Vegetarian Discussion: Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale

Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale
Posts: 166

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

Pearl
2006-10-23 09:25:18 EST

Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale

"I view the taking of a whales life in the same manner
I would view the taking of a human life. It is murder
and it is a crime to slaughter such socially complex
intelligent and sensitive sentient beings. The method
of killing is torturous and grossly inhumane. We
would never tolerate a domestic animal to suffer such
a long and painful death. Every person who regards
themselves as civilized must express their disgust and
their revulsion against the whale killing atrocities of
Iceland, Norway, the Faeroes and Japan. These people
who practice this horrific serial killing of whales are the
most barbarous representatives of humanity upon this
planet and cast shame upon their nations."

- Captain Paul Watson


Iceland killed an endangered Fin whale today. This is the first
illegal murder of a whale since Iceland announced their intention
to violate the global moratorium on commercial whaling.

The whale was swimming happily along some two hundred miles
off the coast of Iceland when some Nordic nimrod cowardly
slammed an exploding harpoon into its backside.

The whale struggled in incredible pain for a long time before
losing strength and finally drowned after an agonizing period
when it lungs ruptured and its heart burst from the strain of
oxygen deprivation.

There are some who will take offense at our use of the word
murder. We make no apologies.

Whales are highly intelligent, long lived, socially complex,
sensitive sentient beings. It is a crime against nature and
humanity to cruelly snuff out the life of even one of these
great creatures.

What Iceland did today is unforgivable and tragic and leaves
us with a deep resentment and anger towards Iceland.

"Every time a whale is killed by a human being, it destroys
a little more of my faith in humanity." Said Captain Paul
Watson. "Killing whales in the 21st Century is a savage,
barbaric, ecologically ignorant act of a people who are
displaying an incredible contempt and disrespect for life
and for world opinion."

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is calling for a
total boycott of all Icelandic products and tourism to
Iceland and the Society is already planning a campaign to
confront Icelandic whale killers in Icelandic waters in 2007.

"We are recruiting crew and we are organizing a plan to
go to Iceland and it will be a priority following our
campaign beginning December 1st to oppose the illegal
whaling activities of the Japanese whaling fleet in the
Antarctic Whale Sanctuary


Captain Paul Watson
Founder and President of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (1977-
Co-Founder - The Greenpeace Foundation (1972)
Co-Founder - Greenpeace International (1979)
Director of the Sierra Club USA (2003-2006)
Director - The Farley Mowat Institute
Director - www.harpseals.org


"Sail forth - steer for the deep waters only,
Reckless O soul, exploring, I with thee and thou with me,
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all."
- Walt Whitman


www.Seashepherd.org



Floyd L. Davidson
2006-10-23 12:08:05 EST
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale

It is not possible to "murder" a whale. The term "murder"
applies to humans. You might not have noticed, I suppose, but
no whales are human.

...
>- Captain Paul Watson

Watson is an idiot, and that quote demonstrated exactly why he
should be avoided.

>Iceland killed an endangered Fin whale today.

Fin whales are not in any danger of extinction, and therefore
are *not* endangered.

>off the coast of Iceland when some Nordic nimrod cowardly
>slammed an exploding harpoon into its backside.

Well, yesterday I had chicken for dinner. You can imagine that
some cowardly person "murdered" that poor defenseless chicken...

Or you could use whatever brain you have.

>The whale struggled in incredible pain for a long time before
>losing strength and finally drowned after an agonizing period
>when it lungs ruptured and its heart burst from the strain of
>oxygen deprivation.

That is pure bullshit. If it was struck by an "exploding
harpoon" that whale did not suffer at all. In less than one
second it would no longer have been able to feel pain. It would
not have died by drowning, and there is no way its lungs
ruptured or its hear burst.

That is just more foolishness. The whale's entire nervous
system would have been destroyed instantly by the bomb
explosion. Its heart and lungs might have continued to function
reflexively, but that whale had no feelings and was technically
dead in an instant.

>There are some who will take offense at our use of the word
>murder. We make no apologies.

Because have no concern with being honest.

>Whales are highly intelligent, long lived, socially complex,
>sensitive sentient beings.

There is no evidence that they are intelligent. Or "socially
complex" for that matter. And there is no reason to suspect
they are "sensitive sentient beings". They are in fact long
lived, so you got at least something right.

>It is a crime against nature and
>humanity to cruelly snuff out the life of even one of these
>great creatures.

More bullshit.

>What Iceland did today is unforgivable and tragic and leaves
>us with a deep resentment and anger towards Iceland.

What you just posted is unforgivable, and it leaves others
with resentment and anger towards fools like you.

..
>The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is calling for a

Who cares what a bunch of fools do.

...
>www.Seashepherd.org

You are just another fool that can't quite get a grip on
reality, flocking together with the others who follow Watson.
What a hoot...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

Pearl
2006-10-23 14:51:44 EST
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:87ods33ti2.fld@apaflo.com...

Foolish nonsense.



Floyd L. Davidson
2006-10-23 15:38:18 EST
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:87ods33ti2.fld@apaflo.com...
>
>Foolish nonsense.

That is exactly what you posted, as I demonstrated line by line.

You of course can't argue logically with that...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

Pearl
2006-10-23 18:50:16 EST
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:87ods33ti2.fld@apaflo.com...
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale
> >- Captain Paul Watson
>
> >Iceland killed an endangered Fin whale today.
<.>
> Fin whales are not in any danger of extinction, and therefore
> are *not* endangered.

'..fin whales are regarded as an endangered species by both CITES
(Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) and the
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). The
Scientific Committee of the IWC disagrees with Iceland that there
are abundant populations of fin whales.
http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_061023_2.html

'Britain's fisheries minister has summoned Iceland's ambassador
to explain why the country has decided to start hunting endangered
whales.

Ben Bradshaw called Iceland's position "inexplicable and
inexcusable".

On Tuesday Iceland announced it would resume commercial
whaling after a hiatus of 20 years.

Conservation groups are particularly angered by plans to hunt
endangered fin whales; Iceland maintains numbers are high enough
to permit hunting.

It disputes the assessment of scientists in IUCN, the World
Conservation Union, that fin whale stocks are fragile.

'Flagrant disregard'

But Mr Bradshaw disagreed. "World opinion is rightly outraged
by this flagrant disregard for international agreements," he said.

"There is no rationale for this decision, and Iceland cannot even
find markets for the whalemeat it gets from so-called 'scientific'
whaling."
...'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6064028.stm

'The Endangered Species Act is sometimes called nature's safety
net. When our Nation's other conservation laws and management
practices fail to maintain healthy plant and animal populations, the
ESA serves as a last barrier to extinction. Once a species comes
under ESA protection, it stands an excellent chance of survival.
Then, the much more difficult, time consuming, and expensive
task of reversing the decline, restoring the species to a secure
status, and removing it from the list of threatened and endangered
species begins.'
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/

> >off the coast of Iceland when some Nordic nimrod cowardly
> >slammed an exploding harpoon into its backside.
>
> Well, yesterday I had chicken for dinner. You can imagine that
> some cowardly person "murdered" that poor defenseless chicken...

Correct.

> >The whale struggled in incredible pain for a long time before
> >losing strength and finally drowned after an agonizing period
> >when it lungs ruptured and its heart burst from the strain of
> >oxygen deprivation.
>
> That is pure bullshit. If it was struck by an "exploding
> harpoon" that whale did not suffer at all. In less than one
> second it would no longer have been able to feel pain. It would
> not have died by drowning, and there is no way its lungs
> ruptured or its hear burst.
>
> That is just more foolishness. The whale's entire nervous
> system would have been destroyed instantly by the bomb
> explosion. Its heart and lungs might have continued to function
> reflexively, but that whale had no feelings and was technically
> dead in an instant.

'All methods of killing whales are inhumane because, among
other problems, they do not render the animals instantaneously
insensible. The large size of even the smallest species of whales,
their remarkable adaptations for diving, and the weather and
conditions at sea make it impossible to kill whales humanely or
instantaneously. What's more, according to published studies,
whalers identify death as the cessation of movement in external
body parts such as the pectoral flipper-not the cessation of
cerebral function. Therefore, whales, who are sentient, intelligent
mammals, may suffer horrible and often prolonged deaths due
to the unreliable and brutal killing methods used.

Killing Methods

Explosive harpoons. This method uses a large spear tipped with
a penthrite grenade that explodes on impact. Accurate execution
of this method is nearly impossible given the conditions at sea.
Even so, this device is supposed to cause "instantaneous" death
(defined as death within ten seconds or fewer). Although this
method could immediately kill the whale if the projectile pierced
directly through the heart or brain, the average time to death is
about four minutes, and some whales live for well over an hour
after the grenade has exploded.
...'
http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/save_whales_not_whaling/learn_more/fact_sheets_on_whaling/the_fallacy_of_humane_killing/

> >There are some who will take offense at our use of the word
> >murder. We make no apologies.
>
> Because have no concern with being honest.

"Humans - who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other
animals - have had an understandable penchant for pretending
animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans
and "animals" is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make
them work for us, wear them, eat them - without any disquieting
tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave
so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans
can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions
specious. They are just too much like us." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
& Dr. Ann Druyan, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, 1992

> >Whales are highly intelligent, long lived, socially complex,
> >sensitive sentient beings.
>
> There is no evidence that they are intelligent. Or "socially
> complex" for that matter. And there is no reason to suspect
> they are "sensitive sentient beings". They are in fact long
> lived, so you got at least something right.

'In his paper Into the brains of whales, published this month
in Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Simmonds puts forward
a compelling argument for the highly developed intelligence of
both whales and dolphins. He asserts that, rather than brain
anatomy or size, which is sometimes used to indicate cognitive
ability, more accurate indicators of intelligence can be found in
behaviour and social structures.
...
Evidence of the typically human emotions, grief, parental love
and joy, as well as the existence of complex social interactions
and structures, are further indicators of the highly developed
intelligence of whales and dolphins. In one example, despite
the risk of dehydration, stranding and shark attack, a group of
false killer whales floated for 3 days in the shallows of the
straits of Florida, USA to protect an injured male. Such was
their cohesion and reliance upon the group, individuals became
agitated when rescuers tried to separate them, calming only
when reunited.

The potential impacts of threats such as whaling, pollution and
fishing nets on such highly intelligent animals, may be far greater
and wider ranging than is currently thought. In drastically
reducing populations, whalers may have destroyed not just
numerous individuals, but also the cultural knowledge they had
relating to exploitation of certain habitats and areas, ultimately
altering the evolution of the species.

Simmonds comments. 'It is the behaviour of animals that tells
us about their mental capacities, not brain size or anatomy.
..
In his paper he concludes. 'Our relationship with these animals
therefore needs to move to a new paradigm recognising these
animals as unique individuals, communities, societies and
cultures and valuing them as such'

Into the Brains of Whales by Mark Peter Simmonds was
published in the Journal of Applied Animal Behaviour Science
100 (2006) 103-116.
..'
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/713EDD5FDA2E042B802571FB0057B0DF

> >It is a crime against nature and
> >humanity to cruelly snuff out the life of even one of these
> >great creatures.
>
> More bullshit.

'in\ufffdhu\ufffdman
adj.
1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See Synonyms at cruel.
2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
..
inhuman
adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
"cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
inhuman noises"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman

> >What Iceland did today is unforgivable and tragic and leaves
> >us with a deep resentment and anger towards Iceland.
>
> What you just posted is unforgivable,

No. What you are trying to defend is unforgivable.

> ..
> >The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is calling for a
>
> Who cares what

"It is a shocking and horrific spectacle and even the whalers
themselves are too ashamed to let the world see it."

This media blackout applies not only to international media
but also to local Icelandic media, who are particularly outraged.
Media are, however, being allowed to take pictures of the whale
once it is finally dead and carved up by the hunters.
..
Iceland's decision to resume whaling is expected to have a
profound effect on its economy and international standing.
The Icelandic Tourist Industry Association has voiced strong
opposition to the decision.

Forty percent of all Iceland's tourists engage in whale watching,
and the country is considered the finest whale watching destination
in Europe. Whale watching has been the fastest growing sector of
the tourist industry in the country, worth around $8 million (USD)
annually.

"Iceland's determination to start killing whales again will cast an
indelible stain on their international reputation," said Fred O'Regan,
IFAW's President.

"We would urge them to think long and hard about the shame
that this will bring on them and put an end to this cruel and
needless slaughter," he said.
...'
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-26-2003-44643.asp

Sweden condemns Icelandic whale catch
Published: 22nd October 2006 19:46 CET

Sweden's environment minister Andreas Carlgren has reacted
strongly after Icelandic whalers made their first kill following
the country's decision to resume commercial whaling.

Carlgren challenged Iceland to "immediately stop hunting whales."
He told Dagens Nyheter that the move a "provocation against all
those countries which are working in the International Whaling
Commission to restore the decimated whale population."

"This is deeply upsetting and completely unacceptable," Carlgren
said.
...'
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=5291&date=20061022

> ...
> >www.Seashepherd.org




Stein R
2006-10-23 21:36:40 EST
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in
news:ehjgrh$g32$1@reader01.news.esat.net:

> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
> news:87ods33ti2.fld@apaflo.com...
>> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> >Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale
>> >- Captain Paul Watson
>>
>> >Iceland killed an endangered Fin whale today.
> <.>
>> Fin whales are not in any danger of extinction, and therefore
>> are *not* endangered.
>
> '..fin whales are regarded as an endangered species by both CITES
> (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) and the
> IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). The
> Scientific Committee of the IWC disagrees with Iceland that there
> are abundant populations of fin whales.
> http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_061023_2.html
>
> 'Britain's fisheries minister has summoned Iceland's ambassador
> to explain why the country has decided to start hunting endangered
> whales.
>
> Ben Bradshaw called Iceland's position "inexplicable and
> inexcusable".
>
> On Tuesday Iceland announced it would resume commercial
> whaling after a hiatus of 20 years.
>
> Conservation groups are particularly angered by plans to hunt
> endangered fin whales; Iceland maintains numbers are high enough
> to permit hunting.
>
> It disputes the assessment of scientists in IUCN, the World
> Conservation Union, that fin whale stocks are fragile.

Yeah, killing those nine (9) Fin whales the Icelanders have issued
hunting quotas this fall for will probably finish off the species,
which the IWC estimates to be at about 25 000 animals.

http://eng.sjavarutvegsraduneyti.is/news-and-articles/nr/1301

As for what is the IUCNs position, you can read that here :
http://www.iucn.org/en/news/archive/2006/06/20_whale_commission.htm

and here:
http://www.iucn.org/en/news/archive/2001_2005/press/whalepolicy.html

Essensially the same position as the Icelandic government in urging
that the political part of the IWC completes and adopts the Revised
Management Scheme the scientific committee of the IWC has proposed
(ie set quotas based on estimates of sustainability, with plenty of
safety margin built in). Quote "IUCN is disappointed that the IWC
has at its recent meeting decided not to continue work on the RMS".

Incidentally, the sustainable catch limit for Fin whale hunting
would set the quota at about 200 animals per year, with plenty of
safety margin built in. Iceland is planning to kill 9 ...

By all means - if you don't want to kill animals for religious
reasons, feel free to argue for that position. But don't mix
religion and science.

Grin,
Stein, who isn't particularily fond neither of whale meat nor nonsense

Floyd L. Davidson
2006-10-24 04:58:42 EST
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:87ods33ti2.fld@apaflo.com...
>> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> >Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale
>> >- Captain Paul Watson
>>
>> >Iceland killed an endangered Fin whale today.
><.>
>> Fin whales are not in any danger of extinction, and therefore
>> are *not* endangered.
>
>'..fin whales are regarded as an endangered species by both CITES
>(Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) and the
>IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). The
>Scientific Committee of the IWC disagrees with Iceland that there
>are abundant populations of fin whales.
>http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_061023_2.html

That's a whole bunch of *bullshit*. There is no point in
quoting Sea Shepherd, they are well known admitted liars about
almost anything.

The *facts* are that CITES and IUCN listings are political, and
have nothing to do with whether the animal is actually
endangered or not. Given the populations of fin whales it is
*ridiculous* to claim they are in danger.

And no the IWC science committee does *not* disagree about there
being an abundance of fin whales. Making stupid statements that
are clearly not true is just silly.

>>
>> Well, yesterday I had chicken for dinner. You can imagine that
>> some cowardly person "murdered" that poor defenseless chicken...
>
>Correct.

So... we can see that you are indeed a total crackpot.

I hope to hear you are a vegetarian. Moreover, I want to hear
how you have found a way to eat plants without 1) killing the
plants, and 2) killing a *lot* of animals in most inhuman ways.

Ever see what happens when they plow a field before planting it?
You would call that a "mass murder".

>> That is just more foolishness. The whale's entire nervous
>> system would have been destroyed instantly by the bomb
>> explosion. Its heart and lungs might have continued to function
>> reflexively, but that whale had no feelings and was technically
>> dead in an instant.
>
>'All methods of killing whales are inhumane because, among
>other problems, they do not render the animals instantaneously
>insensible.

There is a huge amount of reliable science that says that is not
true.

>The large size of even the smallest species of whales,
>their remarkable adaptations for diving, and the weather and
>conditions at sea make it impossible to kill whales humanely or
>instantaneously.

Bullshit. Most of them are *dead* in seconds.

>What's more, according to published studies,
>whalers identify death as the cessation of movement in external
>body parts such as the pectoral flipper-not the cessation of
>cerebral function.

You do understand that that means whales that have long since
died, but have twitching muscles, are not counted as yet being
dead. Animals shot right through the brain, which die
instantly, twitch for minutes. I would suggest that you get
yourself a chicken, like the one I ate, and cut its head off
with an axe the way my dad used to do. I assure you the chicken
is instantly dead, and also that it can fly, and will continue
to flap around for quite a while sometimes.

>Therefore, whales, who are sentient, intelligent
>mammals, may suffer horrible and often prolonged deaths due
>to the unreliable and brutal killing methods used.

There is *no* evidence that whales are sentient or intelligent.

The actual evidence suggests that whales very rarely suffer more
than seconds.

>Killing Methods
>
>Explosive harpoons. This method uses a large spear tipped with
>a penthrite grenade that explodes on impact. Accurate execution
>of this method is nearly impossible given the conditions at sea.
>Even so, this device is supposed to cause "instantaneous" death
>(defined as death within ten seconds or fewer). Although this
>method could immediately kill the whale if the projectile pierced
>directly through the heart or brain, the average time to death is
>about four minutes, and some whales live for well over an hour
>after the grenade has exploded.
>...'

That is more bullshit. Th projectile does not explode on
impact, it explodes on penetration. It is *not* aimed at the
heart or the brain, and virtually *never* hits either of them.
It is placed *near* the upper portion of the spinal column, and
the concussion from the explosion destroys the nervous system,
including the brain. The animal is unconscious from that moment
on.

What is nearly impossible is to tell when the whale is actually
dead. Lacking that ability, a set of standards has been decided
on in order to provide comparable times. The "time to death" is
*not* the actual time until the animal is dead, and is almost
unrelated to the time when the animal is unconscious. It does
provide a comparable measure for different whales and different
methods.

It is a *very* rare animal that takes an hour to die. But yes
it does happen, and the same thing happens at slaughter houses
for other animals.

>http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/save_whales_not_whaling/learn_more/fact_sheets_on_whaling/the_fallacy_of_humane_killing/
>
>> >There are some who will take offense at our use of the word
>> >murder. We make no apologies.
>>
>> Because have no concern with being honest.
>
>"Humans - who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other
>animals - have had an understandable penchant for pretending
>animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans
>and "animals" is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make
>them work for us, wear them, eat them - without any disquieting
>tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave
>so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans
>can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions
>specious. They are just too much like us." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
>& Dr. Ann Druyan, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, 1992

Most animals eat other animals, and few of them bother to kill
the other animal before they begin to feed.

>> >Whales are highly intelligent, long lived, socially complex,
>> >sensitive sentient beings.
>>
>> There is no evidence that they are intelligent. Or "socially
>> complex" for that matter. And there is no reason to suspect
>> they are "sensitive sentient beings". They are in fact long
>> lived, so you got at least something right.
>
>'In his paper Into the brains of whales, published this month
>in Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Simmonds puts forward

...

>In his paper he concludes. 'Our relationship with these animals
>therefore needs to move to a new paradigm recognising these
>animals as unique individuals, communities, societies and
>cultures and valuing them as such'
>
>Into the Brains of Whales by Mark Peter Simmonds was
>published in the Journal of Applied Animal Behaviour Science
>100 (2006) 103-116.
>..'
>http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/713EDD5FDA2E042B802571FB0057B0DF

As I stated, there is *no* evidence that whales are intelligent.
They appear to be about the same as cattle. Cows are of course
about the dumbest animal in the barnyard.

>> >It is a crime against nature and
>> >humanity to cruelly snuff out the life of even one of these
>> >great creatures.
>>
>> More bullshit.
>
>'in·hu·man

Which doesn't change the fact that that was bullshit.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

David @ Tokyo
2006-10-24 07:57:43 EST

pearl wrote:
> Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale

Firstly I have to point out that the IUCN "endangered" classification
is for the species as a global unit, not for the particular Fin whale
stock in Iceland.

What many people don't realise is that Fin whales in the North Atlantic
don't go swimming to the other side of the world, say the South
Pacific. The Iceland stock migrates north and south within the the
North Atlantic. And what's important to note here is that the stock
that Iceland is hunting is actually in relatively great shape. Quoting
the IWC Secretariat's homepage:
"The most recent (2001) estimate of abundance of fin whales for the
area off west Iceland (the 'East Greenland Iceland stock') was
25,800 (approx 95% confidence intervals of 20,200 - 33,000). This
abundance estimate was first agreed at a joint NAMMCO/IWC Workshop in
early 2006 and confirmed by the IWC Scientific Committee at its Annual
Meeting in 2006."
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm

As Iceland's scientists argue:
"There are estimated to be 25,000 fin whales in the North Atlantic,
which is thought to be more than 70% of the pre-exploitation level,
says Vikingsson. "You can't say that there is a danger of extinction,"
he says - not in the North Atlantic."

Furthermore, the stock in the North Atlantic, as another commentor
hinted at, is growing, and it's been growing for a long time.

Quoting page 13 of the IWC Scientific Committee's 2006 report
"The Workshop had noted that estimated abundance west and southwest of
Iceland increased at an annual rate of 10% (95% CL: 6% - 14%) between
1987 and 2001. This is the area where nearly all Icelandic fin whaling
has been conducted since 1915."
(http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2006/SCREPNEW-GPD.pdf)

That's 10% growth over 15 years. If you know your maths, or how to use
a calculator, you'll know immediately that this is a 2.6 times increase
in the size of the population over that period.

If Iceland takes 9 whales, the population will still continue to
increase, because that's only less than 0.04% of the estimated
abundance. They have to be taking heaps heaps more than that for there
to be a conservation concern here.

Again reading the IWC Secretariat homepage, they note that the IWC
Scientific Committee will be ready to provide advice on sustainable
commercial whaling catch limits for the North Atlantic fin whale within
the next couple of years - so there's certainly no question that this
stock is in great shape.

> and it is a crime to slaughter such socially complex
> intelligent and sensitive sentient beings. The method

Even anti-whaling scientists dispute the myth of baleen whale
intelligence.

Here is well-known anti-whaling scientists Dr. Phil Clapham:

"Having worked with these critters for many years, I'd support the
general view that ... baleen whales are not dreadfully bright (much as
I love them)"

(http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask99/0009.html)

David

http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com


Pearl
2006-10-24 10:07:14 EST
"* @ tokyo" <david.35472@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1161691063.161430.131660@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> pearl wrote:
> > Iceland Murders Its First Endangered Whale
>
> Firstly I have to point out that the IUCN "endangered" classification
> is for the species as a global unit, not for the particular Fin whale
> stock in Iceland.
>
> What many people don't realise is that Fin whales in the North Atlantic
> don't go swimming to the other side of the world, say the South
> Pacific. The Iceland stock migrates north and south within the the
> North Atlantic. And what's important to note here is that the stock
> that Iceland is hunting is actually in relatively great shape. Quoting
> the IWC Secretariat's homepage:
> "The most recent (2001) estimate of abundance of fin whales for the
> area off west Iceland (the 'East Greenland Iceland stock') was
> 25,800 (approx 95% confidence intervals of 20,200 - 33,000). This
> abundance estimate was first agreed at a joint NAMMCO/IWC Workshop in
> early 2006 and confirmed by the IWC Scientific Committee at its Annual
> Meeting in 2006."
> http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/iceland.htm
>
> As Iceland's scientists argue:
> "There are estimated to be 25,000 fin whales in the North Atlantic,
> which is thought to be more than 70% of the pre-exploitation level,
> says Vikingsson. "You can't say that there is a danger of extinction,"
> he says - not in the North Atlantic."
>
> Furthermore, the stock in the North Atlantic, as another commentor
> hinted at, is growing, and it's been growing for a long time.
>
> Quoting page 13 of the IWC Scientific Committee's 2006 report
> "The Workshop had noted that estimated abundance west and southwest of
> Iceland increased at an annual rate of 10% (95% CL: 6% - 14%) between
> 1987 and 2001. This is the area where nearly all Icelandic fin whaling
> has been conducted since 1915."
> (http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2006/SCREPNEW-GPD.pdf)
>
> That's 10% growth over 15 years. If you know your maths, or how to use
> a calculator, you'll know immediately that this is a 2.6 times increase
> in the size of the population over that period.
>
> If Iceland takes 9 whales, the population will still continue to
> increase, because that's only less than 0.04% of the estimated
> abundance. They have to be taking heaps heaps more than that for there
> to be a conservation concern here.
>
> Again reading the IWC Secretariat homepage, they note that the IWC
> Scientific Committee will be ready to provide advice on sustainable
> commercial whaling catch limits for the North Atlantic fin whale within
> the next couple of years - so there's certainly no question that this
> stock is in great shape.

So much 'knowledge' -- you think. In reality you haven't a clue.

'Even in the case of the central and eastern North Atlantic, great
uncertainty remains about population structure, particularly when
compared with the whales occurring seasonally off eastern North
America, Greenland, and Iceland. The possibility that fin whales
found around Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands, belong
to the same populations as those found off the eastern United
States and Canada, cannot be ruled out. Thus, any whaling in
the central or eastern North Atlantic, could directly affect
recovery of the populations in the western North Atlantic.
...'
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovery/draft_finwhale.pdf

> > and it is a crime to slaughter such socially complex
> > intelligent and sensitive sentient beings. The method
>
> Even anti-whaling scientists dispute the myth of baleen whale
> intelligence.
>
> Here is well-known anti-whaling scientists Dr. Phil Clapham:
>
> "Having worked with these critters for many years, I'd support the
> general view that ... baleen whales are not dreadfully bright (much as
> I love them)"
>
> (http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask99/0009.html)

"Northeast Fisheries Science Center". No conflict of interest there then.

It's humans' intelligence, or rather lack of, that I'm seriously questioning.





David @ Tokyo
2006-10-24 12:36:05 EST

pearl wrote:
> "david @ tokyo" <david.35472@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1161691420.228139.61960@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > pearl wrote:
> > > The Scientific Committee of the IWC disagrees with Iceland that there
> > > are abundant populations of fin whales.
> > > http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_061023_2.html
> >
> > This is totally false, as I just posted in my reply to the lead post in
> > this thread.
>
> Referring to the entire North Atlantic estimated population? ...

No, Iceland said that there are more than 25,000 fin whales in the
North Atlantic, and the IWC Scientific Committee in deed agrees with
them about this, and this figure clearly indicates an abundant
population.

> Or are all those ? 25,000 whales off the coast of Iceland?

Iceland is IN the North Atlantic, where those whales live... I'm not
sure what you don't understand here.

> "The most recent (2001) estimate of abundance of fin whales for the
> area off west Iceland (the 'East Greenland Iceland stock') was 25,800
> (approx 95% confidence intervals of 20,200 - 33,000). "- IWC sec.
>
> What are you/they claiming exactly?

Ummm... just what it says...
?

> > The fact can be seen on the IWC's homepage.
> >
> > Pearl, given that Sea Shepherd <slander snipped>
>
> Why are you SO pro-whaling, tokyo dave? Who do you work for?

Answer the question - Sea Shepherd, caught out clearly lying again. Do
you continue to regard them as a reliable source of information, yes or
no?

I work for a large company jointly owned by an American company who you
have probably heard of, and a Japanese company who you probably haven't
heard of.

Why are YOU so anti-whaling pearl, to the point that you appear to be
happy to believe lies, even when this fact is demonstrated to you? Who
is paying you?

And why are you so agressive here, anyway? I've stumped up with facts,
not insults, why can't you stick to the argument?

> > Personally I believe our humanity is defined by how well we treat these
> > animals throughout their entire lives.
> >
> > The whales have it great.
>
> Sure- hunted, pollution, fish nets, debris, ropes, cages, fishing tackle,
> collisions with boats, noise pollution, military sonar, overfishing ...

Yet, the Fin Whale stock in the North Atlantic is increasing at 10% a
year, as are various other stocks around the world.

Come on pearl. Let's be serious for a change.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron