Seal hunting in Canada

doctor evil

I have no problem with seal hunting in Canada as every part fo the animal is used and no habitat has been taken over to produce a monoculture.



mod note:- topic split from another thread

kildare.17hmr

doctor evil wrote: »

What are they trapped for?

I have no problem with seal hunting in Canada as every part fo the animal is used and no habitat has been taken over to produce a monoculture.

Have to agree with this, why have you a problem with seal hunting???

E39MSport

http://www.canadiansealhunt.com/

I respect (with difficulty) all living things

I guess you have no problem with whale hunting either ?

kildare.17hmr

E39MSport wrote: »

http://www.canadiansealhunt.com/

I respect (with difficulty) all living things

I guess you have no problem with whale hunting either ?

I have no problem with hunting anything that can legilly be hunted

donal2000

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

I have no problem with hunting anything that can legilly be hunted

Fair enough hunting them in a humane manner but not clubbing them to death.

kildare.17hmr

donal2000 wrote: »

Fair enough hunting them in a humane manner but not clubbing them to death.

I agree

doctor evil

donal2000 wrote: »

Fair enough hunting them in a humane manner but not clubbing them to death.

To be fair with ice flows that may move how can they ensure an accurate shot?

It's not as if they are being beaten to death by a five year old with a feather. As with wringing a chickens neck with skill and strength it is done fast and efficiently.

kildare.17hmr

doctor evil wrote: »

To be fair with ice flows that may move how can they ensure an accurate shot?

It's not as if they are being beaten to death by a five year old with a feather. As with wringing a chickens neck with skill and strength it is done fast and efficiently.

Yeah thats true too, iv had to take follow up shots on animals as small as rabbits in the past or pick them up and break their neck after shooting. You can never be 100% sure of an instant death when hunting but you always do your best to kill as quick as possible and not have the animal suffer

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

doctor evil wrote: »

I have no problem with seal hunting in Canada as every part fo the animal is used and no habitat has been taken over to produce a monoculture.

Seal Cubs are clubbed to death and the carcass wasted. Fishermen in Canada kill seals just to protect fish stocks. Hardly something we should accept.

magicbastarder

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

I have no problem with hunting anything that can legilly be hunted

it's a bit of a stretch to call it 'hunting' though.
the word hunting has connotations of stalking; a seal cull is more of a turkey shoot.

i have a problem with hunting if it's purely a trophy sport.

Birdnuts

donal2000 wrote: »

Fair enough hunting them in a humane manner but not clubbing them to death.

Very true - another issue is the seize of the quotas for some species. One cull last year involved 300,000 seal pups in one area which simply is not sustaineable against the background of allready shrinking populations in the face of pollution and declining sea-ice in the Canadian Arctic:(

Half-cocked

Its been pointed out that shooting might not always result in an instant death, but if you can get close enough to club a seal to death, surely you can use a humane killer instead?

LostCovey

Half-cocked wrote: »

Its been pointed out that shooting might not always result in an instant death, but if you can get close enough to club a seal to death, surely you can use a humane killer instead?

Or to paraphrase what you are saying (&agree with you) if you can get that close there is no excuse for shooting not to be instant.

In fact the problem is the macho approach that they are "not worth a bullet"

LC

kildare.17hmr

i dont think there is any macho approach to be fair. It was always done with clubs wasn't it? That or a spear

Half-cocked

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

i dont think there is any macho approach to be fair. It was always done with clubs wasn't it? That or a spear

Macho or not, clubbing isn't really humane. I suppose the arguement is that a bullet might damage the pelts. But isn't population control the aim of the cull? Not fur. Or am I being naive...

kildare.17hmr

no idea man

losthorizon

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

I have no problem with hunting anything that can legilly be hunted

The Japanese get around hunting for whales and dolphins by hunting for "medical research." The truth is they are hunting them for food and often in very barbaric ways. Iceland too Im afraid but especially Japan.

CJhaughey

losthorizon wrote: »

The Japanese get around hunting for whales and dolphins by hunting for "medical research." The truth is they are hunting them for food and often in very barbaric ways. Iceland too Im afraid but especially Japan.

What about Norway,Russia Faeroes, Greenland and the USA, they all whale.
I don't have any issues with sustainable use of resources and given that the Minke whale population is being sustainably managed then there should be no issues.
When you bring ethics into the argument then it becomes a much more polarised issue.
Basically it then becomes a battle between some peoples attitudes to other peoples attitudes.

Birdnuts

CJhaughey wrote: »

What about Norway,Russia Faeroes, Greenland and the USA, they all whale.
I don't have any issues with sustainable use of resources and given that the Minke whale population is being sustainably managed then there should be no issues.
When you bring ethics into the argument then it becomes a much more polarised issue.
Basically it then becomes a battle between some peoples attitudes to other peoples attitudes.

No problem with traditional hunting by native communties in the Arctic myself - the problem here arose when hunting went industrial with massive factory whaling ships in the 19th and 20th centuaries that nearly wiped out whole species. Some like the Blue, Right and Grey Whales will probably never recover their former numbers:(


PS: Another issue with Whale meat is the frightning levels of toxins being found in many populations. Nasties like PCB's, Toulouene, Mercury and other heavy metals have reached such a level that even in Japan many health authorities have banned its consumption for children and advised other persons to cut their intake. This and other reasons means that only a small minority in this part of the world still eat whale meat.

magicbastarder

whale meat is not nearly as popular in japan as the authorities like to claim; i believe they've had problems selling all the meat landed in the last few years of whaling.

E39MSport

Ethics are imprtant when it comes to whales and indeed all life.

We have a massive responsibility and sadly we seem to disregard it as a species for the most part.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299548/Whales-dubbed-devil-fish-appear-personality-change-play-tourists.html

Norwayviking

losthorizon wrote: »

The Japanese get around hunting for whales and dolphins by hunting for "medical research." The truth is they are hunting them for food and often in very barbaric ways. Iceland too Im afraid but especially Japan.

You obviously dont have much of a clue about any hunting:D
The Whale hunt is as humane as killing cattle,but whats the difference really:D
Yes the difference is that you dont eat whale meat,but you eat beef.:rolleyes:

mgwhelan

Norwayviking wrote: »

You obviously dont have much of a clue about any hunting:D
The Whale hunt is as humane as killing cattle,but whats the difference really:D
Yes the difference is that you dont eat whale meat,but you eat beef.:rolleyes:

To be fare when it comes to the killing cattle it's over in a second, whales are franticly chased across the seas for hours and then shot with a harpoon grenade. This grenade tipped harpoon explodes inflicting severe pain. The fortunate ones die from the shock and exertion of the chase alone. Once embedded inside the whale the grenade explodes causing massive trauma and internal bleeding from lacerations, this results in agonizing pain and suffering.In addition shockwaves from the blast cause neurotrauma, that is brain and spinal chord damage which is meant to kill the whale with in 2 minutes. However in order to better preserve the integrity of the flesh a lower amount of explosive is used, therefore the whale takes longer to die and consequently suffers for longer.
In most cases the whales are fully conscious as they slowly die from these horrific wounds and so suffer extreme fear and distress. So profuse is the bleeding that many of the whales spew blood from the blow holes on the top of their heads. They eventually are dragged on to the ships and with some butchered alive
No stunning methods are at any time during these slaughters

Norwayviking

mgwhelan wrote: »

To be fare when it comes to the killing cattle it's over in a second, whales are franticly chased across the seas for hours and then shot with a harpoon grenade. This grenade tipped harpoon explodes inflicting severe pain. The fortunate ones die from the shock and exertion of the chase alone. Once embedded inside the whale the grenade explodes causing massive trauma and internal bleeding from lacerations, this results in agonizing pain and suffering.In addition shockwaves from the blast cause neurotrauma, that is brain and spinal chord damage which is meant to kill the whale with in 2 minutes. However in order to better preserve the integrity of the flesh a lower amount of explosive is used, therefore the whale takes longer to die and consequently suffers for longer.
In most cases the whales are fully conscious as they slowly die from these horrific wounds and so suffer extreme fear and distress. So profuse is the bleeding that many of the whales spew blood from the blow holes on the top of their heads. They eventually are dragged on to the ships and with some butchered alive
No stunning methods are at any time during these slaughters

You seem to know alot about Whaling.have you ever tried it since you actually know so much about their sufferings.;)
Last i heard its that the when that harpoon hits and that grenade explodes it kills them instantly.
If thats the case maybe its better to go back to the old fashion way with spears instead,and no grenade.;)

mgwhelan

Norwayviking wrote: »

You seem to know alot about Whaling.have you ever tried it since you actually know so much about their sufferings.;)
Last i heard its that the when that harpoon hits and that grenade explodes it kills them instantly.
If thats the case maybe its better to go back to the old fashion way with spears instead,and no grenade.;)

So by your logic you must be a whaler as you know that they are killed instantly.
ps. stop winking at me.

Mickeroo

Norwayviking wrote: »

You obviously dont have much of a clue about any hunting:D
The Whale hunt is as humane as killing cattle,but whats the difference really:D
Yes the difference is that you dont eat whale meat,but you eat beef.:rolleyes:

No the difference is that cattle have been selectively bred over 100s if not 1000s of generations for no other function than to be eaten or used for their milk, they are not wild animals and they are not intelligent, cattle are farmed not hunted.

Scrappychimow

doctor evil wrote: »

It's not as if they are being beaten to death by a five year old with a feather. As with wringing a chickens neck with skill and strength it is done fast and efficiently.

Would you like to be clubbed to death?

kildare.17hmr

Mickeroo wrote: »

No the difference is that cattle have been selectively bred over 100s if not 1000s of generations for no other function than to be eaten or used for their milk, they are not wild animals and they are not intelligent, cattle are farmed not hunted.

and by in large animals that are hunted die quicker than farmed animals but Thats a whole other thread

kildare.17hmr

Scrappychimow wrote: »

Would you like to be clubbed to death?

really Thats your argument?? :rolleyes:

Mickeroo

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

and by in large animals that are hunted die quicker than farmed animals but Thats a whole other thread

I can't comment because I don't know tbh, I just think saying the only reason we get worked up about people killing whales for no good reason is because we don't eat them is a poor argument.

Mothman

Mickeroo wrote: »

No the difference is that cattle have been selectively bred over 100s if not 1000s of generations for no other function than to be eaten or used for their milk, they are not wild animals and they are not intelligent, cattle are farmed not hunted.

Well you haven't met my cows agree with rest

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

and by in large animals that are hunted die quicker than farmed animals but Thats a whole other thread

And not for this forum

Mickeroo

Mothman wrote: »

Well you haven't met my cows agree with rest

Apologies Mothman, I realised after I typed that it might come off sounding the wrong way

i only meant in comparison to many of the whale species, and meant no disrespect to the noble cow

kildare.17hmr

Mickeroo wrote: »

I can't comment because I don't know tbh, I just think saying the only reason we get worked up about people killing whales for no good reason is because we don't eat them is a poor argument.

i dont think its a poor argument at all. If i was on a computer instead of the phone i would put up some links but ill suggest going onto YouTube and checking how beef is produced. Norway viking is right they are about as humane as each other.

Just on my other point, from experience most hunted animals are dead before they even know somethin is wrong

Mickeroo

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

i dont think its a poor argument at all. If i was on a computer instead of the phone i would put up some links but ill suggest going onto YouTube and checking how beef is produced. Norway viking is right they are about as humane as each other.

Just on my other point, from experience most hunted animals are dead before they even know somethin is wrong

I wasn't making the point that either is more humane than the other, and to be honest I think hunting for food is defnitely more humane than having hundreds of animals lead miserable lives then lined up for slaughter in crappy conditions as can unfortunately sometimes the case.

Its an extremely poor argument because whales are not farmed for food nor were they selectively bred over thousands of years to be slaughtered for food. I have no problem with indigenous people hunting whales for food, depending on the species of whale, just as I have no problem with someone hunting any other animal for food.

Norwayviking

Scrappychimow wrote: »

Would you like to be clubbed to death?

They are not clubbed to death,they are shot with a rifle:rolleyes:

Norwayviking

mgwhelan wrote: »

To be fare when it comes to the killing cattle it's over in a second, whales are franticly chased across the seas for hours and then shot with a harpoon grenade. This grenade tipped harpoon explodes inflicting severe pain. The fortunate ones die from the shock and exertion of the chase alone. Once embedded inside the whale the grenade explodes causing massive trauma and internal bleeding from lacerations, this results in agonizing pain and suffering.In addition shockwaves from the blast cause neurotrauma, that is brain and spinal chord damage which is meant to kill the whale with in 2 minutes. However in order to better preserve the integrity of the flesh a lower amount of explosive is used, therefore the whale takes longer to die and consequently suffers for longer.
In most cases the whales are fully conscious as they slowly die from these horrific wounds and so suffer extreme fear and distress. So profuse is the bleeding that many of the whales spew blood from the blow holes on the top of their heads. They eventually are dragged on to the ships and with some butchered alive
No stunning methods are at any time during these slaughters

Well do you think there is any more humane killings of a whale then it is to hunt a deer with a bow???Why is that allowed and noone protests??

And the socalled suffering of whales,its all about shot placement,just as same as hunting a deer.
Sometimes it misses,about 19%,where you need a follow up harpoon.
And what about the bullfighting,where they slowly kills the bull.
Why isnt that blown up in media the same way??
And dont start with the endangered species bull....te.
There is only certain whales that are endangered,and they are not beiing hunted.
Norway got a quota of 1286 minkewhales to hunt this year,out of a population that is estimated to 102000 whales.
I dont think there is any chance of them beiing wiped out completely!!

Kess73

Norwayviking wrote: »

Well do you think there is any more humane killings of a whale then it is to hunt a deer with a bow???Why is that allowed and noone protests??

And the socalled suffering of whales,its all about shot placement,just as same as hunting a deer.
Sometimes it misses,about 19%,where you need a follow up harpoon.
And what about the bullfighting,where they slowly kills the bull.
Why isnt that blown up in media the same way??
And dont start with the endangered species bull....te.
There is only certain whales that are endangered,and they are not beiing hunted.
Norway got a quota of 1286 minkewhales to hunt this year,out of a population that is estimated to 102000 whales.
I dont think there is any chance of them beiing wiped out completely!!

The published figures for the Japanese over the last three years using the same type of grenade harpoon has between 25% and 35% of harpooned Minke whales taking five minutes or more to be killed from the first point of impact from the first grenade harpoon.

Am curious where you got the 19% for their Norwegian counterparts from. Would be genuinely puzzled how one set could have a 4 out of 5 strike rate for Instantaneous deaths yet the other using the same equipment can only managed an Instantaneous death rate of between 3 out of 4 and 3 out of five.



It could also be argued that the Minke whale can be hunted in higher numbers (due to their larger current populations in relation to most larger whale) simply because they have not been targetted by whalers for as long as the bigger whale have.


You are right that Norway have a quota figure of 1286 minke for 2011 and that number seems small compared to the Atlantic population, but Norway are not the only country with a quota for those waters so 1286 is not the true figure in terms of how many Minke can be taken from the Atlantic this year. You may be proven right in time with your comment about there being no chance of them being wiped out, but IWC figures do show that Minke population figures are currently less than 50% of what they were in the 1980's and some 75% less than what they were in the early 1970's, so there are definite signs of the population shrinking far quicker than the animals can reproduce.

Norwayviking

Kess73 wrote: »

The published figures for the Japanese over the last three years using the same type of grenade harpoon has between 25% and 35% of harpooned Minke whales taking five minutes or more to be killed from the first point of impact from the first grenade harpoon.

Am curious where you got the 19% for their Norwegian counterparts from. Would be genuinely puzzled how one set could have a 4 out of 5 strike rate for Instantaneous deaths yet the other using the same equipment can only managed an Instantaneous death rate of between 3 out of 4 and 3 out of five.



It could also be argued that the Minke whale can be hunted in higher numbers (due to their larger current populations in relation to most larger whale) simply because they have not been targetted by whalers for as long as the bigger whale have.


You are right that Norway have a quota figure of 1286 minke for 2011 and that number seems small compared to the Atlantic population, but Norway are not the only country with a quota for those waters so 1286 is not the true figure in terms of how many Minke can be taken from the Atlantic this year. You may be proven right in time with your comment about there being no chance of them being wiped out, but IWC figures do show that Minke population figures are currently less than 50% of what they were in the 1980's and some 75% less than what they were in the early 1970's, so there are definite signs of the population shrinking far quicker than the animals can reproduce.

Well the reason i dont want to speculate in,but i just seen that Norwegian Whalers have a better instant kill rate than the Japanese.
Why i dont know.

Norwegian whalers kill their target with the first attempt 81 percent of the time, while Japanese whalers only have a 40 percent first shot kill rate.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8141677_modern-whaling-methods.html#ixzz1gqTWgTnm

Well the reason for the whale population shrinking isnt only because of Whaling.
Pollution and commercial shipping and fishing have to take some of the blame for it too.

http://www.mersociety.org/researchminkes.htm

http://wildwhales.org/conservation/threats/collisions-between-vessels-and-whales/

But as long as it is is Lower risk on IUCN red list,it should be no reason for concern yet,atleast not before new data has been collected.(2008 data.)


And yes its not only Norway who does whaling,Faroe Islands,Greenland(Denmark)Iceland,Canada,Japan an Namibia does too,but those quotas are small in numbers,and should be no treath to the remaining population of Minke Whale.
Simulation trials using the RMP for Antarctic minke whales conducted by the Scientific Committee have revealed that 200,000 animals may be taken over 100 years without risk or harm to the population.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fishery/whales/iwc/population.html

Kess73

Norwayviking wrote: »

Well the reason i dont want to speculate in,but i just seen that Norwegian Whalers have a better instant kill rate than the Japanese.
Why i dont know.

Norwegian whalers kill their target with the first attempt 81 percent of the time, while Japanese whalers only have a 40 percent first shot kill rate.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8141677_modern-whaling-methods.html#ixzz1gqTWgTnm

Well the reason for the whale population shrinking isnt only because of Whaling.
Pollution and commercial shipping and fishing have to take some of the blame for it too.

http://www.mersociety.org/researchminkes.htm

http://wildwhales.org/conservation/threats/collisions-between-vessels-and-whales/

But as long as it is is Lower risk on IUCN red list,it should be no reason for concern yet,atleast not before new data has been collected.(2008 data.)


And yes its not only Norway who does whaling,Faroe Islands,Greenland(Denmark)Iceland,Canada,Japan an Namibia does too,but those quotas are small in numbers,and should be no treath to the remaining population of Minke Whale.
Simulation trials using the RMP for Antarctic minke whales conducted by the Scientific Committee have revealed that 200,000 animals may be taken over 100 years without risk or harm to the population.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fishery/whales/iwc/population.html

I have a feeling that the Instantaneous deaths figures may be massaged quite a bit depending on which country is presenting them. Had a look online to try and find official releases rather than non official sites, and I cannot find that 40% strike rate for the Japanese in recent years anywhere bar on non official sites. Now I can find figures close to that 40% figure if I look at strike rates back in the early 1990's which is before the current grenade harpoon came into use, but Norway's figures from that period are similar to Japan's figures, as are the strike rates from a number of other countries in that time.


Japan has given year by year break down figures in terms of Instantaneous deaths and 5 minute + deaths in relation to their quota figures for Minke to the IWC so I can go there and see that they have between 25% and 35% of all the whales killed by them taking more than 5 minutes to die. But I cannot do that with Norway unless I have missed something on an official site. Norway's figures are very vague and certainly not exact numbers. We just have a figure of 81% trotted out on a website but no year by year breakdown of numbers caught and exact numbers as to how many died straight away that year and how many took more than 5 minutes to die. I would be more comfortable with the blanket figure of 81% if there were proper year by year records presented on official sites tbh.


You use the Antarctic population as an example of saying how many whales can be taken over 100 years without harming the population. Let's look at that.

You say that 200,000 minke can be taken over 100 years with no adverse effect on the population. That study was based on 1996 population figures.

In 1996 there were 760,000 (est of course) Minke in Antarctic waters and 149,000 minke in the East Atlantic.

In 2010 there were an estimates 660,000 Minke in the antarctic and 102,000 in the East Atlantic.

That is a drop of 100,000 in 14 years in the Antarctic and 47,000 in the East Atlantic. That Antarctic drop suggests that the population is either far smaller than was originally estimated. that they are being killed at a greater rate than allowed, or that they are dying off at a greater rate than expected, or a combination of all three.

Maybe in 2024 we will be told that there is less than 500,000 in the Antarctic. What happens then to the 200,000 that people thought it was fine to kill over 100 years if 270,000 of the whales that figure was based on are already gone?

I'm not having a go at you or Norway, I am just trying to get my head around kill quotas being set against outdated figures despite Minke population sizes in both the Antarctic and East Atlantic showing drastic reductions since the 1970's thanks to a combination of natural causes, pollution and whaling. Surely the kill quotas should have been radically altered once the 2008 and then 2010 population figures came in.

Norwayviking

Kess73 wrote: »

I have a feeling that the Instantaneous deaths figures may be massaged quite a bit depending on which country is presenting them. Had a look online to try and find official releases rather than non official sites, and I cannot find that 40% strike rate for the Japanese in recent years anywhere bar on non official sites. Now I can find figures close to that 40% figure if I look at strike rates back in the early 1990's which is before the current grenade harpoon came into use, but Norway's figures from that period are similar to Japan's figures, as are the strike rates from a number of other countries in that time.


Japan has given year by year break down figures in terms of Instantaneous deaths and 5 minute + deaths in relation to their quota figures for Minke to the IWC so I can go there and see that they have between 25% and 35% of all the whales killed by them taking more than 5 minutes to die. But I cannot do that with Norway unless I have missed something on an official site. Norway's figures are very vague and certainly not exact numbers. We just have a figure of 81% trotted out on a website but no year by year breakdown of numbers caught and exact numbers as to how many died straight away that year and how many took more than 5 minutes to die. I would be more comfortable with the blanket figure of 81% if there were proper year by year records presented on official sites tbh.


You use the Antarctic population as an example of saying how many whales can be taken over 100 years without harming the population. Let's look at that.

You say that 200,000 minke can be taken over 100 years with no adverse effect on the population. That study was based on 1996 population figures.

In 1996 there were 760,000 (est of course) Minke in Antarctic waters and 149,000 minke in the East Atlantic.

In 2010 there were an estimates 660,000 Minke in the antarctic and 102,000 in the East Atlantic.

That is a drop of 100,000 in 14 years in the Antarctic and 47,000 in the East Atlantic. That Antarctic drop suggests that the population is either far smaller than was originally estimated. that they are being killed at a greater rate than allowed, or that they are dying off at a greater rate than expected, or a combination of all three.

Maybe in 2024 we will be told that there is less than 500,000 in the Antarctic. What happens then to the 200,000 that people thought it was fine to kill over 100 years if 270,000 of the whales that figure was based on are already gone?

I'm not having a go at you or Norway, I am just trying to get my head around kill quotas being set against outdated figures despite Minke population sizes in both the Antarctic and East Atlantic showing drastic reductions since the 1970's thanks to a combination of natural causes, pollution and whaling. Surely the kill quotas should have been radically altered once the 2008 and then 2010 population figures came in.

You can read her,unfortunately only in Norwegian.;)

http://www.hvalfangst.info/informasjon/fangsten/norsk-hvalfangst/


But google translate can probably asisist you there;)

Norwegian whalers were early criticized for its use of so-called cold harpoon, which meant that it was initiated a trial of new killing methods at the beginning of the 1980s.
Efforts to develop new fishing methods in the Norwegian whaling began in 1981 with a five-year development program at the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, funded by the Norwegian fisheries authorities.
The project aimed to evaluate a number of possible capture and killing methods for minke whales, including the possibility of using electric power, drugs and high pressure gas / air before it was attempted with modified spear guns, high-speed projectiles and finally, development of new exploding harpoon grenade.
Although it made efforts to try to kill the whales faster, is the obvious difficulties that often prevent this.
Whales are shot from a moving ground against an animal who is moving and where only a small part of the animal is visible for 2-5 seconds. Poor weather conditions such as rough seas and rain, making it even harder for the shooter to hit accurately.
The exploding harpoon can cause massive internal injuries and blood loss without the whales die instantly. A second harpoon or a rifle is used as a secondary killing method. In the period 1981-2003 was hunting methods evaluated and modified.
This resulted in the current euthanasia rate, as defined by the Norwegian government, increased from 17% in 1981-1983 to 80% in 2000-2002.

I dont know what the Japanese are doing though.

And if you read my last post,i said But as long as it is is Lower risk on IUCN red list,it should be no reason for concern yet,atleast not before new data has been collected.(2008 data.)
They are as far as i know doing this at present,put no figures has come up yet.
And nothing is pleasent about hunting,it never was,but if you could understand Norways traditions here it would be different.
I like whalemeat,but i am sure you dont.;)

I'm not having a go at you or Norway

I hope not,we done that 1000 years ago,i thought those days was over;):D:D:D:D

Kess73

Norwayviking wrote: »

You can read her,unfortunately only in Norwegian.;)

http://www.hvalfangst.info/informasjon/fangsten/norsk-hvalfangst/


But google translate can probably asisist you there;)

Norwegian whalers were early criticized for its use of so-called cold harpoon, which meant that it was initiated a trial of new killing methods at the beginning of the 1980s.
Efforts to develop new fishing methods in the Norwegian whaling began in 1981 with a five-year development program at the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, funded by the Norwegian fisheries authorities.
The project aimed to evaluate a number of possible capture and killing methods for minke whales, including the possibility of using electric power, drugs and high pressure gas / air before it was attempted with modified spear guns, high-speed projectiles and finally, development of new exploding harpoon grenade.
Although it made efforts to try to kill the whales faster, is the obvious difficulties that often prevent this.
Whales are shot from a moving ground against an animal who is moving and where only a small part of the animal is visible for 2-5 seconds. Poor weather conditions such as rough seas and rain, making it even harder for the shooter to hit accurately.
The exploding harpoon can cause massive internal injuries and blood loss without the whales die instantly. A second harpoon or a rifle is used as a secondary killing method. In the period 1981-2003 was hunting methods evaluated and modified.
This resulted in the current euthanasia rate, as defined by the Norwegian government, increased from 17% in 1981-1983 to 80% in 2000-2002.

I dont know what the Japanese are doing though.

And if you read my last post,i said But as long as it is is Lower risk on IUCN red list,it should be no reason for concern yet,atleast not before new data has been collected.(2008 data.)
They are as far as i know doing this at present,put no figures has come up yet.
And nothing is pleasent about hunting,it never was,but if you could understand Norways traditions here it would be different.
I like whalemeat,but i am sure you dont.;)

I'm not having a go at you or Norway

I hope not,we done that 1000 years ago,i thought those days was over;):D:D:D:D

That was a helpful link. Rather than use google translate which can be poor I used my basic Danish (Danish grandparent so ended up with basic Danish as well as getting basic Irish from my mother, both sound great with my scouse twang lol) to muddle my way through the site.

I don't like the taste of whalemeat, so you are right with that assumption.:) It was served to me years ago when I was staying with relatives in Aalborg.

I actually quite like Norway (and have been there a number of times as a nosey tourist ) and it's history, and like Denmark, I find the history and mythology fascinating as I spend a lot of my childhood being regaled with Scandinavian lore.

I think one of the biggest issues I have with whaling is the intelligence of the animal being hunted. We know it is a very intelligent animal, one that is capable of complex social ties, one that seems capable of emotive behaviour that is very similar to what humans display, and I am uncomfortable with the killing of such an animal.

I do accept that there is a very different viewpoint held by many in Norway (and elsewhere ), and that I do understand the logic in the counter arguements that I have heard from my Danish relatives and to a degree from you. However the level of sentience that I believe whales to have is the tipping point for me on the issue. I know the sentient arguement could become a circular one very quickly as the obvious counterpoint would be to challenge one on the sentience of a hen or a pig, but for me it my line in the sand.

Liamario

First of all, for people to say animals aren't intelligent is just ridiculous. They may not be as intelligent as us, but that doesn't make them braindead lumps of meat.
Under the same logic of lesser intelligence; would murder of another human being for their meat be justified if the other human being was less intelligent.

Second, humans are animals as well. So please stop with the God complexes.

Third, killing of a living creature for sport is wrong. Killing of a living creature inhumanely is also wrong.

Finally, it is apparent to me that all these hunting, morality and ecological issues seem to be the result of humans rather than animals being overpopulated. It's humans who are over indulging in the resources; some of which are predators which help to keep the population of animals like seals at sustainable levels.

Mickeroo

Kess73 wrote: »

I do accept that there is a very different viewpoint held by many in Norway (and elsewhere ), and that I do understand the logic in the counter arguements that I have heard from my Danish relatives and to a degree from you. However the level of sentience that I believe whales to have is the tipping point for me on the issue. I know the sentient arguement could become a circular one very quickly as the obvious counterpoint would be to challenge one on the sentience of a hen or a pig, but for me it my line in the sand.

Though I try to avoid the anthropomorphism of animals that pretty much sums it up for me too, if people rely on it to feed them then fair enough but personally I find it about as abhorrent as I would someone killing and eating any of the great apes.

Norwayviking

Mickeroo wrote: »

Though I try to avoid the anthropomorphism of animals that pretty much sums it up for me too, if people rely on it to feed them then fair enough but personally I find it about as abhorrent as I would someone killing and eating any of the great apes.

And some Asian countries likes Dogs too;)
We may find that rather strange and unpleasant,but its their culture and tradition.
Just the way most people who are against hunting of whales feels about eating whale.
They have never tried it.

Mickeroo

Norwayviking wrote: »

And some Asian countries likes Dogs too;)
We may find that rather strange and unpleasant,but its their culture and tradition.
Just the way most people who are against hunting of whales feels about eating whale.
They have never tried it.

I don't realy buy into the "its ok because its traditional" thing, most people are educated enough to know better these days. its common in chinese culture to lock bears in cages and extract their bile while they're still alive for no good reason.

I haven't tried whale, mainly because I've neveer had the opportunity, I would also be worried about the high mercury content too.

Kess73

Norwayviking wrote: »

And some Asian countries likes Dogs too;)
We may find that rather strange and unpleasant,but its their culture and tradition.
Just the way most people who are against hunting of whales feels about eating whale.
They have never tried it.

Some animals can be repopulated easier than others though. If in Thailand or wherever they decide to breed a certain number of dog species to eat, then they are using an animal type that can be easily bred and one that numbers can be sustained fairly easily with.

Whales on the other hand do not have this luxury, and cannot repopulate their numbers decade after decade. They are a food source (for the countries that eat them) that is shrinking in number decade after decade, and when one large species has it's numbers dwindle to dangerous levels, then a smaller species is harvested instead, leading to a gradual decline in those numbers.

Say in 20 years time the Minke numbers drop to a similar level to that of the larger whales in the 1960's and 1970's, do the crosshairs them fall on large dolphin like the Killer whale to make up the numbers?

Or say over time the Minke whale get hunted so much in certain waters that the whale somehow change territories and where they breed. Do the whaling countries then push into waters where the whales are protected in order to get their numbers, or do they stop whaling?

I think that the quotas worldwide are too high at present to work over a twenty five year period let alone the 100 year period mentioned earlier.

Mickeroo

Norwayviking wrote: »

But as long as it is is Lower risk on IUCN red list,it should be no reason for concern yet,atleast not before new data has been collected.(2008 data.)

This point kind of bothers me, why should an animals existence have to be officially considered in danger before we stop killing it? Should we not learn from the past and stop before that happens? When that animal is considered in danger by the IUCN what animal will be focused on then?

Norwayviking

Kess73 wrote: »

That was a helpful link. Rather than use google translate which can be poor I used my basic Danish (Danish grandparent so ended up with basic Danish as well as getting basic Irish from my mother, both sound great with my scouse twang lol) to muddle my way through the site.

I don't like the taste of whalemeat, so you are right with that assumption.:) It was served to me years ago when I was staying with relatives in Aalborg.

I actually quite like Norway (and have been there a number of times as a nosey tourist ) and it's history, and like Denmark, I find the history and mythology fascinating as I spend a lot of my childhood being regaled with Scandinavian lore.

I think one of the biggest issues I have with whaling is the intelligence of the animal being hunted. We know it is a very intelligent animal, one that is capable of complex social ties, one that seems capable of emotive behaviour that is very similar to what humans display, and I am uncomfortable with the killing of such an animal.

I do accept that there is a very different viewpoint held by many in Norway (and elsewhere ), and that I do understand the logic in the counter arguements that I have heard from my Danish relatives and to a degree from you. However the level of sentience that I believe whales to have is the tipping point for me on the issue. I know the sentient arguement could become a circular one very quickly as the obvious counterpoint would be to challenge one on the sentience of a hen or a pig, but for me it my line in the sand.

I can see your point in it,and i respect your view on hunting whales,and their suffering.
I think its wrong to see it that way,then we should basically stop killing of all animals,and stop all hunting cause i dont find the logic in it,but that just me now.
And why only against whalehunting,did you know that hunting with bow ,you have only 50% killrate on first shot,and noone is protesting about that.
Some tribes in the Amazon uses poison,and kills animals slowly and painful too.
I dont think a Polarbear going for a seal,would give him a iq test before he kills him:D:D:D
We are on top of the foodchain for a reason i guess.
I am against wiping out species completely though,but as long as there is enough,it should be allowed to be hunted.
And i like Ireland too,thats why i decided to live here

Norwayviking

Mickeroo wrote: »

This point kind of bothers me, why should an animals existence have to be officially considered in danger before we stop killing it? Should we not learn from the past and stop before that happens? When that animal is considered in danger by the IUCN what animal will be focused on then?

I kind of agree to that,but this is the only way to keep the anti whalers happy.
They want their statistics,and so does the whalers.
And if we stop the whaling,its probaly going to effect some other species in the food chain if they become overpoulated.

Norwayviking

Kess73 wrote: »

Some animals can be repopulated easier than others though. If in Thailand or wherever they decide to breed a certain number of dog species to eat, then they are using an animal type that can be easily bred and one that numbers can be sustained fairly easily with.

Whales on the other hand do not have this luxury, and cannot repopulate their numbers decade after decade. They are a food source (for the countries that eat them) that is shrinking in number decade after decade, and when one large species has it's numbers dwindle to dangerous levels, then a smaller species is harvested instead, leading to a gradual decline in those numbers.

Say in 20 years time the Minke numbers drop to a similar level to that of the larger whales in the 1960's and 1970's, do the crosshairs them fall on large dolphin like the Killer whale to make up the numbers?

Or say over time the Minke whale get hunted so much in certain waters that the whale somehow change territories and where they breed. Do the whaling countries then push into waters where the whales are protected in order to get their numbers, or do they stop whaling?

I think that the quotas worldwide are too high at present to work over a twenty five year period let alone the 100 year period mentioned earlier.

I agree with that fully.
Like i said we are waiting for the research to come back with the figures to see how the population is shrinking.
All we have to do is hunt less whale when nesseasary,and hunt more when the populaton is growing.:D
If we stop whaling completely,i think it will effect others in the food chain

Norwayviking

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't realy buy into the "its ok because its traditional" thing, most people are educated enough to know better these days. its common in chinese culture to lock bears in cages and extract their bile while they're still alive for no good reason.

I haven't tried whale, mainly because I've neveer had the opportunity, I would also be worried about the high mercury content too.

Well if you ask a Indian about why we eatbeef(Cow)or and Arab why we eat pigs,i am sure its ok because its traditional,or is it not.
And some russians too like to cage their bears to for circus,buit thats another story.