Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Friday September 07 2018, @07:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the ♪but-there-ain't-no-whales-so-we-tell-tall-tales-and-sing-this-whaling-tune♫ dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Arik on Saturday September 08 2018, @05:12PM (5 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Saturday September 08 2018, @05:12PM (#732251) Journal
    "Plus, communication with another is not necessary in order to speak on their behalf."

    I'm just going to leave that there and laugh.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday September 08 2018, @11:56PM (4 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 08 2018, @11:56PM (#732339) Journal
    And yet, it is correct. A common example in human culture are eulogies. The person being eulogized is dead and hence, can't speak for themselves at their wake/funeral/etc.

    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)

      by Arik (4543) on Sunday September 09 2018, @12:54AM (#732353) Journal
      The person speaking the Eulogy is often someone who had communicated with the deceased, when he was alive; but the eulogist doesn't always represent the deceased either. Funerals, you should have realized by now, are not at really for the deceased, but for the survivors. In some cases they might be following instructions left by the deceased, but in others they are not, it's no requirement.

      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)

        by acid andy (1683) on Sunday September 09 2018, @01:06AM (#732357) Homepage Journal

        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

          by Arik (4543) on Sunday September 09 2018, @01:42AM (#732361) Journal
          It would be really cool indeed.

          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 09 2018, @11:54AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 09 2018, @11:54AM (#732458) Journal

        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.

        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:

        There's a difference in kind between your human neighbors (who you may reasonably expect to understand and respect your rights) and the neighborhood dogs. Yes, those dogs may be very smart animals in many ways, but they can't understand our laws, and they cannot be held responsible for following them. Your reply was interesting but you don't seem to give the requirement for mutuality any thought at all. Yet it's really the key here. We respect human rights because humans can understand our rights, be expected to respect them mutually. When they don't, they repudiate the basis for civilized society, they remove that obligation. In the case of our food animals, there is no way to get to that mutual obligation in the first place.

        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].

        According to a Sydney Morning Herald edition from the 18 September 1930, the orcas would track down baleen whales congregating around the mouth of Twofold Bay, and shepherd them closer to the coast. While the pod trapped the whales in the bay, one of the males would position himself outside the whaling station, and breach and thrash his tail on the water until he'd attracted the whalers' attention.

        Named Old Tom, this orca was almost seven metres long and weighed a hefty six tonnes. Because of his continued interaction with the whalers, he was known to the whalers as the leader of the pod.

        Once a baleen whale had been caught and killed by the whalers - during their best season they caught as many as 22 - its carcass was left in the water, hitched to the boat, for the orcas to feed on its enormous tongues and lips. The orcas left the rest of the carcass, including the highly valuable blubber and bones, to the whalers, and this unique arrangement became known as 'the Law of the Tongue’.

        Three generations of the Davidson family whalers honoured this arrangement, and it’s rumoured that the crew would help orcas trapped in nets in the bay and the orcas would drive sharks away from the whalers’ small, open rowboats.

        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!