The Great Southern Whale Slaughter: The Price of the Green Obsession with CO2?

suntanning whale

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Guardian reports that Japan this year killed more than 300 whales, for “research” purposes. Australia and New Zealand are criticised for not attempting to prevent whaling in the Australian whale sanctuary. But the whale slaughter has hardly raised a flicker of attention in Australia. Aussie green groups are obsessed with CO2.

According to The Guardian;

Japan admits to killing more than 300 whales in Southern Ocean

Four ships were sent to the Antarctic region over a period of 115 days from 1 December last year and killed 333 minke whales.

The Australian government in December described Japan’s decision to resume whaling over the summer as “deeply disappointing” and insisted it raised concerns at the highest level of the Japanese government.

It had said it would consider sending a customs patrol vessel to the Southern Ocean and explore options for legal action.

But the conservation group Sea Shepherd in February said the Japanese fleet had faced little or no scrutiny over the summer and Australia and New Zealand seemed unwilling to send a ship to intercept them.

Sea Shepherd Australia’s managing director, Jeff Hansen, said: “Once again false promises from the Australian and New Zealand governments have resulted in whales being killed illegally in the Australian Whale Sanctuary.

“The majority of Australians wanted the Australian government to send a vessel to oppose the slaughter. They did not.”

The Australian Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson said the government had turned its back on Japan’s “sickening” illegal activity.

“Not in 40 years has an Australian government done so little to prevent whaling on our watch and in our waters,” he said.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/25/japan-admits-to-killing-more-than-300-whales-in-southern-ocean

The Australian government recently provided a billion dollars for renewables startups, but Australia can’t or won’t provide a few million dollars, to outfit an official expedition to the Antarctic Ocean, to prevent thinly disguised commercial whale hunting in the Australian controlled whale “sanctuary”.

If greens focussed on real issues, like preventing the outrageous ongoing slaughter of these gentle giants, instead of frittering away their time and capital, trying to reduce emissions of a harmless trace gas, there might be a lot less whale blood in the world’s oceans.

232 thoughts on “The Great Southern Whale Slaughter: The Price of the Green Obsession with CO2?

  1. Eric

    Don’t forget the latest round of tree clearing laws in Queensland as a major distraction

    • “distraction” … Yes you got that right. Distract the majority of environmentalists with a constant barrage of CO2 stories so you can ignore and not fund anything else.

      I wonder if the folks of Flint, Michigan, consider CO2 the biggest threat? How about some funds to clean up water supplies? Oh it was all spent on CO2! Too bad.

      • Nothing wrong with the water in Flint – they have a deadly lead pipe problem and don’t seem interested to solving it. They’re chemically re-scaling the pipes but leaving them in place. Government dollars at work. It’s no wonder there is a global backlash against out of control governments.

  2. Kind of grasping at straws here guys. News that is actually related to climate change I read with great interest but these kind of invented links are a show of weakness. IMHO of course ;)

    Cheers
    Ben

      • Eloquent as ever DB. I wish just wish I could equal your analytical skills. Maybe you should take up frenology next

        Cheers
        Ben

      • dbstealey; a possible origin, Benben was the mound that arose from the primordial waters Nu upon which the creator god Atum settled in the creation story of the Heliopolitan form of Ancient Egyptian religion. The Benben stone is the top stone of the Egyptian pyramid.

      • The point is that ever so many REAL problems could be fixed with the resources that are destroyed chasing the PHANTOM climate change non-problem. (benben obviously needs it spelled out.)

        I repeat my standard troll detection test: posts that sort of compliment the site in general but single out THIS post as a bad one. The need to insert a defence before any criticism is given is standard troll over-defensiveness.

      • Benben. … It was also the first mound or hillock discovered by Nuah, after the great biblical flood. And the similarity of names here is not a coincidence.

    • You would read it like that, because of your disposition, not because of anything else.

      Pointing out whales being slaughtered = Weakness
      Bickering over meaningless global average temp = strength?

      Puh-lease.

      This is a real problem with real consequences for Whales, where as CAGW is a hypothesis that has been largely discredited.

      But given your disposition, you see it another way. That means it’s your problem mate, that you can’t avoid predetermined responses.

    • I agree Ben! Clearly a wild leap of logic. Junk science verses junk science.

      Clearly the concept of not harvesting whales because you think they are cute is not playing in Japan.

      • I’m inclined to agree with the devil’s advocates.
        Eric, I really apprciate the effort you go to contributing to WUWT, but i reckon that implying Australia didn’t police the Antarctic marine whale sanctuary we have responsibility to control, on account of the money wasted on green blob boondoggles is drawing a long bow.
        Being nit-pickey, the budget for appeasing the green blob and the budget for border protection aren’t joined at the hip (other than being underwritten by our hip-pockets)

      • “Retired Kit P March 27, 2016 at 9:28 am

        I agree Ben! Clearly a wild leap of logic. Junk science verses junk science.

        Clearly the concept of not harvesting whales because you think they are cute is not playing in Japan.”

        You agree with Ben’s what!? frenology?

        Then you follow up with vague claims and/or insults, followed by a ‘completely false’ strawman.

        Oooh! KitP, you are so smart, and so able to discuss topics intelligently…

        Not!

        Dirty socks used for puppets by trolls unable to address topics accurately or further any discussion beyond schoolgirl adolescent comments meant as insults.

      • “Erny72 March 27, 2016 at 12:49 pm
        I’m inclined to agree with the devil’s advocates.
        …”

        Erny: You didn’t actually read the article posted above.

        Eric’s comments at the bottom of the information he posted from the ‘Guardian’ are pertinent and do ‘not’ blame Australia.

    • “benben March 26, 2016 at 9:02 pm

      (demeaning slight). (useless information about self, likely false) but (demeaning slight). (absurd useless information about self) ;)”

      Yup, just jump into a discussion with vague insults… Real useful.

      • ATheoK, Actually i did read the article and the comments to which I’ve replied.
        The remark I have made is relevent; it is drawing a long bow to remark that although “The Australian government recently provided a billion dollars for renewables startups…” the Australian government “…can’t or won’t provide a few million dollars, to outfit an official expedition to the Antarctic Ocean, to prevent thinly disguised commercial whale hunting in the Australian controlled whale sanctuary”.
        There is nothing bemoaning the imagined apportionment of blame, it’s suggesting that the article’s conclusion is drawing a long bow. Which I believe it is.

        Tell me, why do feel the need to place inverted commas around ‘not’ in you remark above? (not having a go, but I’m unsure what your emphasis implies).

      • “…Eric, I really apprciate the effort you go to contributing to WUWT, but i reckon that implying Australia didn’t police the Antarctic marine whale sanctuary we have responsibility to control, on account of the money wasted on green blob boondoggles is drawing a long bow…

        Eric’s statement; “…The Australian government recently provided a billion dollars for renewables startups, but Australia can’t or won’t provide a few million dollars, to outfit an official expedition to the Antarctic Ocean, to prevent thinly disguised commercial whale hunting in the Australian controlled whale “sanctuary”…”,
        did not ‘imply’ anything. It was/is a statement of fact.

        Australia’s reasons are inexplicable. There is mass harvesting of whales in ‘Australia’s whale sanctuary’.
        Australia has provided a billion dollars of citizen’s taxes for renewable startups; actions proven as terrible investments and bluntly, waste taxpayer’s money.

        “…Being nit-pickey, the budget for appeasing the green blob and the budget for border protection aren’t joined at the hip (other than being underwritten by our hip-pockets)”

        Border protection?

        Renewables are ostensibly driven by environmental concern as efficiency nor rarity is driving the race away from common consistent inexpensive energy supply.

        Whales and the Australia marine whale sanctuary are managed under Australia’s Department of Environment. The Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) is listed under the Australian Management plan.

        Whales and renewables are, in fact, under the same branch of Australian government.

        Actions speak far louder than words. Australia spent and is spending incredible amounts of money for unproven climate alarmism, e.g. dams and reverse osmosis water plants. That is the choice of Australia’s leaders and perhaps represents their current fad & fashion; whales are so ‘last year’.

        The apostrophes delimit, separate and uniquely identify their contents for emphasis. Emphasis similar to differently enunciating specific words in conversation to bring attention to the words. Less emphasis than bolding and much less than an exclamation remark provides.

  3. The Clean Energy Innovation Fund will first begin disbursing funds in July, 2016. The fiscal year for the government of Australia begins July 1, so this fund will be rolled out in the upcoming fiscal year 2016. The whale hunt took place over the last few months, during fiscal year 2015. So you are saying that due to expenses planned for the upcoming FY 2016, the Australian government did not have the budget during FY 2015 to send out a vessel. Do you have evidence to support that claim?

    • It is all about the money. Examples, number of birds killed in wind farms are staggering, birds killed by concentrating solar reflectors are laughing called smokers, environmental impacts of lithium and rare earth mining, boys mining copper in Africa, the slaves forced to fish in the Indonesia and surrounding areas of the seas, and lead in the drinking water in Flint Michigan, etc., and the whales described in this post are examples of lack of concern for the environment. Why? $billions and $billions of grants, contracts, subsidies, tax breaks, and freedom from environmental laws’ penalties applying to every other industry. Global change is big money and everyone feasting on taxpayers’ money want to get their snouts into the trough.
      It is hard to see environmental crimes and destruction when your snout is in the global change money trough.
      This is why so many people do not believe the so called environmentalists and think they are phony. Because, they are indeed phony!

      • Leroy, can I call you that? Lenard sound too intelligent.

        I am not staggered by bird kills. And thanks for your list of things you choose to be outraged about. Of course the cause is always “big money”.

      • Retired Kit P,

        Why ought anyone give a [pruned] what you don’t care about?

        Stones can do that.

      • Kit: you are certainly skilled at contributing to conversation. Your anti-sympathetic anti-birds comment about your self is apparently the only sentence without slight against others here, and I’m unsure about that one.

        “Retired Kit P March 27, 2016 at 9:40 am

        (demeaning insult)? (ad hominem)? .

        (odd anti-environmental comment about self). (demeaning insult). (useless comment with implied insult).”

        Yup! Throwing words into play that have zero bearing on the actual discussion, beyond taking potshots at others here.

      • Another meaningless comment. The cost of cancelling is a one off. There is a net gain over time due to not having to man and maintain those subs.

        Go study maths.

      • Asybot was saying ‘in my opinion’ that Australia should ‘punish’ Japan by not buying subs from them. No mention of going sub-free.
        I’ve studied English.

  4. …The Australian government in December described Japan’s decision to resume whaling over the summer as “deeply disappointing”…

    Sounds like the Obama Administration’s response to acts of terrorism, with releases of statements which “condemn” or sometimes even “strongly condemn” them and then does nothing until the next round of attacks.

    • Mate by stopping the terrorism in inflicted by the US military and allies in the middle east might “stop the terrorist attacks”

      Yemen is being pasted right now with thousands of civilians a month being slaughtered by Saudi Arabia with Obama’s and Cameron’s weapons and a media blackout.

      American weapons plaster Palestine, Syria Libya Somalia Sudan Iraq Afghanistan.

      Cause – effect

      100 years+ of meddling and killing in the middle east costing millions of lives, and then everyone goes batshit mental with moral outrage when some of that terror makes its way back, but it is 0.00000001% of the terror the NATO allies dish out.

    • Killing people is different than harvesting whales. I offended by those who do not know the difference.

      I was reading a news article about a fatal truck accident. A husband and father was never coming. The article went on to discuss the concerns about fish by some environmental group.

  5. The Guardian are lefties…..the Sea Shepherd folk are eco terrorists…is it WUWT business to join with the conservationists to save the whales?

    • Their go to answer is deal with pesky humans.

      How long before they start calling for culling. Well, banning DDT was about population, not environment, they want all those deaths in the third world.

      In the words of Prince Philip, who heads up a large network of environmental groups, “I want to come back as a virus and kill most of humanity”.

    • James,
      According to the International Whaling Commission web site. so far as I can make out about 20 years ago there were over one million Minke Whales.
      Have a look yourself.

      • It is not about numbers though, the eco nuts could say well there are 7 billion humans, we can shed a few.

        The bird slaughter is the same in Denmark, “oh the population is not declining” which is not the point, the point is they are being needlessly slaughtered.

      • Still hundreds of thousands. One of the most robust of the whales.

        Furthermore, Antarctic Minkes only grow to around 6 – 7 meters – a bit bigger than a large great White.

        Containers lost overboard are more of a shipping hazard than the odd whale.

    • When terrorists slaughter a few dozen and maim several hundred more, is that a lot? Relative to the population?
      Is that how you weight the senselessness of the slaughter of intelligent animals…by whether or not it may actually wipe all of them out forever?

  6. Eagles, whales- WTH, they’re gonna die anyway.
    Besides, cats and windows…
    End cruel capitalism.

    • Sure. While you’re at it, why not allow dog farms and butcher and sell their meat? They’re gonna die anyway — and ~ 7 times sooner than humans. Dopebama enjoyed a good dog steak or two in Indonesia, IIRC.

      There are differences between animals. Part of being fully human is recognizing them and acting accordingly. And, yes, people differ on where to draw the line (some would kill no animals), based on an animal’s intelligence, its “personality,” the purpose for killing, the discomfort of the life of, and the pain of the killing method of the animal, but, surely, we can agree that WHALES are special?? That killing raptors and bats for NO NET GAIN is wrong??

      That the benefit of glass windows outweighs the cost in birds lost?

      No?

      Well — we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

      And, btw: Happy Easter, to you, Alan.

      Take care (she is out there…. and I am praying…. :) ),

      Janice

      • There are dog meat festivals in China and Korea. Your pet dog may be special to you but the reality is that dogs are a dangerous menace killing many children. Dogs also kill other dogs. It is their primal nature.

        I do not agree that whales are special. I wonder how gullible Janice is.

        When others are trying to manipulate you into accepting their, it is a good time to be skeptical.

      • Kit,
        You are either a lying troll, or a sick excuse for a human being.
        Go be hateful somewhere else.
        And Happy Easter…may God bless your soul and the love of Jesus enter your life.

      • Retired Kit P

        It’s understandable why you’re “retired”.

        You need to be more retired.

      • I agree with you Kit. Any alleged hierarchy of animals that we should either care or not care about is purely subjective, depending on culture and in the eye of the beholder.

    • Capitalism is not the issue, the human condition is. Greed is not bad in capitalism, greed creates jobs, corruption is the problem, government control of free markets by controlling money is the problem, institutions not being allowed to fail are the problem, and none of those things are caused by “capitalism”.

      Point in case, the same human condition has corrupted climate science.

      • I agree Mark. I wish I had a million dollars for every time I have heard about greedy electric utilities. What they are really saying is that they use too much power, which is a form of greed.

        I am waiting for someone call Starbucks greedy.

      • But…NEWSFLASH: Greed is no crime and no one has to buy a coffee at Starbucks unless they want to.

    • I’m not sure how i left the ‘sarc tag’ off of last night’s missive, but did. All apologies to anyone who didn’t get the point.

      Happy Easter to you too, Janice and Mark and everyone else… even if your belief system doesn’t encompass the full meaning of the season, may you enjoy the blessings.

      You’ve both made good points and rightly so. Actions of man travel around an orbit of righteous center, within the constraints of mind and matter, governed by the laws of consciousness.
      Actions have reactions; physics, karma, sow and reap.

      • Thanks, Alan! :) (I’m relieved — and not surprised to find out you were being sarcastic… I thought at the time, “That sure doesn’t sound like Alan. I wonder if he’s feeling depressed… .”

        Yay!

        And YAY for an empty tomb! :)

  7. “A four-ship fleet from Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research traveled to the Antarctic Ocean and killed 333 minke whales. Some 230 were female; about 90% of these were pregnant, according to the {Japanese Fisheries Agency} report. … the Japanese Ministry of Fisheries said l1ed in a statement on its website {that t}he purpose was to study the best methods for managing minke populations… Scientific research gets exemption from the 1986 international ban on commercial whaling. … The expedition was part of a 12-year program that will kill 4,000 minke whales.”

    (CNN’s Paul Ferguson contributed to this report)

    (Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/24/world/japan-minke-whale-333-irpt/index.html )

    Oh, btw, Greenpeace DID do something. They tweeted. (Ibid.) Very loudly, too, no doubt. And earnestly. That makes everything okay. If one is in earnest, you know.

    ******************************************************

    Wow. Talk about “follow-the-money.”
    Japanese –> kill whales –> make money…..
    Greenpeace –> push CO2 agenda instead of protect whales –> make money.

    Sickening.

    Japanese “Research” vessel killing whale

    (youtube)

    No, “sickening” isn’t the word. This is ev1l. Given that it is moral (as I believe) to kill animals for food at all, there is no way to humanely kill that animal. (And whales, per se, imo, should not be killed at all except as a mercy killing if they are dying already.)

    You know, Eric, I was going to post a beautiful whale video, one that would show the beauty and grace and wonder of these creatures to help people understand why WHAT THE JAPANESE ARE DOING IS SO DESPICABLE. But, I realized that for those who hearts are so cold that such a video would be necessary to elicit sympathy, the video could do no good….

    So, I’ll just post it (below, after I’ve found a good one — and in separate comment to avoid sp@m bin) for those of us who love animals. For those with the emotional intelligence to care, to affirm our strongly held opinion that: killing whales (and esp. inhumanely) is just plain wrong.

    Thanks for doing what YOU could, here, Eric!

    • Dwarf Minke Whales (Eye to Eye Expeditions — Australia)
      (couldn’t find a beautifully done video that also had a beautiful soundtrack, so this documentary will have to do …. for those “with eyes to see and ears to hear,” it is enough)

      (youtube)

      The Japanese focus their kill on these whales’ larger cousins, but, as the video says, c. 2010, they killed 16 of the Dwarfs. For research. Had to kill them to research them, you know. Couldn’t hear them anymore…. couldn’t watch them move anymore….. what can you do to research “how to manage” them when they are dead? Hm. Guess they’ll just have to eat them and sit around thinking about it.

      As was pointed out in the video, we endanger the whales to a degree by being friendly to them… . I think that, given the need for public pressure (this is mainly a political issue), that the sad truth is that the benefit of the gain in public sympathy which whale tours provide outweighs, in the long run (one hopes! …. how much longer will the Japanese customer continue to buy this…. sigh …. elephant ivory is still cold-heartedly purchased…. and the intelligence and affectionate nature of elephants has been known around the world for decades… AAAAAARRRRRRGH!…. it’s like a drug! If there were no customers, there would be no drug dealers….. why can’t they stop their “addiction” to ivory…. to whale meat?…. etc., etc…??).

      End of wailing.

      (for now, heh)

      • Janice, I have to agree to disagree with your sentiment here. Please don’ttake this as a personal insult, that’s not my intent at all.
        Firstly, Japanese whalers are only pretending this is research because it’s the only legal loophole open to them hunting a traditional food source; it surprises me that people labour the point of claiming to be amazed at the blatant charade, as if anyone really thinks the Japanese think they’re fooling anyone.
        They’re playing the legal game in the same way that the importers of GWiz electric cars play the game and sell inherently unsafe dodgem cars to latte sipping moonbats in London by claiming they’re ‘quadricycles’ which are subject to far less onerous safety standards than ‘cars’.
        The International whaling commission issued a moratorium on commercial whaling (primarily relating to expoitation for oil and blubber) because some species were becoming endangered, Minke whales are considered ‘least concern’ in this respect.
        What this whole emotive argument boils down to is people deciding that we don’t like whaling on emotional grounds are seeking to impose our point of view on Japanese and Nordic people whose diet traditionally includes whale.
        Abodigines in North West Australia are exempted from laws prohibiting the hunting of endangered flatback turtles on account of their traditional diet (even though killing the turtle involves lasooing the rear flippers and stringing them to the gunwhales of the fishman’s boat, causind death by drowning), So Australian’s could be accused of a gross duble-standard with respect to our attitude to some people’s rights to eat what they want.
        I guess my biggest concern with many of the remarks I read here today is that there is a familiar tone; if I were to take some of the disparaging remarks directed toward whalers and their clientelle and replace the word ‘Japanese’ with ‘deniers’ wouldn’t it sound like the whining of ecotards who are frustrated that we don’t share their opinion on an emotive/political issue and so would rather just legislate our point of view out of existence?
        Happy Easter

      • If you think the slaughter of sentient beings is on the same moral footing as pushing back against the anti-scientific propaganda of the warmistas and their panic-mongering destruction of our energy infrastructure…words fail me.
        I will just say that you are, IMO, completely wrong.

      • Menicolas, as I mentioned elsewhere here, it is the opinion of the true believers of gullible wamring that the destruction of our energy infrastructure is neccessary to prevent the planet becoming dangerous for their children and ours. You and I are not convinced by the anti-scientific propaganda, but consider what a believer would think of comparing hunting some animals for food on the same moral footing as pushing back against the ‘settled-science’ of gullble warming; they’d be just as indignant as you are right now. They also be equally certain that their opinion is more right and more moral than any alternative and that you were ITO completely wrong.
        So you can see why I make the comparison and why your response isn’t such a surprise.

    • Good thing the Japanese are not in charge of saving the California condors or the whooping cranes. Not sure how killing animals would help you save them.

      • Indeed. Reminds me of, “We have to pass the bill so you can see what’s in it.” (Democrats re: Obamacare)

        “Manage” — that’s the key word! Manage us right into our graves. Or onto the deck of a “research” boat.

    • Janice you are missing the point of this Christian holiday since you brought up religion and morality. Judge not!

      It is about how you live your life and not about how others should live their lives. What is moral in one culture is different in another.

      As a Christian who served in the military, I gave taking a human life a lot of thought to it. Clearly I would take a life to protect a child.

      When you start suggesting some Japaneses are evil, do not complain about the civility of the discussion.

    • “Oooh, the whales are so beautiful and sing songs, so we cannot eat whale meat.” Give it a rest!

  8. The warmists claim dnrs should be jailed as warming is reducing the whale population but killing them for rich Sushi eaters is OK?

    Odd.

    This site has great science.

    It sometimes deals with man’s inhumanity to man and other species.

    • Not definitionally sure, but am reminded of old story:

      Confucius says –
      “Cow give milk
      Milk give whey.
      Woman give way, she give milk.
      Woman no give way, she cow.”

      Does that help?

      BTW, with this whale story, has anyone thought to examine the research that the Japanese claim they are doing? Is there not a possibility that it is overall beneficial?
      Why do people assume it is bad without bothering to find out what is done?

    • @AndyE, I’m with you on that one. If whaling is illegal in the marine sanctuary, then of course it should have been stopped and if we’re talking about endangered species, like blue whales, then the hunt is to be prevented, but otherwise, why the all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about eating whales when no one bats an eyelid about eating cow, sheep, tuna, shark, reindeer, kangaroo, puffin, duck, wild pig…?
      Don’t say it’s because it’s inhumane, because, let’s face it,hooking a fish through the cheek and dragging it, struggling and thrashing against the hook hardly counts as quick and painless (and how many people take their kids fishing on the weekend; maybe it’s because fish can’t scream?), neither does getting shot by an amateur hunter or being run down by a couple of pig dogs before developing a slit throat, or being blasted out of the air with buckshot to then fall to the ground.
      While we’re comparing apples and oranges, why aren’t Iceland and Norway condemned for still allowing commercial whaling? (I’ve sampled whale in both countries without needing to know a secret handshake or dodge the local constabulary).

    • Is there a difference between squashing a roach in your kitchen and shooting a gorilla for sport?
      I think most would say yes, and see and understand the difference, both based on the fact that gorillas are sapient beings, and that they are in grave danger of becoming forever extinct.
      If a rhino was charging at a village full of people and was going to kill them, shooting it would be an appropriate thing to do if it was the only way to stop it. A person paying to travel to Africa and drive out to the bush in order to shoot a rhino simply so they could say they did is a sick crime, IMO.
      I feel sorry for people who are unable to see the difference between a whale and a cow.
      I understand but do not agree with people who think it is equally wrong to kill and eat either one.
      I do not understand and do not agree with people who say it is the same and no problem to kill and eat either one.

      • That’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it. So don’t eat whale.
        Once you’re finished not eating whale, don’t over-reach and presume that your opinion on the matter is more correct than anyone else’s, nor that you have any business dictating who need’s moral guidance on what they choose to eat.
        You arguments here are in exactly the same style as those we hear from gullible warming believers.
        Of course there is a difference between squashing a cockroach in your kitchen and shooting a gorilla for sport, but raising the comparison is a feeble strawman and totally irrelevant to this discussion. Whaling isn’t squashing an annoying germ carrying pest in one’s house, nor is it sport; it’s hunting for food. A traditional food in the case of Japanese tastes. What the hypothetical Rhino comparison brings to the discussion is even more elusive; perhaps you’re implying that Rhino and ‘whales’ are equally endangered? In which case you’re plain wrong as has been pointed out more than once in these comments.
        Who decides that eating cow is less nasty than eating cow? You?
        I certainly did not,so you’ll understand if I go ahead and choose what ever I wish from the menu, with or with out your approval.
        You may also understand (although I doubt you will) that I will not presume the right to chastise anyone who’s menu choices are disagreeable to me. For example, as a general rule I like dogs, I think they’re fun and cute, so I don’t choose to eat one. I’m not going to make any pious claims to back my choice up; I won’t suggest that man’s best freind is somehow different to all other animals. At the same time though, I won’t go to Cina and start accusing anyone eating dog that they are vulgar people with no moral compass committing sick crimes or whatever else.That’s not my right, and quite frankly none of my business.
        Tell me, are you vegan? I’ll understand you better in that case.

    • Always makes me laugh that, When queensland stops sending nitrogen runoff to the reef, which has increase 150% in the past decades, storms, predators, competition, natural bleaching, changes in irradiance, bacteria, changes in light, sedimentation, fungi, changes in water flow, starvation or climatic events like El Nino, if Greenpeace can stop all of that, then they might be able to stop corals bleaching.

      :D

  9. “But the whale slaughter has hardly raised a flicker of attention in Australia. Aussie green groups are obsessed with CO2.”
    ___

    Whale numbers have recovered dramatically since the late 1960s, so if people want to harvest certain whale species for food, that’s fine by me. Harvesting Spanish mackerel, squid, anchovies, cattle or sheep for the same purpose doesn’t bother me either. Why would it? So I’ll probably be trying whale soon.

    If Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd’s self-appointed saviors, who wear their black panties on the outside, have a problem with the actions or in-action of NZ or Oz government I don’t mind. Who are these people to dictate to anyone? This pro-whale hand-waving has gone on much too long.

    If there’s no ‘peep’ being said about it, that’s because it’s being viewed in a balanced perspective. In other words, the repetitive irrational Greenpeace intransigence is what’s on the nose in this part of the world, and the respective Governments are also tiring of having foreign relations deliberately interfered with by Greenpeace’s self-promoting selfish antics.

    • I totally agree with this. Cows and pigs are also reasonable intelligent creatures but we eat them anyway. The type of whales being caught by Japan are hardly endangered, and a couple of hundred is negligible compared to the overall population.

      If one is upset about whales you should focus the discussion on vegetarianism in general. Otherwise, just from a scientific point of view there is no reason for concern.

      Cheers
      Ben

      • This issue (as with many on WUWT) has more than one dimension to it, bb.

        You grossly oversimplify a complex issue. We can raise and slaughter pigs and cattle humanely. Some people would say the pigs’ intelligence makes eating them immoral. Others would not eat any animals at all (it is their personal philosophy). One can pay more for “free run” eggs (I do — but, I refuse to buy “organic” eggs.)

        You appear to fail to distinguish the various scenarios. Whales cannot be killed humanely. They are highly intelligent and show an interest in humans which a cow not raised as a pet EVER will. You haven’t been around many cattle, have you? They are far below whales in their communication ability, etc… . Not that any of this need change your ultimate opinion (that killing whales is okay), just to show that your analysis is flawed. You got to your conclusion not by following the path of logic and reason, but by, essentially, just jumping over the fence into the pig pen yelling, “Science says, ‘kill them!'”

        And, yes, a personal philosophical belief would be a “reason.” Vegans may not convince the rest of us that being vegan is “right,” but they would have a reason for their actions. Not a mere unsupported conclusion.

        IOW: show your work, scientist benben!

      • Janice
        Killing humanely? That’s an oxymoron.
        In this case I will take the place of ‘oxy’ , you, on the other hand, take the place of ‘moron’

      • Janice: “You grossly oversimplify a complex issue. We can raise and slaughter pigs and cattle humanely. Some people would say the pigs’ intelligence makes eating them immoral.”
        ___

        You over-complicate and over-think a simple proposition.

        Proposition: I’m hungry. I can eat a whale, if I can kill it. And I can see no reason to not, just because it has a charming charismatic personality. Life eats life, it always has and always will. Are you going to try to stop predators eating hoofed animals alive next? Convince Inuits eating meat is bad?

        But you make a reasonable argument for a more precise and reliable delivery of lethal wounding for killing of whales. Who knows, maybe in 20 years we might be able to laser the brain in a moment or two with a precision 150kw laser slicing through the head like a slicer-dicer auto-cauterizing the flesh in the process, even as a harpoon hits to hold it. Thus there’s much less thrashing for cameras as the brain has already stopped functioning.

        Progress huh?

        But I’d rather be eaten by a human than a wolf, at least the human would kill me first. There’s nothing wrong per-sec, with killing to eat other animals. During WWII cannibalism became common between Australian and Japanese soldiers fighting in the Owen Stanley ranges of New Guinea, as both sides were starving an poorly supplied. The Japanese side especially did this a great deal, more so as their logistics was cutoff, so they took to eating their own dead soldiers. Being squeamish and refusing to eat, would just mean you’ll be on the menu next.

        But yes, we can improve and minimize the suffering of mortal wounds inflicted to kill whales, there’s no reason not to do that, as quickly as technically possible. The same happens when we go fishing, I carry a “donger” stick to smack a fish hard on the head to put them out of it, then bleed them out. Other fishermen insert a knife blade into the brain area for a fast kill.

        So blowing or frying the brains out of the whale seems like the least we can do to make sure it’s out of it plus bleeds out quickly. Getting the blood out of the body before it congeals is also important you know? If cattle you can hang them up so it runs out. If fish you cut the gills away. If a whale you either need to keep the heart beating, and turn the water red, or haul it up the stern and let it flow out.

        As far as I see it the Japanese are largely doing the right things to kill whales as quickly as possible, bleeding them out so the flesh is not spoiled. Every bit of meat you ever ate was killed and bled like that. Its just the scale that’s different with whales.

        The ‘morality’ is no different to opening an oyster on a tidal rock and eating it raw. All this talk of morality about killing and eating an abundance of whales is just so much political correctness and hypocrisy, masquerading as a faux-morality.

      • I am equally disgusted by the way our food is treated, and how much gets thrown in the bin yearly, which amounts to the biomass of thousands of animals, 10s of thousands maybe millions yearly, discarded.

        The Whale killing is unnecessary, no one is going to go hungry by not killing wales for research.

        So it goes, if we are already killing more than we eat, why kill more.

      • Mark March 27, 2016 at 3:31 am
        “I am equally disgusted by the way our food is treated, and how much gets thrown in the bin yearly, which amounts to the biomass of thousands of animals, 10s of thousands maybe millions yearly, discarded.”
        __

        You really believe that Mark?

        There’s no ‘waste’. All the alleged waste feeds billions of other critters of every sort. You have to try pretty hard to waste flesh, on this planet. What a lot of people don’t realize is that plants absolutely love having blood and bone poured around their roots. They thrive with a regular applications. As do insects, bacteria and soil quality for future growth. The planet’s life eats every bit of flesh, at some point. Same for edible plants.

        The conceptual accusation of human’s food ‘wasting’, is more-or-less fallacious and misleading, another unfounded imputation of human guilt for alleged wrong-doing, but ultimately with no substance. A straw-man to denigrate humans with some more. Not buying it. Nothing is being “discarded”, nothing is lost.

      • I agree with Janice, Whales are not killed as ” Food ” to feed hungry people, they are a ” Specialty food ” killed to appease the the rich tastes of the elite !

      • So you’re not against eating whales per-sec? Just the price and availability puts you off? Well, that can be changed, and Australia’s ‘whale sanctuary’ could be duel-use, in that case, and quite the earner. ;-)

      • Alex! You’re reading my comments again. That is progress!

        Someday, you and I are going to be friends.

        Happy Easter to you, Alex :)

        Janice

      • Seems to me I’ve seen crows that make whales seem less than stellar scholars.
        what’s the source of the fantasy that whales are extremely intelligent?
        i can’t recall any evidence for it…

      • Janice,

        I don’t like whale meat at all.
        Tried it a few times in Norway and Iceland, tastes too much like whale liver oil I was forced to drink in winter when I was young, to boost vitamin D. I still have nightmares by thinking about that…

        They eat horses here, yes they do (not bad as meat at all). A real horror for any Anglo-Saxon, for whom a horse is (near) equal to a human. We eat cows, a real horror for people from India, where cows are holy creatures. They eat dogs in China and insects in many countries where “white” men only look at in disbelief…

        So they eat whale in many Nordic countries and Japan. I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t, as long as the numbers they catch are sustainable.

        Each of these countries catches a few hundred of these mink whales, so all together maybe 1,500 a year, including the Inuit which have a (small) quota.
        The latest numbers I have heard of were ~300,000 mink whales in all world seas of which ~60,000 in North Atlantic waters. Seems not a problem for the survival of the species…

        What I have read is that the intelligence of whales is at about the same level as for cows, not extremely intelligent compared to dolphins or crows (the latter protected here, but a real pest…). Thus I don’t see a real problem, even I don’t think I would eat it again, ever…

      • Marcus, Mark, et al, there’s no suggestion that whales are hunted to feed starving people, in Japan, Norway, Iceland and elsewhere whale is a traditional part of the diet. It has been for centuries.
        Suggesting it’s an elistist preserve is a feeble strawman that deserves to reside among the pathetic, ignorant utterances in comments sections of the Gauniad. I don’t rub shoulders with the ‘elite’ in Norway (or anywhere for that matter) and only visited Iceland once as a tourist; that hasn’t stopped me sampling whale steaks in both countries more than once (one whale steak we had in Iceland was served with a bonus stuffing of buckshot because in Iceland the coup de grace is delivered by shotgun as it turns out).
        By what right do you presume to dictate to people who eat whale that because you disapprove they aren’t allowed to eat it anymore?
        In Kazakhstan, horse is very much on the menu; my cousin loves his horses and no doubt would find the concept of eating horse upsetting, they’re gentle, loyal, trusting, supposedly intelligent, interested in people, etc, etc; does he have the right to tell Kazakhs that they can just eat goat instead? It’s not like they’re starving and have no choice after all.
        I like eating Kanagaroo, I’m not starving, so I don’t have to eat it but I like it, so when it’s available I eat it (and pay a hefty premium here in Norway), now if you try to tell me that you disapprove and suggest that because hunting wild skippy personally upsets you and it’s not like I’m hungry, blah, blah, blah, then I am going to tell you in unambiguous terms, to have a can of harden the far cup and then shove your opinion where the sun don’t shine.
        India will in all likelihood be the next superpower. About 80% of the population are Hindu and they rever the cow as sacred. Suppose Indian’s decide that killing cows is a sacrelige that will not be tolerated from their trading partners and they use their economic and political influence to push for a worldwide ban on the killing of cute, gentle cows. Will you be happy to quit eating beef because it makes 15% of the world’s population happy?
        for many of the believers in gullible warming, imposing their misguided opinion on us all could mean the future survival of humanity, frequent readers of WUWT clearly aren’t about to accept such opinion being foisted on us by law or peer pressure. How often do we point out among ourselves that ‘the believers’ are building strawmen, name calling and generally trying to impose their vision of Euphoria on us whether we agree or not? Am I then the only one who sees the irony that WUWT commenters are now quite happy to call ‘the Japanese’ names, suggest that the Japanese should to conform to our point of view on what they can and can’t eat and even go so far as make up sh!t to support an argument which is rooted purely in emotion and opinion?

      • Janice, are whales more intelligent than horses (which are also eaten)? Janice, Indians consider eating cow sacriligeous, so should all cow eating be banned?

    • I also agree entirely. No different from harvesting cows. Eric’s intemperate words do him no credit.

  10. Your malicious slaughter is some else’s food. Not one was killed for sport. It is called fishing. Is fishing considered degenerate behavior? Because of what psychological research was this concluded?

    • So, Mr. Kasper, your unstated underlying premise is: a whale is the same as a trout or a halibut. Comes off as a bit ignorant.

      • You’re being a bit harsh there, Janice. I, personally, don’t think the Japanese have a leg to stand on, in claiming their whaling is done for “scientific” purposes. If you’re going to condemn the Japanese, then you should also be going after Norway and Iceland as well, who openly and overtly hunt whales for food. Norway’s claims are a bit dodgy, but look at a map of where Iceland is geographically. When you’re on a not very productive island (agriculturally speaking), you’re stuck on an isolated island in a harsh oceanic environment, and you’re trying to get enough protein to feed the population, then whaling provides a pretty good bang for the buck.

        Of course, I can understand why Sea Shepherd wouldn’t try to mess with Iceland. After Sea Shepherd sank a couple of ships in Reykjavik harbour, I’m sure the Icelandic authorities would be delighted if Paul Watson sailed into the harbour. He would be arrested in a heartbeat.

      • I am a bit confused Janice. What DO you equate whales with? Humans? What is so wrong with equating whales with trout (both swim) or cows (both are mammals) or lobster (if we stopped eating them, no-one would starve)?

  11. “straining at gnats, and swallowing a camel”. While we’re comparing our relative virtue: if the bleeding hearts want to challenge their conscience, they may consider China’s ‘Dr’ Mengele-like anaesthetic-free torture and murder organ thieving racket – with many thousands of innocent defenceless victims since 2000, and on-going now. Is it because they’re human [only] , or ‘oriental’? Or are we just plain lazy or cowards? These Crimes Against Humanity, of the most egregious depravity – are committed with the complicity of our leading western medical and academic authorities – with barely a peep from us. Makes the pre-WW2 German people look like saints in comparison. [‘Bloody Harvest’ Report – now in it’s tenth !! year].

    • I’m not sure about the anaesthetic -free stuff. It sounds awfully difficult to remove someones organs for reuse by others with the donor squirming on the table.

      • This simply demonstrate your ignorance – but you’re not alone. I’ll go slowly for you: There’s this new substance which is used as a paralysing agent – no completely, but. The victim can still scream. The technique improves the transplant success rate.

  12. I’m mostly vegetarian but eat a fair amount of fish (except cruel wasteful catch like prawns and suspect tuna) because there seems to be good evidence that this is a healthy diet. The native Japanese are said to be the biggest pro rata fish eaters in the world and the Japanese diet seems a likely factor in their low mortality from “Western” diseases. Scientific whaling research? I don’t think so….. more likely they are worried about diminishing fish stocks.

    These gentle giants don’t have teeth but eat immense amounts of krill and some of them (not sure about Minkes) corralled masses of sardines. Killer whales on the other hand have big teeth and are not gentle about killing their prey, taking hours to kill whale calves and distressing their mothers. They also play-kill seals etcetera, tossing them in the air, making me feel ill seeing those video docos. It’s a cruel world out there and I’d have no problem with people eating killer whales.

    Meanwhile it makes me sick that gentle, even trusting, cattle and horses (in Europe), can be cruelly marshalled and then killed and eaten (trucked long distances in Oz, some collapsing). Just look into the eyes of those gentle animals!

    One of the reasons that I think the real motive of the Japanese is to increase fish stocks is that they have famously displayed a tendency to claim things foreign to Western morality that amount to them knowing that what they say to their audience is obviously seen as false by their audience. Further that they know their audience must know that their perpetration is in denial of truth.

    Sorry, but after that rant I actually believe that a moderate humane harvesting of common whales would in principle probably be a beneficial thing for the ecosystem as a whole given the increasing human populations.

    The problem is that the current methodology with prolonged death-throws of the whales is awful.
    A humane method is required………..high voltage electrocution maybe…………dunno.

    • wow…
      killer whale videos make me sick, so kill them!
      Cows have big brown eyes that prove they are trusting and gentle and people who kill them make me sick!
      somebody got stuck in disneyland?

  13. I could almost believe that the Japanese killed hundreds of thousands of innocents during WW11 for ”Research”! Anyhow, there is a general election coming up soon in Australia so the present Prime Minister should be very mindful of that!

    • OMG . The japanese are going to come to Australia and perform medical experiments on the populace. We know that because they killed 330 minke whales.

    • Eugenics and horrible research existed in the US and Europe before WWII, the consequences of the US Eugenics program lasted until the 60s.

      japan is not alone in it horrific “research”

  14. Hardcore Warmistas and so-called ‘Environmentalists’ are not interested in conservation, animals or people. They are interested in the ‘Cause’ and the grants, funding and jobs that flow from it. It is only about the money. They are not interested in the number of birds killed in wind farms or fried on Solar Farms. So-called eco-fuels force up the price of heating and reduce the availability of food to the poor. Crazed regulations increase the cost of heating and kill the aged and feeble in Winter. The whales of this post are examples of their lack of concern for the environment. The Global ‘Climate Change’ industry is feeding out big money and they are sucking it up with their snouts in the trough.

    These so-called ‘Environmentalists’ pure phonies.

    • Mark

      I’m with Charles on this one. His desire to share that sentiment (other than it being accurate) probably has to do with expectations that WUWT is primarily a global warming & climate change site.

      A emotional discussion of what people think should be on their dinner plate is not even mildly amusing. Having to wade thru this stuff is low value-add.

      • You feel that you have got “to wade thru this stuff”?
        That seems a tad peculiar to this kid.
        If something does not interest or amuse me, I simply move on.
        To each his own.
        Happy Easter…Christ is risen!

  15. While I hate the thought of killing these wonderful mammals I think on this site you need to be careful to be accurate and give all the facts.
    1) The photo is a humpbacked whale, not a minke.
    2) The estimated minke population is about 800,000. http://www.seashepherd.org/no-compromise/minke-whale-facts.html This means the Japanese are killing about 400 per million. (That seems a familiar number!)
    A question. If the majority of the females were pregnant does that the population is in good health and reproducing well or just that pregnant females are slow and easy to catch?

  16. It was the oil industry and the invention of cracking into kerosene that saved the whales, whale oil kept the lamps burning for a long time.

    • Those evil greedy capitalist oil corporations, at it again.

      /s << got the sarc tag, this time

  17. Janice, you speak, and more passionately and eloquently than I can manage , for me and I suspect most people on the subject of this abominable practice by the Japanese.
    Not the least disturbing aspect of this debate is the total lack of concern or empathy expressed by the Greens and warmists who underplay and actually seem to encourage this unjustified slaughter (please someone quote refs for the scientific articles resulting from these killings if they exist otherwise they are as scientific as Mengele’s expts in the camps).
    However the indifference or acquiescence of the Greens is part of the package which tolerates the killing of birds and bats by machines of solar and windpower and the destruction (in UK anyway ) of increasingly rare peatland moor environment.
    The argument you see is
    ” it is a small price to pay for a carbon free future”.
    What such people fail to appreciate is that the same can be said by Big Oil when there are oils spills like Exxon Valdez or Torrey Canyon or the one in Brittany :
    ” the occasional oil spill is a small price to pay for prosperity , jobs , cheap food , energy, clothing and transportation”.
    The 2 arguments are logically equivalent , IMO, and perhaps equally indefensible – but then I am just an ordinary person and not a professional environmentalist.

      • We’ve got a free-trade agreement with Japan now so maybe we’ll get whale trade, I meant, joint whale research initiatives, going soon?

        “Throw another whale on the barbie!”

      • Whale meat is high in mercury, which if consumed will cause brain damage.
        [snip . . c’mon . . mod]

  18. Why are you surprised? Big corporate and Big government bought Big Green with donations. They are just another marketing arm of them these days, there to keep the dimhippies onside.

      • I remain a carnivore, with a small but tasteful vegetable garnish. And I am assured that no plants suffered unduly, in the production of the garnish.

      • Y’all ever had a bowl o’ red beans and rice and a heapin’ helpin’ o’ turnip and collard greens with a big piece o’ cornbread to go with your slab of ham? And maybe some grits and fried squash and a piece of sweet potato pie? Or just go all in on a big ol’ chicken fried steak and mashed potatoes , or a slab o ribs barbecued to perfection? Been to a fish fry?

        omnivoracious

        One man’s meat and all that… waste not want not.

        All I can say about the Japanese and the whales, is that research is all well and good and food is well and good, but if their true purpose is not research, but harvest, with some meaningless research done as deceptive practice to camouflage the harvest, then just as with any other unrighteous action, they will pay a price.

  19. Whales constitute a fisheries issue. And I’d rather argue with any number of people before I argue with the Japanese, one of Australia’s biggest trading partners for decades.

    Ditto for the Faroese. Fisheries and conservation issue, sort it out as such.

    Any good whale recipes? Since the kerosene industry, Big Oil, and synthetics stopped the heavy harvesting of whales we need ideas for this resource, as for all resources. (Thanks to those same innovations we no longer slaughter two million koalas in a year.) No conservation without prudent exploitation, right? Or we cease to be conservationists and become mindless greenoids.

    I’m told that soaking whale steaks in milk prior to battering and frying is good.

      • And the population of Britain that had to eat it during WW2 were not impressed:
        -“During World War II the British Minister of Food introduced food rationing but allowed whale meat to be distributed ‘off ration’. It was not popular because of the smell whilst cooking was deemed ‘unpleasant’, and the taste was considered ‘bland’ even when spiced [39]
        Toxicity “-
        Also it comes with a health warning :
        -“Tests have revealed that in whale meat sold in the Faroe Islands and Japan, high levels of mercury and other toxins are present. A research study was conducted by Tetsuya Endo, Koichi Haraguchi and Masakatsu Sakata at the University of Hokkaido found high levels of mercury in the organs of whales, particularly the liver. They stated that “Acute intoxication could result from a single ingestion” of liver. The study found that liver samples for sale in Japan contained, on average, 370 micrograms of mercury per gram of meat, 900 times the government’s limit. Levels detected in kidneys and lungs were approximately 100 times higher than the limit.[40] The effect is due to the animal’s trophic level, however, rather than its size. This means that there is a significant difference between the mercury levels in toothed whales and baleen whales, the former having a much higher concentration.”-

        (from Wiki of course , as well as the reminiscences of my parents about the war and the problems of finding sufficient edible food for 2 small, ever hungry, boys)

      • mikewaite March 27, 2016 at 2:08 am
        ___

        That doesn’t mean much, I grew up eating food from English Recipe books and it was pretty bland fare most of the time. Asians really know how to cook some great nosh.

      • What often gets forgotten in these discussions about what westerners consider non meat animals is that there is a reason we have developed taboos for eating animals other than herbivores. Toxins, both environmental like mercury, and more exotic like prions, are concentrated as you work up the food chain. Of course all primitive humans knew was that people who ate higher order animals, or other humans, tended to die of nasty wasting diseases more often than otherwise. Clear evidence that the gods didn’t approve. ^¿^

        On the gripping hand, marine mammals are a fairly recent addition to these taboos, and seem to be more connected to the ‘friendly’ and ‘intelligent’ reputation they have been given. Personally, as I’ve never had a conversation with one, I’ll have to reserve judgement on their alleged wisdom and kindness.

      • @schitzree

        … marine mammals are a fairly recent addition to these taboos …

        Actually, in some cultures this taboo has been around for quite a while:

        “Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales … you are to regard as unclean. And since you are to regard them as unclean, you must not eat their meat.”

        From the Law of Moses, about 1280 B.C.

  20. Wow, some pretty crazy and contorted arguments on here for/against killing of animals/whales etc. We do get ourselves in quite a moral dilemma when trying to justify our lifestyles and our ‘preferences’ for certain intelligent species.
    Firstly, I agree with the basic premise here that CO2 mania has swallowed vast amounts of money and focus which could be saving lives right now and protecting species all over the world from commercial exploitation. But as someone pointed out above, Greens are not interested in conservation; they only want to save the world from Thermageddon.
    Secondly, on the industrial scale which our demand for meat requires, there is no way to humanely raise animals and kill them. It just is not possible. There will always be suffering involved, often very significant. That is a fact which, if you eat commercially produced meat, you either ignore or come to terms with within our own moral universe.
    Thirdly, there is no way to kill Minke whales in the open ocean that does not involve extreme and prolonged suffering. That alone requires that we should not allow them to be hunted. It is also a fact that cetaceans generally are such exceptionally intelligent, highly evolved social mammals, that the distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’ blurs slightly, especially as we learn more about their lives and their behaviour. It is highly dubious that we should be viewing them as a ‘resource’ to be harvested. So protecting whales and dolphins from commercial exploitation and extremely cruel killing practices would be a very good place to start if we wish to develop a deeper respect for ALL non-human life on the planet (including pigs, cows, chickens, dogs etc.)

    • “… if we wish to develop a deeper respect for ALL non-human life on the planet (including pigs, cows, chickens, dogs etc.) …”
      ____

      Wow … will I have to wear sandals? Where does one get such aspirations?

      I love and respect dogs, they’re great animals, very personable and I’ve had a couple as pets. But I would not hesitate eat one if I knew someone who really knew how to cook dog properly. We all have to go some time, and getting eaten by other stuff is the traditional method.

      This is not a foreign concept.

      What I do find amusing though is the alluded subjective ranking of edible and non edible animals based on whatever thought-bubble floats in your transom.

      • “This is not a foreign concept.”

        Most obviously, cultivating within your transom a genuine respect for living creatures who just happen to be non-human (or maybe that includes human, I’m not sure) IS a foreign concept.

        What “alluded subjective ranking of edible and non edible animals”? You’re just making stuff up.

        “I love and respect dogs, they’re great animals, very personable and I’ve had a couple as pets. But I would not hesitate eat one if I knew someone who really knew how to cook dog properly.”

        Meaningless bluster. You can cook a dog’s leg in the oven just as easily as a lamb’s leg. So go and kill someone’s dog (or your own) and eat it if that’s how you feel – or would you prefer somebody else to do the killing for you?

      • Jaime Jessop March 27, 2016 at 4:31 am
        “Most obviously, cultivating within your transom a genuine respect for living creatures who just happen to be non-human (or maybe that includes human, I’m not sure) IS a foreign concept.”

        If I go swimming in a local river will the 4 to 5 m saltwater crocs respect me, love me, and feel well disposed to me, protect me? Or will they tear off a limb, bleed me out, drown me, then eat my carcass?

        Jaime Jessop March 27, 2016 at 4:31 am
        “What “alluded subjective ranking of edible and non edible animals”? You’re just making stuff up.”

        The implied fantasy that whales are superior to other edible animals and therefore sacrosanct from human diet via decree of Greenpeace and associated vegan Swamis at large.

        Jaime Jessop March 27, 2016 at 4:31 am
        “… “I love and respect dogs, they’re great animals, very personable and I’ve had a couple as pets. But I would not hesitate eat one if I knew someone who really knew how to cook dog properly.” Meaningless bluster. You can cook a dog’s leg in the oven just as easily as a lamb’s leg. So go and kill someone’s dog (or your own) and eat it if that’s how you feel – or would you prefer somebody else to do the killing for you? … ”

        Oh don’t worry about that part, I didn’t grow up in a city, I’ve killed and eaten all sorts of animals and fish since I was a boy. It was commonplace to do that. Never needed to eat a dog, but have killed and eaten many sorts of animals, some are much tastier than others, but I’ve heard dogs are really delicious. Cheap prejudices doesn’t matter, you’re welcome to believe anything you like, but I’m under no obligation to accept it, I’ve my own experiences to call on that supersede anything you can say.

        But getting back to whales, I’d love to try a couple of professionally cooked whale dishes to see what all the fuss is about as there’s so much sectarian disinformation and zealotry around the whole topic, I’d prefer to test it myself and make up my own mind thanks Jamie.

      • “If I go swimming in a local river will the 4 to 5 m saltwater crocs respect me, love me, and feel well disposed to me, protect me? Or will they tear off a limb, bleed me out, drown me, then eat my carcass?”

        They’ll make a value judgment about whether you are an intelligent species who is likely to suffer unduly in the process of being killed and eaten, whether you are in fact good to eat, and probably whether they need to eat you. I jest of course. Only the last applies. if they’re hungry, they will eat you, because that’s what crocs do. We as human pride ourselves on being so much more, do we not? We have the choice. We can decide whether making an animal suffer for our consumptive habits is ‘necessary’ or not. The degree of suffering of that animal will be directly related to how we chose to kill it (or indeed rear it prior to killing), its intelligence/awareness and how developed its central nervous system is. We can make these assessments because we are no longer simply ‘predators’. Of course, if you argue that we are just biological predators sitting at or near the top of the food chain, then there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be eaten or eat each other. Just cos we got ‘civilised’ and ‘cultured’ and we got an iPad and book of poems doesn’t mean we shouldn’t eat one another, eh? I bet you know lots of ‘personable’ people who are just biological mammals who would cook just as well as dog and probably taste quite similar to pork. You could add them to your long list of consumed species.

        “The implied fantasy that whales are superior to other edible animals and therefore sacrosanct from human diet via decree of Greenpeace and associated vegan Swamis at large.”

        No, I didn’t say or imply that. You’re making stuff up again. I pointed out the fact that cetaceans were very highly developed marine mammals whose behaviour we are still learning about, whose social structures and intelligence in many ways mimic our own, and if we were going to start somewhere in developing a deeper respect for non-human species, ending the commercial exploitation of these particular animals would be a good place to start.

      • Jaime Jessop March 27, 2016 at 6:05 am
        “We can decide whether making an animal suffer for our consumptive habits is ‘necessary’ or not. …”

        I said approximately that in reply to Janice above, that finding quicker and better ways to inflict a mortal wound on a whale is desirable to reduce suffering. But if you’re trying to say we should chose not to kill whales in particular, at all, I do not agree. We could harvest 10,000 a year right now with out undermining their continued build of numbers. I see no reason to treat them differently to a camel or cow, or any other harmless grazing animal.

        Jaime Jessop March 27, 2016 at 6:05 am
        “I bet you know lots of ‘personable’ people who are just biological mammals who would cook just as well as dog and probably taste quite similar to pork. You could add them to your long list of consumed species.”

        OK, you want to keep pressing that silly button, don’t you? I’ve never eaten a dog because I’ve never needed to eat a dog, but if I went to a restaurant and professionally prepared and cooked dog was on the menu, I’d eat Lassie – yes I would! lol Humans are not on the menu, but if I was, say air crashed in the Andes, and it was a matter of survival, yeah, I’d eat a dead human. Is that what you want to hear? Guess what Jamie, I’m not the only one who sees humans as edible in that case.

        Jaime Jessop March 27, 2016 at 6:05 am
        “… “The implied fantasy that whales are superior to other edible animals and therefore sacrosanct from human diet via decree of Greenpeace and associated vegan Swamis at large.”
        No, I didn’t say or imply that. You’re making stuff up again. I pointed out the fact that cetaceans were very highly developed marine mammals whose behaviour we are still learning about, whose social structures and intelligence in many ways mimic our own, and if we were going to start somewhere in developing a deeper respect for non-human species, ending the commercial exploitation of these particular animals would be a good place to start. …”

        What? There you go again, no, I’m not making anything up in either that reply, or the prior. The general claim you’re making is that whales are superior and should not be killed or eaten by humans. Right?

        That’s effectively exactly what you’re saying otherwise you would not be arguing-the-toss about my being quite OK with killing and eating whales, and discounting the alleged immorality of doing that. But you’re simply denying (twice now) that this is your basic case, and are saying its about something else. Really? OK then, if your basic objection is not about humans killing and eating whales, then you won’t mind if we do? Right? Come off it Jamie, denial is not an argument.

        But more interestingly, I find your remark, “… if we were going to start somewhere in developing a deeper respect for non-human species, ending the commercial exploitation of these particular animals would be a good place to start. …”, quite outlandish. It’s someone’s extended ideological construction jutting out into plain sight. It looks to me freaking kooky but is a construct you’ve clearly bought into fully. OK, whatever that’s about, I don’t concur with those sentiments or ‘objectives’, in any way, so please don’t proselytize to me again for such a kooky cause.

        However, this talk of eating whales has made me famished, you’ve really got me thinking about trying some.

      • You’re really not seeing where I’m coming from and there seems little point in trying to pursue the conversation further. What is obvious is that you have some quaint biblical notion that ‘animals’ (as distinct from humans) are there for us to eat as we see fit, according to our tastes, and not according to necessity. You appear to make no allowance at all for the fact that some species (maybe even the majority, I don’t know) are intelligent, social, thinking. feeling creatures just like us. The fact that you would happily eat dog meat if it was served up in some restaurant (in Asia most likely) tells me that you really don’t give a damn (or you can’t be bothered to actually question) how much suffering is involved in getting meat to your plate; you’ll just eat it because it tastes good.

      • “The general claim you’re making is that whales are superior and should not be killed or eaten by humans. Right?”

        I’ll try this once more and then give up. I’m arguing for a greater respect for all living creatures, especially those we look upon as ‘resources’, in particular those we eat. I’m saying that it appears that cetaceans are a lot more intelligent and far more complex than your average starfish or mollusc; in fact, they’re a lot more similar to humans in that respect than your average starfish or mollusc. So IF (and you obviously strongly disagree) we should try to treat animals with a lot more compassion and respect generally, stopping slaughtering whales and dolphins would be a damn good place to start. But you reckon that’s just a “kooky cause”.

      • Jaime Jessop March 27, 2016 at 8:01 am
        “You’re really not seeing where I’m coming from and there seems little point in trying to pursue the conversation further. What is obvious is that you have some quaint biblical notion that ‘animals’ (as distinct from humans) are there for us to eat as we see fit, according to our tastes, and not according to necessity. You appear to make no allowance at all for the fact that some species (maybe even the majority, I don’t know) are intelligent, social, thinking. feeling creatures just like us. The fact that you would happily eat dog meat if it was served up in some restaurant (in Asia most likely) tells me that you really don’t give a damn (or you can’t be bothered to actually question) how much suffering is involved in getting meat to your plate; you’ll just eat it because it tastes good.”

        Jaime, Jaime, dear-dear, first, apologies for spelling your name incorrectly prior, but no, I don’t hold to biblical sentiments, and there’s not some external ideological edifice coloring my thoughts here. This is how I see it from life experiences. I have no prejudices about dogs or eating dogs nor entertain prejudice against Asian food or Asia, as you apparently do. A dog can be dispatched with zero suffering with one cleaver stroke. You’re exaggerating wildly about suffering. All life knows it prefers not to die, much of living animals are very aware and attentive, smart even, but this does not change the fact they’re delicious, and it does not put me off eating them, one jot. The vast majority of humanity are actually fine with eating yummy cute charismatic animals. If you’re trying to make me feel guilty it’s not going to work. That’s your domain, you may feel bad on my behalf if that suits you. And when it’s my turn to be eaten, I’ll be up for it if I’m already dead. If I’m dead I won’t be concerned at all about being eaten.

        I understand it would be best that animals are also dispatched with similar consideration as quickly and painlessly as technically possible. And whales or dogs that are dead, do not care at all if they are then eaten. No matter what happens a dead fleshy body will be eaten. If not by me, by something else, by birds, lizards, bacteria, whatever. Now if you accept that dead things are ALWAYS eaten, with no exceptions, then your only objection remaining can be to animals being killed. Right?

        That’s the ‘moral’ dilemma you feel. For you it’s a dilemma but not for me. That dissonance and guilt is in your head, not mine, as my life-experience from an early age meant I’ve adjusted and adapted to how his works and you haven’t. You wallow in guilt and pity about the animal being killed, and do not adjust.

        So that’s your issue, the mortality and dispatching of sentient things. And I can’t help you there, as I’ll be having meat with at least a third of my meals for the rest of my life and have no problems with eating a Lassie burger. Whether I eat a dead dog, or horse, or whale, or crab is immaterial if it’s already dead. For something is always going to consume it, and live via that consumption, as that’s what life does. And as I’ve already said I have no problem at all killing land or marine animals, and cleaning, cooking and eating them. Been doing it all my life, will certainly do it again, thousands of times.

        If you have a problem with that process it’s you who has to come to terms with it, not another person.

        Jaime Jessop March 27, 2016 at 8:29 am
        “The general claim you’re making is that whales are superior and should not be killed or eaten by humans. Right?”
        I’ll try this once more and then give up. I’m arguing for a greater respect for all living creatures, especially those we look upon as ‘resources’, in particular those we eat. I’m saying that it appears that cetaceans are a lot more intelligent and far more complex than your average starfish or mollusc; in fact, they’re a lot more similar to humans in that respect than your average starfish or mollusc. So IF (and you obviously strongly disagree) we should try to treat animals with a lot more compassion and respect generally, stopping slaughtering whales and dolphins would be a damn good place to start. But you reckon that’s just a “kooky cause”. …”

        But animals are a resource, they are food on legs, wings and fins, and about the most nutrition laden energy food it is possible to obtain. I love eating fresh flesh. I don’t intend to passively accept judgmental prejudices about food or faux ‘morality’ on this. Those are your issues, for me there’s no struggle, I love a lamb roast, and if the lamb’s dead it doesn’t matter to the lamb if I roast it and eat it. I wouldn’t just do what a wolf does, and eat it raw and alive, what do you take me for, a monster? lol

        I’m all for dispatching animals I eat, quickly, with no warning and little or no time for suffering or pain if at all possible. But sometimes it’s not possible, so you do your best for them to go quickly.

        I don’t share your arbitrary prejudice against starfish and mollusks! What’s with that?! Nor do I share your marine mammal prejudice, I’d eat them any time. I especially like eating saltwater crocodiles and bunny rabbits, but they can get a bit gamey in flavor at certain times of the year. I love eating meat and so does every one I know.

        The only veggies I know are Buddhists and typically up-themselves about everything, they have similar prejudices and judgementalism as you, and like you that also don’t recognize it as their problem, not someone else’s. Always masking it as a superior ‘morality’ and their deep caring concerns and sensitivity, rah-rah-rah. The truth is they were pretty badly adjusted unhappy people. The funniest thing was they were always trying to get me to try the stuff they cooked and talked about it a lot, as they were always trying to make it taste like it had meat in it, and to see if I liked it. lol What’s funnier is the way you could tell they loved the smell of cooking meat, but their self-loathing would take over and they’d go stand upwind, with a pained conflicted look.

        I’ll leave off here but focus on your ‘moral’ dilemma Jaime, own it, as it’s you that is the dilemma. But all the best, and thanks for the discussion

      • Jeez, that’s really something. You managed to accuse me of being prejudiced against molluscs and starfish and Asians and Asian food! Then you went on to say I had a moral dilemma about animals being killed and that I should ‘own it’ etc. etc. etc. Look, for the record, I don’t have ANY problem at all with somebody killing an animal to eat, quickly and humanely, whether it be wild or domesticated, as long as, if it was domesticated, it was not kept in miserable conditions prior to being killed and eaten.
        Your ignorance of the suffering which happens in the meat industry here and abroad is just astounding. THAT is my issue.

        ” A dog can be dispatched with zero suffering with one cleaver stroke. You’re exaggerating wildly about suffering.”

        It could be, but it ain’t – not anywhere NEAR – hardly EVER in Asia where dogs are routinely eaten. I could post videos or make people’s blood run cold describing how dogs in Asia are ‘prepared’ prior to being BRUTALLY killed and eaten, but I won’t because this isn’t the place. If you think that’s ‘wildly exaggerating’ their suffering, you have got serious cognition issues. Like I said, the fact that you would happily snack on dog meat in a restaurant (or a mass produced lamb chop from a supermarket or a whale steak, for that matter) speaks volumes about your own moral mire, not mine.

      • Hi Unmentionable,
        I’m not sure where you’re commenting from, but if you can get yourself over to Iceland or Norway, you can find whale on the menu if you look; it’s not everywhere, presumably tourists aren’t totally supportive…
        Coincidentally, the same day my wife and I tried first our first whale (as a starter, peppered and cooked rare with a wild berry sauce), I was tempted to buy a T-shirt which had a picture of a whale, below which a caption said “we’d eat dolphins too if we could”.
        As far as recipes go, just think of any steak dish and you can replace cow with whale, just that the meat is a bit bland compared to beef, more chewy and a bit more oily.

      • Erny72 March 27, 2016 at 2:15 pm

        I’d love to visit Norway one day and will certainly try the whale. Thanks for the recommendation, from what you say it sounds like it would go well seared on a BBQ grill.

        I’d also love to try Dolphin/Porpoise Erny, I bet they’re delicious, the Japanese eat them and not sure but I think a few south sea islanders do also. I don’t know what the big deal is with dolphins, people up thread are panning killer whales, but a dolphin acts much like a smaller version of killer whale, they’re just as predatory and just as brutal to their dinner at times. Most predatory fish are delicious, why I mentioned Spanish Mackerel above, and fish of that type, all mouth watering. So I expect dolphin meat would be very tasty indeed.

    • Jaime,
      Perhaps you would be interested in the insights and works of Temple Grandin, who has brought about great changes in slaughter techniques. There are ways to kill an animal which do not involve suffering beyond a split instant, if at all. Any argument which says that the killing of an animal for food is wrong, doesn’t reach very deep. Is the Preying Mantis, eating a butterfly alive… well, you can see where this is going.

      • Alan, I wasn’t arguing that killing another animal for food is wrong per se, just saying that we can make a judgement often as to whether it is necessary and whether the suffering involved justifies the acquisition of nourishment. Wild predators don’t make that judgement generally; they eat to survive. It’s not just slaughtering animals that presents a problem; it’s ensuring that, on the industrial scale required to feed nations, farmed animals do not suffer unduly from birth until the point of death. Unfortunately, the meat and farming industries are unable and in many cases unwilling to implement measures whereby animals do have a reasonable quality of life prior to slaughter. So if you eat industrially farmed animals, you choose to either ignore this suffering or accept that it is a necessary evil in order that you can include animal protein in your diet

    • Iowa Beef Processors, last time I was there, was running 190 cattle per hour through their machine.
      One moment, the animal is walking through a chute and one second later is completely dead on the floor.
      What is the suffering to which you refer? All in your mind, was it? Phantom telepathic psychological pain, was it?

      • Oh well, you’ve been to Iowa Beef Processors and seen animals being killed really quickly, so no suffering EVER anywhere, happens in the meat industry. It’s all in my head. Right . . . .

      • you delicate flower.
        what part of real life did you find where there is no pain ever?
        You may not realize this, but inflicting your personal agonies on others is unwelcome.
        Nobody wants a sniveler at the dinner table shedding fake tears on the meat.

      • Jaime Jessop,

        You’re tilting at the wrong windmill. The true savages are the Muslims, who practice halal, a method of excruciating torture that ends the life of the animal.

        Halal is right up there (IMHO) as a reason to declare Islam as a world Outlaw Religion.

      • Outlawing ritual slaughter like that is fine with me. But I hope you’re not comparing them with Islamists. That would be like comparing civilized folks with savage, murderous barbarians.

      • Gnomish,

        “you delicate flower.
        what part of real life did you find where there is no pain ever?
        You may not realize this, but inflicting your personal agonies on others is unwelcome.
        Nobody wants a sniveler at the dinner table shedding fake tears on the meat.”

        You’re a card aren’t you. They’re not my “personal agonies” you silly person, they are the agonies of billions of creatures caught up in the meat processing industry. Agonies which you would like to ignore, deny or falsely minimise presumably because you just love the taste of meat and the convenience of popping down to the supermarket and buying a shrink-wrapped steak without having to go through that messy business of killing it yourself, Best not think about how that animal lived or died for your culinary convenience. Bit of a ‘delicate flower’ aren’t you if you find mention of these agonies ‘unwelcome’?

  21. We would not have any of these wonderous animals if it were not for crude oil.

    It is the discovery of cheap oil from the ground that saved the whales from being hunted into extinction. Crude oil was far cheaper and easier to obtain than was whale oil.

    Every conservationist should thank god for crude oil. It has not only empowered mankind, liberating our lives, but has also saved these great creatures along the way.

    • Bingo. Richard Verney.
      We can now make the case for reinventing the whaling industry.
      As crude oil is evil and unsustainable in the Enviro-Nasty Industries eyes, we must return to natural sustainable oil.
      Nuke the Whale.
      Time to present my business case for slurping up taxpayer funds, Sustainable Oil.
      With a massive grant of other peoples money, I will set up an accelerated breeding programme for Oil Bearing Whales, the High Oil, Faster Breeder Programme.
      I sense an acronym lurking here in.
      GMO Whale Product?

      Sarcasm aside I did find this concept effective in getting through to a Greedy Greeny.
      Just like all those horses we need to breed and train to replace one diesel engine.
      But “horsepower” is a concept lost on the Cult members, cause maths is hard.

  22. …and whats wrong with killing whales in a managed and sustainable way? You eat meat don’t you ?..take a look in your local Halal slaughter house and see real suffering.

  23. Hi Eric,

    Apologies in advance if my memory is bad and I’m wrongly attributing this view to you. However, I seem to remember you advocating that it was perfectly OK to kill sharks, and other marine life, in nets strung out in their natural environment, because humans want to play in the water. So is it OK to kill them if they get near humans, but raise a furore if they are out in deep ocean?

  24. It has been pointed out on numerous occasions, that Australia has no international legal right to confront the Japanese.
    The whole sanctuary declared by Australia has no international legal basis.
    While i would prefer that whales were not killed, starting aMaritime war with Japan is not an outcome I would like to see.

  25. In Fredrick Pohl and C. M. Kornbluth’s classic SF novel, The Space Merchants, there is a giant hydroponic muscle, known as ‘Chicken Little’, from which slices of meat are carved off and distributed to the world.

    As I recall, it was in Puerto Rico. It was fed with algae:

    Skum-skimming wasn’t hard to learn. You got up at dawn. You gulped a breakfast sliced not long ago from Chicken Little and washed it down with Coffiest. You put on your coveralls and took the cargo net up to your tier. In blazing noon from sunrise to sunset you walked your acres of shallow tanks crusted with algae. If you walked slowly, every thirty seconds or so you spotted a patch at maturity, bursting with yummy carbohydrates. You skimmed the patch with your skimmer and slung it down the well, where it would be baled, or processed into glucose to feed Chicken Little, who would be sliced and packed to feed people from Baffinland to Little America. Every hour you could drink from your canteen and take a salt tablet. Every two hours you could take five minutes. At sunset you turned in your coveralls and went to dinner — more slices from Chicken Little — and then you were on your own. You could talk, you could read, you could go into trance before the dayroom hypnoteleset, you could shop, you could pick fights, you could drive yourself crazy thinking of what might have been, you could go to sleep . . .

    http://www.ralphmag.org/spacemerchants2.html

    No sentience, not even consciousness, just muscle. Sounds like a good source of protein. However, muscle requires a blood supply, and nerves (to maintain tone, though this could probably be simulated electrically), so it might be more complicated than just a petri dish. You need fat, too, for flavor.

    We’re not that far away from Chicken Little now. Then we won’t need the flesh of the kindly cows and the jolly whales. Though in the meantime, I still fancy a steak now and then.

    And yes (on topic), the Aussies should go out and harass the Japanese, just for the halibut.

    /Mr Lynn

    • “And yes (on topic), the Aussies should go out and harass the Japanese, just for the halibut.”
      ——————-
      Oh, you!

      OU! On to the Final Four!

  26. Chairman Mao thought: “Whale not as good as CO2 for reintroduction of Communism.”

  27. The morality of what the Japanese are doing could be argued about til the cows came home. Nothing would be accomplished by that, except to cause bitterness. This does highlight a fact though, that has been made often; we skeptics/climate realists come from all walks of life, and a wide range of political, social, and religious sensibilities. That, in a way though, is a strength, not a weakness. The climate Believers continually try to put us in one box, because that makes it easier for them to attack.
    However, clearly what they are doing is illegal, done under the thinly-disguised veil of “research”. The hypocrisy and idiocy of a government spending $billions on a non-problem, when they could take a tiny portion of that to prevent this from happening is obvious. It is an hypocrisy generally of all so-called “green” groups as well, who have apparently abandoned heretofore real environmental concerns for an entirely false one.

  28. So the Japanese like eating whale meat. I like eating Kobe beef, red snapper and BBQ pork among a long list of other foods. They are not killing an endanger species. Nor am I. We like to say the greenies sole purpose is population control and the forcing of their beliefs upon the rest of us. Make sure you whale lovers are not doing the same.

    • Dear Tom,

      I agree. We should not legislate morality. There is, however, imo, Higher Law, or “Natural Law.” E.g., we enforce the morality of not being cruel to dogs (and a law is needed for this ev1l, for there are “un-people,” i.e., people born with no conscience, who need threat of punishment to prevent their acting against “Natural Law.”). The “law” here, v. a v. whales, would be, “Do not torture an animal to death” (or similar wording). If the only way to kill a cow or steer was to shoot a harpoon into it and drag it around until it finally bled to death or suffocated, I would cry out against such inhumanity. While I am appalled at the killing of elephants and whales in view of their intelligence and affectionate and playful “personality,” I am not standing up for pigs which are also relatively intelligent, for their “personality” to me is disgusting. Just a personal feeling. Much of what I wrote is just my personal beliefs/feelings and I would not push them on anyone.

      The best thing is to enlighten a society and teach them to love animals so that the conscience of society, not its laws, will dictate how animals are treated. For example, in many countries, familiarity with a dog’s affectionate nature, its loyalty, its intelligence, and its courage, has persuaded the culture as a whole to reject dog farms for food and like horrors. There are exceptions. For instance, there are people within those cultures whose hearts are so hard they can’t love dogs and who run puppy mills to make money and there are also the many people who look the other way and buy from them. We have to legislate against that kind of animal cruelty. But, thankfully, cultural horror of farming dogs for food is such a widely held belief that no laws are necessary.

      Torture is another matter. That I would legislate against (be it pigs or chickens or whales). Thus, I am against whaling. I don’t feel good about how lobsters and salmon die, but, I would not legislate against their killing. There is a distinction, for me, with a difference, based on the intelligence of the “victim” and or given the amount of suffering and anguish involved in the death.

      Thanks for the caveat. Good to be reminded to carefully think through what one is asking of others — and why.

      Enjoy your weekend (what remains of it)!

      Janice

      • Implied in your view Janice is that marine mammals don’t suffer greatly in nature and that over-population is never an issue. Not only is that untrue, but nature, apart from man is far, far more wicked when it kills then what the Japanese do to kill whales. There are many examples of mass-starvation events among mammals that reproduce until some event forces a mass cull. For what ever reason the usual amount forage is unavailable and starvation sets in. The group dynamic changes greatly when there isn’t any food. I could elaborate on the nastiness that can set in from a human point of view, but never mind that.

        In my mind elephants are an equivalent comparison for whales and left to themselves elephants will reproduce until they hit the lack-of-forage wall. Is it better to cull 1,000 animals per year or let the herd grow in size for ten years and watch 20,000 animals die of starvation in the span of a month? The Japanese people have been whaling since the 1500’s and consider themselves to be the “natural” predators of whales. If it bothers you; don’t look.

      • On the subject of the morality of eating pigs vs dogs, I usually refer to a scene from one of my favorite movies. in which two guys name Jules and Vincent discuss such over breakfast:

        “Vincent: Want some bacon?

        Jules: No man, I don’t eat pork.

        Vincent: Are you Jewish?

        Jules: Nah, I ain’t Jewish, I just don’t dig on swine, that’s all.

        Vincent: Why not?

        Jules: Pigs are filthy animals. I don’t eat filthy animals.

        Vincent: Bacon tastes gooood. Pork chops taste gooood.

        Jules: Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I’d never know ’cause I wouldn’t eat the filthy m*therf*cker. Pigs sleep and root in sh!t. That’s a filthy animal. I ain’t eat nothin’ that ain’t got sense enough to disregard its own feces.

        Vincent: How about a dog? Dogs eats its own feces.

        Jules: I don’t eat dog either.

        Vincent: Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?

        Jules: I wouldn’t go so far as to call a dog filthy but they’re definitely dirty. But, a dog’s got personality. Personality goes a long way.

        Vincent: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?

        Jules: Well we’d have to be talkin’ about one charming m*therf*ckin’ pig. I mean he’d have to be ten times more charmin’ than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I’m sayin’? “

      • For what it is worth…i sincerely doubt sewer rats taste anything at all like pumpkin pie.
        And I can say that without having ever tasted either one, and be confident that I have it right.

      • Janice – you have to make up your mind. Are you against whale hunting because it is “inhumane” and there is some suffering on the part of the animal, or are you just against it because whales are some sort of higher being like humans?

  29. I’m rooting for the Sea Shepard at sea and in court. I hate wind machines – bird killers. And I fondly recall a time way back, when Green Peace was regularly involved in picking moral fights with really nasty people. Now it seems GP’s fight is with all people – misanthropic idealogues IMO -and global warming is their hammer.

    • Some people would say one man’s ‘terrorist’ is another man’s ‘freedom fighter’ but there’s no distinction to be made if the actions are the same.
      In the same manner, I don’t bother distinguishing one bunch of useless, violent, confrontational, above-the-law, ecotard, activists who didn’t grow up after their pointless arts degree and the next bunch of useless, violent, confrontational, above-the-law, ecotard, actvists who didn’t grow up after their pointless arts degree. Sea Shepherd, Greenpr!cks, PETA, they’re all slightly different flavours of the same basic scum.
      The only time I was happy to see Sea Shepard in the news was the time the morons thought they could play chicken with the big boys and managed to sink their poxy bat-boat (the Ady Gil). I can’t watch video footage of that and the moonbats indignantly whining about how unfair it was too often for it not to bring tears to my eyes every time (just before my stomach starts hurting from laughing so hard).
      Incidently, Ady Gil and others filed a RICO complaint against Sea Shepherd afterwards, claiming the boat they’d donated was repairable, but deliberately sunk in order to solicit donations:
      https://www.consumerfreedom.com/2015/03/sea-shepherd-is-a-sinking-ship/
      The leader of Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson,was kicked out of Greenpr!cks for being too radical.
      …really sure you want to be ‘rooting’ for an organisation like this?

  30. Sort of off topic.
    Sperm whale oil (for lamps etc) was at one time in great demand.
    It was the introduction of much, much cheaper kerosene (and other petroleum products for the “etc”) that killed the demand for sperm whale oil.
    “Big Oil” saved the whales!

    • I just returned from a trip to Antarctica, including some of the old whaling villages on South Georgia island. Here is a picture (taken by my son) of whale oil tanks in Grytviken. I too am thankful that this is no longer necessary.

      And I can’t resist sharing this one (also by my son) of a trio of humpbacks.

      • Hi Gregory,
        Thanks for the interesting pictures. A mate of mine was posted to South Georgia about a year after the Argies were escorted off the premises and his section was photographed with a similar backdrop in Gritviken.
        I agree it’s thankful we aren’t having to hunt whales on industrial scale for oil anymore and it’s great that that whale watching is becoming such a common tourist drawcard (I used to work in the North West of Australia and the whale watching was a free fringe benefit, as was the daily shenannigans of dolphins teasing seagulls and stalking flying fish).
        I would add though that it is worth observing the marked difference between industrial exploitation of several species (almost to extinction in some cases) for energy demand and hunting minke whales to meet a limited cullinary demand.

  31. “which is not the point, the point is they are being needlessly slaughtered.”

    Actually the point is you have established ‘needless’, or reckless, or criminal, or significant.

    I think scum bags just use their fake concerns to make a point.

  32. The only way to stop this brutal slaughter of whales is to boycott Japanese products!! Don’t buy their cars and electronic products! Hurt them in their pocket books!!!

  33. But, I must ask, what is wrong with harvesting whales that ARE NOT ENDANGERED? These are not the North Atlantic Right Whales. There are many species of whale that are not endangered, and are thriving. The anti whale people are unable to grasp that this is another natural sustainable resource, like seals on both sides of the North Atlantic, who’s populations have exploded thanks to the MMPA. Anti whaling is nothing more than another ideological position, based on nothingness.

    • I agree completely. The Red List (http://www.iucnredlist.org/) puts Common Minke populations at ‘Least Concern’ with estimated numbers at over 180K. It has insufficient data on Antarctic Minkebut says:
      “It is not possible at this time to estimate the abundance of B. acutorostrata in the Southern Hemisphere, because most of the available quantitative sighting data do not distinguish it from the much more numerous B. bonaerensis with which it is partially sympatric. B. acutorostrata has not been subject to significant exploitation in the Southern Hemisphere.”

      I think people apply some sort of moral bias to killing whales – I can’t explain this bias because I don’t think they are significantly different from any other large warm-blooded mammal. I personally ‘slaughter’ sheep and cows every year. Friends of mine ‘slaughter’ deer and goats for sport. We aren’t advocating species extinction and, in the case of the Minke that is not even a risk. Why are some animals more equal than others?

      • Onyabike March 27, 2016 at 12:57 pm
        “Why are some animals more equal than others?”
        _____
        It appears to be nothing more than irrational prejudices and shallow preference for sexy, photogenic cute animals. You can eat the non-cute mangy viscous things (except tigers, they’re waaay cute pussy cats), but the cute ones that make cute sounds are ‘special’.

        The prejudices for or against certain animals is a moral neurosis which turns into ‘fan’-aticism for some. The ‘fans’ of whales and other animals become unbalanced, obsessed with them, and people identify closely with their obsessions. Teenage girls and horses, for instance (apparently Teenage girls in Kazakhstan don’t suffer that obsession).

        But what’s more preposterous is the way the prejudiced fans project their arbitrary ‘morality’ and prejudiced judgements on humans, if they eat an enshrined ‘cute’ one.

        Because we all know that humans are bad, really bad, so that’s a given, except the self-beatifying moral and sanctimonious ones, as they’re so ‘cute’ too.

        But we’re just human, we have not self-beatified yet for we’re moral second-bananas to the self-beatified fan who self-enlightens and volunteers to abstain from masticating the devil-jerky.

        Yeah … I could go a seal.

  34. What rankles?

    The blatant lies of a government of a democratic country and its disregard for the opinion of the vast majority of the people who live in the region

    What we won’t do is confront ships in a manner that is outside of international law. There are better ways. We are not doing nothing. This issue does cost Japan – big time

    Nevertheless, I find the connection between this and CO2 most strange

  35. This is a rather “key” article, imo. While the msm suffer over and are distracted looking into a cooling atmosphere, claiming that its warming. Moby Dick Corp. continues hedging. Look at Bernie Sanders plan to turn U.S. energy into Gazprom and you will have all the Monopoly evidence you need.

  36. New Zealand and Australia have been taking this seriously. The problem is that all international legal mechanisms have been exhausted. Japan actually lost the case which NZ and Australia brought against its scientific whaling program, which was ruled to be unscientific and consequently in breach of the international whaling ban. Japan has now chosen to ignore that ruling.

    Sea Shepherd want NZ and Australia to send their navies to confront the Japanese whaling ships and physically block them from harvesting whales. Sea Shepherd are completely bonkers. There is no way the responsible governments of NZ and Australia are going to risk a military confrontation with Japan over whales. Nor should they.

    The Japanese view whales as akin to cows, which is not an unreasonable point of view, as evidence of their sentience is rather lacking. International condemnation of whaling has in the past been excessively strident and emotional and has verged on an accusation that the Japanese are engaging in murder or worse, the deliberate genocide of an intelligent species. This has been taken as an insult and affront to the Japanese people.

    Consequently there are now issues of national pride involved, which is why the Japanese government supports the whaling fleet. Personally I think confronting Japan over this is the wrong approach.

    • Thanks Ian, agree.

      Canberra had admitted from about 2006 (from memory) that claims in southern ocean and Antarctica were not going to be recognized.

      The boofheads in Greenpeace/Sea Shepard still want to try to stir the foreign relations pot to divide relations and coerce policy in a dangerous and counterproductive way. As you point out, it has no hope of working.

      I remember that conceited Bono visiting Australia about a decade back and directly requesting (in the media, btw) to speak with John Howard, apparently to try to convert him to Bono’s pet topics and politics. Howard’s reply was a classic. When asked about the request for a meeting with Bono, by a reporter, Howard’s first response was the look of, ‘wtf’? Followed by the terse remark (paraphrased), “The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia does not take advice from pop stars”.

      And that was the end of Bono’s global political grandstanding routines.

      That’s an appropriate stance for mature governments to take to Greenpeace’s endless stirring and contrived accusations, and media muck-raking on this topic.

  37. The hypocrisy in the article and these comments are outstanding. Just a bunch of emotional blather over perceived harm, which is no different than the typical green emotional appeals. The science says whale hunting is a sustainable activity. This is used to continue a cultural tradition.

    The science does not indicate says human fossil fuel use is going to destroy the planet, the emotional blathering has put great pressure society to discontinued their use, the consequences to the poor be damned.

  38. In the contest between real environmentalism versus CAGW, the latter wins every time. One save the environment, the other imposes a totalitarian socialist State on everyone. A far more attractive outcome to these proponents. All of whom imagine themselves as some sort of elite Platonic leader, rather than simpletons doing the will of corporate and political party puppet masters. Follow the money.

  39. I would want more information. Which species of whales were taken and how many of each? Some species have now completely recovered in some areas to pre-whaling numbers. Depending on how many were taken of which species, this could be completely benign to the population as a whole. Also people should take a some things into consideration. Whale meat is extremely high in iron and the Japanese traditional diet is very low in iron without it. Whale meat has been a primary source of iron in the Japanese diet for thousands of years. Humans have been taking whales, albeit in less efficient means than a modern commercial whaling ship, for thousands of years. Many whale species are no longer considered threatened as their numbers have rebounded. I would want to know more information before I simply react to “over 300 whales taken”. This might be a huge nothingburger that is being blown out of proportion because “whales”.

  40. Anyone who does not see anything wrong with killing whales, I would request that you each identify yourselves as such and please include your contact information.
    I will see amount getting each of you a new moral compass…no charge.

    You are welcome.
    I wish I could say I am not really bothered by some of the views expressed here, and not just on the subject of whales…but I cannot.
    I have substantially less respect for some of the commenters above than i had when I woke up this morning.

    • Alternatively, you could drop the bluster and explain what you believe is immoral about killing to eat, whales. I’m actually interested to see what you think is important or different about whales, and allegedly immoral about their hunting and death, or human consumption? Proceed.

    • Menicholas,if a comment were posted here saying “anyone who does not see anything wrong with polluting the atmosphere with carbon (sic),I would request that you each identifiy yourselves as such…I will see about getting each of you a new moral compass,blah, blah, blah…” followed by some smug drivel about loosing respect for people who don’t share your opinion (as if it mattered in the slightest), your instinctive first reaction would rightly be to marvel at the conceit behind such a statement, followed by an invitation to go forth and multiply.
      Do you see why, in my humble opinion (as much as I understand it doesn’t matter) some of the commenters above have substantially less credibility than I imagined them to posses before I awoke this morning?

  41. Hey! Look at that beautiful kettle calling out the pot for being black…
    Just like any weather can be blamed on global warming, it seems any political problem can be blamed on “the greens”… bravo…

    It’s becoming more and more obvious why this site and its comment section is attracting more and more right wing lunatics… that’s unfortunate.
    Ah well…

  42. The Great Southern Whale Slaughter: The Price of the Green Obsession with CO2?

    Using the Opportunity Cost arguement is IMHO one of the best ways to battle climate change wasteful spending. How many roads, schools, hospitals aren’t being built. How many whales aren’t being saved because we are misallocating resources to climate nonsense.

  43. @ATeoK

    You may want to consider that what you think is an insult is actually a description. If you are being stupid, do you want to know so you can be less stupid?

    I am often told I am wrong. I go back and check. I so hate being wrong. It would be stupid of me to not learn from being wrong.

    It was suggested that ‘new moral compass’ could be provided to some of us. I so hate being immoral. So I went back and checked. There appears to a reasonable difference of opinion.

    I think mice are cute and am not surprised when field mice take up residence in the house in the fall. I was surprised when the rattle snake came looking for warm food.

    It is my job to set the mouse trap. Cute disease carrying vermin. A friend told me a brand of bath soap that mice did not like the smell of so I put the soap where mice come into the house. No more mice where I do not want them.

    Morality is subjective, but I think my moral compass is doing fine.

    “Kit,
    You are either a lying troll, or a sick excuse for a human being.
    Go be hateful somewhere else.
    And Happy Easter…may God bless your soul and the love of Jesus enter your life.”

    Not that is ironic. I am always skeptical of moral compass dealers.

Comments are closed.