# Whaling and Sea Shepards



## Iamasingularity (Jan 5, 2012)

So I want to know people`s opinion on whaling/sea shepards.
Although I`m from Japan, I`ve never eaten whale and just want to know other people`s view on this subject. Fill me in on your views.


----------



## Randy (Jan 5, 2012)




----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 5, 2012)

Considering the Japanese only caught 17% of their intended catch last year, I don't give a damn about their methods, they're doing something and it's working. Whales are highly intelligent beings comparable to great apes and should not be consumed or killed in any way in my opinion. Not when we've got more controlled sources of meat.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jan 5, 2012)

Fuck the Sea Shepards, they are the PETA/ALF of the sea. They make those who really strive for animal rights look like crazy, attention seeking, sociopaths and hurt the cause more than they will ever help it.


----------



## Randy (Jan 5, 2012)

I don't agree with their tactics, plus Paul Watson is a well documented, melodramatic liar but their existence and the TV show has brought attention to a mostly overlooked crime that an entire industry has thrived on.

Beyond that, I'm honestly not educated on the subject enough to comment further.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 5, 2012)

Randy said:


> I don't agree with their tactics, plus Paul Watson is a well documented, melodramatic liar but their existence and the TV show has brought attention to a mostly overlooked crime that an entire industry has thrived on.
> 
> Beyond that, I'm honestly not educated on the subject enough to comment further.



Aye, but he is honest about being a liar. He has openly said he will lie as he sees fit in order to further their cause. Means justifies the end sorta deal.


----------



## C2Aye (Jan 5, 2012)

I'm not too familiar with the methods of the Sea Shepherd (except from that one South Park episode), but I think that we have enough sources of food to not justify the hunting of endangered animals to serve what is essentially a niche market.






While I wouldn't trust the exact figures of the graph (since I got it from Wikipedia ), it does help to illustrate the scale of whale (in this case blue whale) population decline from commercial whaling over the last century.


----------



## The Grief Hole (Jan 5, 2012)

I've eaten whale before. I felt it was on a par with Squid for flavour i.e. pretty much none. Add to this that the whale is definitely not fresh (and apparently is more often than not Dolphin although I'm not sure how true that is) and I wonder why Japanese consider it such a delicacy.

I think the Japanese are fools for continuing to do it. The fact that it turns out money donated to victims of the Tsunami has been ear-marked for whaling made me even angrier.


----------



## ILuvPillows (Jan 5, 2012)

I really like following their cause, especially their updates on the Whaling situation that they're attempting to stop (once again) in the ocean Sanctuary zone at the moment. I disagree with comparing them with PETA and I really like the Shark Finning documentary that, whilst not made by them, did include their efforts.


----------



## Thep (Jan 5, 2012)

I'm fine with hunting whales, and I would love to try some, but not at the expense of further endangering the species and its consequences. 

If its that much of a delicacy, they should devise a breeding program since this type of harvesting is unsustainable. 

(Or fuck, maybe they already figured out before investing millions upon millions of dollars that it is actually sustainable and we are misinformed by the media and animal rights groups in to thinking its not)


----------



## wlfers (Jan 5, 2012)

^ I agree. As others have stated I'm poorly informed in the situation so my opinion just remains that.

I don't feel much moral responsibility to animals beyond believing that we should cause them the least amount of harm possible, including our pushing them to extinction. I would say cap the commercial whaling, increasing the prices on the meat 



vampiregenocide said:


> Whales are highly intelligent beings comparable to great apes and should not be consumed or killed in any way in my opinion. Not when we've got more controlled sources of meat.



If whales were a controlled/consistent supply of meat, would it be ok then? Or would you still feel that intelligence plays a part in your acceptance of animals being used for food? Squid and Octopus are the most intelligent invertebrate but they lack such familiar human/mammalian qualities that it's alright to eat them?


----------



## Explorer (Jan 5, 2012)

First off, since the topic of honesty has come up... didn't Japan stop commercial whaling in 1986? And, if so, how can they have a whaling fleet? 

I've always thought that PETA is a first world group which is afraid to actually get out and face poachers and others on the front lines. From that viewpoint, it sounds like the Sea Shepherds are willing to walk the walk, so I can't fault them for not living up to their convictions. 

It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit brought in the US by the Japanese whaling industry will go. The Japanese will have to argue that the Sea Shepherds are wrong for enforcing international maritime law in international waters, while also arguing that their violations of international law in international waters are legal. It's a risky legal strategy, and one which I suspect will backfire.

If any evidence is presented showing that the Institute for Cetacean Research is just a front for illegal whaling, and that the whales are actually being killed for commercial purposes, it's not going to go well for them. The fact that most biologists do research by observing live animals, and that the Institute is unsustainably killing off what it purports to be studying, will lead most who consider its motives in this to not be research.


----------



## Blind Theory (Jan 6, 2012)

^To reinforce your last sentiment, the great majority of wildlife biology is done through observation. Whether it be in captivity or the wild. I am WAY more familiar with Wolves as I am pursuing a graduate degree in Wildlife Biology so I can one day be a Wolf expert. From that I can tell you that the tactics used are things like Aerial observation (to track hunts, count populations, etc) and some ground observation (things like setting up in trees and watching). The only instances I've heard of a biologist using a dead Wolf to do research is when they come across an already dead animal. From there they will do an autopsy (I guess you'd call it that) to see what diseases where present (if the death wasn't caused by apparent injury). That is the ONLY reason I can possibly imagine a legitimate Biologist would need or use a dead animal for. You can't learn much more than diseases common in the animal, diet, and the general make up of the animals organs and skeletal structure. You can't find out pack movement (referencing Wolves obviously) from a dissection of the animal. You can't figure out communication through body posture, tail position and ear position from a dissection. The most important information cannot be found via a dissection. You can't protect a species (for the most part) and repopulate a species by knowing what diseases they contract or what they eat. You can't give each individual animal medicine and prey is something that can be abundant one winter and almost non-existent the next. Observation is the most important tool. It always will be. Through observation you are able to come up with theories that might warrant something like a dissection but you have to get through one to get to the other. 

As for the Sea Shepard's, I am only vaguely familiar with them from the TV show (which I have not watched a whole lot of). From what I can tell, they use non-lethal tactics to deter whaling operations. I feel there are much betters ways to go about it and I do not agree with what I have seen. I feel they have knowledge of what routes are generally taken by whalers and they have expertise (obviously) in tracking them down. I think they could use that knowledge and expertise to help a government agency (whether it is the US or European or whomever) better control the situation. It makes more sense to me to do it that way.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 6, 2012)

Randy said:


>




Sea Shepherd acquired the _Ocean 7 Adventurer_ for its 2010-11 campaign against Japanese whaling in the Antarctic.[81] In November 2010, mayor Brad Pettitt of Fremantle, Western Australia, christened the vessel _Gojira_ with Fremantle as its home town, making this the first Sea Shepherd ship registered in Australia, with an Australian crew. The _Gojira_ was renamed MV _Brigitte Bardot_ in May 2011 after complaints of copyright infringement by the owners of the "Gojira" copyright.

^^^^
LOL

Also, maybe you guys don`t know but lethal research is very important and helpful (Although I`d rather be chill and observe stuff) 

This is part of a Q&A session from the JWA site in English. The site is dead, since most of the mail/calls they get are from Angry sea shepard supporters/etc. You`re still free to contact them, they actaully want input, but don`t have time for BS comments/arguments. 

*[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Q3[/FONT]* *[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The whaling debate has shifted from scientific discussion to arguments on animal rights as perceived by certain countries and groups. Since most Western nations are opposed to whaling, why doesn't Japan just abandon its tradition?

[/FONT]* [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]We cannot agree with this view. Asking Japan to abandon this part of its culture would compare to Australians being asked to stop eating meat pies, Americans being asked to stop eating hamburgers and the English being asked to go without fish and chips. 

Attitudes toward animals are a part of national cultures. No nations should try to impose their attitudes on others. 
 
Anti-whaling countries regard whales as sacred, and want the ban on whaling to continue on the grounds that a humane killing method is not ensured or that whaling itself is unethical. 

But it is questionable whether the whaling conducted by westerners in the past was humane or ethical. To this argument, the westerners might respond that was the very reason for them to have halted whaling. 

But this argument is nothing but a misconception. Whaling in western countries was conducted to collect whale oil, whether it was ancient sailing-boat-type whaling or modern whaling. It died out naturally as it lost its industrial importance after petroleum became more readily available. 

On the other hand, whaling in Japan was mainly carried out for the production of meat, and because of strong demand for whalemeat in the domestic market, whaling can still continue to be viable. 

Not all western countries are anti-whaling although anti-whaling attitudes are prevalent. Generally Anglo-Saxon countries take an anti-whaling position, but Iceland, Norway and Denmark regard whales as food. [/SIZE][/FONT]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I highlighted the points in red to bring up a point. Yes there is no doubt Whales feel a lot of pain/suffering while they are hunted, but because of its size its hard to kill it one go, compared to a chicken. 
We`re gonna need super powerful lasers or a really big knife. My friend once said that to kill them without causing much pain, we should inject them with poison. Well... Whale blubber is thick as bank walls and is impossible to penetrate with synringes, I think even custom sized big ones wont do the job. Plus, its not gonna be fit for consumption, even if it were possible to poison it (DUH)


----------



## The Grief Hole (Jan 6, 2012)

How is lethal research helpful? I mean even Melville knew a lot about whale anatomy after his time on whalers and that was 160 years ago. I fail to see what the japanese have brung to the table in terms of advancing what we know about the whale. The information the institute of cetacean research has revealed to the public is a joke. One would imagine the accusations that it was set up as a frOnt for continued whaling are quite valid.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 6, 2012)

The Grief Hole said:


> How is lethal research helpful? I mean even Melville knew a lot about whale anatomy after his time on whalers and that was 160 years ago. I fail to see what the japanese have brung to the table in terms of advancing what we know about the whale. The information the institute of cetacean research has revealed to the public is a joke. One would imagine the accusations that it was set up as a frOnt for continued whaling are quite valid.



I don`t mean specifically Whales, but organisms in general. As for the research goes, ya I think its kind of BS sampling so many whales, but we do that on other animals on large scales as well. One of the studies that came out of the reasearch suggest that Whales are loosing alot of their blubber(fat) due to climate change and loss of krill. I don`t know if its true, but if its, maybe we got a new thing to worry than whaling them. Anyway I do agree that the whole whaling reasearch is kind of pointless, maybe the Sea shepards should stop buying new ships and trashing them on long trips, and use that money to do something more productive


----------



## The Grief Hole (Jan 6, 2012)

So lethal research is acceptable on animals in general but not on whales? I'm not sure if you're implying this or not but I can't help but imagine top hats peeking over ridges as men with bushy moustaches contemplate the frailties of the dodo. A lot of (but by no means all) of early biological research was anatomical. I.e. If they saw an animal they didn't know they would gas/ club/shoot it and then study it. We now know that there is way more value both scientifically and morally to study something whilst alive. I'm fairly sure (and one of my previous clients was Huntingdon Life Sciences) that the only animals we experiment on in 'large' scales are monkeys, rodents and rabbits. All of which are fairly fucking prolific anyway. However that still doesn't justify testing beauty products on them.

Back to the main point, much as I love Japan, the continued hunting of whales is spitting in the eye of the international community. The only scientific research they do on whale is how much mercury was need to keep the piece that made someone sick fresh. It's a bizarre example of Japan's stubbornly refusing to change something that really tars them internationally. No excuses. 

Sea Shepherd whilst being an utter PR whore at least bring the whole catch thing to light. You are right though. They could do something more productive i.e. Non-lethal scientific study of whales. Or donating the money to the Japanese fisherman who seem totally unable to do anything but piss off the international community by skewering a much loved creature.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 6, 2012)

athawulf said:


> If whales were a controlled/consistent supply of meat, would it be ok then? Or would you still feel that intelligence plays a part in your acceptance of animals being used for food? Squid and Octopus are the most intelligent invertebrate but they lack such familiar human/mammalian qualities that it's alright to eat them?



Squid and octopus aren't nearly as intelligent as cetaceans, though I still think they're intelligent enough in that I feel uncomfortable eating them. Not to mention they don't taste of much. 

Whales have their own language, personalities, emotions and that puts them very close to us in the scheme of things. I find it saddening we could hunt an animal to extinction that we have so much in common with.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 6, 2012)

The Grief Hole said:


> So lethal research is acceptable on animals in general but not on whales? I'm not sure if you're implying this or not but I can't help but imagine top hats peeking over ridges as men with bushy moustaches contemplate the frailties of the dodo. A lot of (but by no means all) of early biological research was anatomical. I.e. If they saw an animal they didn't know they would gas/ club/shoot it and then study it. We now know that there is way more value both scientifically and morally to study something whilst alive. I'm fairly sure (and one of my previous clients was Huntingdon Life Sciences) that the only animals we experiment on in 'large' scales are monkeys, rodents and rabbits. All of which are fairly fucking prolific anyway. However that still doesn't justify testing beauty products on them.
> 
> Back to the main point, much as I love Japan, the continued hunting of whales is spitting in the eye of the international community. The only scientific research they do on whale is how much mercury was need to keep the piece that made someone sick fresh. It's a bizarre example of Japan's stubbornly refusing to change something that really tars them internationally. No excuses.
> 
> Sea Shepherd whilst being an utter PR whore at least bring the whole catch thing to light. You are right though. They could do something more productive i.e. Non-lethal scientific study of whales. Or donating the money to the Japanese fisherman who seem totally unable to do anything but piss off the international community by skewering a much loved creature.



Oh man, you got me all wrong. I`m saying that the number of whales that were killed for "lethal research" were high, but pretty much not different from the numbers in other animals that are killed in lethal research as well. (I don`t advocate lethal research at all) As for the Japan`s image, yeah its tarnished from the whale/dolphin hunting. If people are gonna stop it, its gonna take more than just saying that "its not moral" Hmm... I wonder whats would be a good way to resolve this...



vampiregenocide said:


> Squid and octopus aren't nearly as intelligent as cetaceans, though I still think they're intelligent enough in that I feel uncomfortable eating them. Not to mention they don't taste of much.
> 
> Whales have their own language, personalities, emotions and that puts them very close to us in the scheme of things. I find it saddening we could hunt an animal to extinction that we have so much in common with.



Well... We got the chinese eating dogs.... no one gives a crap about that.
(Not that I don`t care about whales) I bet whales are nice, except Tilikum.
Tilikum needs to be grilled.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

To be completely honest--and I'm sure some ppl will have a problem with this--I feel the same about hunting and eating one animal as I do another. Doesn't really bother me. But I see this world more as an ongoing competition in a spherical pitri dish... 

An animal's level of intelligence--to me--only makes the hunt more exciting assuming they use it effectively.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 6, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> Well... We got the chinese eating dogs.... no one gives a crap about that.
> (Not that I don`t care about whales) I bet whales are nice, except Tilikum.
> Tilikum needs to be grilled.



I give a crap about it.  I don't think any animals are better than others, but I relate to some generally more intelligent animals such as dogs, whales and apes, and therefore find it uncomfortable to consume them. I don't relate to a chicken the same way I do a dog, so I feel more comfortable eating it. I still respect that animal and the fact that it gave up it's life for me, but my personal feelings towards it are different in the same way I relate to some people and not others. 

But the main reason I'm against this is purely because whales are endangered. I don't think any endangered animals should be consumed or harvested.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

I would totally eat a whale and somehow I still agree with Ross...


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 6, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> I give a crap about it.  I don't think any animals are better than others, but I relate to some generally more intelligent animals such as dogs, whales and apes, and therefore find it uncomfortable to consume them. I don't relate to a chicken the same way I do a dog, so I feel more comfortable eating it. I still respect that animal and the fact that it gave up it's life for me, but my personal feelings towards it are different in the same way I relate to some people and not others.
> 
> But the main reason I'm against this is purely because whales are endangered. I don't think any endangered animals should be consumed or harvested.



I think your confusing intelligence and emotion. It makes sense to feel that way if you can relate your emotions to lets say your pet dog. Just because you can`t relate to another animal`s emotions, doesn`t make them unintelligent. I had a pet guinea fowl and green pigeon. Although they didn`t wag their tails or anything, to me they showed signs of potential to learn stuff and comprehend my commands. I could sense fear/anger/and curiosity in them too. But chickens are dumb for sure.


----------



## wlfers (Jan 6, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> Squid and octopus aren't nearly as intelligent as cetaceans, though I still think they're intelligent enough in that I feel uncomfortable eating them. Not to mention they don't taste of much.
> 
> Whales have their own language, personalities, emotions and that puts them very close to us in the scheme of things. I find it saddening we could hunt an animal to extinction that we have so much in common with.



That's what I was curious to know, if there was a scale between how intelligent/familiar something is to your willingness to consume it. I agree with whale extinction being saddening- but I disagree with eating intelligent things. I wonder what the best cut of meat is from a human...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> I think your confusing intelligence and emotion. It makes sense to feel that way if you can relate your emotions to lets say your pet dog. Just because you can`t relate to another animal`s emotions, doesn`t make them unintelligent. I had a pet guinea fowl and green pigeon. Although they didn`t wag their tails or anything, to me they showed signs of potential to learn stuff and comprehend my commands. I could sense fear/anger/and curiosity in them too. But chickens are dumb for sure.


 
Cows seem pretty dense to me, but some societies hold them sacred. Diff'rent strokes...

I do agree that familiarity with an animal does make them difficult to consume, though.


----------



## Randy (Jan 6, 2012)

Cows and chickens are bred to for slaughter. As in, they wouldn't even be alive if it wasn't for the fact people are going to raise them to be eaten.

Killing animals, and in this case, whales in the wild is a totally different story.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

Randy said:


> Cows and chickens are bred to for slaughter. As in, they wouldn't even be alive if it wasn't for the fact people are going to raise them to be eaten.


 
When you say it like that it sounds even more fucked up... 

You only exist bc we allow it... So we can kill you, of course...


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 6, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> I think your confusing intelligence and emotion. It makes sense to feel that way if you can relate your emotions to lets say your pet dog. Just because you can`t relate to another animal`s emotions, doesn`t make them unintelligent. I had a pet guinea fowl and green pigeon. Although they didn`t wag their tails or anything, to me they showed signs of potential to learn stuff and comprehend my commands. I could sense fear/anger/and curiosity in them too. But chickens are dumb for sure.



I'm not confusing them, I'm including them both as attributes stronger in animals like dogs, whales and apes. All of those animals are far more intelligent and emotionally advanced than most bird species. That is not to say that animals such as birds and reptiles can't form emotional attachments or show intelligence, they're just very different. 



athawulf said:


> That's what I was curious to know, if there was a scale between how intelligent/familiar something is to your willingness to consume it. I agree with whale extinction being saddening- but I disagree with eating intelligent things. I wonder what the best cut of meat is from a human...



That is a personal opinion of mine, and so it isn't my main objection against whaling. To force my own personal beliefs on people would be ignorant, however I see very little benefit to killing off an entire group of animals when there are alternative found sources. It's the endangered part I take most issue to, the intelligence factor is a personal one.

That said, I'd eat a human if I knew they were a bad person.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 6, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> That said, I'd eat a human if I knew they were a bad person.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 6, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


>



Yeah I know, somewhat hypocritical but I don't view people the same as I do 'common beasts'.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 7, 2012)

So, it appears that the Institute for Cetacean Research isn't really about research at all. That chunk of what they espouse, provided by Iamasingularity, is all about harvesting for consumption. 

It would be ironic to talk about one group being dishonest, and to give a pass to a group which claims it is dedicated to research when it really exists to hunt down and kill members of an endangered species. 

Basically, if the primary aim of the Institute is to harvest whales, then they are violating international law, that of the International Whaling Commission. I suspect that a civil court, charged with determining what a reasonable person would conclude, would find that the ICR is lying in order to do an end-run around the intent of international law.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 7, 2012)

Explorer said:


> So, it appears that the Institute for Cetacean Research isn't really about research at all. That chunk of what they espouse, provided by Iamasingularity, is all about harvesting for consumption.
> 
> It would be ironic to talk about one group being dishonest, and to give a pass to a group which claims it is dedicated to research when it really exists to hunt down and kill members of an endangered species.
> 
> Basically, if the primary aim of the Institute is to harvest whales, then they are violating international law, that of the International Whaling Commission. I suspect that a civil court, charged with determining what a reasonable person would conclude, would find that the ICR is lying in order to do an end-run around the intent of international law.



The ICR stated that they are also doing the study and research, so that they can study whales, and harvest them in a sustainable manner. They also say that culling whales help preserve fish resources. I don`t know if they`re dishonest, but they said themselves that they`re doing the research to harvest them without driving them extinct. So I guess there should be no misunderstanding that they`re researching them to harvest more.


----------



## The Grief Hole (Jan 7, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> The ICR stated that they are also doing the study and research, so that they can study whales, and harvest them in a sustainable manner. They also say that culling whales help preserve fish resources. I don`t know if they`re dishonest, but they said themselves that they`re doing the research to harvest them without driving them extinct. So I guess there should be no misunderstanding that they`re researching them to harvest more.



If you buy that then I have a luxury, one of a kind, custom paper guitar you can buy.

To preserve fish resources we might want to do what the UN have suggested for years. STOP FISHING. Studies have aready been conducted regarding this and they all conclusively say, stop fishing for a year. But then who pays to keep the fisherman living etc. governments cant do that cause they are too busy buying arms, giving themselves huge pay checks and buying 20,000 yen dustbins. Oh and subsidising their luxury aPartment blocks in Ginza, Marunouchi and Hibiya.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 7, 2012)

The Grief Hole said:


> If you buy that then I have a luxury, one of a kind, custom paper guitar you can buy.
> 
> To preserve fish resources we might want to do what the UN have suggested for years. STOP FISHING. Studies have aready been conducted regarding this and they all conclusively say, stop fishing for a year. But then who pays to keep the fisherman living etc. governments cant do that cause they are too busy buying arms, giving themselves huge pay checks and buying 20,000 yen dustbins. Oh and subsidising their luxury aPartment blocks in Ginza, Marunouchi and Hibiya.



Lol, I`m not buying it, just saying that the ICT is pretty upfront about harvesting whales. I just heard from my mom that when she was a kid whale meat was cheaper than other meats, like beef/pork/chicken. She said she had it about 2-3 times a week! It might be interesting to check and ask about whaling from people at the Tsukiji market.


----------



## ittoa666 (Jan 7, 2012)

It's absolutely ridiculous that humans would need to hunt ANYTHING these days for food or profit, or even sport, especially animals like whales. It's fucked up.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 7, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> The ICR stated that they are also doing the study and research, so that they can study whales, and harvest them in a sustainable manner. They also say that culling whales help preserve fish resources. I don`t know if they`re dishonest, but they said themselves that they`re doing the research to harvest them without driving them extinct. So I guess there should be no misunderstanding that they`re researching them to harvest more.


 
My main point is, the ICR is shining a spotlight on a group which it claims is violating the law, and thereby drawing scrutiny to their main goal, killing off members of an endangered species.

Their claim to be doing research on how to kill it off sustainably strikes many as ludicrous, and also upends any supposed scientific basis for their work by stating a conclusion ("Kill and eat more endangered whales!") and looking for support for that conclusion, as opposed to asking a question ("Can one kill and eat endangered whales sustainbly?"). 

The ICR nakedly embracing that they want to kill whales for consumption, as opposed to doing research, makes me wonder if there is any reason other than politics which prevents the IWC from condemning killing these whales purely for consumption.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 8, 2012)

So today in the Asahi newspaper there was an article about a beached whale at my hometown, Odawara. I went to that beach on new year`s to see the sunrise with my family. Anyways, its a male over 6ms long and estimated to be younger than ayear old. Authorities recieved a 911 call from a fisherman and were informed about it. The humpback whale was dead already and is thought to have been beached there for quite a few days. It was buried today after being found on new years day.  Here`s a video of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vZ0FYoI9szA


----------



## Dave_Magos (Jan 8, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Fuck the Sea Shepards, they are the PETA/ALF of the sea. They make those who really strive for animal rights look like crazy, attention seeking, sociopaths and hurt the cause more than they will ever help it.



What do you recommend then? It has been now Scientifically proven that both Dolphins and Whales possess both Social and Cognitive awareness comparable to and or exceeding that of Humans, and yet the Japanese and others continue the Slaughter!!

Let me ask you this.. If you knew a family was being murdered next door, would you run over and kick the door in, or would you write your congressman? Police don't exist in this scenario because like the plight of the Whales and Dolphins, nobody is protecting them. What would you do???????


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 8, 2012)

Dave_Magos said:


> What do you recommend then? It has been now Scientifically proven that both Dolphins and Whales possess both Social and Cognitive awareness comparable to and or exceeding that of Humans, and yet the Japanese and others continue the Slaughter!!
> 
> Let me ask you this.. If you knew a family was being murdered next door, would you run over and kick the door in, or would you write your congressman? Police don't exist in this scenario because like the plight of the Whales and Dolphins, nobody is protecting them. What would you do???????



Dude. Chill out. The grief hole makes a point. The Seas shepards approach to whaling is too extreme, just like those idiots in PETA who funded people to plant bombs at clinics/and spreading so called "awareness". Those guys need to take it to the table, instead of wasting money that can be used to stop whaling. And so what>? So what if whales and dolphins have higher levels of social and cognitive awareness? Other animals have those abilities too, maybe we should remember that the reason we want to stop this is because there are only a "few" of them left? As far your example goes, I`m at a loss to comment on it.


----------



## Xaios (Jan 8, 2012)

Wanna protect the whales? Get some of these:


----------



## Murmel (Jan 8, 2012)

If blue whales go extinct I'm gonna be a really sad panda 
They're my favourite animal, I think they're super interesting.

I didn't contribute at all to the thread, I just needed that off my chest


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 8, 2012)

Sea Shepard may be extreme, but so have the actions of the Japanese whaling fleet. They're not exactly innocent in all this and have shown just as much if not more aggression back. 

Sea Shepard are doing a good job, and their actions are actually working. If it weren't for them, cetaceans would be a lot worse off. I don't consider them as bad as PETA, not by a long shot. I think Sea Shepard are doing a good job, but without groups like Greenpeace they'd have more trouble. You need people to fight the more political side of things and that is something Sea Shepard haven't done. If it weren't for Greenpeace helping to actually get whaling stopped in some places, Sea Shepard's work would be harder.


----------



## Dave_Magos (Jan 8, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> Dude. Chill out. The grief hole makes a point. The Seas shepards approach to whaling is too extreme, just like those idiots in PETA who funded people to plant bombs at clinics/and spreading so called "awareness". Those guys need to take it to the table, instead of wasting money that can be used to stop whaling. And so what>? So what if whales and dolphins have higher levels of social and cognitive awareness? Other animals have those abilities too, maybe we should remember that the reason we want to stop this is because there are only a "few" of them left? As far your example goes, I`m at a loss to comment on it.




Wait, I must have missed something.. When did the Sea Shepard Org blow something up? Their strategy is to block ships from unloading whales at the Processing ship. simple. Hardly extreme and far less political. 

Do you understand what having higher levels of social and cognitive awareness means? Then you know it means they are self aware, they have conversations and they mourn. I don't know of any other Animal in the Animal Kingdom (with the exception of Elephants) who's intelligence so closely resemble ours on so many levels. Do you mind enlightening me on what I missed? 

My example plays into that theme because like I said, if Dolphins and Whales are as smart as Science is now claiming, then the slaughters going on in Japan, the Artic, and elsewhere around the world are the equivalent to someone corralling a bunch of people into a small room and laying into them with Spears. That's the reality as I see it.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 8, 2012)

TRIPLE POST?!


----------



## Blind Theory (Jan 8, 2012)

Here is another point I feel needs to be pointed out. Forget all the cognitive talk and the extreme actions talk and think about what would happen if they actually were killed into extinction. I think the much bigger problem isn't so much that there are so few of them as much as it is, if there were none of them left the ecosystem would not be balanced off like it is supposed to be. It may not sound like a big problem but areas where whales are common would start feeling and seeing side effects. Many of the whales food source would seem to multiply due to the fact that they had very little worry of being eaten (or at least a considerable amount less). This would mean all sorts of plankton and this's and that's would start eating away at their natural food sources and that would slowly diminish. That would leave a lot of fish without anywhere to hide from prey as well as take away food from them. This would cause fish to slowly diminish which would cause predators to slowly diminish. Obviously this wouldn't take place over night and we wouldn't see it in our lifetime or even our children's lifetimes but it could very well happen. That is why I think it is important. Our ecosystem is very delicate and the extinction of a major species like whales or dolphins could have very negative side effects down the road. Of course there is the other option of, they go extinct and nothing happens but who is willing to take chances like that?


----------



## wlfers (Jan 8, 2012)

Dave_Magos said:


> What do you recommend then? It has been now Scientifically proven that both Dolphins and Whales possess both Social and Cognitive awareness comparable to and or exceeding that of Humans, and yet the Japanese and others continue the Slaughter!!
> 
> Let me ask you this.. If you knew a family was being murdered next door, would you run over and kick the door in, or would you write your congressman? Police don't exist in this scenario because like the plight of the Whales and Dolphins, nobody is protecting them. What would you do???????



There are multiple sides to animal intelligence. Social cognition, spatial cognition, memory, tool use, learning capabilities etc. It's not a whole package, animals can excel or lack in any field. One species of bird has been studied to hide food and remember the location of over 200 secret caches and the contents of each one. Do you not eat any other animal that you can draw familiar parallels to?

Let me use your own example. You know 2 separate neighbors are being murdered on either side of your house, do you quickly run in and ask each one what their IQ is before making a decision? I'd be more turned off to eating whale knowing they're endangered rather than knowing they're intelligent.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 8, 2012)

There would be huge plankton blooms which could have huge adverse effects yeah. And it would happen very quickly. Plankton blooms can happen over the course of months. That's partly why whales migrate, because they know where the krill that feed on plankton will be.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 8, 2012)

athawulf said:


> There are multiple sides to animal intelligence. Social cognition, spatial cognition, memory, tool use, learning capabilities etc. It's not a whole package, animals can excel or lack in any field. One species of bird has been studied to hide food and remember the location of over 200 secret caches and the contents of each one. Do you not eat any other animal that you can draw familiar parallels to?
> 
> Let me use your own example. You know 2 separate neighbors are being murdered on either side of your house, do you quickly run in and ask each one what their IQ is before making a decision? I'd be more turned off to eating whale knowing they're endangered rather than knowing they're intelligent.



That's not a very strong argument. Whales have a different kind of intelligence. They have language, complex emotion and what is now believe to be a form of culture. That is a very rare thing in the animal kingdom, especially outside apes, and something worth preserving.

As for the neighbour thing, really?


----------



## wlfers (Jan 8, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> That's not a very strong argument. Whales have a different kind of intelligence. They have language, complex emotion and what is now believe to be a form of culture. That is a very rare thing in the animal kingdom, especially outside apes, and something worth preserving.
> 
> As for the neighbour thing, really?



It may not be a strong argument to you since you don't eat whales on a moral basis, I'm not arguing morality. If you're going to say "whales are intelligent" you have to at least understand that "intelligent" as an singular term is close to useless when describing animals because there are animals who will excel in specific areas even more so than humans. 

He used the terrible analogy first


----------



## wlfers (Jan 8, 2012)

Dave_Magos said:


> Do you understand what having higher levels of social and cognitive awareness means? Then you know it means they are self aware, they have conversations and they mourn. I don't know of any other Animal in the Animal Kingdom (with the exception of Elephants) who's intelligence so closely resemble ours on so many levels. Do you mind enlightening me on what I missed?
> 
> My example plays into that theme because like I said, if Dolphins and Whales are as smart as Science is now claiming, then the slaughters going on in Japan, the Artic, and elsewhere around the world are the equivalent to someone corralling a bunch of people into a small room and laying into them with Spears. That's the reality as I see it.



I'm not getting your analogies. Then eating cows is like someone corralling a bunch of stupid people into a small room and laying into them with spears


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 8, 2012)

athawulf said:


> It may not be a strong argument to you since you don't eat whales on a moral basis, I'm not arguing morality. If you're going to say "whales are intelligent" you have to at least understand that "intelligent" as an singular term is close to useless when describing animals because there are animals who will excel in specific areas even more so than humans.
> 
> He used the terrible analogy first



I don't refuse to eat whales purely on a moral basis. I don't eat them because it's from an unsustainable source that provides a key role in our marine ecosystem.

And yeah this is true, but intelligence is pretty much the most powerful trait in the animal kingdom. It can enable a creature to adapt and use resources far more efficiently, and communicate in more complex ways. That is why humans have excelled and progressed so quickly in relation to other organisms. That is why intelligence in nature appeals to us. Many animals are clever and intelligent; some birds as mentioned can show great memory skills and perform clever tricks. But that is not the same as a whale, or an ape. Those are two groups of organisms which show signs of intelligence far closer to humans than any other.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 8, 2012)

Let them eat what they want, not our business. Plus everyone knows the japanese are smarterthan everyone anyways.


----------



## wlfers (Jan 8, 2012)

I agree fully with helping endangered whales, and I would also agree that their intelligence makes them even more an important target for conservation efforts. I just don't like the misunderstanding or misuse of science for any cause, regardless of if its "good" or not. Once again it's not just clever tricks, some birds have excellent learning capabilities- living in social groups similar to humans and cetaceans and will exhibit signs of emotions like guilt. Crows drop food they cannot pry into right on to crosswalks, wait for cars to run them over, note when the cars stops to let humans pass then collect their food. The Jay that hides its food has the highest brain/body mass ratio (thanks wikipedia) outside of apes and cetaceans. 

Domesticated dogs share certain cognitive characteristics with humans that no other primate does. See:

http://dusk2.geo.orst.edu/lydia/doggies_science.pdf

If we're going to protect whales because they, in their social intelligence, are so emotionally familiar to us, lets do it! But please, be consistent and don't harm any other "smart" animal then.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 8, 2012)

I'm not going to get into protecting species based on their intelligence, but since the discussion has strayed so far from the topic (one group pushing the gray areas of the law to protect endangered species, others pushing the gray areas to kill endangered species), this shouldn't be out of place.



vampiregenocide said:


> ...(I) intelligence is pretty much the most powerful trait in the animal kingdom. It can enable a creature to adapt and use resources far more efficiently, and communicate in more complex ways.
> 
> That is why humans have excelled and progressed so quickly in relation to other organisms. That is why intelligence in nature appeals to us.
> 
> Many animals are clever and intelligent; some birds as mentioned can show great memory skills and perform clever tricks. But that is not the same as a whale, or an ape. Those are two groups of organisms which show signs of intelligence far closer to humans than any other.



I'd argue that the most successful species are generally those which can manipulate their environment. Intelligence by itself won't give the whales the ability to adapt. 

The many species of ant seem to be the most able to adapt to different environments, hunting, farming, building different kinds of homes based on local conditions, and so on. 

As far as ocean life goes, cetaceans are basically grazers and not doers.


----------



## wlfers (Jan 8, 2012)

^ adding on to that it is completely possible for animals who are not as fit to survive to beat out the more fit if they simply produce more offspring. The smart healthy 100 year old who seldom procreates can be beaten out by a stupid horny one who dies young. 

I think that actually seems to be the problem with humans today


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 8, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I'd argue that the most successful species are generally those which can manipulate their environment. Intelligence by itself won't give the whales the ability to adapt.
> 
> The many species of ant seem to be the most able to adapt to different environments, hunting, farming, building different kinds of homes based on local conditions, and so on.
> 
> As far as ocean life goes, cetaceans are basically grazers and not doers.



And I'd agree with you. I wasn't debating the success of whales or their adaptability, I'm simply saying their intelligence relative to us and other organisms makes them of great biological interest.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 8, 2012)

I'd like to ask a question related to the original point.

Is there anyone here who feels that the Sea Shepherds are in the wrong AND that the Japanese whalers in the right? 

I'm just asking because it seems like a lot of the discussion is about the actions of the Sea Shepherds, and I'm curious if anyone who is opposed to their being on the boundary of the law is okay with the Japanese being in the same territory.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 8, 2012)

Might be a tough one to support there explorer, I will chime in and say that while the Sea Shepherds are breaking the letter of the law, they are enforcing the spirit of the law (which was put in place to prevent whaling ,apparently), and I have never been a letter of the law type guy. Two wrongs can sometimes make a right and whatnot.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 8, 2012)

Thank you Athawulf and Explorer for explaining some crucial points. I was planning to write an essay, but looks like I don`t have to now. I`ve had numerous pets, domestic and wild and spend alot of time observing animals. You cannot exactly compare human intelligence to animal cognitives. In fact we share alot of those in common with other animals. If you haven`t noticed signs of high intelligence of birds/dogs/apes/bees/sea lions/etc/ then I don`t know where the hell you have been. I`m pretty sure you haven`t lived with whales, and are just using the "intelligent" statements based on no actual experience with them. Anyways, your analogies are the worst, even a whale knows better.



Explorer said:


> I'd like to ask a question related to the original point.
> 
> Is there anyone here who feels that the Sea Shepherds are in the wrong AND that the Japanese whalers in the right?
> 
> I'm just asking because it seems like a lot of the discussion is about the actions of the Sea Shepherds, and I'm curious if anyone who is opposed to their being on the boundary of the law is okay with the Japanese being in the same territory.



Nope, I think the Sea Shepherds need to take a different approach to the situation, and the Japanese should stop whaling if its driving it towards extinction and breaking laws.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 8, 2012)

My good Sir Myghin, that was my thinking. When presented side by side, it's hard to make a case in one direction without it being relevant to the other. 

I wonder what the odds are of the Sea Shepherds countersuing in the same court, so that these issues get more of an airing. A jury trial, or even one with just a judge, means that actions by the Japanese whaling fleet would be considered in terms of their damage, not just the Sea Shepherds.

Edit: was replying to SM when Iamasingularity snuck in. That's what I get for writing so damn much. *laugh*


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 9, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> Thank you Athawulf and Explorer for explaining some crucial points. I was planning to write an essay, but looks like I don`t have to now. I`ve had numerous pets, domestic and wild and spend alot of time observing animals. You cannot exactly compare human intelligence to animal cognitives. In fact we share alot of those in common with other animals. If you haven`t noticed signs of high intelligence of birds/dogs/apes/bees/sea lions/etc/ then I don`t know where the hell you have been. I`m pretty sure you haven`t lived with whales, and are just using the "intelligent" statements based on no actual experience with them. Anyways, your analogies are the worst, even a whale knows better.



I've spent a fair bit of time with all sorts of animals having worked at a zoo, seen many in the wild and owned pets of a few kinds. I've found there are animals that show intelligence that I wouldn't expect. Wolves are scarily smart, on a whole different level to dogs. I was intimidated by their intelligence.

I haven't spent time around whales unfortunately, or great apes for that matter, but I've seen a great deal of research to know we're only just scratching the surface of their intelligence. There are many animals that are intelligent and gain our respect as such, but it seems that whales and apes are of particular interest as they are very complex. 

Yes, a lot of animals are 'intelligent' but some exceed others, and whales are near the top. For that reason, I think they are particularly worth protecting as we may never find intelligent life out there in the universe, so we should look after all the life we do have. If anyone disagrees with that some how then so be it, I don't really give a damn. At the end of the day, this is an endangered species that should be protected. That's all that matters here. The intelligence debate is futile.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 9, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> I've spent a fair bit of time with all sorts of animals having worked at a zoo, seen many in the wild and owned pets of a few kinds. I've found there are animals that show intelligence that I wouldn't expect. Wolves are scarily smart, on a whole different level to dogs. I was intimidated by their intelligence.
> 
> I haven't spent time around whales unfortunately, or great apes for that matter, but I've seen a great deal of research to know we're only just scratching the surface of their intelligence. There are many animals that are intelligent and gain our respect as such, but it seems that whales and apes are of particular interest as they are very complex.
> 
> Yes, a lot of animals are 'intelligent' but some exceed others, and whales are near the top. For that reason, I think they are particularly worth protecting as we may never find intelligent life out there in the universe, so we should look after all the life we do have. If anyone disagrees with that some how then so be it, I don't really give a damn. At the end of the day, this is an endangered species that should be protected. That's all that matters here. The intelligence debate is futile.



Yeah, its gonna take more than this online debate to open our minds to each other`s view on animal intelligence and hierarchy. Lets just stick to the main reason we should protect them, which is the threat of extinction. Cheers.


----------



## SD83 (Jan 9, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> They also say that culling whales help preserve fish resources.


That is the kind of statement by such organizations that pisses me off to no end... the bigger whales don't even eat fish at all (although a lot of fish might eat the same plancton as the whales do). And even if they would... "Hey, the whales/cormorants/dolphins/sharks/etc eats OUR fish! Lets kill them!" Wtf? We can totally survive without eathing THEIR fish, they cannot survive if we eat all the fish, so if anything culling humans would help to preserve fish resources. If anything we should try to make sure there is enough fish remaining for those animals, not the other way around.
As for whales, Sea Sheppard and that stuff... I'm not too familiar with the actions & methods of Sea Sheppard, so I can't really say much about them. But the entire "eating whales (and don't forget tuna. Maybe not as smart, but at least as close to extinction, at least some species) is part of our culture" argument is just stupid  . Using tiger bones & horns of rhinos for medicine is part of some cultures too, at least a lot of people say that, so is carving sculptures out of ivory. Treating afro-americans (and other "races". The native Tasmanians were even hunted to extinction) like animals was part of a whole bunch of cultures as well, and accusing Jews for almost anything that went wrong. The mutilation of young girls is still part of some cultures. Is anything of this acceptable? Just because something bad is part of a culture it doesn't make it any better. And even if they do it because their ancestors did it, they should at least do it like the Inuit and do it as their ancestors did it.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 9, 2012)

SD83 said:


> That is the kind of statement by such organizations that pisses me off to no end... the bigger whales don't even eat fish at all (although a lot of fish might eat the same plancton as the whales do). And even if they would... "Hey, the whales/cormorants/dolphins/sharks/etc eats OUR fish! Lets kill them!" Wtf? We can totally survive without eathing THEIR fish, they cannot survive if we eat all the fish, so if anything culling humans would help to preserve fish resources. If anything we should try to make sure there is enough fish remaining for those animals, not the other way around.
> As for whales, Sea Sheppard and that stuff... I'm not too familiar with the actions & methods of Sea Sheppard, so I can't really say much about them. But the entire "eating whales (and don't forget tuna. Maybe not as smart, but at least as close to extinction, at least some species) is part of our culture" argument is just stupid  . Using tiger bones & horns of rhinos for medicine is part of some cultures too, at least a lot of people say that, so is carving sculptures out of ivory. Treating afro-americans (and other "races". The native Tasmanians were even hunted to extinction) like animals was part of a whole bunch of cultures as well, and accusing Jews for almost anything that went wrong. The mutilation of young girls is still part of some cultures. Is anything of this acceptable? Just because something bad is part of a culture it doesn't make it any better. And even if they do it because their ancestors did it, they should at least do it like the Inuit and do it as their ancestors did it.



Ohhh great. Exactly what this thread needed. Lets stay on topic about the whales/dolphins/sea shephards/Japanese fisherman/etc. The last thing I want is this thread to turn into a Megathread about humanity`s morals/doings and then the mods closing it cause its gonna blow.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 9, 2012)

I think basically, Sea Shepard are taking a harsh but extreme action against an industry that is making money from an unsustainable resource. In an ideal world, we'd be able to deal with this issue purely by negotiation and peaceful measures through groups like Greenpeace (who were actually founded by the now leader of Sea Shepard), however the Japanese have been unwilling to give in. Hopefully they do stop it sometime, and Sea Shepard won't be needed anymore (at least in the case of whaling), however until then they are having a positive impact in terms of reducing the number of whales killed.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 9, 2012)

Yay~.........

Japanese whaling ship &#039;lost&#039; by Australian Govt after stunt caught on video | Herald Sun

This is gonna be a looong year.


----------



## SD83 (Jan 9, 2012)

Iamasingularity said:


> Lets stay on topic about the whales/dolphins/sea shephards/Japanese fisherman/etc. The last thing I want is this thread to turn into a Megathread about humanity`s morals/doings


That was not my intention at all, I apologize if that is what came across. All I wanted to say is that I don't think whaling is acceptable and the argument that whaling/eating whales was part of their culture is not a valid argument in my opinion and why it isn't. That last part got a bit out of hand


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 9, 2012)

SD83 said:


> That was not my intention at all, I apologize if that is what came across. All I wanted to say is that I don't think whaling is acceptable and the argument that whaling/eating whales was part of their culture is not a valid argument in my opinion and why it isn't. That last part got a bit out of hand



No problem, just saying staying on topic is more productive for all of us.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 10, 2012)

Just in: 

Japan to release anti-whaling activists | News24


----------



## wlfers (Jan 10, 2012)

From the first article



> "I think the Australian government would be very embarrassed if an armed Japanese vessel can just pick up Australian citizens in Australia and then take them away to Japan," Captain Watson said from the _Steve Irwin_.


What!? You mean thankful that Australian citizens can board at night an armed security vessel, not get shot, and be safely returned home? Seems like quite a safety risk that the Japanese have to wait to find out if the dark figures boarding their ships at night are dangerous before pursuing action.

I think they should drop them off in the ocean where they found them.


----------



## Dave_Magos (Jan 10, 2012)

athawulf said:


> If we're going to protect whales because they, in their social intelligence, are so emotionally familiar to us, lets do it! But please, be consistent and don't harm any other "smart" animal then.




I can live with that.


----------



## Dave_Magos (Jan 10, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> At the end of the day, this is an endangered species that should be protected. That's all that matters here. The intelligence debate is futile.




I don't see it that way. I think the intelligence debate makes it all the more important.


----------



## Dave_Magos (Jan 10, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> I think basically, Sea Shepard are taking a harsh but extreme action against an industry that is making money from an unsustainable resource. In an ideal world, we'd be able to deal with this issue purely by negotiation and peaceful measures through groups like Greenpeace (who were actually founded by the now leader of Sea Shepard), however the Japanese have been unwilling to give in. Hopefully they do stop it sometime, and Sea Shepard won't be needed anymore (at least in the case of whaling), however until then they are having a positive impact in terms of reducing the number of whales killed.




I completely agree with you. If being sensible worked, Green Peace would have ended this long ago. What we are dealing with is arrogance and absolute selflessness.


----------



## Dave_Magos (Jan 10, 2012)

athawulf said:


> From the first article
> 
> What!? You mean thankful that Australian citizens can board at night an armed security vessel, not get shot, and be safely returned home? Seems like quite a safety risk that the Japanese have to wait to find out if the dark figures boarding their ships at night are dangerous before pursuing action.
> 
> I think they should drop them off in the ocean where they found them.




I know, its terrible. The Japanese Whalers should be left alone so they can continue to break International Law in peace...


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 10, 2012)

Dave_Magos said:


> I don't see it that way. I think the intelligence debate makes it all the more important.



It matters to me and you, but to others intelligence is irrelevant and so to use it as a defence to protect an animal is a waste of time. It just ends up overshadowing the issue and triggering debate instead of constructive commentary.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jan 10, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> Whales have their own language.


 
This is pretty far OT, I know, but I have to point out that that's at best debateable and at worst misleading. Given the commonly listed (if a bit dated by now, but that's for another discussion) aspects of human language, we know that there are some animals whose forms of communication share _some_ of those aspects, but none that share _all_ of them. For that reason, no animals have their own "language" as far as linguists would understand or define the term, though many have their own systems of communication that can be startlingly and fascinatingly complex. 

There is a separate field of study that studies "animal language," but it's more concerned with modeling human language using non-human animal systems, which is what is seen when a chimp is taught to understand signs or a Grey parrot is taught to recognize and vocalize words and concepts. Again it's wonderfully interesting stuff, but not the manifestation of actual language in animals.

I know that that's just getting into the semantics of "language" versus "communication," but I just happen to have a raging nerdboner for language and linguistics, so I felt like pointing that out .


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 10, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> This is pretty far OT, I know, but I have to point out that that's at best debateable and at worst misleading. Given the commonly listed (if a bit dated by now, but that's for another discussion) aspects of human language, we know that there are some animals whose forms of communication share _some_ of those aspects, but none that share _all_ of them. For that reason, no animals have their own "language" as far as linguists would understand or define the term, though many have their own systems of communication that can be startlingly and fascinatingly complex.
> 
> There is a separate field of study that studies "animal language," but it's more concerned with modeling human language using non-human animal systems, which is what is seen when a chimp is taught to understand signs or a Grey parrot is taught to recognize and vocalize words and concepts. Again it's wonderfully interesting stuff, but not the manifestation of actual language in animals.
> 
> I know that that's just getting into the semantics of "language" versus "communication," but I just happen to have a raging nerdboner for language and linguistics, so I felt like pointing that out .



You know what I mean aha.


----------



## wlfers (Jan 10, 2012)

Dave_Magos said:


> I know, its terrible. The Japanese Whalers should be left alone so they can continue to break International Law in peace...



That was exactly my point right? This discussion won't get anywhere if you assume anyone who disagrees with the tactics of the sea shepherds and pals must believe that the whalers should be left alone.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 11, 2012)

Well, well. Interesting stuff going on here. Ok I researched and found that low grade whale is about 3500yen(45$)/kilo. The good high grade stuff can go for 17000yen(210$)+/kilo. I swear, whale meat is the most reddest meat I`ve seen! Its kinda wierd.

Also Dave Magos, I would appreciate if you quoted everyone and stated your opinions in one post at a time. 

I hope the sea shepards will stop boarding ships like that, they can swim next to the boats if they want to, but breaching security and thinking the Japanese fishing boats won`t do shit is really stupid. They have liscensed weapons, handcuffs for emergencies. I`m really relieved that they were released that quick though with no hassle. The next time they do that they might not be so lucky....


----------



## noob_pwn (Jan 11, 2012)

Don't have time to read over the thread so this may have been mentioned but what irks me and a lot of other australians is the fact that the Japanese whaling fleet often takes whales from our sovereign waters near Antarctica in the southern ocean and our government doesn't have the backbone to do anything about it. If it wasn't for the sea shepherd + others I daresay they would get off scott free.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 11, 2012)

noob_pwn said:


> Don't have time to read over the thread so this may have been mentioned but what irks me and a lot of other australians is the fact that the Japanese whaling fleet often takes whales from our sovereign waters near Antarctica in the southern ocean and our government doesn't have the backbone to do anything about it. If it wasn't for the sea shepherd + others I daresay they would get off scott free.



I see what your saying. I don`t think thew whalers go into youe terretority to fish whales, unless you think Australia owns antarctic ocean, which I`m sure you don`t. There have been times where the whalers have come to close proximity to australian waters, but not times where they`ve been sitting there fishing. Also I don`t know what happened to your customs vessel? It seems that they`ve stationed it north of australia, and dropped the priority to watch over your waters. It might be that your government isn`t keen on dropping off trade relations with Japan to stop the whaling. 
Theres a cable, involving the US/Japan/Australia on a whale deal early in January last year. You might wanna look into that, wierd stuff.


----------



## Infinite Recursion (Jan 12, 2012)

Most of the whales taken are Minke whales, which are not anywhere close to endangered. I don't support the taking of critically endangered species. Species of a lesser concern would be fine if the catch was sustainable in terms of their overall growth (Iceland taking 10 whales of a non-critically endangered species is fine). There should be an open season on Minkes unless the demand rises to a level where the catch is unsustainable.




Explorer said:


> Is there anyone here who feels that the Sea Shepherds are in the wrong AND that the Japanese whalers in the right?



There is a legal justification for the Japanese whaling (albeit a quite stupid justification), there isn't for Sea Shepherd. Japan aren't on the boundary of the law, regardless of how tenuous the law is; Sea Shepherd are way over on the illegal side.


----------



## Iamasingularity (Jan 13, 2012)

Two views on the "Price of a whale":

Researchers propose putting whales up for bidding | Anchorage Daily News - The News Tribune

Putting a Price Tag on Whales Won't Save Them | Taryn Kiekow's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC


----------

