The hypocrisy of many anti-whalers

[buttons]

Found this opinion piece in The Age today:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/soc...1126-juhb.html

While I of course don't agree with the semi-support the author seems to lend to "scientific" whaling concerns in Japan and elsewhere, I thought he hit on something quite interesting. That is, the fact that many armchair anti-whaling folks here in Australia won't hesitate to scoff down fish without wondering about overfishing, or eat shark, or thoroughly ignore the encroaching extincton of many non-cute, 'unpopular' species of wildlife.

Just thought it was interesting, is all.

[hullabaloo]

I think the general gist of the article is true. Many people are passionately against the hunting of whales but will happily consume other mammals and fish. However, I do not like the way the article is implying that hunting non-endangered whales is actually ok. I am definitely against it. Here is some excerpts from an essay I wrote on the subject, it's not an anti-whaling essay but it might help to inform people on the facts:

" One of the main arguments put forward against whaling is that there is no available humane method to kill the whales. The welfare of whales has been, and continues to be, considered by the IWC. For example, in 1980 the IWC decided to prohibit the use of non-exploding harpoons. Although the minke whale was originally excluded from this it was soon after included (Gales et al. 2007). Thereafter, regular workshops have been held on humane killing methods and the associated welfare implications. However, whaling nations such as Norway and Japan have not provided sufficient data to the IWC on killing techniques, claiming that welfare issues are out with the competence of the organisation (Gales et al 2007). Therefore, the data that has been given relating to the killing of whales has largely been limited to time of death and the estimated number of animals who were perceived to die immediately (Gales et al. 2007). In 2006, independently acquired data from Greenpeace on the killing of minke whales in the Antarctic was reviewed at an IWC workshop on humane killing methods (Gales et al. 2007). Of 16 deaths witnessed the average time to death for whales that were not instantaneously killed was just less than 10 minutes, with two whales reportedly surviving for at least 25 minutes after being harpooned (Gales et al. 2007). In addition, in some cases the cause of death was determined as being due to asphyxiation rather than as a direct result from the harpoons used (Gales et al. 2007). The Japanese government challenged these findings claiming that the presence of Greenpeace vessels interfered with normal hunting procedures and therefore the data collected was not representative (Gales et al. 2007). Though the sample size seen in the Greenpeace data was small, which could therefore cause selective bias; it does give rise to the question whether or not current hunting techniques are efficient and humane. Pro-whaling countries have responded to the argument of humane killing by proposing that hunting whales is no different from hunting terrestrial mammals or the killing or farm animals for consumption. However, it begs the question- does killing justify killing?"

" Under the rules of the IWC Japan and Iceland are allowed to continue whaling in the form of scientific whaling, which is one exemption from the 1986 moratorium (IWC 2007b). However, this in itself has resulted in much heated debate and discussion. From 1987, Japan has implemented two scientific whaling programs in the North Pacific and Antarctic killing approximately 10,000 whales (Clapham et al. 2007). This figure nearly quadruples the total number of whales that were killed as part of scientific research conducted by all other nations since 1952 (Clapham et al. 2007). Anti-whaling nations have therefore argued that Japan’s scientific whaling is more likely commercial whaling in disguise as the meat of whales caught is generally sold (Morishita 2006). However, Japan has denied this claiming that any economic gain is used to support further research conducted in the following year (Morishita 2006). Furthermore, it is claimed that the total amount of proceeds made through the sale of whale meat is far less than the costs of research conducted. Any shortages in funding are therefore subsidized by the Japanese Government (Morishita 2006). One could question Japan’s need to kill far more whales than any other nation in the name of science and whether it was justified. Furthermore, scientific data can nowadays be collected from whales without the need for killing. So is killing in the name of science truly necessary?"

" In 1993-1994, Soviet whaling records were controversially made public by a scientist working aboard the ship (Craig 2008). In the 1960’s one ship reported the catch of 152 humpbacks and 156 blue whales. However, it was revealed that the true catch totalled 7,207 humpbacks, 1,433 blue whales and 717 right whales (Craig 2008). Furthermore, the total number of humpback catches reported in the southern hemisphere post- war was 2,700. The reality, however, was closer to 48,000 humpbacks (Craig 2008). This clearly shows that although regulations are in place they are difficult to enforce. So until these issues are resolved the reintroduction of commercial whaling could potentially have disastrous consequences. These figures also do not take into account the hundreds of whales that are killed through by-catch annually, which would ultimately increase the numbers quoted (Craig 2008)."

[This I find absolutely shocking!!!]


Has anyone ever seen the tv programme "Whale wars?" There are people out there that feel so passionate about this issue they put themselves at risk in an attempt to enforce whaling regulations: http://www.seashepherd.org/

[LuVegan15]

Being vegan, though, I assume we're all against every form of animal expoitation and cruelty. Of course these poor whales shouldn't be being hunted. No animal deserves death.

One of the main arguments put forward against whaling is that there is no available humane method to kill the whales.

Out of the billions of "farm" animals raised and slaughtered annually, not a very large percentage are actually killed in what one might deem a "humane" fashion. 99% of livestock animals raised in the US are done so intensively, and slaughtered without compassion. The production lines in slaughterhouses run so fast that the "job" is hardly ever done sufficiently, causing the animals to suffer a frightfully distressing and painful death. Just like with whales, there's no "humane" way to get the job done properly with the attitudes we currently have to non-human animals. Although peoples' perceptions of animals are changing I think in some areas and in some ways, it's not enough for the "average" person to see the fault in consuming meat. Perhaps it's because they don't know what's happening in the industries. A lot are unaware of just how bad and frankly disturbing the statistics, figures and methods are, but they DO know that they're eating a dead animal. Where someone understands that what they're consuming had to be killed in order for its "meat" to reach their plate, they have to take responsibility. Most people don't want to do so, however, and that's where the ignorance really begins. When they know that something's terribly wrong but they don't want to do anything about it.

Of 16 deaths witnessed the average time to death for whales that were not instantaneously killed was just less than 10 minutes, with two whales reportedly surviving for at least 25 minutes after being harpooned.

Most livestock animals have to suffer their whole lives stuck in massive, intensive feedlots, where they have no space to walk around in and sometimes even move. That's up to years of suffering for them, and then they face a horrible death like the rest. What the author of the article buttons posted was trying to say was that humans are largely prejudice to animals, and view those who are more appealing or "cuter" as more worthy of life, and also the animals which humans feel they can relate to the most as more deserving for compassion and empathy. I think that's very, very sad. It's like, the animals who're raised and killed in the commercial meat, dairy, egg, leather, fur, etc, industries, aren't usually killed instantaneously either. In most cases they're made to suffer way longer than the whales who are murdered. We're all equal, and I feel that if those who protest against whaling sit down each night eating farm animals or fish, they're irreconcilably hypocritical.

In the 1960’s one ship reported the catch of 152 humpbacks and 156 blue whales. However, it was revealed that the true catch totalled 7,207 humpbacks, 1,433 blue whales and 717 right whales (Craig 2008). Furthermore, the total number of humpback catches reported in the southern hemisphere post- war was 2,700. The reality, however, was closer to 48,000 humpbacks.

This is absolutely horrible, of course. It sickens me that people could do this in the name of anything. As stated, there's no need to kill for scientific research. I believe they only do it for commercial benefit and to keep those who actually participate in the whaling employed. There can be no justification for what we do to animals, none at all. Not in the name of science or even survival, because what gives us the right to take another life? What makes us any better than the whales or chickens or tuna we kill? It's terrible that so much discrimination can be seen in the world, and animals are at the top of the list.

[greenspex]

There's no need to kill for anything, scientific research or food or clothing. It all comes down to death though - we as a species kill because we think it will enable us to live longer ourselves.

Until we can accept our own mortality, make peace with it and integrate it into our everyday lives, culture and way of interacting with other beings, we will always seek to dominate and belittle the life of another because we see it as "other". We see ourselves as separate and mortal and having a supreme self-centred right to sustain that identity even at the expense of another's life.

At least as vegans, we are further down the road towards that integration I guess than non-vegans. Just gotta keep walking...

[vegcurry]

^

[sandra]

At least as vegans, we are further down the road towards that integration I guess than non-vegans. Just gotta keep walking...

I hope we are Greenspex.

[greenspex]

I hope we are Greenspex.

Yeah. . . I know what you mean . . *hug*

[veganese]

This article wouldn't exist if the whole population was vegan...

[Johnstuff]

I hope SeaShepherd sink all the f*ckers. Makes me so mad how some people just don't get how f'd up they really are.

[emzy1985]

I was watching Whale Wars on the Discovery Channel for a while. Well atleast until the last episode when half the crew got off the ship and stated that they were going to go and get steaks because the ship was vegan. It made me fucking sick!