Your Opinion on Whale and Dolphin Hunting

[CEO]

I loved watching Whale Wars back when it was on regularly but strangely enough I never gave the morality of whale hunting much thought. I would root for the whalers to not get whales but I would also enjoy the anit's trials and tribulations. You see I didn't connect with either side. I knew these whale "liberators" would be railing against something I love to do if not for the whales keeping them occupied. On the other hand, as a conservationist, I have developed a bit of animosity for some far east cultures habits when it comes to wildlife. We all know the final destination of many a poached animals parts due to certain powers they hold but I have seen locally in Texas where Asian immigrants could not care less about game laws. Those are cultural differences. Should a couple of boats full of westerners be screwing with the Japanese in International waters just because our culture sees things differently? Are whalers having an adverse impact on whale populations? I really have no idea. I'm all for responsible harvest and management of any animal that can be utilized.

 

[008]

Whaling in northern coastal areas has been done for hundreds of years because its one of their only large sources of renewable protein. To me, that makes it ethical. There are whales in the Caribbean and gulf, Orcas too (which are actually the largest member of the dolphin family and not whales) but they haven't been harvested historically because there are abundant sources of other types of seaborne protein that are easier to catch.

 

[flatfoot]

Not for me .I will eat anything and have had all of plains game but a dolphin is more intelligent then me.

 

[Odinsraven]

I believe that many species or whales are back in numbers where we should be harvesting them (every country in the world , should have a quota)
they are a natural , renewable resource

in this world that's getting smaller every day ,
everything that holds a place in nature , should be earning its keep, whether its marine life, wild life, forests, or anything renewable

for some countries that aren't inclined to hunt or use whale , should have every right to lease their quota to countries that do and will utalise the whales.
the money and employment aspects of it alone ,would be more than enough to guarrentee their survival,
and also guarantee the policing and scientific studies would be so up to date that numbers would continue to rise as they have in the decades of ban
dolphins and seals are exactly the same

I live in Iceland and have been on a whaling boat hunting minkie whales .....very humane explosive tipped harpoon and brain shot usually.....for a six ton creature death comes very quick ....the whale is winched aboard and the fillets removed the remainder is dropped back into the sea ....

An amazing experience to be in on the hunt .....

Here there are 70k minkie and about 30 to 50 taken a year population is rising so fast they are starving the puffins and most hunters have stopped hunting puffin in the hope they recover .....

 

[Michael Dean]

In my analysis, the first concern is sustainability, if the numbers of animals in question are healthy and well balanced, I see no reason why Japanese cannot or the whaling done here in Northern Alaska by the Inupiaq people cannot continue. It's a resource that has to be respected and managed. Opposition to harvesting certain animals because they fall into the cute or fuzzy category simply makes no sense, it's an irrational emotion fueled position that has no place in deciding what we harvest.

Animal populations must be carefully managed to ensure present populations are sustainable based upon the lands they habitat as well as maintaining a long term analysis on the impact current practices have.

Restricting the harvest of certain animals because of the level of their intelligence or sentience will continue to be an emotional debate, they are simply no easy answers. To me it's a personal decision that people have to come to terms with on a personal level.

 

[Opposite Pole]

To bad they serve such low quality meat
Proper, good quality whale meat is dark, lean and has a gamey taste. The fishy taste comes from fat, the proper cuts is without any fat. Unfortunately cuts with fatty layers ends up in restaurants and shops, it is cheap...

If one want to eat good seafood (and whale); stay away from Bergen.. It is a tourist processing plant.....

Pretty much what my Norwegian friend said.

 

[Philip Glass]

Sustainable use. That is all that matters. The antis want bans to fundraise off of and do not care about real results!

 

[JKT]

Very interesting discussion so far.

What do you think would be the best caliber rifle to use for a dolphin hunt?

 

[gizmo]

Obligatory shooting test for whalers:

Whaling of Spitsbergen:

Wow. Really neat videos.
My 2 cents. As long as it's scientifically based, sustainable, and done in a conservation minded way I'm all for it.
Secondly I watched some documentary the other day on the Amazon. They went on and on about deforestation and the demise of the pink dolphin. What a crock of shit. I've been there and made a heck of a lot of miles across the Amazon river basin. It is thousands upon thousands of miles of trees as far as the eye can see from the air and as for the dolphins, there are tons of them. The narrator guy was saying that they were so rare that they had been listed as extinct twice. BS! I saw dozens of them a day and have videos and pictures as proof. The natives told me that they are so over populated that they are really hurting the local fisheries in many areas.
That's the thing about antis, it's all about $$$$ and playing on the heart strings and emotions of the ignorant and clueless to get it. They don't give a rats ass about the animals or the environment. It's all about greed and preying on the ill-informed and overly emotional with absolutely no regard for science or what's best for a species/ecosystem whatsoever.

 

[ArmyGrunt]

Watching the second video led me to this one. I think I'd rather be the guy on the boat than in the water! Amazing footage

 

[mrpoindexter]

Very interesting discussion so far.

What do you think would be the best caliber rifle to use for a dolphin hunt?

I wonder if it would be possible to harvest one with a bow. I looked up Narwhal and they are about 2,100 pounds. Aside from not being able to hunt them because I am not an Eskimo, I think it should be possible to take one down but not knowing their anatomy and behavior, perhaps the chances of losing it would be too high? I mean, if we can take down a 14,000 pound bull elephant, it should be possible to take down a Narwhal. As for the larger whales, I would guess it will require something bigger than I can ever launch at them from a bow.

I do think the Eskimo that are allowed to hunt them should be allowed to operate as outfitters and generate some revenue while doing their annual hunt. I would jump at the opportunity to hunt one with my bow.

 

[Pondoro]

The few remaining whalers here in Norway going after minke whale were obliged to have a large caliber rifle onboard to deliver the coup de grace with...

Most carried a .458Win and used solids..

 

[Dragan N.]

I remember watching a video about the Faroese whale hunt- they showed the whalers and then those nuts from Sea Shepherd or Greenpeace who were joined by some Hollywood celebrity. They were obviously there to stop the cruel and barbaric whale hunt bla bla. But anyway over the course of the series one of the things that struck me as really sad was the fact that the recommended daily consumption of whale meat was something like 4.5 grams due to the high concentration of mercury and other heavy metals in whales/whale meat. Yet the fact that this entire population of whales around the Faroe Islands is so contaminated doesn't phase Sea Shepherd at all but the sustainable harvest of like a few percents of the population, even less in many years, is the end of the world. Guess it shows you were their priorities lie...

 

[008]

I remember watching a video about the Faroese whale hunt- they showed the whalers and then those nuts from Sea Shepherd or Greenpeace who were joined by some Hollywood celebrity. They were obviously there to stop the cruel and barbaric whale hunt bla bla. But anyway over the course of the series one of the things that struck me as really sad was the fact that the recommended daily consumption of whale meat was something like 4.5 grams due to the high concentration of mercury and other heavy metals in whales/whale meat. Yet the fact that this entire population of whales around the Faroe Islands is so contaminated doesn't phase Sea Shepherd at all but the sustainable harvest of like a few percents of the population, even less in many years, is the end of the world. Guess it shows you were their priorities lie...

Well, the mercury content is a byproduct of the pelagic diet not pollution. Sharks, tunas, billfish, etc that are ocean fairing predators all have high mercury levels in their meat. It mostly effects long lived, deep feeding predators. Basically, it starts at the bottom of the food chain with algae and plankton and because it's not secreted it grows as it moves up the chain with larger feeders over time. While it can be amplified in subsect environmets, it's not generally a function of pollution but a naturally occurring phenomenon that should be understood in our consumption.

That said, I always root for the whalers watching that show. They film it with such a slant but anyone with a brain can see the banality of their endeavor.

 

[CEO]

Well, the mercury content is a byproduct of the pelagic diet not pollution. Sharks, tunas, billfish, etc that are ocean fairing predators all have high mercury levels in their meat. It mostly effects long lived, deep feeding predators. Basically, it starts at the bottom of the food chain with algae and plankton and because it's not secreted it grows as it moves up the chain with larger feeders over time. While it can be amplified in subsect environmets, it's not generally a function of pollution but a naturally occurring phenomenon that should be understood in our consumption.

That said, I always root for the whalers watching that show. They film it with such a slant but anyone with a brain can see the banality of their endeavor.

That's very interesting about the mercury levels. I don't know that I've heard it being blamed on pollution or that I assumed so.

 

[ArmyGrunt]

It makes sense chemically. Heavy metals take a long time for the body to eliminate, so adding more in less time than it takes to remove will just make it pile up higher

Like in a hoarder's house!

 

[Deleted member 36771]

All countries kill animals for food. In most modern whale hunts, the species targeted is not endangered. Minke whale, North Atlantic fin whale, pilot whale, etc. are all plentiful and stable. Modern weaponry is more than capable of killing a whale as quickly as or more quickly than hunters typically kill deer with rifles. Animal welfare and conservation are the only two objective criteria for evaluating a culture's killing of wild animals. And a whale hunted lives a better life than any cow in a factory farm. A free life beats a captive one any day of the week. Whale meat is pretty tasty, if you're ever in one of those countries I recommend it.

 

[Dragan N.]

Well, the mercury content is a byproduct of the pelagic diet not pollution. Sharks, tunas, billfish, etc that are ocean fairing predators all have high mercury levels in their meat. It mostly effects long lived, deep feeding predators. Basically, it starts at the bottom of the food chain with algae and plankton and because it's not secreted it grows as it moves up the chain with larger feeders over time. While it can be amplified in subsect environmets, it's not generally a function of pollution but a naturally occurring phenomenon that should be understood in our consumption.

That said, I always root for the whalers watching that show. They film it with such a slant but anyone with a brain can see the banality of their endeavor.

I am far from an expert on this topic but I have seen studies such as this one http://www.nature.com/news/humans-have-tripled-mercury-levels-in-upper-ocean-1.15680 which suggest that mercury levels have significantly increased due to human activities i.e. industry

Humans have tripled mercury levels in upper ocean

Pollution may soon overwhelm deep seas' ability to sequester mercury.

Mercury levels in the upper ocean have tripled since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and human activities are to blame, researchers report today in
Nature1.

Although several computer models have estimated the amount of marine mercury, the new analysis provides the first global measurements. It fills in a critical piece of the global environmental picture, tracking not just the amount of mercury in the world's oceans, but where it came from and at what depths it is found.

“Nobody's attempted to do a more comprehensive overview of all the oceans and get an estimate of total mercury in the surface and some deeper waters before,” says David Streets, an energy and environment policy scientist at Argonne National Laboratory in Lemont, Illinois, who was not involved in the study.

Researchers collected thousands of water samples during eight research cruises to the North and South Atlantic and Pacific oceans between 2006 and 2011. To determine how mercury levels had changed over time, they compared samples of seawater from depths down to 5 kilometres with water closer to the surface, which had been more recently exposed to mercury pollution from land and air.

Mercury magnified
Their analysis reveals that human activities — mostly the burning of fossil fuels, but also mining — had boosted the mercury levels in the upper 100 metres of the ocean by a factor of 3.4 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The total amount of anthropogenic mercury in the world's seas now stands at 290 million moles, with the highest levels in the Arctic and North Atlantic oceans.

“They were really able to look back in time with their study,” says Noelle Eckley Selin, an atmospheric chemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, who was not involved in the study.

The researchers say that ocean circulation patterns have helped to blunt the effects of some of the rise in marine mercury. Circulation patterns that drive very cold, salty and dense water to sink into the deep ocean carry large amounts of mercury from shallower depths where life abounds. That provides some protection to marine life, as mercury's toxic effects magnify with every step up the food chain. For example, the mercury levels in a top predator such as tuna are 10 million times higher than those in the surrounding seawater.

Ocean buffer
But study co-author Carl Lamborg, a marine geochemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, says that the deep water's ability to sequester mercury may soon be exhausted. Humans are on track to emit as much mercury in the next 50 years as they did in the last 150 years, he notes.

“You're starting to overwhelm the ability of deep water formation to hide some of that mercury from us, with the net result that more and more of our emissions will be found in progressively shallower water,” Lamborg adds. That increases the odds that mercury levels in key food species will rise, increasing humans' exposure.

Between 5–10% of US women of childbearing age already have blood mercury levels that that increase the risk of neurodevelopmental problems in their children2, and an estimated 1.5 million–2 million children are born in the European Union each year with mercury exposure levels associated with IQ deficits3. Wildlife and marine life is not spared either. Studies have found that mercury levels compromise the reproductive health and fertility of some fish and birds4, 5.

Pollution control
David Krabbenhoft, a geochemist with the US Geological Survey in Middleton, Wisconsin, says that the new study suggests that efforts to reduce mercury pollution could be effective, because oceans are not uniformly contaminated.

“Work like this strongly suggests that generational changes have been seen in the oceans' mercury levels — and if that's the case we would expect them to undergo responses linked to, hopefully, reduced mercury outputs from mankind moving forward,” he says.

Lamborg agrees. “The new data suggest that the problem is actually a bit more tractable,” he says. “It's a cause for optimism and should make us excited to do something about it because we may actually have an impact.”

 

[GuttormG]

Some nice whale steaks from the bbq tonight

 

[GuttormG]

And how about a juicy whale sandwich for lunch?