June 16 Sources: Are the Whales Saved Yet?

An interesting article discusses the whaling ban. Whale populations have increased and some species, such as the minke are abundant. Should whales be treated like other animals, protected when rare, but hunted when common? Or is there something special about them that means that they should never be hunted? Other sources are linked below.

News Quiz

A Curiously Clintonian Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy
A New Eurasia?: The Future of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
America and the War on Terrorism
Americans to Rest of World: Soccer Not Really Our Thing
America's Image Slips, But Allies Share U.S. Concerns Over Iran, Hamas
Civil Society in Iraq at Work Amid the War
Democrats Struggling with Iraq Policy
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background, Status, and Issues
Getting Real on Air Pollution and Health
How to Think Sensibly about Global Warming
Iraq Index
The Dems Will Lose

Podcasts & Audio

Is Freedom for Everyone
Global Politics of Oil


Posted by Jack at June 16, 2006 10:40 PM
Comments
Comment #158572

Suggested Republican 2008 Campaign motto:

Nuke the gay baby whales for Jesus

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 17, 2006 12:20 AM
Comment #158573

I believe that whales like any other animal should be managed. If the numbers of a certain species drops to an unacceptable level ban hunting them for a while. If the numbers start getting unacceptably high up the bag limit for a while.
For about 10 years wild turkey hunting was ban in parts of Georgia because the populations were to low. The birds made a comeback and now can be hunted in the whole state. Last season we were able to bag 5 birds in most of South Georgia while the rest of the state only had a 3 bird limit. The reason, the population was getting to high around here.
I believe the same kind of management isn’t out of order for whales.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 17, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #158581

Ron,
Suppose animals are intelligent? Suppose they are self-aware? Bottlenose dolphins have already demonstrated self-awareness in controlled experiments. In general, Cetaceans have large brains and exhibit some remarkable behaviors. Humpbacks from one group sing the same long song to each other, and slowly change it from year to year. Whales & dolphins also demonstrate complex social behaviors.

Whale perception is very different from human perception. While we concentrate upon visual perception & dedicate most of our brain to processing the visual, whales concentrate upon aural perception. They perceive the world three dimensionally through echolocation.

It is possible this kind of perceptual orientation could involve a sense of self which we cannot understand.

Maybe not. But it seems wrong to kill a possibly intelligent, self-aware creature in the name of “management.”

Posted by: phx8 at June 17, 2006 12:55 AM
Comment #158586

If we manage them properly their blubber could become the perfect renewable energy source the libs are always seeking. :-)

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 17, 2006 1:17 AM
Comment #158587

phx8:

al-Zarqawi was a possibly intelligent, self aware creature too. And, he was “managed” for the benefit of humankind by a pair of 500-pounders.

I don’t think I’ll miss him at all. :-)

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 17, 2006 1:22 AM
Comment #158592

Who wouldn’t seek a renewable energy source??? This is a BAD thing?

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 17, 2006 1:43 AM
Comment #158594

Whale at a comedy club: “Whew, I just flew in from the Indian Ocean, and boy, and my fins tired!” Rimshot. (Waves fins in a flying motion).

Such jokes a breach of etiquette. If they are funny, it is a fluke, a product of disorcanized thinking. But with all that blubber, really, whales should be called “leviafats.” So this whale swims up to a sandbar with a guy hanging onto his tail, and the whale says to the bartender “Call him Ishmael.” And the bartender says “Whenever it is a dark Decemberist night you should play Revenge of the Ancient Mariner…”

Posted by: phx8 at June 17, 2006 1:46 AM
Comment #158684

“al-Zarqawi was a possibly intelligent, self aware creature too. And, he was “managed” for the benefit of humankind by a pair of 500-pounders.”

I want to see a whale holding a AK-47.

Posted by: Rocky at June 17, 2006 7:48 AM
Comment #158707

Did you know Dolphin’s have names for each other and have sex for pleasure?
Is it possible that there is more to learn about these sea creatures?
What is a whales effect on the ecology of the ocean? Unless you can answer these questions I would support the whaling ban. What the hell does Japan need to kill whales for? What do we need to kill these for, i mean sonar and and ocean pollution seem to be “managing” them enough.

Posted by: stopculture at June 17, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #158734

phx8
If whales are so smart then why do they beach themselves?
I don’t believe that they’re any more intelligent than any other animal. Birds communicate with each other. That’s what their calls are. Have you ever heard a buck and a doe calling each other during mating season?
I believe that the super intelligents given whales and dolphins is something made up by enviors to try to stop the hunting of them.
If we don’t manage wildlife then nature will. And nature isn’t as human about it as we are. We’ll shoot them and they die fast. Nature just let’s them starve to death.


I want to see a whale holding a AK-47.

Posted by: Rocky at June 17, 2006 07:48 AM

I’d like to see a whale build a house.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 17, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #158757

Ron,
Why do you assume that another intelligent being would have the same priorities we do? Humans commmit suicide more often than whales beach themselves. Maybe not needing to build a house or hold an AK-47 is a sign of superior intelligence…

Whales could never be practical as a source of renewable energy. They don’t reproduce as often, their gestational period is too long, and they eat too much. If you could harvest human fat, that would be more practical. Just kidding.

Posted by: Loren at June 17, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #158775

let the native people in the arctic,bag a few whales for their survival,what use does a hunted and killed whale have? we don’t burn the oil for lamps anymore. whale meat, it tastes like chicken, so eat a chicken. does the dried liver give you more libido? another myth. is it A thrill to shoot A explosive tipped harpoon in to the head of a 100 ft. 140 ton Blue whale? that’s about as sporting as antlers on a cow during deer season. hey if your that hungry to Eat A endangered species ,Eat Godzilla and Rodan And Mothra.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 17, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #158795

Rodney

I does not taste like chicken. More like veal. And they don’t want to hunt blue whales. They are mostly after minke whales. And the native peoples of the Arctic (which includes Norwegians) are sometimes less interested in the actual whales than in the damage they do to fish populations. And minke are not endangered.

Posted by: Jack at June 17, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #158800

Jack , the cod was the staple food for a thousand years. until they were “overfished” I see the northern Minke might eat some of the very small cod. but that is not what caused their demise. they said that about the California Sea Otter, damn little critters eat all the Abalone. now they can farm Abalone. and the Haddock and pollack fish seem to be still in very large numbers up their. i know they don’t smoke or preserve as well as the cod fish.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 17, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #158827

Loren
My comment about whales building houses was just me being a smart ass.
And you’ll never hear my claim that humans are very intelligent either. I’ve worked with the public to much to believe that.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 17, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #158859

Ok lets practice on some minke whales (which are no longer endangered) Store up the meat and go get some Godzilla and Rodan And Mothra. Once we get these guys we’ll just be sure not to share with the libbies. For if we offer they will scream we killed and are eating an now extinct animal. Myself I think I would preferr to hunt the old fashion way. But if the exploding harpoon is all that is avilible. I would hunt that way as will. May be like deer hunting. If the chase goes on too long it ruins the taste of the meat.

Posted by: sam at June 18, 2006 1:54 AM
Comment #158879

sam,

“May be like deer hunting. If the chase goes on too long it ruins the taste of the meat.”

You might think that if the chase goes on too long you’re not much of a hunter.

Posted by: Rocky at June 18, 2006 8:28 AM
Comment #158894

Jack,

There is something VERY special about whales that makes hunting them a bad idea no matter how abundent they are or what species you are referring to:

THEY BREED VERY SLOWLY

Posted by: RGF at June 18, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #158945

RGF

You cannot hunt too many whales. Not many people really intend to do it. The commmercial market for whale products is very small. It is more of a cultural enterprise.

There are plenty of minke whales. Blue whales are still rare.

Hunting whales is not a passion of mine either for or against. As a general rule, we should not hunt animals into extinction. Evidently some types of whales are common, like minke. Some are rare, such as blue.

Posted by: Jack at June 18, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #158947

Jack,

I place the necessity of hunting of whales in the same category as redwood hot tubs.

What is the point?

These are both totally unnecessary, other than for vanity.

Are so vain as a species that we still need these type of trophies?

Posted by: Rocky at June 18, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #159019

Frenchs to Rest of World: Soccer Not Really Our Thing Anymore.
;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 19, 2006 5:50 AM
Comment #159020
I want to see a whale holding a AK-47.

Since when holding a gun a proof of intelligence???

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 19, 2006 5:55 AM
Comment #159021

Let’s hope Dick Cheney won’t go hunting whales!!!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 19, 2006 5:58 AM
Comment #159083

Rocky

Whale hunting is not my thing. Those who do hunt do so for cultural reasons. I don’t think there is significant profit in the venture. They are all “native peoples” doing their traditional thing. (We don’t often think of them that way, but there are no more native people than Norwegians, who moved in as the ice of the last ice age retreated and have been there ever since.)

If they want to do it, and there is no shortage of the type of whale they want to hunt, I would let them. It is the same as a hottub. I would not have one of my own, but I don’t care if others do.

Posted by: Jack at June 19, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #159088

Jack,

My point about the hot tub is that they can be built from other materials than redwood, but it seems to be a status symbol thing to have one from the real deal.

While there are references to whaling in Japan dating back to the eighth century, whaling as a primary source for food didn’t truly start until after WW2. It was a cheap source of protein.

There are other sources for this protein just as there are other sources for hot tub material.

Also, I just saw an article about the indiscriminate hunting and killing of sharks, mainly for “shark fin soup” which fetches $100 a bowl in China.

I believe there should be a balance in all things. Nature was balanced before man ever arrived, and will regain that balance only when man comes to his senses, or becomes extinct himself, which ever comes first.

Posted by: Rocky at June 19, 2006 11:27 AM
Comment #159093

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/world/middleeast/19enviro.html?th&emc=th

Still winning hearts and minds worldwide. While all his cronies are struck by his apparent environmental benevolence, his lack of any tangable plan in Iraq is going to cancel out everything he could possibly do right.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 19, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #159096

oh…even better:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/opinion/19mon3.html?th&emc=th

Now, can all the posters who praised Bush for his apparent environmental insight please stand up and allow us all to kick them right in the ass. I can’t believe you even considered that he cared.

I’m frankly amazed he worked for like 3 days straight without going to back to Crawford for some R&R. Nice standards we hold our president to: he literally threw us a bone, and like dogs (faithful and obediant to the end) some snatched it up and proudly buried it.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 19, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #159100

Gee, it kind of makes you wonder what nature ever did to repair itself before man got here.

Posted by: Rocky at June 19, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #159118

Well Rocky,

I’m just not so sure the Dinosaurs were capable of drilling and pumping out trillions of gallons of fossile fuels (although I’m sure they contributed by BEING the fossils). It took hundreds of millions of years to create, and we exploited it in a little under 2 centuries. Nothing better to some people than making history and setting records. (Woohoo, humans are #1)

But the reality is, I’m not worried about the Earth. It will eventually be absorbed into the sun and lost forever. I just worry about everything in between…you know, OUR ability to live here.

Posted by: Kevin23 at June 19, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #159157
Suggested Republican 2008 Campaign motto:

Nuke the gay baby whales for Jesus

Not quite there yet. How about:

Nuke the gay, immigrant baby whales for Jesus

Yeah, that hits all the right notes.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at June 19, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #159162

How about;

Nuke the gay, immigrant Iranian baby whales for Jesus.

Posted by: Rocky at June 19, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #159213

Rocky

Nature is never in balance. It is one big statistical process in a state of constant flux. Have you been up to Grand Coulee? You know that was formed by the breakup of a giant ice dam that quickly drained a great lake sized body of water and flooded everything and then left it dry or what about Lake Bonneville. You can still see the water marks on mountains hundreds of feet about Salt Lake City. Which is the balance, the large fresh water lake or the desert?

It is just that w/o man around to watch, nobody cares is millions of acres are inundated and then dried out and nobody notices when species become extinct. It is not a balance, just indifference.

Re redwood. It depend on where you get the redwood. Redwood is a fast growing tree that responds to a variety of conditions. You can farm redwood. If redwood is coming from tree farms, nobody should care. If they are knocking down 2000 year old trees, it should be a concern. Moderation in all things.

Norwegians have been whaling for at least 1200 years, when we find the first direct reference. It is unlikely they recorded the very first hunt.

BTW - no point in nuking whales. It would probably spoil the meat.

Posted by: Jack at June 19, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #159243

Jack,

You said:

“You cannot hunt too many whales.”

Uh…history has clearly proven that wrong.

You also said:

“The commercial market for whale products is very small.”

Well, it didn’t used to be! Piano keys, lamp-oil for houses and street lights, lubricant for machinery, just to name of a few of the bigger sources of demand. Since those days the population of the world has grown exponentially. What do you suppose would happen if the market for whale products should suddenly become legal and re-open?

Why is the most basic factual analysis so difficult for so many conservatives?

Hmmmm?

Posted by: RGF at June 19, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #159254

RGF

You missed my point. I meant that you can’t hunt too many whale in the sense that you should not hunt too many whales. The context is important.

If you read carefully, you will understand that I specifically say that we should not over hunt any species. I don’t advocate hunting whales at all. I just don’t care much about the issue. My point is that IF there are sufficent numbers, those who want can hunt them, as we do with deer, turkey etc.

I don’t anticipate much of a market for whale products anyway. Lamp oil? For streetlights? Where I live we use electricity for such things. In fact, kerosene replaced whale oil even for those things more than a century ago.

Posted by: Jack at June 19, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #159280

Jack,

Yes we can all be thankful that the modern world has found alternatives to whale products.

I guess I agee with you about the issue then. I have problem with the innuit doing bare sustainence whale hunting. That isn’t the problem.

Posted by: RGF at June 19, 2006 7:35 PM
Comment #159310

There is absolutely nothing we need that we can only get from hunting whales. There’s no scientific reason for it either.

The only issue then is whether something is justified because it’s “traditional.” However, people who want to continue doing bad things always use the “tradition” or “culture” excuse, like the slave-owners in the 1800s. Japan should just accept that the modern world finds harpooning whales disgusting and find something else to do. Bad traditions need to stop.

Posted by: john at June 19, 2006 9:29 PM
Comment #159425

Jack,

“Nature is never in balance. It is one big statistical process in a state of constant flux.”

Nature “is” balance.

Newton proved it.

Darwin showed it true in the “The Origin of Species”

A plant takes in a deadly gas and produces oxygen.

Nature adapts/evolves.

“Which is the balance, the large fresh water lake or the desert?”

Both.
Nature is dynamic, and the very changes that occur is a constant balancing act.

The “Laws of Physics” dictate balance.

Posted by: Rocky at June 20, 2006 5:34 AM
Post a comment