Sea Shepards ram Japanese whaling ship

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Letum

So long as there are sufficient stocks, I'm happy for any number of whales to
be slaughters for any reason.

That's the reasoning that nearly wiped them out the first time. Whales, like all mammals, have a much slower rate of population growth than, say, fish, reptiles or insects.

Ecologically, mammals are rather delicate.

[Letum]

So long as there are sufficient stocks, I'm happy for any number of whales to
be slaughters for any reason.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

That's the reasoning that nearly wiped them out the first time. Whales, like all mammals, have a much slower rate of population growth than, say, fish, reptiles or insects.

Ecologically, mammals are rather delicate.

"So long as there are sufficient stocks"
i.e. so long as the population can sustain the volume of harvest.

That was not the case in the past and was certainly not the reasoning that
lead to the decline of whales.


If Dodos where hunted "So long as there are sufficient stocks" we would
still have Dodos today.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Letum

"So long as there are sufficient stocks"
i.e. so long as the population can sustain the volume of harvest.

That was not the case in the past and was certainly not the reasoning that
lead to the decline of whales.


If Dodos where hunted "So long as there are sufficient stocks" we would
still have Dodos today.

Unenforceable. We can't even stop the hunting of wholey protected species. Besides, what is 'sustainable'? Counting and tracking the numbers of mating pairs on land is one thing; you can even pen the endangered species in reserves. You can't do that with aquatic species, and keeping track of them is not so neat and easy.

[Torplexed]

[Letum]

Fishing quotas for fish have been proven enforceable in several countries.
Due to their size, I would imagine it is easier to enforce whaling quotas.

As for assessing numbers, educated guesses can be made and quotas drawn
up to provide minimal risk in the worst case scenario.
So long as a sufficient margins are left, there is no significant risk.

[Jimbuna]

The only winner here will be the shiprepair yard.

Reminds me a little of the Icelandic Cod War.

[ETR3(SS)]

1.Ramming ships on the high seas.

2.Attempts to board ships (my perspective after watching the video).

3.Written record of crimes committed against other vessels in International waters.

4.Flying the Jolly Roger (albeit their version) which is synonymous with piracy.

5.Written evidence claiming Pirate status (again albeit they claim to be the "Good Pirates")

Wanna stop whaling? Good for you! Wanna violate International Maritime Law and claim status as a pirate? Then you should get what every pirate deserves, a short drop and a sudden stop!

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS)

1.Ramming ships on the high seas.

2.Attempts to board ships (my perspective after watching the video).

3.Written record of crimes committed against other vessels in International waters.

4.Flying the Jolly Roger (albeit their version) which is synonymous with piracy.

5.Written evidence claiming Pirate status (again albeit they claim to be the "Good Pirates")

Wanna stop whaling? Good for you! Wanna violate International Maritime Law and claim status as a pirate? Then you should get what every pirate deserves, a short drop and a sudden stop!

Just for the fact that they are flying the pirate flag, justifies these guys getting sunk on sight. Whats' next, shows about people spiking lumber or buring SUVs in car lots?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Letum

Fishing quotas for fish have been proven enforceable in several countries.
Due to their size, I would imagine it is easier to enforce whaling quotas.

As for assessing numbers, educated guesses can be made and quotas drawn
up to provide minimal risk in the worst case scenario.
So long as a sufficient margins are left, there is no significant risk.

I agree that this is an effective method for most marine life. However, whales are mirgratory. Let's say that pod X spends the summer in the Pacific Northwest and the winter off Mexico. Everyone's allowed to take 4 whales, which is what the Mexicans do during the winter. Pod X now moves off Seattle, where the Americans take another four whales from the pod, as is their legal right. The pod is decimated.

No one would really be at fault. How are the Americans to know that this is the same pod that the Mexicans took during the previous season? Given the low birth rates of whales, it would take a decade for harvestable numbers to return, making whaling under these conditions unprofitable. In the long run, whales make for poor harvest.

[Letum]

Yes. that would not be a sustainable way of going about it, but that does not
mean there isn't a sustainable way of going about it at all.
That is part of the reason the whaling commission is international.

Originally Posted by Letum

Yes. that would not be a sustainable way of going about it, but that does not
mean there isn't a sustainable way of going about it at all.
That is part of the reason the whaling commission is international.

Yea well, so far what has happened is that many whale species are and have been at the brink of extinction for some time. Many stems like the blue whales might never recover and just one day be gone from the oceans. Whales also suffer from hereditary conditions like humans and when the stem becomes too small it will not be able to recover no matter how protected it is.

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by Letum

Fishing quotas for fish have been proven enforceable in several countries.
Due to their size, I would imagine it is easier to enforce whaling quotas.

As for assessing numbers, educated guesses can be made and quotas drawn
up to provide minimal risk in the worst case scenario.
So long as a sufficient margins are left, there is no significant risk.

The dodo's extinct !!! They seem to be alive and thriving.