[Cedars]

Over this past weekend, there was a small segment on a new show (whos name escapes me now) on Icelands intent to begin/increase commercial whaling. So I googled it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6059564.stm

"There is no market for this meat in Iceland, there is no possibility to export it to Japan; the government appears to have listened to fishermen who are blaming whales for eating all the fish."

But apparently, the ban on importing whale meat (rather than an exporting ban) will not deter Japan from entering into this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15418174/

Why is Japan looking to import whale meat, when the demand is dropping due to the lack of Japanese interest in eating whale meat?

No worries! Japan has decided to push for whale education in the schools to try to create a market for whale meat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061800890.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4106688.stm

Rather than admit the whale meat is not necessary to Japanese culture, lets re-educate the children.

Apparently there was a problem so Iceland has taken a different approach:
"Iceland recently announced plans to export meat from its scientific whaling programme to the Faroe Islands, whose government maintains it is exempt from Cites regulations."

Faroe Islands maintains a small traditional whale hunt of Pilot whales as is the tradition. But even now we see there are potential health problems for the peoples who ingest such meats.

"The recent discovery of high levels of mercury, insecticides and other toxins in pilot whales means that whale meat consumption may have to be reduced. Pregnant mothers on the islands have been counselled not to eat it."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...nt/3104494.stm
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...1C809EC588EF21
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2362
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...591789427.html

Some days I cannot help but look forward to the potential of a pandemic...

[cwes99_03]

Yes but speech like that is what gets you negative rep points and loss of interest in your topic.

Defeatest attitudes aside..
I think the problem you have with whaling is that their numbers are so low worldwide. That is the reason they are a protected species. Just because you don't want to do it or want to eat it doesn't mean that others don't.

I hate baked beans. Perhaps we should enact a ban on it too because there are other ways one can get protein and other ways one can get flatulent gasses.
Man I can't wait for some natural phenomenon to wipe out everybody who eats navy beans.

Edit: The last of this was meant to be exaggerated. Apparently, while it may have been seen as exaggerated, some thought it unwelcome.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Cedars

"The recent discovery of high levels of mercury, insecticides and other toxins in pilot whales means that whale meat consumption may have to be reduced. Pregnant mothers on the islands have been counselled not to eat it."

This is not an argument against whale meat. A lot of foods today contain poison (for example, a lot of fish in the Oslo fjord where I live contains mercury). Pesticides in agricultural products mean that you shouldn't really eat non-organically grown fruits and vegetables, either.

You can buy commercial whale meat in Norwegian stores and to my knowledge nobody has ever claimed that it is dangerous to eat.

Opposing whaling is fine, but a more balanced look at figures might be good - the whaling nations claim that the actual number of whales is much higher than the official IWC figures.

Personally I tend to be against whaling because I think it's a completely unnecessary source of food.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Tormod

This is not an argument against whale meat. A lot of foods today contain poison (for example, a lot of fish in the Oslo fjord where I live contains mercury). Pesticides in agricultural products mean that you shouldn't really eat non-organically grown fruits and vegetables, either.

You can buy commercial whale meat in Norwegian stores and to my knowledge nobody has ever claimed that it is dangerous to eat.

That depends on your definition of dangerous. It also depends on whether it is being tested for chemicals:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...591789427.html

Interesting article I found that indicates our FDA isnt doing a very good job protecting US consumers from contaminated catches when it involves US fishermen*, could it be an equal issue for Norway?

http://www.al.com/specialreport/mobi...sf?merc29.html

*link found when researching shark/sailfish in Minnesota; those results touched on at bottom of article

Additionally, because Norway has a .5 limit considered safe, and some tested animals exceeded this (and would require disposal of the animal rather than consumption) combined with the issue of whether these animals (whales in general) are beyond population disaster and as I understand it, there is no reliable way for a whaling ship to cull whales by leaving the females to reproduce, leaves me with the opinion that continued whaling is a hinderance to the goal of a sustainable whale population.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...hale-meat.html

When posting the thread I had left Norway out of discussion in part due to the above link and focused on Iceland due to their inclusion of Fin whale in their hunting.

Originally Posted by Tormod

Opposing whaling is fine, but a more balanced look at figures might be good - the whaling nations claim that the actual number of whales is much higher than the official IWC figures.

Personally I tend to be against whaling because I think it's a completely unnecessary source of food.

IWC numbers link:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm

IWC admits there is difficulty in determining the number of whales in the oceans. These whaling nations are a part of the IWC, so I am unsure of what the debate is. A balanced look at a population which migrates and should inhabit many more waters of the world if their numbers truely reflected their recovery (fin whale). It would be nice to get the population of this animal back up to 25% of its original population (estimated of course) before declaring it sustainable.

http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/finwhl.htm

Living in Minnesota, I have been lucky enough to be surrounded by 2 well known protected animals. The Bald Eagle and the Timber Wolf. These animals were never of endangered numbers in MN but were protected none the less. I do not see a difference on scale between whales who spend time along the coasts of Norway or Iceland and still are rare in (or missing from) the waters of their former habitats and Minnesotas responsiblity to protect a thriving state population of animals that should inhabit a much larger geographic range.

The Minke whale:
"It is thought that minke populations have increased as they started to eat the food that was previously eaten by the now-depleted large whale species."
http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/MinkeWhale.htm

Whether or not Minke whale harvest will impact the future of this specie is an unknown to me due to influence of (hopefully) increased large whale populations in the future, negating the numbers of Minke now present in these regions.

[Cedars]

You can choose not to read my posts.

[Boerseun]

Interesting thread topic!

Playing the devil's advocate, I asked exactly the opposite question here, a while ago. There are some valid arguments both pro and con.

[Michaelangelica]

The Japanese hide behind a "scientific kill" of whales.

Total balderdash! No scientific reasons at all for whale kills.

During the War (WW2) many, including English, had to eat whale meat.
Now no one really wants it, so the Japanese have to run indoctrination programmes for their kids.
It is so sick.

The Japanese should be ashamed of their continued 'scientific' deceit and lies.

Their bribery of Pacific Nations in exchange for there IWC votes is corrupt, exploitative, manipulative and disgusting.

[Tormod]

Whaling used to be a big industry in Norway as well. I think the New Scientist article Cedars links to is right on the mark: the population's interest has waned, and the official policy is now leaning more towards a halt of all whaling activity. I think international pressure has been very important in this matter.

[HydrogenBond]

Some cultures project magical properties onto certain critters and if one eats them, one gets something that is more than food. For example , in the fareast eating dog is suppose to be like natural viagra. This may not be the case with any scientific basis (only certain types of dogs are bred for food) but the placebo affect can be strong at times.

The whale is like the king of the sea critters. It can kick butt on sharks. Maybe whale meat creates a placebo affect that gives the eaters the imposing power of a king. One has to debunk the mystical connection for demand to decline. The rational scientific isn't sufficient for that. It may be a psychosomatic drug that is hard to give up and go cold turkey.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Some cultures project magical properties onto certain critters and if one eats them, one gets something that is more than food. For example , in the fareast eating dog is suppose to be like natural viagra. This may not be the case with any scientific basis (only certain types of dogs are bred for food) but the placebo affect can be strong at times.

The whale is like the king of the sea critters. It can kick butt on sharks. Maybe whale meat creates a placebo affect that gives the eaters the imposing power of a king. One has to debunk the mystical connection for demand to decline. The rational scientific isn't sufficient for that. It may be a psychosomatic drug that is hard to give up and go cold turkey.

I googled for whale myth info and found some. Nothing I would say is exceptional quality info. Heres one with several different places general myth:

http://www.worldtrans.org/creators/whale/myths0.html

A quote from a course curriculum:

"The Greeks’ knowledge concerning cetacea came from actual meetings with them in the Mediterranean Sea and from tales of other cultures which practiced whaling. The appearance of a 10-foot apparently smiling creature racing a boat would elicit different feelings ad hence different tales from the viewers from the appearance of a 70-foot creature spouting vapors and then submerging. Hence many early myths of dolphins represent them as the merciful and friendly side of the deep and dangerous ocean. Those of whales, although still showing fascination, tend to stress the more fearful and unknown side of the sea.(10)"

curriculum here

I found no reference to a spiritual/magical enhancement within the links I searched associated with eating whales.