t actually that different, although it's protrayed through
> "the prism" of political correctness, as it were.
>
> What I object to about the Icelandic "scientific" whaling,
> is that the reason they've quoted for doing it is that the whales are
> having a large impact on fish stocks, when the truth is that
> overfishing has utterly culled the fish stocks, leaving insufficient
> food for the globally protected whales, which are still supposed to be
> protected, and rightfully so.
>
> We shouldn;t be killing off whales to "check them out", we
> should be looking at ways of replenishing the fish stock, and making
> sealife able to sustain both a natural order and human demand for
> seafood.



Yup, couldn't agree more.

Practical Magic wrote:
> There is a different logic Light, Iraq was hurting and killing
> innocent people, that's not tolerable or acceptable anywhere at any
> time.
>
> Whaling is/was part of the culture of many nations, as fox hunting is
> in ours. People in the UK hunt foxes, Iceland wants to hunt a number
> of whales, what's the problem ?

It's needless. We are talking about killing for sport. How is hurting and killing an innocent animal for sport, especially an endangered species, any better than killing a human being?

Another problem is that the vast majority of people oppose both whale and fox hunting. I seem to recall that, during the debate about Iraq, you were very keen to point out that a majority of people supported war. Well, in this instance a majority of people support a total ban on hunting. So what's the difference between the two, other than the strength of your feeings on one compared to the other? I mean, if you don't give two sh!ts about animal rights, fair enough. But don't you think that casually dismissing the strength of feeling on this topic from people other than yourself is a little...well, arrogant? And I'm not trying to draw you into namecalling here, just making the point that just because someone doesn't care or isn't well informed about a topic, that doesn't stop it being important.

I should also point out that the brutality of the Ba'ath regime was by no means a new innovation in Iraq; that kind of oppression has been going on for centuries. In other words, it was part of the culture of Iraq. Yet we intervened. Why? Taking it further, both Burma and Indonesia hurt and kill innocent people all the time, and there is a culture of oppression there, yet there was no intervention of any kind there. Why?

I realise I'm using sophistry here, but one could just as easily apply your logic on hunting to the war in Iraq, and when one does that it becomes flawed. One can see just how subjective it is, and when one sees that it becomes worthless as an argument.

>
> When we've put a stop to the suffering of people, then I'll start
> caring about animals. Until then I find the enthusiasm of animal
> rights type campaigners misdirected.


Misdirected? Wanting to stop the suffering of living creatures? You can't just divide life up like that I'm afraid; saying that a culture can be kind to human life whilst remaining cruel to animal life is pretty barbaric. Isn't it better to want to put a stop to suffering, period, rather than setting completely subjective priorities?

It was once perfectly acceptable to make innocent people suffer. I recall some rather extreme methods of controlling unemployment in the not-so-distant past. Workhouses and what not.

Besides, I could also quote instances of black slaves being thrown overboard from the ships carrying them, with weights attached, because there wasn't enough food to go around.

Humans were once treated as livestock, pawns and pests. The situation today isn;t actually that different, although it's protrayed through "the prism" of political correctness, as it were.

What I object to about the Icelandic "scientific" whaling, is that the reason they've quoted for doing it is that the whales are having a large impact on fish stocks, when the truth is that overfishing has utterly culled the fish stocks, leaving insufficient food for the globally protected whales, which are still supposed to be protected, and rightfully so.

We shouldn;t be killing off whales to "check them out", we should be looking at ways of replenishing the fish stock, and making sealife able to sustain both a natural order and human demand for seafood.

There is a different logic Light, Iraq was hurting and killing innocent people, that's not tolerable or acceptable anywhere at any time.

Whaling is/was part of the culture of many nations, as fox hunting is in ours. People in the UK hunt foxes, Iceland wants to hunt a number of whales, what's the problem ?

When we've put a stop to the suffering of people, then I'll start caring about animals. Until then I find the enthusiasm of animal rights type campaigners misdirected.

Practical Magic wrote:
> I just think it's wrong that we, in the UK, can pretend we know all
> there is about whaling, what with our long history of doing it...
>
> Iceland has done it before, they know what they are doing, so we can't
> call them ignorant just because they want different things than us.


True, but we can call their government ignorant for defying an international agreement and for continuing to hunt down an endangered species. In much the same way as we can call our government ignorant for continuing to allow foxhunting. I mean, a lot of my family have worked as farmers/shepherds (my family seems to be split between hillbillies and policemen...), and they all agree that foxes are a pest that needs controlling and that hunting is NOT the way to do it. I'll take the advice of people who's livlihood can be affected by foxes, rather than the exhortations of people who's social life depends on killing them.

Also, whilst I applaud the tolerance you're showing, using your logic, we can also excuse the appalling human rights abuses committed by Saddam and co in Iraq; Iraq has done it before, they knew what they were doing, so we can't call them ignorant or evil just because they want different things from us.

I just think it's wrong that we, in the UK, can pretend we know all there is about whaling, what with our long history of doing it...

Iceland has done it before, they know what they are doing, so we can't call them ignorant just because they want different things than us.

Practical Magic wrote:
> Depends, who enacted the ban ? The UN ? We all know that's
> representative of the world...

the International Whaling Commission, members of which include all of the pro-whaling nations...

What are Tesco doing about this?

*shot*