Whaling... what do you think? Watch

Knight-of-Ni
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#1
Do you think iceland should utilise their rich whale source by catching them or stick to just watching them?

Bearing in mind that the original ban was apparently due to a corrupt vote :confused:
0
quote
reply
soup_dragon87
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 12 years ago
#2
Keep the ban. It's not like whales are a part of our diet that we're missing desperately. It doesn't even taste good (tried it in Iceland lol).
0
quote
reply
Knight-of-Ni
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#3
i don't think iceland see it that way! although ive never tried it!

food isnt the only resource they give though
0
quote
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#4
Report 12 years ago
#4
Whaling is ecologically irresponsible and no more necessary from a nutritional point of view than fox hunting. If Iceland was going to ship every whale in the North Sea to the starving masses of Darfur, I'd say bugger the ecology, let's prevent some genocide, but that's not going to happen. The whales will go primarily to "feed" curious tourists who, once they have tried the meat once, will never, ever want to go near a whale again as long as they live.

We don't need them for lamp oil, corsetry, cosmetics, cat food, margarine, shoe polish, soap, car wax, brake fluid or leather, either.
0
quote
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#5
Report 12 years ago
#5
I prefer seal culling personally.
0
quote
reply
The_Bear
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 12 years ago
#6
Fox hunting is a completely different kettle of fish (hoho) and comparing them shows very little knowledge about either subject.

(Original post by Agent Smith)
The whales will go primarily to "feed" curious tourists who, once they have tried the meat once, will never, ever want to go near a whale again as long as they live.
If that was true then there would be a very small market I'm afraid.

We don't need them for lamp oil, corsetry, cosmetics, cat food, margarine, shoe polish, soap, car wax, brake fluid or leather, either.
No but whale can be used for some products therefore they are an economic opportunity for someone.

The point is that the number of whales killed needs to be set to provide a sustainable environment (as with all fish). Bans don't provide education to the fisherman and you cannot really deny any country a way of making money. What if the EU banned cows from being kept as farmyard animals? A lot of farmers would be pissed.
0
quote
reply
Nefarious
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 12 years ago
#7
(Original post by The_Bear)

The point is that the number of whales killed needs to be set to provide a sustainable environment (as with all fish). Bans don't provide education to the fisherman and you cannot really deny any country a way of making money. What if the EU banned cows from being kept as farmyard animals? A lot of farmers would be pissed.
You can't compare the farming of cattle to the extermination of a highly endangered species. Not only that but in a highly brutal fashion.
0
quote
reply
mipmapped
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 12 years ago
#8
Whales are often killed just so they can't deplete fish stocks any further, rather than for food.

Killing whales on the endangered species list is astonishing.

The fact that many species are endangered, and the methods used to kill them could hardly said to be humane, I say no.

There are too many people and too few fish to feed them all.
0
quote
reply
The_Bear
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 12 years ago
#9
(Original post by Nefarious)
You can't compare the farming of cattle to the extermination of a highly endangered species. Not only that but in a highly brutal fashion.
I can compare the principles though, namely banning someones livelihood.

Also some cattle farming is way more brutal. At least the whale has had a free life. Don't let the fact that it is a large, exotic animal cloud your already suspect judgement.
0
quote
reply
silverbolt
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 12 years ago
#10
(Original post by The_Bear)
Also some cattle farming is way more brutal. At least the whale has had a free life. Don't let the fact that it is a large, exotic animal cloud your already suspect judgement.
Why not? Compare the number of cows in the world to the number of whales are left in the world. We breed cows for slaughter we do not and can not breed whales for such a purpose We eat cows and utilise thier skins for clothing, whales provide nothing that we cannot easily get elswhere.
0
quote
reply
The_Bear
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#11
Report 12 years ago
#11
How about whale meat?

If whales provided nothing, as you continue to say, why is there a market?

Animals are animals, there are many cows in the world because we have made them sustainable...just as whales should remain sustainable.
0
quote
reply
LeeC
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 12 years ago
#12
Orginally posted by The Bear
Also some cattle farming is way more brutal. At least the whale has had a free life. Don't let the fact that it is a large, exotic animal cloud your already suspect judgement.
So what if its had a free life, or other animals recieve worse treatment? Brutally killing any animal, let alone one on the endangered species list, for totally selfish reasons, (like mipmapped said: Whales are often killed just so they can't deplete fish stocks any further, rather than for food.) is totally indefensible.

Fair enough the products they provide give a livelihood to some people, but is it right to kill a living being for the sake of economic gain/the avoidance of econmoic failiure (whatever way you look at it)? I know humans kill countless animals for meat, but just because it happens elsewhere obviously doesn't make it right in Iceland. By this thinking, black slaves in the sugar plantations of america would have been justifiable because they provided a livelihood for the plantation owners!

The annual quota for Iceland in 2007 is 30 minke whales and 9 fin whales, a catch of 39 whales per year isn't exactly going make whaling a livelihood for many Icelanders is it now?
0
quote
reply
The_Bear
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report 12 years ago
#13
You have to remember that whaling isnt their only livelihood.

"Whales are often killed just so they can't deplete fish stocks any further, rather than for food" is horribly blown out of proportion, whales do eat fish but in the polar ice fields they are mainly constricted to krill. Cod is thought to contribute 3% of a minke whales diet for example.

Whale numbers are rising and it is reasonable to assume that sustainable farming has filtered down to the fisherman. The mass commericial whaling of the past few decades cannot happen again and will not happen again, what is wrong with controlled whaling?
0
quote
reply
LeeC
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 12 years ago
#14
So whats the need for whaling at all if whaling isn't thier only livelihood (not surprising given only 39 can be hunted anually), and they hardly eat any fish (edit: the whales that is lol)?
0
quote
reply
soup_dragon87
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report 12 years ago
#15
The sight of the Icelandic whaling fleet is what really shocked me. 60-70 large rusting ships bobbing around the harbour, every now then a much larger 'mother ship' used to process the whales the smaller ships caught and haulled over. It was the whale-equivalent of concentration camp ovens I suppose.

Nope, it's one of those things that we've (just about) consigned to the dust bin. Whaling just isn't done anymore. Only a few countries actually consider whale as food these days anyway. The Icelandics can eat puffin instead (which is incredibly tasty).
0
quote
reply
The_Bear
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#16
Report 12 years ago
#16
(Original post by LeeC)
So whats the need for whaling at all if whaling isn't thier only livelihood (not surprising given only 39 can be hunted anually), and they hardly eat any fish (edit: the whales that is lol)?
Because it adds to their livelihood.
0
quote
reply
mipmapped
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#17
Report 12 years ago
#17
Because it adds to their livelihood.
My main concern is that it's been 20 years since they did any whaling, and skills specific to whaling will have been lost. Hence, the kills are going to be pretty brutal.
0
quote
reply
Lemonsoul
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 12 years ago
#18
There was something about this in the Guardian recently. Whaling contributes very little economically - all of Iceland's whaling is done by a single company which has to be subsidised by the government. No-one outside of the three main whaling countries wants the stuff, and inside Norway/Iceland/Japan there is demand for less than a quarter of what's caught - and that's at current restricted levels. They have to practically give the stuff away for pet food or foist it on school kids to try and create a demand in the future.

The real reason anyone bothers anymore is because it's seen as being traditional and because governments like to act a bit nationalist - 'no-one's is going to tell us what we're allowed to fish' etc. So I think you can draw parallels with foxhunting - except whales are a harmless, intelligent, endangered species.
0
quote
reply
mipmapped
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#19
Report 12 years ago
#19
except whales are a harmless,


But they eat our fish!
0
quote
reply
gas_panic!
Badges: 12
#20
Report 12 years ago
#20
(Original post by mipmapped)

But they eat our fish!
It's more their fish than ours! We don't even live in the sea! If whales where coming ashore and eating our sheep and cows then i'd be bothered!
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?

Yes (71)
30.34%
No - I got the required grades (132)
56.41%
No - I missed the required grades and didn't get in (31)
13.25%

Watched Threads

View All