Tuddi2 wrote:first of all i never said there were as many whales as cattle and personally if i think about it i find it more inhumane how cattle are slaughtered then whales, we control their breeding, what they eat, where they stay and then we kill of their young or old as per planned, take away the milk that's meant for their offspring and then round them up in slaughterhouses to make burgers and steaks.
it's only the size of the whale that prevents humans from killing whales instantly, we need bigger guns i suppose. and as if that would matter to those that oppose whale hunting, that's just one of the straws they draw to try and make some kind of case against this very normal farming.
Contradict yourself a lot do you?
From what I read it can take hours for a whale to die. Cattle aren't left up to hours to die, and cattle populations are far from being in danger of approaching extinction levels. There have been cases of inhumane treatment of cattle, but those occasions aren't the norm.
Tuddi2 wrote:
you make it sound like whalers are these bloodthirsty wildmen that wanna kill of the entire whale population, and would if noone "keeps an eye on them" ....... wtf ?
I'm sure certain species would have been if whaling hadn't been banned for such a long period of time, but thats supposition.
Tuddi2 wrote:
the whalers are the ones that care most about the population, because they'd make a living of hunting them ... for a long time, not kill them all and then be out of work.
Yeah, kind of like what happened to the buffalo here in the United States.
Tuddi2 wrote:
it's the same thing with fishermen , they're the ones that wanna control the fish population and manage it so there will be fish for years and years to come.
Who is disagreeing? I have nothing against managed whaling. I thought I said that before. I do have a problem with causing the extinction of a species.
Tuddi2 wrote:
more plankton wont create an imbalance it'll simply ensure plentiful food for those that feed on it.
Sure, kill all the bats on the planet, that just leaves more insects for the birds and frogs.
Tuddi2 wrote:
i remember a news report from a greenpeace rally a few years ago, was in new york i think, and a reporter asked some of the people in the crowd how many whales they thought were hunted every year.
"thousands" was the most common answer.
yah, grats ignorance and the 'ol jump on the bandwagon type of protesting. they just joined those rallies because they think whales are cute looking and they make nice sounds.
Jumping on what bandwagon? IWC allows Japan to hunt plenty of whales, all under the guise of scientific research:
http://www.wdcs.org.au/info_details.php ... 1126669553
September 14, 2005
Along with the 60 it's allowed to catch off Kushiro, Japan is also allowed by the IWC to hunt 60 more off the northern coast of its Honshu main island, as well as 440 minke whales in the Antarctic Ocean and 210 others in the northwestern Pacific.
http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/10/stories ... 912200.htm
Friday, Feb 10, 2006
But the glut has not stopped the harpoon guns. Tokyo plans to kill — under a research programme — some 1,070 minke whales in 2006, over 400 more than last year and more than double the number it hunted a decade ago. Japan will also hunt 10 fin whales, and a total of 160 Bryde's, sei and sperm whales, a fisheries official said.
What I don't understand is how Japan said 400 was enough for their study one year, jumps to 600 in a following year, and jumps to 1070 this year. This is one specific whale species by the way, not all whales allowed.
Scientific research my ass. This is why the Japanese need to be watched.
"Or else... what?"
"Or else, We will be very, very angry with you, and we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are..."
Numb Nuts: How is 2300 > 23000?
kyoukan: It's not?