Japan and whaling...

andyoxon · May 2007

Should traditional whaling countries like Japan be allowed to resume commercial whaling activity...in addition to their existing 'scientific prgramme'...?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... 27,00.html

I think not...

Andy

--- Beware of 'all things being equal' - because very often they are not. ---

Tourist Tony · May 2007

Japan is not a "traditional whaling country".

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Regulator · May 2007

Nope!

I think it should be made legal to sink whaling vessels.

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

redcogs · May 2007

No! Killing endangered whales isn't really necessary for human existence is it?

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

No! Killing endangered whales isn't really necessary for human existence is it?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm very dubious about it even with non endangered whales, as I'm far from convinced that the harpoon kills them cleanly.

Tourist Tony · May 2007

It doesn't. Modern harpoons carry an explosive charge; the whales die slowly from internal and external bleeding.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

redcogs · May 2007

i'm for killing the snails that are eating our sunflowers and peas.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

No. Whaling is not 'traditional' in most of Japan, and the fact that it continues at all is down to some corrupt but powerful vested interests within certain parts of the government. No-one really like whale-meat anyway, and the government has to subsidise people to sell it or dump it on unwilling schools.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

andyoxon · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

Japan is not a "traditional whaling country".

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, interesting - I found this on the greenpeace website...<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Contrary to what the Japanese government may say, whaling and eating whale meat are not a traditional part of Japanese culture. It was introduced by General MacArthur after World War II to deal with the starvation ravaging the country. As Sakyo tells us, older Japanese in their 50s, 60s and 70s may have eaten whale meat, but younger generations of Japanese don't touch the stuff.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

An american influence...?[:0]

Andy

--- Beware of 'all things being equal' - because very often they are not. ---

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

It doesn't. Modern harpoons carry an explosive charge; the whales die slowly from internal and external bleeding.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

My cynical assumption was that any charge large enough to kill the whale instantly would cause a lot of meat damage.

Tourist Tony · May 2007

Spot on, Patrick.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

mr_hippo · May 2007

How long does something have to happen to be considered 'traditional'? Whaling in Japan has been happening since the 12th centuary!

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 9/10 June: Update published: Monday 11 June

redcogs · May 2007

They began whaling in Whitby in 1793. You wail constantly on this forum.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mr_hippo

How long does something have to happen to be considered 'traditional'? Whaling in Japan has been happening since the 12th centuary!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

In some limited localities and only within coastal waters. If you can tell what this has got to do with modern industrial whaling which began after WW2 in Antarctic waters, you can have a prize...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

mr_hippo · May 2007

The statemwent said that Japan is not a "traditional whaling country". It did not mention anything about locale or modern industrial whaling, did it?

First whaling factory ship sails to Antarctic Ocean -1905
Japan enters mother ship-type whaling in Antarctic Ocean- 1934
Source - http://www.whaling.jp/english/history.html
Both of these pre-date WWII

http://bangkokhippo.blogspot.com/

Ex-XXL weigh-in 9/10 June: Update published: Monday 11 June

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

Traditional whaling has a very particular accepted international definition, and refers to the prctices of indigenous peoples using small-scale methods. This is why various Innuit, Indonesian and other groups can take certain numbers of whales that they have always done, in local waters. These catches do not threaten to exterminate whole species.

Industrial-scale whaling miles from your own country is not 'traditional'. If it is then the UK, Russia, Spain, Portugal and the USA have as much right to be called 'traditional whaling countries' as Japan. They are not because it is the acivities of these massive operations that led to the near-extinction of almost all the large species of cetacean. Japan is one of the few of the modern industrial whaling nations that refuses to recognise this, depsite the fact that even its own people do not like eating the stuff on the whole...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

Traditional whaling has a very particular accepted international definition, and refers to the prctices of indigenous peoples using small-scale methods. This is why various Innuit, Indonesian and other groups can take certain numbers of whales that they have always done, in local waters. These catches do not threaten to exterminate whole species.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hmmm........do the methods involve less suffering than whalers with explosive harpoons? I'm aware that Innuits hunt seals with rifles now which kill more effectively than spears, but I'm not sure how they catch whales.

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

Patrick - I'm not one of the 'fluffy animal brigade' - I'm rather less interested in the suffering of small numbers of creatures, especially as an integral part of a culture than acknowledges its place within the environment, than the flourishing of whole species. I'm sure that's an issue too though...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Tourist Tony · May 2007

I think I will take FM's knowledge of Japan as a given here. His page 1 definition of trad whaling is exactly what I meant.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

Patrick - I'm not one of the 'fluffy animal brigade' - I'm rather less interested in the suffering of small numbers of creatures, especially as an integral part of a culture than acknowledges its place within the environment, than the flourishing of whole species. I'm sure that's an issue too though...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I agree with you in general terms. However, the point is that certain traditional hunting methods cause a considerable amount of pain and suffering and I wondered if modern methods had enabled the techniques to be updated. I'm quite sure that when I shoot a rabbit it suffers less than when one of my forbears used a snare.

redcogs · May 2007

But not shooting the rabbit at
all would cause less pain wouldn't it?

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

But not shooting the rabbit at
all would cause less pain wouldn't it?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, because they die instantly when shot by me. The alternative is being caught by one of the abundant foxes or badgers which are quite happy to start eating the rabbit while it is still alive. One of the local foxes has started following me round. The other day it picked up a rabbit within ten seconds of my shooting it. It walked straight towards me and I hid behind a tree. He saw me from a distance of a few yards and gently loped off with the rabbit.

If I can keep the foxes fed, then it gives the partridges a chance to breed - no, they're not shot, we just like to see them around.

ACcp · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

But not shooting the rabbit at
all would cause less pain wouldn't it?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, because they die instantly when shot by me. The alternative is being caught by one of the abundant foxes or badgers which are quite happy to start eating the rabbit while it is still alive. One of the local foxes has started following me round. The other day it picked up a rabbit within ten seconds of my shooting it. It walked straight towards me and I hid behind a tree. He saw me from a distance of a few yards and gently loped off with the rabbit.

If I can keep the foxes fed, then it gives the partridges a chance to breed - no, they're not shot, we just like to see them around.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think the point redcogs may have been making (and if it isn't is the point I wish to make) is that not shooting the rabbit causes less pain / suffering than shooting the animal, which in turn is less painful than snares. You have a choice whether to shoot the rabbit or not. Therefore you have a choice as to whether to cause pain / suffering or not.

It is then a separate debate whether the suffering caused by shooting said furry rabbit is less than caused by a fox that may or may not eat said furry eared goofy tooth at some point in its life. I applaud good husbandry of the lifeforms on the land, however shooting animals 'cleanly' is not always within my definition of good husbandry, and is sometimes too loose an argument IMO. Good husbandry of lawyers on the other hand.......

I don't eat newly created species of marine life, or even newly discovered species of marine life for that matter, but if I did eat any sort of marine life, I would use this guide: -www.fishonline.org/information/MCSPocket_Good_Fish_Guide.pdf

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by AC

You have a choice whether to shoot the rabbit or not. Therefore you have a choice as to whether to cause pain / suffering or not.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It is a criminal offence under the Pest Act 1954 for the owner of land to fail to control rabbits. In this case the rabbits are damaging a hillside by digging and in places where they have not been controlled, the water run off has widened the digging and caused major erosion. In order to protect a sensitive habitat, it therefor a practical necessity as well as a legal duty to control the rabbit numbers.

The control methods are gassing, trapping, ferretting and shooting. The only choice is therefore in the method of control. On balance, I think shooting rabbits with a rifle is the most humane method. What are your views? Are you a gassing enthusiast?

redcogs · May 2007

its more fun shooting the rabbit isn't it..

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

its more fun shooting the rabbit isn't it..

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

An evening's rabbit shooting is thoroughly enjoyable. I suppose that if I absolutely had to, I'd gas a warren, but only as a total last resort and it would be a miserable task.

gillan1969 · May 2007

the Pest Act

you're having a laugh????

legislation to ensure you kill things

brilliant

bloody farmers

shoot your dog as soon as look at you and legal rabbit killers

does the pest act cover royalty, farmers and psuedo toffs who like to shoot things

patrick...any thoughts on that photo that was in (not sure could have been any of the broadsheets) of the wee lamerican lad (11) who shooot some massive hog in the states. There was no accompanying headline but it was rather unedifying methought....how far we have come[:(]

www.squadraporcini.com

Regulator · May 2007

Pest Act 1954? Can't find it in the Statute Law Database - you sure it's still in force Patrick?

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

andyoxon · May 2007

One of the the more disturbing things, in the context of Nature programmes, I've seen on TV (Blue planet) was a pair of Orcas gradually parting a very young whale from it's mother and going in for the kill. But, that's nature 'red in tooth' and claw, and in balance with ecosystem dynamics...as is, I'd say, 'aboriginal' hunting for subsistence food and clothing - even perhaps including Patrick (on llangollen hillside). Commercial whaling from large efficient ships, by certain countries, for the global market is of course a recipe for disaster for whales...

Andy

--- Beware of 'all things being equal' - because very often they are not. ---

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by gillan1969

the Pest Act

you're having a laugh????

No, it's there on the statute books. I think it replaced the Rabbit Act.
legislation to ensure you kill things

Yes, that's what the Pest Acts do - there are several of them. I think the Pest Act 1949 is the one imposing duties on local authorities.

brilliant

bloody farmers

shoot your dog as soon as look at you

Only legal to shoot a dog if it is worrying sheep. Obviously no responsible dog owner would allow his dog to worry sheep, so this is only something that affects the irresponsible owners.

and legal rabbit killers

Are you suggesting that rabbits become a protected species?

does the pest act cover royalty, farmers and psuedo toffs who like to shoot things

It covers all land owners and therefore imposes a strict duty on the people you mention above to kill rabbits. I suspect that posh people would delegate this to their staff and gamekeepers - after all, I'm sure you've never been invited to a driven rabbit shoot in Scotland. 

patrick...any thoughts on that photo that was in (not sure could have been any of the broadsheets) of the wee lamerican lad (11) who shooot some massive hog in the states. There was no accompanying headline but it was rather unedifying methought....how far we have come[:(]

Totally unacceptable - he shot it with a handgun - albeit the new .50 cal. The animal was shot several times before dying. He should have used a rifle - 30-06 as a bare minimum and preferably a heavier calibre still. I think you use .338 Lapua for wild boar shooting in Scotland. 

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

gillan1969 · May 2007

http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles ... _hogzilla/

unbelievable

it felt really good he says[?]

is that how you feel when you bag a trophy rabbit Patrick??? really good?

Da vinci does his stuff and hundreds of years later we got hog boy....great[:(][:(]

www.squadraporcini.com

Japan and whaling...

Comments

Categories