|
|
|
|
|
| Whaling
Posted: 12/14/2007 2:28:47 AM | Go Kev....
more ball sin a few days than that cowaed hunt had in decades | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 12/14/2007 2:48:46 AM | the bloke who was elected president of the united states of america in 2000 and recently won a nobel peace prize for his "greenie campaigns"had some powerful words to say at the climate change conference.,
he begged somewhat the forum not to base the future on america playing the recalcitrant here, he said the government will change soon, he also singled out Australia as proof as a result of the complete change of policy as a result of us changing governments. | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 12/14/2007 2:57:53 AM | the bloke who was elected president of the united states of america in 2000 and recently won a nobel peace prize for his "greenie campaigns"had some powerful words to say at the climate change conference
Vice President Aloofy....Personally i think he's a twit | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 12/14/2007 3:10:05 AM | he was vice to clinton, bush appealed the florida result in 2000 and a bunch of stuck up republican judges took bush's side and theres a couple of nice threads recently in this forum about judges.
them judges changed this world forever for us.
but gore is a twit, but i have respect for what he's about and i had respect for what clinton was about even though he's a much bigger twit. | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/14/2008 7:33:16 PM | No animal should die in such a cruel way
Chicken, pig, cow, sheep etc
I grow up in the country
I was againest it then and am still againest such cruel ways.
I hardly eat meat.
Girls you would be surprized whats in makeup and what we use to smell nice.
check on back of makeup when buying. They killed beautiful whales so we can smell nice.
 | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/14/2008 9:28:18 PM | Yes and no. They used to make perfumes out of a substance called Ambergris. Ambergris is a waxy substance made by the bile system of sperm whales. It's believed that it coats hard things the whale swallows and makes them easier to pass through.Ambergris is quite rare, but occasionally found on beaches or floating in the water. It's worth about $10USD per GRAM, making it... what... $10, 000 a kilo? $12 000 Australian.
Ambergris is NOT made by whaling. It used to be occasionally found in a whale that was killed anyway. (The biggest piece ever weighed 340 kg, and was found in the intestine of whale.) But ambergris is rare in whales. Only about 1% have any in them, so whalers barely bother. Ambergris now generally found by beachcombers or sailors who see it floating on the water. Whales excrete it completely naturally. And yes, I did say excrete. It's believed that's where it comes from.
Ambergris is still valuable to the perfume industry. It's still used in occasional high end perfumes, but you can't exactly farm for it and supply is highly irregular. Like pretty much everything else that used to come from whaling, synthetics are now used far more.
Whales now are hunted exclusively for meat.
The issue with whaling is that it really is an emotional issue, not a logical one. If you want protection from humans it helps to be either cute and furry or "majestic". No one gives a crap about sharks that are more endangered than any whale, but which are pulled out of the water, have their fins cut off, then are dumped back in to drown or be eaten by other sharks. No one cares about the rare toads, the threatened insects. But Bengal Tigers... They have to be saved. | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/14/2008 11:24:23 PM | your completely wrong there whitegold. I care ! (cept for the toads )
logical or emotional reasons for slaughtering 1000 humpbacks for me is just arbitrary bullsh!t syntax to make us feel ok about it...
As you say they are hunted for meat, that being said no one will see humpback steaks at any restaurants across australia or abroad? you wont find mexicans, indians, spanards, kiwis, africans or middles eastern country's hunting for these whales ILLEGALLY in OUR AUSTRALIAN ANTARCTIC WHALE SANCTUARIES ?
yet japan do it year after year... Bengal tigers are out our immediate reach, but we own the waters the whaler's are killing in.
I hope australia gets off its ass and does something about it, it cheeses me off
(gets off soup box and wipes forehead) | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 1:59:44 AM | CavesBeach
I agree with you 100%.
Whitegold
There is lot of hypocrisy in this world so lets save at leat some of them especially when the Japanese real motive is so arrogant - Money, Money, and only Money. | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 2:24:06 AM | I didn't know that about ambergris, whitegold. Thanks. Interesting..might go google for some more info.
Whales aren't destructive in any way, are they? If they were in large numbers, would they be?
I don't know much about whales - it's been interesting to read people's comments about their similarities to dolphins.
Nothing should be hunted to the extent that it becomes endangered. | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 6:54:11 AM |
Whales aren't destructive in any way, are they? If they were in large numbers, would they be?
Define "destructive"? I wouldn't want one in my car, but... They're a natural part of the ecosystem. What they do is what they do. Japanese whalers claim that they're helping to cull them because they eat too many fish, reducing the catch of fishermen. Sounds like a stretch to me. They can do some damage to small boats on occasion, but large boats do far more damage to them. Lots of whales have huge scars across their dorsal area from getting too close to propellers. Those, of course, are the ones that survive those injuries.
As you say they are hunted for meat, that being said no one will see humpback steaks at any restaurants across australia or abroad? you wont find mexicans, indians, spanards, kiwis, africans or middles eastern country's hunting for these whales ILLEGALLY in OUR AUSTRALIAN ANTARCTIC WHALE SANCTUARIES ?
Unfortunately according to international law we can't protect those sanctuaries, as nobody technically owns those areas. It's some old law that's still in place that was put there to prevent the antarctic being used as a staging area during the Cold War. In fact, if we pushed any sort of rights we'd probably lose them.
And the humpback steaks... damn straight you can. Not mexico, but the faroe islands, parts of russia, canada and alaska you can buy whale meat in shops. | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 8:44:02 AM | Interesting thread
And it goes to prove the only animal we need fear on this planet is the two legged variety.
He destroys everything for personal gain ,,, the rest just take what they need for survival . | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 12:21:01 PM | Define "destructive"? I wouldn't want one in my car
dont drive your car in the ocean and you'll be right mate :) I was in a 12ft tinnie and one was a few meters away from me.....no damage at all.
Unfortunately according to international law we can't protect those sanctuaries, as nobody technically owns those areas
Australian govt. dissagrees with that comment and has since 1938..the issue was in the federal courts again last night and the whalers were deemed totally illegal.
It is illegal to kill, injure or interfere with cetaceans (whales, dolphins, porpoises) in 10.8 million km2 of Australian waters.
http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=21438
absolutely agree with you there barra | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 2:36:00 PM | I'm not pro nor anti-whaling.
I believe that the harvest of minkes would be sustainable if correctly managed, populations are very high (2 million at last count), and taking 50 a year likely wouldn't have caused too much harm.
I do not agree with marching under a banner of research, however, research of their kind must also be understood before being dismissed as a load of rubbish. For example, many papers have actually been written about the internal physiology of whales, much as they are about many other animals; knowledge of an animal's reproductive physiology is vital to its protection. Never known live whales to be co-operative with this sort of thing though...
This sort of experiment/study is also carried out on fish ALL the time, they kill thousands of fish in the name of science, and for a time, it was worrying because the sampling actually wiped a few populations of reef fish out in the venues they were studied in (Big der... there). Oh, I should mention, they don't kill 50 fish a year, it's more often than not hundreds a trip, and they'll do that a few times for a long-term study.
As for the 'intelligence' of BALEEN whales. Sure, they do seem a bit brighter than most things swimming, but their brain to body-size index is actually abysmal (likened to a snail). Therefore, a shark'd be more or less comparable in terms brain to body size.
Now, if you use this as a rough index for intelligence, smaller whales (toothed and baleen) and dolphins are roughly as smart as a sheep or a dog. Not stupid, but not super-human either. It's also a mistaken idea that their highly ordered social structures are unknown amongst other creatures. There are dozens of species of crustacea and bony fish that have the same sort of heirarchy but aren't so well studied, nor respected for it. Sure, whales communicate through gesturing, body language, sound etc. Fish can do all that too, AND change colour. Doesn't mean they're any brighter, but it pays to take note.
I might also mention that many cetaceans are far from being gentle and kind natured. The baleen whales obviously can't do much, simply swimming around with a mouthful of baleen, but the toothed whales have been known to be NASTY. Orcas and even bottlenoses (yep, flipper), are known to swim up to and just kill porpoises for the hell of it. They don't eat them, just rip them to shreds and toss them around a bit.
Now, the humane or not so humane methods of whaling...Like all projectile weapons, what matters is the shot. Sure, you'll get the odd bad one, which results in unnecessary suffering, but more often than not, an explosive tipped harpoon launched into the back of a whale's skull kills it VERY quickly. Mind you, 20 tonne animals are NOT easy to subdue in any way, but I honestly can't see a much more humane way of doing this.
I've got to say here too, that I do not agree with some of the radical actions of greenpeace. Yes, reporting the Japanese whaling fleet for being in an Antarctic whale sanctuary is a good thing, and sure, chase, but disabling someone's propellers with ropes in the Southern Ocean (where 70knot winds and 12m seas are COMMON, not to mention the fact that the water temperature is liable to kill anyone VERY quickly) and then boarding their boat illegally to expect absolute immunity is just cowboy behaviour (That's discounting the accusations of throwing acid onto the deck...).
There's a matter or decorum here, and I don't think these people's actions are doing the conservation movement any favours. I mean, driving an inflatable rubber ducky in between a whaling vessel about to take a shot and the whale, and then complaining that the shot wasn't clean...I wonder if they'd rather have had the harpoon go through the boat instead...
Just makes me shake my head in frustration when people don't see things with clear eyes... | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 3:07:22 PM | Destructive? Okies, do they damage the eco-system in any way if their numbers reach high levels? Examples: cane toad, feral donkeys, noxious weeds - all damage the environment when their numbers become too high and interfere with the ability of native animals to survive.
I'm a farm girl - or was - and the idea of farming for food is not repellent to me. But it has to be managed. I don't know if it's just Japanese people, or a few giving the rest a bad name, but they do not seem to understand the concept of over-farming or over-fishing. Abalone is an issue in WA - people go in and rape the shell fish - and then wonder why there's none left? That's just ignorant.
I really think some people go overboard....pun intended.
Humane - I appreciated your post. Lots of info I didn't know - again. Obviously whaling is not an area I have studied in depth - but after a few more weeks of this, I am sure I will have enough information to have a considered opinion. Cos right now, my thoughts are all pretty well emotive, and based on my awareness of areas of farming that are not to do with whales (by the way, I have NEVER met a smart sheep - but I've met lots of smart dogs!) | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 4:00:11 PM |
There's a matter or decorum here, and I don't think these people's actions are doing the conservation movement any favours. I mean, driving an inflatable rubber ducky in between a whaling vessel about to take a shot and the whale
these people dont just talk about conservation they actually get out there and do it. something our govt. navy should be doing as they signed the treaty. conservation movements dont seem to be really moving....so there can be no damage there.
but disabling someone's propellers with ropes in the Southern Ocean can blah blah blah cowboys
these japaneese whalers are criminals and should be treated as such, now-a-days if somebody breaks into your house you have to be carefull you dont hurt the offenders or you can be liable ..what is this world coming too. only regrets I have about the whole ordeal is I am not there to help. the acid is actually rotten egg stuff (not sure of chemical)
you can discuss intelligence to the cows come home but the fact is , it is illegal.
if it was a illegal indo fishing boat in our waters it would be scuttled and occupants charged and would not even make the news. i see no difference.
This sort of experiment/study is also carried out on fish ALL the time, they kill thousands of fish in the name of science
japan has been using this loop hole for ages, they took a vast number of whales (in the 1000's) in a scientific study to find out why they where disappearing. ofcourse blind freddy ccould see thru their true motives. sneaky and deceptive and obvious liars.
an explosive tipped harpoon launched into the back of a whale's skull kills it VERY quickly. Mind you, 20 tonne animals are NOT easy to subdue in any way, but I honestly can't see a much more humane way of doing this.
you mention "humane" along with explosive harpoons and wonder why poeople cant see life with your clear eye's.........i just dont have words for that...god i hope they dont miss the skull. but who cares right they just hamburgers and soup to you , right ?? | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 4:24:25 PM | Ease up turbo
these japaneese whalers are criminals and should be treated as such, now-a-days if somebody breaks into your house you have to be carefull you dont hurt the offenders or you can be liable ..what is this world coming too. only regrets I have about the whole ordeal is I am not there to help. the acid is actually rotten egg stuff (not sure of chemical)
you can discuss intelligence to the cows come home but the fact is , it is illegal.
if it was a illegal indo fishing boat in our waters it would be scuttled and occupants charged and would not even make the news. i see no difference.
If you actually read the post for what it was before venting your spleen, you would've noted that I commended the fact that the ship was doing its job? Detect, and pursue, where did I say anything to the contrary? As for rotten egg stuff, that's Hydrogen Sulphide, though Sulphuric acid can have a similar smell, so that's actually worriesome.
The difference between the Indonesian fishing boats and the whaling boats is partly political. I do imagine that they're trying to get the ship to pull over in order to get this evidence, which is again, quite fair.
japan has been using this loop hole for ages, they took a vast number of whales (in the 1000's) in a scientific study to find out why they where disappearing. ofcourse blind freddy ccould see thru their true motives. sneaky and deceptive and obvious liars.
I expressly did say that I DON'T believe in using research as a banner for harvest. I explained the particularities of research so that people could actually get an idea of how it was done. Calm down.
you mention "humane" along with explosive harpoons and wonder why poeople cant see life with your clear eye's.........i just dont have words for that...god i hope they dont miss the skull. but who cares right they just hamburgers and soup to you , right ??
I know 'explosive' etc. sounds just plain violent. However, my idea of 'humane' is being quick as possible in the dispatch, so as to minimise suffering. Is that not how you see it? A bullet to an animal's brain in this instance. Sure, shooting is a violent thing, but the correctly placed bullet is supposed to kill an animal VERY quickly. As for missing the skull, well, it's going to happen, but I defy you to find a 'gentler' way to kill an animal that size quickly?
Oh, that's right, you're drastically against the whole thing...
As for that last comment about them being hamburgers and soup to me. I'm not even going to dignify that with a reply. | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 4:28:16 PM | Now that's off my chest...bewitched66, to answer your question:
Destructive? Okies, do they damage the eco-system in any way if their numbers reach high levels? Examples: cane toad, feral donkeys, noxious weeds - all damage the environment when their numbers become too high and interfere with the ability of native animals to survive.
No, I don't believe that whales are or could be destructive to the eco-system. Their numbers simply don't ever get high enough due to the fact that they're basically apex predators. There are naturally very few to begin with, and their populations are heavily reliant on available food. So no, I don't believe their populations will ever get high enough for them to be a problem. The problem might arise if we start believing that there aren't enough resources left in the world for both us AND a healthy population of whales though...e.g. fish stocks etc. | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 4:49:22 PM | forgive me if i missread you comments there expresso
If you actually read the post for what it was before venting your spleen, you would've noted that I commended the fact that the ship was doing its job? Detect, and pursue, where did I say anything to the contrary?
the whole rope in the propeller msg38 , the cowboy stuff....i was referring to...
The difference between the Indonesian fishing boats and the whaling boats is partly political. I do imagine that they're trying to get the ship to pull over in order to get this evidence, which is again, quite fair.
which bit is unfair , the fact they got caught or the fact that it is illegal
I expressly did say that I DON'T believe in using research as a banner for harvest. I explained the particularities of research so that people could actually get an idea of how it was done. Calm down.
I wasn't aiming that at you in any way, was stating japan has been doing it for years.
but I defy you to find a 'gentler' way to kill an animal that size quickly?
i wont happen, i have met these creatures in the wild.. i would prefere to off the whalers to tell you the truth.
Oh, that's right, you're drastically against the whole thing...
your catching on fast.....you may pretend to be not be for or against but i feel your not a fence sitter type, it sounds more like you are a tad on the whaling side.or atleast dont care if they are hunted for meat...thats where i pulled the hamburger comment from.....I mean jesus who in there right mind goes to all this trouble for a goofy delicacy . | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 5:10:59 PM | What's not fair is that the Japanese whaling boat has leverage in this particular instance. That, and destroying the thing would probably cause quite a bit of kerfuffle, it being quite a large, expensive boat with much expensive equipment. Hence, political. What wouldn't be unfair is shooting a boat's hull out without any hard evidence, but then we don't do that round here.
Mate, I'll admit, I'm not a fence-sitter, but that post I put up was just to get the facts out there. It's easy to be swayed by emotion or what others tell you, but I feel that in order to have an opinion, it's best to have the foundations first.
I to be honest, believe that in a sustainable situation, and a controlled manner, any animal is suitable for harvest. I've seen over-fishing happen and have studied many cases of it, yet I can't see the sense in stopping fishing all round. But I re-iterate, the whole condition must be controlled and strictly policed. Fisheries are improving these days, but this whaling thing does admittedly occur over a much larger arena than any fisheries thus far (not that whales are fish).
I catch and kill a portion of my own meat (fish) to limit my burden on the whole thing, but do still like the odd piece of red meat, which I couldn't personally kill myself. Likewise, a lot of others. It'd be a difficult job killing and butchering a mammal, but the fact of the matter is, when people want to eat them, they can pay someone else to do it. I don't think anyone who isn't vegan or does it all by themselves is in any place to criticise that.
As for going to that much trouble for a snack, you may be surprised just how far some corporate business people are willing to go. The more trouble, the more expensive, and hence, the more exclusive/'special' e.g. ivory, black-market 'game' meats etc. Mind you, you might have a point with the whole 'right mind' thing. | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 6:19:33 PM | Did anyone see the example of Peter Garrett's "Once we get in, we'll just change everything" on the news?
Not nine months ago (before the election) Garrett was saying how a Rudd Govt would lead an intervention on whaling (including the boarding of ships), now (in power) he is completely backing away from that stance. Hypocrite opportunist. | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 7:34:48 PM | yep i agree IQ .in an earler post i was going to mention peter as a sellout..I'd burn all my OIL's CD's cept the music is too good
expresso
What's not fair is that the Japanese whaling boat has leverage in this particular instance. That, and destroying the thing would probably cause quite a bit of kerfuffle, it being quite a large, expensive boat with much expensive equipment. Hence, political. What wouldn't be unfair is shooting a boat's hull out without any hard evidence
the japaneese whalers or alleged whalers certainly aint out there in cruise ship drinking pina colada's playing bridge. we don't let criminals who operate drug labs keep their gear because its expensive... nor should we allow whale pirates of the sea keep their vessels...
any animal is suitable for harvest.
thats your opinion dude, but sheeeesh ...
But I re-iterate, the whole condition must be controlled and strictly policed
you talk of strictly policed yet defend the whalers ILLEGALY hunting in whale sanctuaries in our aussie waters.
you wouldn't go nab a chicken and from somebody's farm willy nilly.(the ole days they'd hang you for it) yet in my mind i see no difference.
why cant the japs hunt whales in their own waters. oh, thats right their waters are void of all sea life...how on earth could that have happened 
you are right about me being emotional about this stuff....i just cant help it. please dont take my words personally, but if you dont speak up about issues your passionate about you have one foot in the grave. | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 8:12:40 PM |
Okies, do they damage the eco-system in any way if their numbers reach high levels? Examples: cane toad, feral donkeys, noxious weeds - all damage the environment when their numbers become too high and interfere with the ability of native animals to survive.
Whales ARE a native species. Those things are a problem because they're introduced in places they don't belong, where they do too well. Cane toads are a good example. Plenty to eat, no predators... paradise.
When an animal is in its natural habitat it can't really cause any damage. How can it damage the ecosystem? It IS the ecosystem! Whales are an apex predator, and their populations are fixed by the size of their prey population. If there are too many of them they won't eat, and they'll die back, too many prey and they'll be able to breed more and reduce the population of prey. A kind of Gaia effect. It only gets screwed up when we interfere with it. Not that we'd do that.
50 a year likely wouldn't have caused too much harm
Russia alone killed 2500 whales officially per year. It has been since shown that their numbers were fabricating and were closer to 4500. About two thirds of those were Minkes. Norway has a quota of over 1000 Minkes a year. Japan takes nearly the same, at around 850. They're also looking at taking Humpbacks. There are communities in Alaska that are allowed to take 50 or so. A community in the Faroe Islands is permitted four Humpbacks a year.
You're probably right, 50 a year isn't that many. But 5000?
Now, if you use this as a rough index for intelligence, smaller whales (toothed and baleen) and dolphins are roughly as smart as a sheep or a dog.
Your information here is both a little controversial and... sorry... wrong.
EQ, or encephalization quotient, is the ratio of brain to body. The raw data is misleading. For example, many small flying birds have 1/12 of their bodyweight as brain. Small mammals (especially the treeshrew) are 1/10th brain!
So an adjusting factor is put on it to account for very small bodyweight. The figures end up as follows:
Human 7.44 (variously 5 - 8)
Dolphin 5.31 (depending on species)
Chimpanzee 2.49
Rhesus Monkey 2.09
Elephant 1.87
Whale 1.76
Dog 1.17
Sheep 0.81
It's worth pointing out a couple of things.
1. You can't group dolphins and whales together. Clearly.
2. The EQ concept is believed to break down at around the size of an elephant, no longer being useful.
3. Whales are disadvantaged by having large amounts of fat that increases their weight.
4. The whole story isn't here. Elephant's brains, for example, are quite large, but lack the folds and ridges that increase intelligence.
5. How much brain do you need?
I'll explain the last part. The point of EQ is the understanding that as body mass increases the amount of brain required to manage it increases. The higher the ratio of brain to body the more "spare" brain there is to waste on stuff like "thinking" and "figuring stuff out".
But that understanding is grossly oversimplified. If a body is twice as large, does it need twice as much brain? Or only 1.7 times? And is there a "cap" at which a brain is big enough for ANY sized body and the rest is spare?
Let's be honest... what do baleen whales need to be smart for? They eat things that are smaller than my ex wife's heart. And that's small. They don't have to chase anything. They don't have to hunt anything. They follow the seasons and the currents. They really don't have a lot of evolutionary pressure to smarten up, especially where compared to dolphins, chimps, etc.
If not being smart is a good reason to kill something and eat it... there's some people in this forum.... ;)
The stuff about dolphins and toothed whales not being that nice is true, though.
There are many stories (from marine biologists and researchers) of males gang raping female dolphins. Murder is not unknown either. Infanticide, particularly. As in many other species males often kill babies.
In fact, at least one dolphin is known to have killed a human, though in its defense it was both mistreated and later rehabilitated to a point where it became very close with a diver.
The point is this: They're animals, wild animals. It's wise not to overly anthropomorphise them. Just because they look like they're smiling doesn't mean they're actually smiling.
As to the cruelty aspect.. I doubt there's any way to kill an animal that large humanely every time. So maybe we shouldn't do it?
For that matter... we probably shouldn't be killing cows either. There's the same level of cruelty. Just on a larger production scale.
any animal is suitable for harvest.
thats your opinion dude, but sheeeesh ...
Well.. yeah.. it is.
Objectively what's the difference between a cow and a whale? Size? Is that enough?
Endangered status? His point was that IF the numbers are there, why shouldn't they be harvested? Like.. sharks. Or tuna. Or salmon. Or squid.
Mammalness? We eat cows, they're mammals. And large. We eat cows and sheep and pigs, we're kind of iffy on goats. We won't eat horses or dogs.
Why?
Don't get me wrong, everyone has things they will and won't do, cultural taboos, etc... my only concern is when people think their arbitrary boundaries are somehow "right". | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 8:35:40 PM | mr gold
Objectively what's the difference between a cow and a whale? Size? Is that enough?
cows have been invented by us, selectively breed from the ox... cows as we know them today would never have exsisted with out human intervention. so obviously one animal is farmed anad one is wild.
having said that, we talk about intelligence and food. when your in the bush you wont find any wild animals that come to identify you, i cant think of one. a whale will swim up for eye to eye contact out of nothing but sheer curiosity.... that in itself suggests that it is a sentient being.
| |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 9:34:49 PM |
a whale will swim up for eye to eye contact out of nothing but sheer curiosity.... that in itself suggests that it is a sentient being.
No it doesn't. That's not sentient. That's curious. I don't mean to be fussy, but sentient is a VERY specific word.
And there's lots of animals that will do it. Seals, for example. Some penguins. Sharks. Lemurs. Moray eels. Manta Rays. Chimps. Approaching humans is more a factor of an animal with curiosity, and without fear. Apparently when researchers first started going to the Galapagos Islands, none of the animals would walk away. While they didn't approach actively (granted) they had no fear either. Same story with the Dodo. While not smart enough to be particularly curious, people could just walk up to them.
And I don't think the whole "we grow them" argument really works. If that's the case, why not eat dogs? Or horses? We made them just as much. Maybe not horses, but certainly dogs. And by contrast we do NOT farm tuna, they're wild, but that's OK to go pulling out of the ocean? (And yes, I know some tuna is farmed, but proportionally not much.) | |
|
| Whaling
Posted: 1/15/2008 10:06:34 PM | while i agree there are some valid points there mr gold
i will disagree with the meaning of sentient..(gramma police "pull over")
sen·tient
1. Having sense perception; conscious:
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.
far from just curious when they divert from there original track and come look into your eye's, I certainly had that sensation of a conscious being and know in my heart it felt the same extraordinary sensation i was feeling.
I am a diver with over 100 dives and am only speaking from my actual encounters, i have never come across a shark or manta ray or seal that has come up to me for a look see. they have all scatered on contact (maybe its more to do with the bubbles comming out the side of my head thou) the moray eel I scattered and left him be.
and I don't think the whole "we grow them" argument really works. If that's the case, why not eat dogs? Or horses?
spose you could if you wanted too, but have never heard of a dog or horse farm we use solely to cultivate/harvest meat from....hardly the same thing as farming.
in fact our aussie culture dictates a sort of friendship kinship with these animals. you dont eat your mates...we give these animals total immunity from the menu as they serve us well, you open a restaurant offering these cuisines and see how many brooms you have to duck.
and the tuna thing, no problems but the general population of earth got a little up set when they found out about the dolphins getting caught in the tuna nets, to the point where there are labels about "dolphin friendly" on the cans and maybe truly this is more about the majority rules.....
yet so far I dont hear the forum masses saying how cruel this whaling is...maybe i could be wrong.
but bugger'd if I'm gunna stop nagging you blokes :) has been an interesting discussion right or wrong. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
