Save the whales!

edited May 2010 in General Chat
Legal whale slaughter

Dear friends,

The International Whaling Commission has just unveiled a proposal to legalize commercial whale hunting for the first time in 24 years.

Countries are now deciding their first responses -- and they're watching public reaction closely. New Zealand called its provisions -- which include a legal quota for hunting endangered fin whales -- "offensive," "unacceptable," and "inflammatory." But other key nations are rumoured to be leaning in support of it. They need to hear from us now.

Avaaz has launched an urgent petition to show our leaders their people want to protect whales, not hunt, kill, and sell them. The petition is being sent to the International Whaling Commission each time it reaches another 100,000 signatures -- sign here and forward this message:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/whales_under_threat/98.php?CLICKTF

A strong international consensus has opposed whaling for decades -- but for just as long, Japan, Norway, and Iceland have continued to hunt whales, ignoring the global ban on whaling or exploiting a loophole by claiming their expeditions were "scientific research." Now they could be rewarded by this "compromise" proposal, in which their commercial whaling would be made legal in exchange for unenforceable promises to slowly reduce their yearly catch.

Worse still, a number of other countries are watching the process closely in hopes of launching their own whaling programs. If Japan, Norway, and Iceland can hunt whales and sell their meat, others will ask "if them, why not us?"

It's time to save the whales -- again. The IWC proposal will be voted up or down by country delegates this June, but their positions are hardening fast -- let's respond massively, right away, everywhere. Click below and forward this message to oppose the legalization of commercial whale hunting:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/whales_under_threat/98.php?CLICKTF

Forty years ago, whales were on the brink of extinction. But thanks to a global social movement, the world banned commercial whaling in 1986. The ban is one of the environmental movement's great triumphs.

Today, whales still face many threats: not just the whalers' harpoons, but also climate change, destruction of ecosystems by overfishing and pollution, and nets intended for other fish. A renewed wave of commercial whaling could devastate these extraordinarily intelligent and social cousins of humanity. This is no time to move backwards.

Comments

  • edited April 2010
    Well, just to clarify here, Norway and Iceland have not ignored the moratorium on whaling, it simple chose to take exception from it, as they and any other nation had the right to do when this moratorium was put in place. Japan, however, signed the deal, and have since hunted whale under claim of scientific research, a lot of which they also conduct, but it is no secret that the reason they do it is because it's perfectly acceptable to sell the meat as food.

    That said, it is high time to allow for the continuation of whaling. Whales were hunted to the brink of extinction, like other species before it because of a lack of control with qoutas. The whaling Norway and Iceland conduct now are on species of whale that are not threatened, and in qoutas (that are rarely, if ever filled) that are adjusted each year to account for variables in breeding. There is simply put no valid reason to not allow whaling in controlled forms any longer, but of course only on species of whale that are not threatened by it. Again this won't be a problem, because the hunting that caused the near extinction of certain species of whale was for their oil. The world has since moved on, naturally. The only hunting of whale happening at the moment is for food, and all other potential whaling would also be for food.

    Whale meat is delicious. You guys are missing out. There are no rational arguments for not allowing whaling. If you oppsose all hunting of animals, I can at least understand that argument, but if that's the case, try to sell me on that and not some save the whales rubbish. Go tell someone you support whaling instead and help fight the good fight against irrational people everywhere.
  • edited April 2010
    I could eat a whole whale with good conscience. I would have preserved tons of other species just by doing so :D
  • edited April 2010
    Somehow I get the feeling that an organization called the "International Whaling Commission" isn't going to care about any petitions sent to it. If you want a chance of making a difference, write your own country's legislators.
  • edited April 2010
    WarpSpeed wrote: »
    Somehow I get the feeling that an organization called the "International Whaling Commission" isn't going to care about any petitions sent to it. If you want a chance of making a difference, write your own country's legislators.

    Actually, the International Whaling Commision instigated the moratorium on whaling, and it's pretty much their call whether or not to allow it again. The moratorium was needed at the time, many species of whale was hunted to near-extinction, but there simply is no need to keep such a moratorium any longer for non-endagered species of whale.
  • edited April 2010
    It's a conflict of interests for me, I don't wanna see whales die by any means. But if I ever get the chance to eat whale meat i'm game (the poor thing's already dead, it'd be a waste not to in my head)

    I'd say the whaling commision cares about whale numbers, no whales means no whaling, but i'm sure the numbers are a hell of a lot off from what they were.

    In short, I have no idea what i'm talking about, but i'd probably eat whale meat and then feel guilty about it
  • edited April 2010
    While I don't know anyone there, I am pretty sure that there are many good people in Wales. Thus I agree to save it. After all, we wouldn't want an innocent Welsh to die, right?

    Welshie.jpg
  • edited April 2010
    A petition to show the leaders they don't want it to happen? It'll never work. People will still buy whale meat. If all the Veggies in the UK made a petition against Beef, that wouldn't be banned. Not justifying it or anything, just saying that a petition will have little effect (affect?)
  • edited April 2010
    Friar wrote: »
    A petition to show the leaders they don't want it to happen? It'll never work. People will still buy whale meat. If all the Veggies in the UK made a petition against Beef, that wouldn't be banned. Not justifying it or anything, just saying that a petition will have little effect (affect?)

    Effect. Affect (as a noun) means feeling. As verbs, affect means to influence (which results in an effect. I know, not very straightforward). To affect can also mean to fake. To effect means to accomplish.

    Most of the time though, effect is a noun (an effect = a result) and affect is a verb.
  • edited April 2010
    I agree!
    SHAVE THE WHALES!
    Their hair has been cloggin' up my drain for much too long...
  • edited April 2010
    Avistew wrote: »
    Effect. Affect (as a noun) means feeling. As verbs, affect means to influence (which results in an effect. I know, not very straightforward). To affect can also mean to fake. To effect means to accomplish.

    Most of the time though, effect is a noun (an effect = a result) and affect is a verb.

    That's what i thought (and generally do), but i always end up self-doubting myself!
  • edited April 2010
    Regardless, petitions don't have much influence on government workers who aren't elected by the people. Especially Internet petitions from organizations who, for all you know, just made up the last 20 million or so names.

    What does work? Actual well-written, thought-out letters are good. And petitions do work when presented to elected officials, when they have some sway on the people who do make the decisions. (Especially when said elected officials are putting together budgets.)
  • edited April 2010
    If you want people to stop killing whales then there has to be no demand for products made of whales. Whaling continues on, despite it being very very unpopular. The best way to make a point is with your wallet
  • puzzleboxpuzzlebox Telltale Alumni
    edited April 2010
    JedExodus wrote: »
    The best way to make a point is with your wallet

    That doesn't work in this case though, because the people who want whaling to stop are not the same people creating a market for whale meat.

    You're right, to an extent - the way to stop whaling is to make it an essentially unprofitable venture. The problem is that whales are a communal resource, and different parts of the community (i.e. different parts of the world) have conflicting priorities when it comes to use of the shared resource: the U.S. want to conserve it, Japan wants to exploit it for financial gain (obviously there are other countries involved, but I'll use these two as examples for simplicity's sake).

    Since there is an existing market for whale meat, and that is unlikely to change in the near term, how can we find a balance (beyond a total moratorium or a top-down quota system)? The economic solution is broadly, as you said, to make whaling less profitable. There are three economic instruments we could use to achieve this: taxes, subsidies, and marketable permits.
    • Taxes - charge countries (whalers) a tax for every whale they kill over and above a small limit. This probably wouldn't work because the same countries that advocate whaling would never agree to it.
    • Subsidies - actually PAY countries not to kill whales in the first place, with the subsidy reduced for every whale that is killed (with a hard limit/ban on further whaling when the subsidy reaches zero). Paying countries not to whale probably wouldn't work, because the people directly receiving funds (the government) are not the people profiting by killing whales, and where would the money come from anyway?
    • Marketable permits - give each country a quota for whaling, but allow them to SELL their quota to other countries. This would allow countries like the U.S. to buy quota from countries like Japan, and then simply never fill it, thus conserving whales at a fair market value.

    I don't think any of these would really work, or at least they are unlikely to be implemented any time soon. But the same systems can generally be applied to any environmental problem where conflicting economic interests exist.

    While we're on the subject: bluefin tuna, various sharks, and many corals are also endangered, but they lack the cuddly popular appeal of cetaceans so no one could really be arsed about them.

    tl;dr - yay environmental economics.
  • edited April 2010
    Joop wrote: »
    I agree!
    SHAVE THE WHALES!
    Their hair has been cloggin' up my drain for much too long...

    Why do so many Dutch sound like Sean Connery when they try to talk English :D

    Though I've never actually seen a whale, I think they are majestic creatures and a species that deserves to outlive us. But I don't know about the effectiveness of these saving-campaigns. The people that really can make a difference will always go ahead with how they're doing things. It's their nature, and how sad it is I don't think there's any changing that. Doesn't mean the rest should give up the fight, though. And I have no ideas for new battle strategies, either. Other than kidnap-and-brainwash operations.
  • edited April 2010
    Ironically bluefin tuna, the larger species of sharks and some species of whales are also full of mercury, so eating too much of them on a regular basis carries the risk of serious neurological damage. People are literally fighting for the right to eat poisonous meat.
  • edited April 2010
    puzzlebox wrote: »
    tl;dr - yay environmental economics.

    Then I propose we arm the whales and give them a fighting chance!

    Anyways, we've been ruining the whales life since we started putting boats into the oceans. Whales used to be able to communicate ridiculously long distance, thousands upon thousands of kilometres. Now with all the noise in the ocean from shipping traffic they can only communicate over about 40km or so*

    *not exact figures at all, but it's true!!
  • edited April 2010
    JedExodus wrote: »
    Then I propose we arm the whales and give them a fighting chance!

    Oh yeah, whales with "laser beams"! Take THAT, pesky drifting icebergs!
  • edited April 2010
    It's time to save the whales -- again. The IWC proposal will be voted up or down by country delegates this June, but their positions are hardening fast -- let's respond massively,
  • edited April 2010
    Lena_P wrote: »
    People are literally fighting for the right to eat poisonous meat.
    But...I'm hungry. :(
  • edited April 2010
    Lena_P wrote: »
    Ironically bluefin tuna, the larger species of sharks and some species of whales are also full of mercury, so eating too much of them on a regular basis carries the risk of serious neurological damage.

    That explains a lot.
  • edited April 2010
    This is very sad. I dislike the hunting of any endangered species.
  • edited April 2010
    Especially when wild salmon is so tasty and not likely to cause birth defects.
  • edited April 2010
    I don't know what makes dolphins and whales so special. Sure, they're smart, but they're not human. They are no different from cows and chickens.
  • edited April 2010
    SAVINWHALES.jpg

    SAVED. THE PROBLEM IS NOW OVER.
  • edited April 2010
    Strong Max wrote: »
    I don't know what makes dolphins and whales so special. Sure, they're smart, but they're not human. They are no different from cows and chickens.

    The difference is that there aren't many of them. They are also cuter than cows and chickens and look better on posters.

    My feeling is both dolphins and whales play an integral part in the ocean ecology and getting rid of them might affect the ecosystem in ways that we can't predict, ways that might also affect humans (negatively). It is simply safer for everyone to preserve the status quo. You could easily use the same argument for preserving sea otters which, by the way, are much more important to the ecosystem and are in much more danger.

    Cows and chickens don't really play much of a part in the ecosystem anymore, and we breed huge numbers of them anyway, so there is little danger of extinction.
  • edited April 2010
    SAVINWHALES.jpg

    SAVED. THE PROBLEM IS NOW OVER.

    We're trying to save whales, not submarines. It's not even yellow.
  • edited April 2010
    There are quite a few organizations working on sea otter preservation as well, at least in California, but they're local efforts and local populations. The larger marine life travels far greater distances and are not limited to a single nation's jurisdiction, which is why international agreements are so necessary. All nations should have the right to help decide how we take care of our oceans.

    Whales and dolphins actually aren't the only animals environmental groups are interested in, but because there has been coverage on them in the past they're better known than other endangered forms of marine life.

    Also, to "stop" hunting a few species is a far less complicated solution than say ... figuring out what the heck we can do about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
  • edited April 2010
    Exactly, they look good on posters....although I suppose otters would, too.

    I think my bio professor might have been involved with one of those "save the otter" groups; we must have spent at least two lectures talking about otters.

    Pollution is definitely an issue-- which leads to global warming, which I don't believe is quite as drastic as the hype says, but still pretty important to a lot of species that can't survive even small temperature changes (coral reefs).
  • TorTor
    edited April 2010
    Strong Max wrote: »
    I don't know what makes dolphins and whales so special. Sure, they're smart, but they're not human. They are no different from cows and chickens.
    I think that a lot of people feel that it's not right to eat animals with a certain level of intelligence. The implication being that the pain, stress and discomfort of being killed is much worse for an intelligent being--especially if they're intelligent enough to be self-aware. I.e. killing apes, whales, cats or dogs for food is wrong, while dumb animals like cows and chickens are OK because they don't have a high enough level of awareness to feel that much pain or stress.

    I'm not sure I agree 100% with this point of view, but I definitely see their point. It's a lot easier to sympathize with an intelligent animal.
  • edited May 2010
    Maybe it's because there's a difference (for many people) between eating farmed animals and wild ones, especially wild ones that are killed inhumanely.
  • edited May 2010
    What about horses? I know it's actually illegal in America (some or all states?) but Belgium has an entire industry. I remember as a kid, when we had steak at home it was usually horse. That's been years, though, and I no longer eat it.
  • edited May 2010
    Aren't horse hooves still a major component of gelatine?
  • edited May 2010
    jp-30 wrote: »
    Aren't horse hooves still a major component of gelatine?

    Depends. Gelatine can be made with all sorts of crap. Eyes, bones, intestines... Usually from pigs though, I remember that my muslim friends couldn't have stuff with gelatine because of that. They could have kosher gelatin though, which is made with fish I believe.
  • edited May 2010
    @Tor
    Maybe it has to do with respect of life, long term self preservation or just the pure enjoyment of variety of life and therefore you only should kill those who you really need to and less because it's some sort of stubborn tradition in the country you're living in.

    Don't safe the whales, just leave them alone and let them do their whales things.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.