********dolphin Sluaghter*****

[Guest Sundancefisher]

So are we saying that it is ok if a few dolphins, or a few thousand, get killed? Seriously? I've fed them in the wild before. Not at some damn ocean theme park, 100% wild dolphins. So basically it is ok to off the next smartest beings on the planet?

 

So I couldn't give the slightest rats ass (sorry Jack) what the $%#@ the Japanese hunt for food. They fish out water then move on to other peoples water. There are lots of things societies used to do that we don't do any more. Killing dolphins is just flat wrong.

 

Good lord.

 

People don't think of dolphins and whales the same way as seals and deer. For which ever reason people chose to separate them there is also a cultural point of view that comes into play. In European and Western cultures, we have bought into the intelligence factors whales bring to the table. We also feel for the over exploitation over the years.

 

In fact without the oil industry, many whales would probably be extinct today.

 

Without a doubt also, the Japanese, Korean, Tiawanese, Portegese etc. fishing fleets have done massive damage to the oceans animal and fish populations.

 

I can understand your position Rick and frankly being westernized...I can not argue with your "feelings" with any amount of strength. The majority of European and North Americans would agree with you in spades...but...can we always throw our moral and value judgements on others so easily?

[ÜberFly]

For me it's purely an "ethics" and numbers issue!! If the population of whales (no one species specifically), bears, sharks, seals, trees, oilsands (efficiently and environmentally extracted), etc. cannot sustain a "harvest", then ethically, harvesting should be outlawed!! And I'm talking real statistics as opposed to manipulated stats

 

P

 

*edit* I've included the "oilsands" in my response b/c as far as I know "they" need to become more efficient in their production (producing negative output vs. what is put in?!), plus they defintely need to improve "their" environmental practices (water use, etc)... (FYI, I am not an industry type so I'm more or less speaking out of my a$$, i.e., not fully educated on the subject matter, just going on some of the info I've read - so I'm sure I'll get hammered on it!!)

 

People don't think of dolphins and whales the same way as seals and deer. For which ever reason people chose to separate them there is also a cultural point of view that comes into play. In European and Western cultures, we have bought into the intelligence factors whales bring to the table. We also feel for the over exploitation over the years.

 

In fact without the oil industry, many whales would probably be extinct today.

 

Without a doubt also, the Japanese, Korean, Tiawanese, Portegese etc. fishing fleets have done massive damage to the oceans animal and fish populations.

 

I can understand your position Rick and frankly being westernized...I can not argue with your "feelings" with any amount of strength. The majority of European and North Americans would agree with you in spades...but...can we always through our moral and value judgements on others so easily?

[Ricinus]

My God, I have to agree with both Sun and Rickr, That is scary!! Unfortunately, I believe that a Danish controlled group of islands still has an annual dolphin/porpoise slaughter,so Western civilizations can't really claim any moral high ground.

 

Regards Mike

[Guest Sundancefisher]

My God, I have to agree with both Sun and Rickr, That is scary!! Unfortunately, I believe that a Danish controlled group of islands still has an annual dolphin/porpoise slaughter,so Western civilizations can't really claim any moral high ground.

 

Regards Mike

 

Nope...I checked... No pigs flying as of yet and the sky is not purple...I repeat NOT PURPLE.

[canadensis]

So are we saying that it is ok if a few dolphins, or a few thousand, get killed? Seriously? I've fed them in the wild before. Not at some damn ocean theme park, 100% wild dolphins. So basically it is ok to off the next smartest beings on the planet?

 

So I couldn't give the slightest rats ass (sorry Jack) what the $%#@ the Japanese hunt for food. They fish out water then move on to other peoples water. There are lots of things societies used to do that we don't do any more. Killing dolphins is just flat wrong.

 

Good lord.

 

So we should base what animals we kill and eat on how smart they are?

 

At what point would you consider an animal dim-whitted enough to have for dinner?

 

Just trying to get a baseline on why you think that killing dolphins is just flat wrong.

 

In some asian countries they eat dogs and rats, in India they would never eat a cow and in Germany they eat horses. All protein, yet each culture has a different approach on how to sustain itself.

 

As long as no long-term damage is resulting from over-harvest who are we to judge.

[ÜberFly]

Good point! How outraged are people to learn that horse meat in Europe is a multi million (if not billion) dollar industry!! And that Alberta is one of the largest producers of horse meat bound for Europe!

 

P

 

and in Germany they eat horses.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

So we should base what animals we kill and eat on how smart they are?

 

At what point would you consider an animal dim-whitted enough to have for dinner?

 

Just trying to get a baseline on why you think that killing dolphins is just flat wrong.

 

In some asian countries they eat dogs and rats, in India they would never eat a cow and in Germany they eat horses. All protein, yet each culture has a different approach on how to sustain itself.

 

As long as no long-term damage is resulting from over-harvest who are we to judge.

 

Your statement should maybe say at some point...we MUST JUDGE. Status quo when it comes to over harvest should never be tolerated. We should be learning from such mistakes and not perpetuating them based upon some inane right to mess up. Learning from one's mistake is a time tested method for not screwing up worse.

 

And...if you fault Rick for being culturally selective on what he eats...you also need to pick on 98% of Canadians. That includes cats, dogs, pigs, cows, whales, guinea pigs, snakes, horses, bush meat, monkeys, apes, rats, mice, insects and on and on. I strongly suspect Rick probably eats more variety in animals than 90% of Canadians.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

For me it's purely an "ethics" and numbers issue!! If the population of whales (no one species specifically), bears, sharks, seals, trees, etc. cannot sustain a "harvest", then ethically, harvesting should be outlawed!! And I'm talking real statistics as opposed to manipulated stats

 

P

 

You realized I almost agreed with you in my first post with the exception of you adding in oil sands as a living creature (black and white and not on topic).

 

So you would say then if the population allowed for dolphin harvest you would be okay for that? I would disagree as I don't feel whales should be in a commercial harvest operation. Various concerns are population, over harvest, genetics, family group dynamics (young learn from old), protection from predators (removing members could lead to increased predation mortality), poaching and on and on.

 

I guess you could see a commercial harvest whereas I do not.

 

[reevesr1]

So we should base what animals we kill and eat on how smart they are?

 

At what point would you consider an animal dim-whitted enough to have for dinner?

 

Just trying to get a baseline on why you think that killing dolphins is just flat wrong.

 

In some asian countries they eat dogs and rats, in India they would never eat a cow and in Germany they eat horses. All protein, yet each culture has a different approach on how to sustain itself.

 

As long as no long-term damage is resulting from over-harvest who are we to judge.

 

I don't know where the line is, but wherever it is, the great apes and dolphins are above it. I know that that is my line, not an Asian countries line, but if I could get it banned world wide I would.

 

I could name a whole lot of practices that we don't do anymore that once were called "culture."

[canadensis]

Your statement should maybe say at some point...we MUST JUDGE. Status quo when it comes to over harvest should never be tolerated. We should be learning from such mistakes and not perpetuating them based upon some inane right to mess up. Learning from one's mistake is a time tested method for not screwing up worse.

 

And...if you fault Rick for being culturally selective on what he eats...you also need to pick on 98% of Canadians. That includes cats, dogs, pigs, cows, whales, guinea pigs, snakes, horses, bush meat, monkeys, apes, rats, mice, insects and on and on. I strongly suspect Rick probably eats more variety in animals than 90% of Canadians.

 

Hey I am culturally sensitive of what I eat too; I could not imagine eating a horse or dolphin, I grew up watching flicka and flipper. Rick seemed to base his decision on what is table fare on how smart the dolphin is, and that he hand-fed one. They say pigs are smarter than dogs yet we raise hogs for slaughter; so it was a serious question.

 

If dolphins are not being harvested in a sustainable manor, and there welfare is not put to the forefront on how they are killed then there should be definate reform.

 

But to judge what another culture chooses to eat based solely on it's IQ does not hold water.

 

I personally would eat a Dolphin steak before I would eat fillet of fido if that was all on the menu...

[ÜberFly]

That's where my caveat of "ethics" comes in... Even though numbers may sustain a harvest, is it ethical to harvest a sentient being, as opposed to an animal that was raised (produced) for food?! Trying to play devils advocate, but it's been a long day and I'm not doing this discussion justice... So I'll bow out...

 

P

 

P.S. I was also trying to parallel the ethical concerns and ineffeicency of oilsands production, but didn't that that justice either ... (to me)

 

 

 

You realized I almost agreed with you in my first post with the exception of you adding in oil sands as a living creature (black and white and not on topic).

 

So you would say then if the population allowed for dolphin harvest you would be okay for that? I would disagree as I don't feel whales should be in a commercial harvest operation. Various concerns are population, over harvest, genetics, family group dynamics (young learn from old), protection from predators (removing members could lead to increased predation mortality), poaching and on and on.

 

I guess you could see a commercial harvest whereas I do not.

[jack]

But this whole deal is about one small village, not an "industry".

 

First one has to read and study all the available information, objectively. Then, sort out the precise, scientific information from the extrapolated and sensational propaganda that the "critics" have generated. For instance, the mercury level of 2000 ppm was found in the internal organs of ONE pilot whale, not in the flesh, so let's not go into "sensational mode" just yet, OK? Also realize that dolphin and pilot whale are NOT regular food items for the Japanese, but are very occasional dishes in very small amounts. Similar to the sashimi tuna(which also may contain trace mercury) that my family partakes in, occasionally.

 

Secondly, nobody has stated anything about "starving", a lack of available animal protein is not "starving" and should not be portrayed as such, in the interests of information accuracy. But, the dolphin and pilot whale "fishery" contributes 1/3 of the value of the entire fishing industry in the town of Taiji.

Now, if some outsider landed on YOUR front doorstep and demanded that YOUR income be reduced by 1/3 because HE thinks it is "right", what would YOUR reaction be?

 

Try to objectively understand both the economics and culture of a place like Taiji. It is a small, relatively isolated village with a population of about 3500, a population density of 577 per sq. km(in comparison, Alberta has 5.5 per sq. Km). Every square inch of arable land produces food. The surrounding landscape is mostly steep hills and rock outcroppings, intermingled with dense forest(which has not been "raped", by the way) which is selectively cut for local use. Most of Taiji's "land" is "standing straight up and down". There is one road in and out, and one road that goes to another coastal village further West.

 

Secondly, nobody has stated anything about "starving", a lack of available animal protein is not "starving" and should not be portrayed as such, in the interests of information accuracy. But, the dolphin and pilot whale "fishery" contributes 1/3 of the value of the entire fishing industry in the town of Taiji.

Now, if some outsider landed on YOUR front doorstep and demanded that YOUR income be reduced by 1/3 because HE thinks it is "right", what would YOUR reaction be?

 

As far as Japan's natural resources being raped and pillaged, most of Japan's natural resources are imported, mostly because it's landbase is not arable(2% is actually farmed intensely, as opposed to Alberta's 2000 sq Km of farmed land)) and as a volcanic area, most of the land is also unstable for mining and other resource-based enterprises. Japan has a large population squeezed into a small livable area, of course any natural resources that they do have would be used up in a hurry!

"Raping the land and natural resources" is also a charge leveled at Alberta over the oil sands, isn't it?

 

Yes, I am somewhat subjective when it comes to S. Japan and Taiji and Okinawa in particular, I've spent time there, lived there for short durations, know some "everyday, ordinary people" there, and have a number of in-laws who still live there. I think one should understand the whole scenario prior to throwing rocks while making an issue of something, based on someone else's opinions or narrowly focused propaganda.

j

 

Edit: Sorry about the double/triple paragraphs, I was posting and then was rudely interrupted by work a number of times, tried to post and it wouldn't let me, so I had to copy and paste(and screwed it all up).

j

[reevesr1]

But to judge what another culture chooses to eat based solely on it's IQ does not hold water.

 

I totally disagree. Of course we can judge based on IQ. If we didn't, we'd still be eating each other, keeping slaves, etc.Those practices ended as cultures evolved. The more interesting question is where the line is. I don't know that answer, but I know for me there are some species of animals above it. And I can judge if I choose. I can judge when apes are killed for food, or hands, or whatever. I can judge when dolphins are killed. In my mind, it is wrong. And not just wrong, immoral. That's my line in the sand. I can somewhat understand, but not condone, incidental killing of dolphins when fishing for other food sources. But to kill them to eat them should be stopped. You don't agree. Fair enough. But I am judging, and I have no issue with that whatsoever.

[reevesr1]

Secondly, nobody has stated anything about "starving", a lack of available animal protein is not "starving" and should not be portrayed as such, in the interests of information accuracy. But, the dolphin and pilot whale "fishery" contributes 1/3 of the value of the entire fishing industry in the town of Taiji.

Now, if some outsider landed on YOUR front doorstep and demanded that YOUR income be reduced by 1/3 because HE thinks it is "right", what would YOUR reaction be?

Jack,

Warning!! Hyperbole alert!!

 

We had a war over that in the states once. One race of unpaid humans drove the economic engine of several southern states. People who didn't live in those states objected to the practice and wanted it stopped. The reaction of the slave states were very similar to your scenario above. They went to war over it and lost (thankfully).

 

I wouldn't care if the dolphin and pilot whale industry contributed 100% of the economy of Taiji. To me, it is wrong. I want it stopped. I sympathize with the people of Taiji in that they may need to find some other source of income. But that does not change my feelings on this one iota.

[ÜberFly]

Ok I lied... One more comment/link from yesterday's Guardian

 

"Canada's image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to whaling"

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...en-climate-deal

 

P

[adc]

And I can judge if I choose. I can judge when apes are killed for food, or hands, or whatever. I can judge when dolphins are killed. In my mind, it is wrong. And not just wrong, immoral. But to kill them to eat them should be stopped.

 

You're right Rick you can, and are entitled to your opinion............I guess that's how Pamela Anderson feels about the seal hunt too.....And you have the right to protest if you feel strongly about it..........Where I draw the line is with activists breaking the law to protest and what seems to be leniency by law enforcement/governments with regard to punsihing the law breakers........Whether it's seal hunt protests, oil sands protests or dolphin slaughter protests do what you want within the law because you are entitled to express your opinion........But it is sheer arrogance to say, as one oil sands protester hanging from the Shell upgrader (illegally) said when asked why he thought it was o.k. to break the law, "We need to do whatever is necessary until "they" listen to us"........Arrogant......

[Smitty]

adc:

 

I am playing devil's advocate here:

 

But there does exist in liberal democracies a right to gather and peacefully protest. And, additionally, some civilians choose civil disobedience to get their point across. From St. Augustine: "An unjust law is no law at all". And in keeping with the full spirit of such protest, those that break the unjust laws still accept punishment.

 

Its easy to pick on Greenpeacers hanging from smoke stacks; but I think the vast majority of us support non-violent civil disobedient protest where laws are deliberately broken to bring attention to something that is unjust when other methods fail. Think Apartheid, etc.

 

In fact, we know that we even justify violence in taking a stand against something grossly unjust, evil, immoral; that was called WW2.

 

Sorry if this aside counts as a highjack, now back to regular programming.

 

Smitty

[adc]

but I think the vast majority of us support non-violent civil disobedient protest where laws are deliberately broken to bring attention to something that is unjust when other methods fail. Think Apartheid, etc.

 

Smitty.......

 

Your comment works for Apartheid and WW2 for sure, at least for you and I, but when it comes to tar sands, seals, whales, dolphins, grizzly bears, etc., etc., etc., what makes one man's opinion "right" and worthy of unlawful protest while another's is wrong??.....Because I believe that spending $$$Trillions to reduce carbon emissions to combat climate change is wrong (and I do beleive that) does that give me the right to illegally protest given that I may not be right at all??....I'm done now with this thread and apologies for the semi-hijack.......

[reevesr1]

ADC,

Why be done with the thread? This one is actually moving along without much name calling, at least I think it is. Just differing opinions.....

 

Three stories:

When I was 12 yrs old I was running a gill net with my father and little brother (don't lecture me, it was a LONG time ago, and we quit after 2 yrs). A group of dolphins started circling the outside of the net. My dad pulled a trout (saltwater version) out and threw it to one of the dolphins. My brother and I did the same. Within a few fish all 4 or 5 of the dolphins are coming in for fish. Dad could get them to eat from his hand. Not so my brother and I, I think cuz they had to get too close because our arms were shorter. For dad, they would see the fish, swim in very slowly and burst accelerate the last few feet, take it from his hand and blast out. It was so cool. We probably fed them $50.00 worth of fish (1972 by the way). Just a great thing to see.

 

When I was in my early 20s I lived in Orlando. I was fishing with a buddy on a big grass flat in Tampa Bay. The flat was across a channel from a beachfront with several hotels on it. In the channel were several adult dolphins and a couple of young one's. They put on what can only be called a show for the people on the beach. The dolphins started tail walking, jumping, playing and generally splashing about. When it started there was me and my buddy on the flat and a few people on the beach. After a couple of minutes there was a small crowd on the beach. The show went of for maybe 5 minutes and they moved on. Whether or not they knew we were there and were putting on a show is debatable. But there is no doubt in my mind that they were playing for the sake of playing. Not training to fight like many animals do, just flat out playing for play sake.

 

When I was in my early 40s I was fishing a big sand flat in Louisiana with 10 or so others. Fishing was pretty good. We all had donut style stringers to keep the sharks away. But someone noticed a dolphin nosing his donut. (kinda like a big mesh fish basket-we kept fish to eat). We then see a big school of dolphins move into the flat about 75 yds in front of us. Knowing this was bad news for the fishing, we still watched the dolphins. They started to circle and the circle started to constrict. Then they blasted into the center of the circle and trout started to jump out of the water running for their lives! They had made a bait ball, but not of bait, of our intended target! Just an awesome display. We were laughing and I said "they are showing us how it is really done!"

 

 

I've seen them more times than I can count goofing around. One of my strongest submarine memories are watching them jump across the bow while we were surface transiting between islands in Hawaii.

 

I don't know how smart they really are. I'm sure I tend to assign more intelligence to them than they deserve. I don't care though. They are too valuable to eat. Period. I know that is just my opinion, but it is a cause I would support with my time and effort if the opportunity to do so arises.

[fish4trout]

I believe natives in Alberta and Canada should have the right to their traditional hunting grounds (public lands) within a management programs for subsistance living...not commercial sale. I also believe that means only bow and arrow and not guns. They can't use an excuse to pillage the wildlife by complaining we destroyed their traditional ways of life and how they can't conform to rest of societies rights and expectations...and use guns at the same time. Guns were a benefit of European influence... They did not have them before which unfortunately when ever you have a hunter gathering society around and they become to efficient at hunting...they end up killing everything they can. If a bow is traditional...they use the bow.

 

Are you saying that spotlighting deer out of their 1 ton diesels at night with their fancy new high powered rifle(probably something less than the .23 calibre mimimum to hunt big game) is not traditional hunting?

 

[jack]

And on the other hand, I personally, would refuse to make or force my moral judgments on someone living somewhere else, in far different economic and cultural circumstances than I, especially when those judgments are based on information supplied by those whose financial backing and possible hidden agendas are unknown.

 

Great discussion!

j

[jksnijders]

 

 

 

Was just thinking...

 

If a baby Fur Seal looked like a Norway Rat, would the McCartney's give a damn?

[Pythagoras]

Wow...didn't this thread blossom!

 

I'm with rickr. Just put me down for whatever he says in this thread. (and this thread only...)

 

[jksnijders]

 

 

Sorry fellas.. Was just trying to lighten things up a bit.

 

[jack]

Was just thinking...

 

If a baby Fur Seal looked like a Norway Rat, would the McCartney's give a damn?

 

If said baby seal/Norway rat had a 35 million dollar bank account ONE of the McCartneys would marry it !!

j