Japan says it's time to allow sustainable whaling
Few conservation issues generate as emotional a response as whaling. Are we now about to see countries killing whales for profit again? Commercial whaling has been effectively banned for more than 30 years, after some whales were driven almost to extinction. But the International Whaling Committee (IWC) is currently meeting in Brazil and next week will give its verdict on a proposal from Japan to end the ban.
[...] IWC members agreed to a moratorium on hunting in 1986, to allow whale stocks to recover. Pro-whaling nations expected the moratorium to be temporary, until consensus could be reached on sustainable catch quotas. Instead, it became a quasi-permanent ban, to the delight of conservationists but the dismay of whaling nations like Japan, Norway and Iceland who argue that whaling is part of their culture and should continue in a sustainable way.
But by using an exception in the ban that allows for whaling for scientific purposes, Japan has caught between about 200 and 1,200 whales every year. since, including young and pregnant animals.
[...] Hideki Moronuki, Japan's senior fisheries negotiator and commissioner for the IWC, told the BBC that Japan wants the IWC to get back to its original purpose - both conserving whales but also "the sustainable use of whales". [...] Japan, the current chair of the IWC, is suggesting a package of measures, including setting up a Sustainable Whaling Committee and setting sustainable catch limits "for abundant whale stocks/species". As an incentive to anti-whaling nations, the proposals would also make it easier to establish new whale sanctuaries.
Previously: Japan to Resume Whaling, Fleet Sails to Antarctic Tuesday
122 Pregnant Minke Whales Killed in Japan's Last Hunting Season
(Score: 1, Troll) by Arik on Saturday September 08 2018, @05:12PM (5 children)
I'm just going to leave that there and laugh.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday September 08 2018, @11:56PM (4 children)
Further, just how much communication is necessary to observe that whales don't like to be harpooned and killed?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday September 09 2018, @12:54AM (3 children)
This is entirely different from the case where someone is, not just speaking *about* but explicitly speaking *for* someone who has never communicated with them in any way. Which is a claim that's absurd on its face, and deserves something more than uproarious laughter.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday September 09 2018, @01:06AM (1 child)
It's important to clarify that when I mention speaking "on behalf" of the animals, that simply means speaking in a way that is intended to benefit them. That does not necessarily involve acting as some kind of interpreter to pass on messages that the animals communicated to oneself directly. I'm not Doctor Dolittle, nor did I ever claim to be. Shame really, as it would be pretty cool!
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1) by Arik on Sunday September 09 2018, @01:42AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 09 2018, @11:54AM
Ok, another example are people in comas or with extreme dementia who don't have living relatives.
And whales do communicate (including during whale hunts). It just doesn't happen to meet the standard of human communications. On that particular issue, you had this to say:
Here, we have a peculiar situation. While there probably aren't many examples of animals trying to respect human rights, cetaceans do have an interesting history of occasionally aiding humans in their endeavors or in getting out of trouble. For example, we have the law of the tongue [scientificamerican.com].
So not only did a pod of killer whales understand well enough the needs of their human associates to assist in their endeavors, they honored an implicit agreement with those humans for three generations!