General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

canucktunes
Motherboard
comments

Comments by "canucktunes" (@canucktunes) on "The Grind: Whaling in the Faroe Islands (Full Length)" video.

+crysisman09 Adult males and non-pregnant/breastfeeding adult females in Canada were advised to only consume two cups worth of "fresh/frozen tuna, shark, swordfish, marlin, orange roughy and escolar" per week by Health Canada. Apparently these have more than 1 ppm of mercury in them, which is pretty much what the Faroese Government found in long finned pilot whale meat and blubber (1 to 1.9 ppm). The FDA found the following levels and they're still served in restaurants in the states and Canada : Fresh/Frozen Tuna - 1.816 ppm Halibut - 1.52 ppm King Mackerel - 1.67 ppm Shark - 4.54 ppm Spanish Mackerel - 1.56 ppm Swordfish - 3.22 ppm Tilefish - 3.73 ppm
7
Zach, if the killing of cetaceans was tantamount to murder it would carry the same penalties. But fishermen along the American coastline are allowed to drown them with their nets and collide with them with their vessels with no worry of prosecution. In March 2012 the ASCOBANS Secretiat released Document 5-01 durring the 19th ASCOBANS Advisory Committee Meeting in Ireland and this is what is written on page 2 of this document : "Faroese animal welfare legislation, which also applies to whaling, stipulates that animals are killed as quickly and with as little suffering as possible. Whales are killed on the shore and in the shallows of bays especially authorised for the purpose. A special whaling knife is used to sever the spinal cord, which also severs the major blood supply to the brain, ensuring both loss of consciousness and death within seconds. This is the most efficient and humane method for killing beached pilot whales safely, with many participants involved at the same time."
6
The IUCN Red List does not claim they're endangered, Nathan.
5
Yeah, they've had the opportunity to do this since 1986 and all they did was claim everyone could afford the products they happened to find at the one or two shops they visited.
5
Roofies L - The first SS campaign against the grind was conducted in 1986. The SS have clearly had ample time to fund food imports into those islands.
5
Nathan - So you're claiming nobody consumes cod, tuna, snapper, Chilean bass, sablefish, bluefish, grouper, mackerel, swordfish, shark, marlin and orange roughy? Those were found to have the similar levels by the FDA.
4
Bull Lea, this belief that we should only be consuming domesticated animals is an arbitrary condition subscribed to by a negligible minority. The majority purchases and consumes wild salmon and other fish. And there are licenses to hunt wild game and wild fish in many jurisdictions, especially throughout North America. Cetaceans are also consumed by indigenous groups so your vitriol is voided.
3
Just to clarify, the IWC are irrelevant to the issue as well. "The IWC has never regulated small cetacean hunts" (https://iwc.int/smallcetacean) and the whales they're actually interested in are listed in on https://iwc.int/estimate In regards to the reduction, I should also clarify that I meant women were actually listening to the recommendations, as stipulated in the information provided about the Cohort 4 study which involved 148 pregnant women found at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3305740/ : "The results showed a highly significant reduction in the intake of both whale meat and blubber, and blood analysis showed a corresponding reduction in the mercury exposure." In regards to The Grind, i'd like to know where you're getting your information because the IUCN Red List entry for the long-finned pilot whale clearly stipulates that "The harvesting of this species for food in the Faroes and Greenland is probably sustainable." http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/9250/0 They caught 671 of these cetaceans from 2000-2013 according to NAMMCO, whose latest NASS survey of the area surround the Faroe Islands in 2007 resulting in an estimate of 128,093. Has there been a survey stating there are less than the minimum figure established for this area (approx. 75,000) ? http://nammco.wpengine.com/topics/long-finned-pilot-whale/ In regards to the dietary selenium study, doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2010.06.004 is this study. I made a mistake in regards to the cardiovascular study's info, which is actually doi: 10.1289/ehp.11608 Fish is also consumed by the people of the Faroe Islands, as are seabird eggs. And the latter unfortunately contains large amounts of contains legacy persistent organic pollutants like PCBs - doi: 10.1007/s00128-016-1856-x These PCBs are so prominent that the aforementioned Cohort 4 information includes the following : "However, the serum-PCB concentrations remained high as a possible consequence of slow elimination of these substances and perhaps also the impact of other dietary exposure sources, e.g. seabirds." Unfortunately i've encountered quite a few Sea Shepherd fans who apparently think the islands is populated by mercury zombies because the government has not recommended people stop eating it altogether. The Faroese Food and Veterinary Authority issued their latest recommendations on the 1st of June, 2011 (Journal No.: 461-200800444-70) and it limits consumption to servings of 250 grams of meat and 50 grams of blubber for adults, the liver and kidneys not recommended for consumption.
3
"japanese got rekt" ? Someone clearly hasn't heard that Sea Shepherd had been forced to pay the Japanese several million dollars in penalties related to Case ID 12-35266 and has been limited in respect the associated injunction. The American offices are no longer able to provide assets like vessels and equipment to Sea Shepherd Australia. They can also no longer lend or provide funs or promote the "direct action" activities in the Antarctic. Sea Shepherd Australia ran away for the Japanese patrol ships this year.
3
Oh the ironic, false comparison based fantasies some people indulge in…
3
"So, you think humans can and are allowed to kill any animal that they like to???" I guess we're supposed to ignore the fact that this predominantly Christian country would believe in Genesis 9:1-3 and Romans 14:1-4 and that the non-religious of that country are likely to believe we all are omnivorous hominids.
3
evalise pearlman Aren't male baby chicks cute enough for you to stop eating eggs ? Aren't baby cows cute enough for you to stop drinking milk ? Aren't chipmunks and squirrels cute enough for you to stop eating grains or produce ?
3
asbjorn - You're immoral because you don't lie and slander people in the name of whales ;) (cough) ICDR Case No. 50 20 1300 0952 (cough)
3
I do like asking Sea Shepherd fans why their heroes don't have the fortitude to take Japan head on in the North Pacific, where Japan has taken hundreds more of endangered whales, unhindered.
3
The Faroe Islands is not a member of the IWC and the IWC has yet to claim the small cetaceans in question are within their mandate.
3
Roy - You claimed Sea Shepherd was why they still keep eating it. Why exactly would they care about Sea Shepherd's opinions if they aren't around for years in a row ?
3
shoe laces - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
3
Ray, Basically Zach is parroting statements about biodiversity blindly, as did the other Sea Shepherd fans, with no real explanation on how a hunt of 1000 individuals per year would deplete a species whose latest estimated population in Iceland and the Faroe Islands was 128,000 according to the Trans-Atlantic Sightings Survey coordinated by NAMMCO in 2007.
3
Zack, I can deny that the act qualifies as "murder" because the penalties associated to that crime are not applied to the killing of cetaceans, anywhere. Your hyperbole gets you nowhere and playing the victim will not change the fact that you wont answer simple questions. How does the taking of 1000 cetaceans per year cause the depletion of a species whose population was estimated to be 128,000 in the immediate area in 2007 ? Go ahead. Answer that.
3
Zach, did I not cite an independent third party in regards to your claims about torture and animals being killed "horribly" ? The ASCOBANS Secretiat in March 2012 ? AC19/Doc.5-01 (S) ? Where's your independent third party confirmation from a scientific body to substantiate your claims ? Had you read the very document you are trying to cite about contamination, you'd know it actually claims there was a reduction in cases : "However, the most recent studies have shown that pregnant women eat much less pilot whale meat and blubber than before. This change has resulted in a significant decrease in mercury and POP concentration in the blood of pregnant women, Table I and Table II. Mercury in Table I is measured in umbilical blood, which is approximately 25% higher than in maternal blood." - DOI: 10.3402/ijch.v71i0.18594 You're also ignoring the scientific conclusions in regards to selenium's effects on this contamination because your "facts" have been cherry picked by propogandists, who don't want you to read anything. Where's this so called mercury crisis in the census information of these islands ? Wouldn't the mass hospitalisations and expenditures show up somewhere ? Wouldn't there be issues in education as well ?
3
Nathan - You need to do some independent third party research. The Faroese government has issued guidelines in regards to consumption and restrictions are only being placed on certain members of the population, primarily pregnant and nursing women.
3
asbjorn - They never discuss their pipe dreams in full. If you were to stop eating whale, you'd need to import more food, which means more diesel use and more ship traffic. more diesel use = more animal displacement and death elsewhere + more polution more ship traffic = more colission with cetaceans and potentially more collisions with other vessels Where's the environmental advantage ?
3
Well, Paul Watson confirmed that he did order the ship scuttled in his deposition in Case # 2:14-cv-07807, a fact that he concealed from January to October 2010 and denied from the release of Pete Bethune's statement in October 2010 until his deposition in 2014. The November 2010 Maritime New Zealand report confirmed that the damage was not extensive and included a statement in which the Ady Gil was signed, floating. And Sea Shepherd settled with Pete Bethune in regards to the Charter Agreement so I suspect the RICO charges will stick.
2
shoe laces - His inability to form sentences in English is as relevant as yours.
2
Roy - Well, i've seen several videos showing whale meat but where were the large piles of bones from the previous incidents ? Those would be considerable, right ? "I have yet to encounter a law compelling people stop consuming high amounts of processed meats, anywhere." Where exactly in that sentence am I saying that you suggested something about a "law compelling people to consume processed meats" ? I was of course referring to free will, although this does bring up the issue in regards to the misrepresentation of the law to make it appeal illegal when it is not. The response to Parliamentary Question E-010223-15 by EU representative Mr. Vella from 2015 pretty much takes care of those. What I find rather interesting is that Hapag-Lloyd Cruises claims to be against whaling yet sails to Norway. And although Disney is mentioned, they made no official statement about the Grind and haven't stopped sailing to whaling nations like Norway and Iceland either. One of your links lists quite a few cruise companies that still service the Faroe Islands and the author of this Cruise Laws blog actually stated that cruise ships that travel there are continuing to "support the mass murder of whales in the Faroe islands", which is unfounded because many of them don't sail into these islands when The Grind occurs.
2
***** That argument has not compelled people to stop eating pigs.
2
So when did this alleged lost occur and what cruise line operators were involved ? The census shows growth when it comes to tourism and it's online for everyone to access.
2
Hylia, the IUCN Red List entry on the primary target of this hunt includes the following quote : "The IWC, ICES and NAMMCO have concluded, that with an estimated subpopulation size of 778 000 (CV=0.295) in the eastern North Atlantic and approximately 100 000 around the Faroes (Buckland et al. 1993; NAMMCO 1997), the Faroese catch is probably sustainable." The IWC, ICES and NAMMCO are three international scientific bodies and they have not adopted the belief that this hunt constitutes a threat to the species in question.
2
Isabelle Tétreault That argument is based on a nirvana fallacy and it do not supersede the United Nations determination that these actions are domestic. These activities are performed within the exclusive economic zone of the Faroe Islands.
2
Hjalte Willemoes It's one of the "go to" arguments they have. You'll find it being used against the consumption of seal, dolphin, whale and other meats. They use it to cause a dip in meat sales so they can claim meat is being left on the ice or beach or wherever.
2
Perhaps you should be wondering why they need to pay 48.5% more for their groceries than they would if they lived in Copenhagen according to Numbeo. Basically, to replace the tons on meat and blubber they get from whales they'd need to import tons of meat from elsewhere, shifting the death of animals from their shoreline to some other country. And no, they can't grow vegetables so even if they were to go vegan all of a sudden, they would still need to use tons more oil and risk more ship strikes to transfer those goods over. We're talking about a series of mountainous islands whose land is already accounted for and is unsuitable for greenhouses because of their low level of solar irradiance, lack of access to water and resources for power generation. There are less than 50,000 people on these islands. Who exactly would pay for the infrastructure necessary for greenhouses? They certainly won't just set aside their beliefs because some foreigners told them to do it.
2
Bobby 1234 - How exactly would they qualify as criminals or murderers? The EU confirmed that their laws don't apply in a response to Parliamentary Question E-010225-15 back on September 15th, 2015. And when's the last time you heard someone getting charged with "murder" for killing a cetacean? Even people who purposefully poach whales get fines and short sentences.
2
Bobby 1234 - Shame is irrelevant and proof by assertion is fallacious. You hold no real authority on the matter and have just proved your contempt towards those that have this authority but don't apparently revere whales in the manner you do. There is no progression in law towards making the mere killing of animals illegal and we are talking about an isolated society where veganism and vegetarianism are foreign and unviable for the majority. You are being subjective and sanctimonious. In the end of the day, your so called morals in no way pay for their prohibitively expensive food imports and you don't appear to have considered the fact that your scheme is dependent on oil production and the risk of cetacean/ship collisions.
2
These islands are not in the country of Denmark and they pay significantly more for their food imports because of their actual location. Perhaps you should consult a map.
2
Roy - I have made no contradictory statement and you appear to be using a tu toque in regards to my use of the term "talking points". Please point out my statement in which I claim the consumption of all whale meat is equally risky. Please point out a statement that could be considered an acknowledgement that risk voids tradition. You can't. Straw men and quoting out of context are what the anti-whalers use. Not me. My hand is hovering over the plonk button. Do not put words in my mouth. Do not tu quoque me.
2
Emm - The indigenous of Greenland, Northern Canada, Alaska, and Washington state would disagree with you and all you would have as an argument is the sanctimonious, cultural imperialism that's been vomited in their general direction for centuries. If it wasn't for whale oil whales would be flourishing and that issue wasn't caused by the current consumption of cetaceans but the first world nations. These nations also still routinely kill cetaceans in netting, with plastics, and with ship strikes. BTW, cetyl alcohol was used during the space race and it is now replaced with a derivative of palm oil, which is killing rain forests as we speak.
2
Semantics in no way change the fact that the people of the Faroe Islands are indigenous to these islands, having settled these islands for a thousand years. It would be prejudicial to deny them the ability to whale because the use of modern whaling techniques are still considered traditional in Greenland and no law exists against drive fisheries that involve non-endangered cetaceans. "If anything that backs the point that really the Grind is unnecessary." - Non sequitur. The consumption by pregnant and nursing women did not account for the majority of the consumption prior to the formal studies nor does it account for the majority of the consumption now. Your conclusion would be dependant on the belief that a significant amount of the Faroese population was and is not only pregnant or nursing but consuming whale meat and blubber whilst nursing and being pregnant. It's a statistical impossibility in a population where half the adult population is male and half the population is not comprised of females that are not pregnant or nursing. In regards to the IUCN statement, Sea Shepherd has had ample opportunity to provide their own evidence to prove their point that the population had dropped so far bellow 75,000 that it is not unsustainable. But they have showed a lack of commitment to this issue by not funding or conducting their own studies so the information at hand is the most reliable. In regards to your calculations, I seriously doubt people are incredibly precise when it comes to this consumption. People can easily decide to consume more whale meat/blubber and roll the dice, as some do with their high consumption of processed meats. And the average weight of adult males can be higher than 70 kg, the average healthy male being around 80-90 kg in the states. I know that Sea Shepherd wants people to think whale meat is being dumped and wasted but in the end even if it does happen, a significant portion of the meat and blubber is being consumed. And Sea Shepherd has not proven that the long-finned pilot whale is being taxed by the take.
2
asbjorn - Roy's is an attempt at a balance fallacy, a.k.a appeal to moderation, with a mild discreditation in an attempt to give himself extra points. This is apparently not a normal conversation to him but some kind of game dependent on perception, as per Paul Watson's statement in "Earthforce!" This is why he asked the following : "Are you suggesting that it is fine to kill more than you need in order to cook the odd traditional meal? Are you also saying that because one custom eats something dangerous to health, that it invalidates any argument against Japanese whaling?" These are blatantly loaded and leading questions. And when those questions didn't work, he moved on to nitpicking my use of "running away". I guess SS AU's "direct action" is taking photographs and heading to port before the hunt has ended ? Please ! Even two days ago he stated "I didn't suggest Japan paid anyone. You clearly are not reading my post." Um. "Not to mention that as a culture they were never a whaling nation." is not an incredibly in-depth, long message whose point can be missed. And it was in response to Marcelle's equally short "we can't trust them! Japan always breach the regulation, the decision, the condemnation !" I guess someone needed to explain to him that I was addressing what he just agreed to… You see, I complained about the incorrect use of the term "murder" and the common response to that is a veiled tu quoque, in the form of nitpicking about my use of the english language in general. Some complain that i'm using terms to look more intelligent, which is rather convenient for their position because they know the term is apt and to the point. And some complain their comments are not being read in full, which is again another way to get people to go off on arguments that are not on topic. The subject at hand is not maternal languages or the comprehension of english. It is cultural imperialism and foreign attempts to gain undue influence through propaganda. Wordplay will not change the fact that they provide no compelling, logical argument. Basically the Faroe Islands and Japan are being subjected to the same reasoning behind the residential school systems in Canada and other institutions in Australia, where moralists deemed a culture self-destructive and attempted to strip individuals of this culture and "modernize" them "for their own good". These only make themselves out to be progressive to try to get their way.
2
Basically Sea Shepherd fans have been told to use proof by repeated assertion and appeals to fear. But when you ask them for proof of a crisis in this autonomous country they point to a 2012 study that confirmed a "significant decrease in mercury and POP concentration in the blood of pregnant women". DOI: 10.3402/ijch.v71i0.18594 The fact is that people outside these islands do consume fish that is more contaminated, at levels greater than the 1 to 1.9 levels found in the long finned pilot whale. According to the FDA, Chilean Bass was found to have levels greater than 2 ppm, swordfish and tilefish had levels greater than 3 ppm and shark steaks could have levels higher than 4 ppm. And commonly consumed fish like cod, tuna, halibut, snapper and mackerel had levels of 1.5 ppm yet the max safe level adopted by most countries is 0.5 ppm. The Seychelles Child Development Study and studies on Selenium are also ignored by these fans, who insist on portraying people as mercury zombies : doi: 10.1016/j.neuro.2009.01.005 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13371-5 doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.19451 doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2010.06.004 In 2012, Consumers Reports had found high levels of arsenic in rice and products made of rice. But is any group claiming vegans and vegeterians are made irrational by it ? No.
2
These islands are not in Denmark. Look at a map!
2
Anyhow, so we can get back to the subject at hand (and not the petty distractions) : The Faroe Islands has been settled for a millennium by European people and although some of the residents of the islands now have access to imported goods, Numbeo says the minimum amount attributed to groceries for 1 person is over US$400. Sea Shepherd merely performed a short survey of the stores in Torshavn and claimed common products were available without noting their prices and looking at how affordable these prices are. Yes, Number does claim rent is currently 38.72% lower in Torshavn that in Copenhagen, but groceries are 49.74% higher in Torshavn and their purchasing power is 27.47% lower. Sea Shepherd have had decades to import foods for the less fortunate of these islands but have not.
2
"Recognizing that respect for indigenous knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment" It would be rather foolish to claim the above isn't about killing animals, especially since Greenland got more autonomy and control on their wildlife resources. If you were to consult the meaning of slavery in a dictionary and the meaning of this term in the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 and 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution of 1865, you would find the definition to be specific. But the fact that rights were not immediately extended in India upon the suggestion of one of their ministries says a lot. The first proposal to extend the rights to animals at the United Nations that I found is dated October 1978 and have since resulted in numerous other proposals that don't appear to stick, regardless of the amount of signatures they get. In regards to you claim that "The Grind is not illegal", the UNCLOS define the area in which the Faroe Islands can hunt cetaceans and these cetaceans are Appendix II animals in the CITES, meaning its legality would only be questioned if it had been sold internationally. In regards to the EU's Council Regulation 338/97/EC, a representative of the Parliament clearly stated the following on September 15th, 2015 in response to Parliamentary question E-010223-15 : "The Faroe Islands are however not part of the EU. EU legislation and policy do therefore not apply there. Moreover, while Denmark is a member of the Bern Convention, in its instrument of ratification it made a declaration stating that the Convention does not apply to Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Whereas whales are protected under the International Whaling Commission (IWC) the hunting of Pilot whales is not regulated by this Convention." - Answer given by Mr Vella on behalf of the Commission In regards to mercury contamination, the safe rate adopted by most authorities is 0.5 ppm, including the WHO/FAO. Fish and seafood containing higher levels are still routinely served in restaurants through-out the world and you can find a listing of these at the FDA : https://www.fda.gov/food/foodborneillnesscontaminants/metals/ucm115644.htm That said, recommendations in regards to the consumption of these cetaceans have made to the public in the Faroe Islands and their recent cohort studies confirm a reduction in contamination in the blood and hair samples of those tested. This one of the most recent : DOI: 10.1186/1751-0147-54-S1-S7 Furthermore the Seychelles Child Development Study documents place certain conclusions in regards to the effects of the maternal consumption of mercury in doubt. Here is the latest document issued for the study : DOI: 10.1016/j.ntt.2016.10.011 The recent cardiovascular studies have also not isolated the consumption of the cetaceans from the consumption of other fish that is known to be contaminated in the 42 men sampled and this study (doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2010.06.004) confirms that selenium, a naturally occurring element found in fish, has protective effects against exposure, as stipulated in doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2010.06.004. When one looks at the census of these islands, there is no crisis in regards to health or education. And if you were to look at what was sampled and who was sampled in the Faroese study, you'd know why.
2
Gara Khan - If Sea Shepherd was so interested in this subject they'd pay for their own population estimates and studies. But they know they can don't need to spend one red cent on those because they have already managed to get the fools to donate to them by simply claiming the most recent studies are outdated and/or clouded by vested interest. The most recent NASS Survey from around the Faroe Islands was conducted in 2007 and they came to an abundance estimate of 128,093. Greenland and the Faroe Islands take so few of them that it makes no sense to claim these are unsustainable hunts. But then these are the same people that claim that NEWREP-A is unsustainable when the primary traget of this hunt was estimated to have a population of 670,000 by American and New Zealander scientists in 2010.
2
Case ID 12-35266 has been oversimplified by Sea Shepherd to keep their fans from learning that this was not a simple case with trivial accusations. The international regulations in question were not just created to protect commercial interests but to protect individuals and the environment. And regardless of their "we can do no harm" claims, they were found to have violated these regulations by navigating in an unsafe manner and by attempting to disable vessels in hostile environments. Their "World Charter For Nature" defense failed, as did their counterclaims, and they were forced to pay millions to several Japanese parties over their breach of the supreme court upheld injunction.
2
radbarij Apparently they haven't considered that a live animal would not just stay there and allow itself to be skinned. But then these people have distributed pictures of sealers swinging pups over their heads like their pillows…
2
Ad hominem don't reduce fuel costs and these people pay to import all of they produce. This arguement that traditions are voided by the use of more modern tools is invalidated by the fact that the end result is the same. The whales are still being killed for food.
1
Pal Weihe co-authored a study in 2003 that found the rate in long finned pilot whale meat was 1 to 1.9 ppm, which is the same range the FDC found in tuna, halibut and king/spanish mackerel was in. Sources - DOI: 10.3402/ijch.v62i2.17552 and "Mercury Levels in Commercial Fish and Shellfish (1990-2012)" People who enjoy chilean bass get more at 2.18 ppm and people who consume shark steak can get twice the amount. BTW, selenium counteracts mercury and it's naturally found in fish, shellfish and marine mammal meat/blubber. DOI: 10.1016/j.tox.2010.06.004
1
Oh really? Then why is no-one funding the food imports into these islands? They've had a chance to do so since 1986, right?
1
More generalizations and name calling in the name of whales. Basically, that's what Sea Shepherd does. It licenses its fan to indulge in vitriol and bigotry in the name of cetaceans through misinformation and consequently misplaced anger. So, how truly committed are you to this subject matter? Have you found out the name of the species and subspecies Japan is taking in Antarctica? Their latest third party population estimates? Their reproductive information and range? Then why would you think the taking of 333 per year would cause these to become endangered? Seriously, how would the taking of 1000 cetaceans by the Faroe Islands per year cause this cetacean to fail? Have you not considered that an alleged collapse would have likely been caused by something else, like the introduction of plastic and toxins in the environment? Ship strikes? Bycatching ? Why are you focusing on minorities when the aforementioned does more harm?
1
Nina Nyggju Basically their fans think they can just use appeals to popularity to have this group's will imposed on an independent nation. But if the general population wanted this to end there would be sufficient funding for the importation of food into the islands.
1
info145 Unfortunately this has drawbacks that need to be studied in full before anything can be enacted. This calls for extra shipping to and from the islands, which means more oil products will be used and more cetacean/ship collisions may happen. Additional tourism may help as it could result in the transportation of both people and goods on individual vessels, reducing some costs but they may require the occasional grind to fill in some gaps.
1
Article 101 of the UNCLOS was written to protect people, property and the environment. She Shepherd needlessly risks harm to all three in Antarctica, as shown in Case ID 12-35266 and ICDR Case No. 50 20 1300 0952.
1
That would make martyrs of them though. It's much better to raid them and sell their assets.
1
Marcela - Utter psychobabble. Can you explain why if we are progressing towards a society that doesn't consume meat that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted in September 2007, giving certain parties the ability to kill animals ? Why the unlawful killing of an animal in law is considered "poaching" and results in minor penalties when your animal rights co-patriots keep calling it "murder" ? The word "sustainable" is clearly defined but you don't appear to want to consider this definition. And your use of the term "middle ages" is quite the exaggeration, the slaughter of chicken and turkeys being a household chore for most people several generations back. Did your grandparents or great-grandparents not personally provide this meat to members of their family ? In regards to the claim slavery and cannibalism was traditional, cannibalism has not been subject to international agreements that resulted in the international trade of meat. And although traditional for some time, slavery was abolished whilst the consumption of meat was not so the comparison is not apt. Slavery is dependant on the parties involved both being human, as defined in law and the english language, and was abolished because it involved humans. We would have automatically extended the definition of "person" to animals if they recognized the rights of other "persons" inherently. But they do not, their wild nature causing them to do what they want with no understanding of collective agreements or the penalties associated to the violation of those agreements. Their inability to change their behaviour is why animals will not be recognized as "persons" in my country.
1
@Grab_it_G_Rabbit These officers are mandated to enforce the laws passed by the Autonomous nation and conducts criminal proceedings before the Court of the Faroe Islands in Tórshavn.
1
Zach, close but not quite. The Faroe Islands are north of Scotland, west of Norway and south-east of Iceland. And the Færøerne Politi are headquartered on the Islands themselves.
1
Hylia - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
1
In what was is eco-tourism and whaling mutually exclusive ? The census data proves it isn't.
1
The people of these islands clearly do not find this activity that objectionable and had they found it objectionable they would have rid themselves of it independent of Sea Shepherd. They had ample time in-between their campaigns. From 1986 to 2000, Sea Shepherd had no official campaigns for the Faroe Islands and spent most of their donations on campaigns in Norway and Central America. The same from 2001 to 2010, when they decided to concentrate on St. Lucia, St. Vincent, the Grenadines (2001-2003) and Antarctica (2003-2014).
1
Your claim that "If anything that backs the point that really the Grind is unnecessary." was in response to information related to a minority on these islands. Men consume it, so that's pretty much half of the active consumers there. And add to that women who are not pregnant or nursing and you'll come to a considerable amount of people. In regards to the IUCN, the words "probably sustainable" are theirs. And the observed reduction in the long-finned pilot whale population in no way automatically reduces the sustainability of the Grind, which can be adapted. I do not believe it is considerably large. Correlation does not imply causation. Again, I have yet to encounter a law compelling people stop consuming high amounts of processed meats, anywhere. And if they were as wasteful as you claim, where exactly do you think it all went ? These are not islands with vast amounts of land that one can use for landfill and the amounts your alleging could not be ignored by anyone.
1
Adam, the postmortem spasm is prominent in marine mammals and the secretariat of ASCOBANS confirmed the methods were humane in a March 2012 document - AC19/Doc.5-01 (S) Groups are taking advantage of the ignorance of people in regards to the prominence of the postmortem spasm in the species to solicit donations that can in no way be used logically to end this hunt. They have tried hiring scientific experts to counter the conclusions several international veterinary panels that found the methods humane but the conclusions are always the same. So all they do now is make empty accusations in regards to compliance with the accepted methods, which they also failed to confirm. You have been manipulated with some clever editing, which is meant to solicit an emotional response, not a rational response.
1
Yeah, they keep saying they can get their nutrients from plants yet anemia is more prominent in populations were veganism and vegetarianism are popular, like in the Indian subcontinent (according to DOI: 10.1146/annurev.nutr.24.012003.132440). But knee jerk appeals to vested interest to these studies are to be expected from most vegans.
1
Valdrine - If it was a simple as just asking them to do things without an argument, they would have stopped in 1986. But that's not how the real world works.
1
Zach, here are some quotes for you to consider : "Whereas whales are protected under the International Whaling Commission (IWC) the hunting of Pilot whales is not regulated by this Convention." - Response to Parliamentary Question E-010223-2015, Dated September 15th, 2015. "The 1946 Convention which established the IWC does not define a 'whale,' although a list of twelve species was annexed to the Convention. Some member governments believe that the IWC has the legal competence to regulate catches of these named ‘Great Whales’ only. Other members believe that all cetaceans, including the smaller dolphins and porpoises, fall within IWC jurisdiction. The IWC has never regulated small cetacean hunts and no consensus has so far been reached." - "Small Cetaceans", IWC web site. The IWC is behind the commercial moratorium, aka the whaling ban, as stipulated on https://iwc.int/commercial, so the smaller cetaceans in question are exempt, as are catches performed under objection or reservation. The Faroe Island government is not a contracting government at the IWC either. And Canada, Greece, Egypt or Venezuela left the IWC, invalidating the IWC schedules and resolutions within their EEZ.
1
The SJW use this cookie cutter "they do it for fun" or "it's a sport" claim on pretty much everything these days.
1
Ray, I'm still waiting for any Sea Shepherd fan to give me evidence substantiating their claim. Most refer back to the over-dramatized videos and presumptions that these animals are still alive because they're moving.
1
Zach, straw men are fallacious, as are false dichotomies, and you've chosen the cliche of straw men. In other words, you're using personal attacks based on black and white presumptions in a desperate attempt to distract people from your inability to discuss the issue in a fact based manner. And you are far from the first pathetic SS fanboy to do so either. Had you actually done some research you would have known it would be impossible for me to be the villain you're trying to make me out to be. I joined Youtube in March 2006, well before Sea Shepherd started masturbating in the Antarctic, and was confirmed by Google/Adwords as being Canadian because of my extensive interest in Canadian music and copyright law. And from my subscriptions, etc, you would see that my interests are not limited to this subject-matter either. But thanks for proving you suck at research. On the other hand, your account is bare. It has no video uploads or subscribers and has not been verified. It screams troll, regardless of your need to defend the actions of the defendant in ICDR Case No. 50 20 1300 0952
1
Ray, He probably watched a few jiggle in watery blood and thought they were still alive. Yes, it's gruesome. But slaughterhouses are not a walk in the park either.
1
+Amanda T This is quite the cliche argument. But it is of course anthropomorphic in nature and is based on a false comparison and moralistic fallacy. Cannibalism involves the consumption of a human being by human being and usually involves murder, which is defined as the premeditated killing of a human being by a human being. Human beings are omnivorous hominids like chimps, who also use weapons to kill and consume animals. And there is no consensus in regards to the level of sentience in the animals taken in the Faroe Islands. The taking of whales and dolphins for food has not elevated to the level of murder by society and this activity is condoned internationally though aboriginal rights at the United Nations, NOAA and IWC. There are no internationally recognized rights to perform cannibalism as a tradition. When's the last time someone got the same penalties as murder for poaching one animal in your country ?
1
Nina Nyggju They use the same tactics in Japan against the consumption of cetaceans and in Canada against sealing, even when no symptoms of mercury poisoning can be found in the areas where the meat is consumed the most.
1
shoe laces - Who are you talking about? FYI, anyone that claims or implies that these whales are threatened by this activity as a species does so in contradiction to the latest T-NASS and determinations by multiple groups including the IUCN. And anyone that claims these islands are somehow violating EU laws is clearly ignoring the EU's response; The EU has denied it does for years (the latest response being an official answer to Parliamentary Question E-010223-2015).
1
shoe laces - I like it when animal rights activists and vegans ask me that. Brings up the opportunity to ask why they're so willing to sacrifice what others consider pets to eat. Pet mice and rats are getting common but there are also people on Youtube with videos of their pet skunks, racoons, chipmunks, and squirrels. And these are all animals that are routinely killed at produce and grain farms. They've even killed en masse at storage facilities. But apparently, we're supposed to stop short, before a full exploration of their comparison.
1
@wyatt2918 There are sustainable choices with little contamination. But the culprit when it comes to mercury in our seafood is coal, oil and gas power generation, which was extensively used the previous century, especially around the North Atlantic. The southern hemisphere was spared from most of it, especially in Antartica because of the lack of industry near the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. But thorough investigation of the cetacean contamination there was hindered by politics, wishful thinking in regards to the non-lethal methods (which was confirmed by the ICJ Judgement) and vilification of the Japanese research campaigns. Low bioaccumulation rates have been found in the muscle and internal organs of minkes and fin whales from the Antarctic and Bryde's whales from the North-West Pacific, which was confirmed independently from the IWC and IRC by the Environmental Investigation Agency, the later having sampled these items from retail establishments in Japan. The governments of Canada and Greenland are keeping an eye on Inuit populations to see if the reduction of coal use in North America is helping. And I think i've read something about testing the populations of South Korea and Japan to see if there's any progress there.
1
Two Sea Shepherd members have been arrested in the Faroe Islands. Let the spinning and whining begin.
1
Rene, you can try to dance around the issues with your false dichotomies but in the end, they are always fallacious. It isn't because you claim to be saving whales that you can make things up.
1
False authority fallacy. The red list entry information for the cetacean in question remains regardless of your claim that you have friends at the IUCN. And I have serious doubts that you do because you appear to believe the International Whaling Commission has the authority to pass legally binding laws outside of their membership and mandate. The IWC's mandate is limited to large whales and their schedules and resolutions are limited to the contracting government members, with clauses that enable the members to file objections and ignore said schedules and resolutions. This is stipulated on their site.
1
The IUCN Red List entry on the primary target of this hunt states that this hunt is "probably sustainable" and the NOAA claims pollution, by-catching, and ship strikes are much more of a threat in their entry for the whale species in question. Your statement is, therefore, a generalization.
1
Actually, Japan was ordered to end JARPA II and complied, opening another project in respect to paragraph 246 of the ruling. NEWREP-A has different parameters - Reduced number of lethal samples, below that of JARPA I, and a reduced number of targeted species, none of which are endangered according to the IUCN Red List.
1
No and you clearly did not read paragraph 246 of the ICJ ruling, which confirms that the court had denied Australia's motion to impose injunction like conditions on Japan in regards to future research whaling projects in Antarctica. Unlike Sea Shepherd, Japan was not compelled to compensate any party in regards to any violation of international law in the ICJ case. The intervevants in the ICJ case, Australia and New Zealand, did not get a cent from Japan whilst Sea Shepherd was not only forced to pay over two million dollars but to comply to an injunction to avoid paying more. Japan's responsibility in regards to the March 31st, 2014 ICJ ruling ended once they complied by scrapping JARPA II. And NEWREP-A is not the same as JARPA II. On the other hand, if Paul Watson and anyone who were previously found in contempt in Case ID 12-35266 were to violate the same COLREGs, SUA Convention articles or article 101 of the UNLOS and these violations involved the complainants involved in the case, they'd be subjected to more monetary penalties. In regards to your odd belief that one stands their ground by heading to port in Australia whenever Japanese patrol vessels come around, i'd say that qualifies as a denial of reality. They took pictures of a vessel, tried to imply it was in Australian waters and were dismissed by the media because they were not able to prove where the picture was taken.
1
Marcelle - If the breach was so blatant either Australia or New Zealand would have filed for contempt. But they know that NEWREP-A is distinguishable from JARPA II and in paragraph 246 the court denied Australia the motion to order Japan to never perform research whaling in Antarctica.
1
Actually, there was some confusion in regards to what entities we are actually talking about. Prior to 2013, the principal participant of the direct action against Japan was Sea Shepherd Conservation Society of Friday Harbor, WA, not the Australian subsidiary that was originally created to illegally bypass the injunction. The International body operating out of Friday Harbor is the party that was involved in Case ID 12-35266. The Australian subsidiary has not had any legal action taken against them as of yet, their only loss being that of the case in Australia where they had sealed charity status. This is the party that just recently claimed they had taken a picture of a Japanese whaler in Australian waters and failed to perform any direct action to cause the Japanese to fail to reach their quota.
1
Roy - "Not to mention that as a culture they were never a whaling nation." Have they truly claimed to be one though ? These are small cetaceans and I understand that most Faroese don't think they are whalers, regardless of their consumption of these cetaceans.
1
My point is that Sea Shepherd AU no longer has access to the toys, which are owned by their former head office. And your next paragraph is illogical. The presence of a Japanese vessel in the harbour is not required for Sea Shepherd to use this harbour as a means of escape from Japanese vessels in the Antarctic. Why is it so hard to understand that they went to Antarctica to perform direct action but were forced to simply take pictures and head for Australia ? If they didn't hype it up in the first place and claim they were going to bravely engage the Japanese, I would not claim they ran away... In regards to Japan and whaling, the taking of cetaceans though-out their history is not only established in their art and literature from the Edo period but is featured quite prominently in a museum dedicated to whaling in Taiji.
1
Roy - When someone says they don't have a culture that involves whaling, it's a broad claim. And one cannot argue that they are consuming the end product as if it was from their coastal whaling, in a traditional manner. The reduction is consumption that has happened doesn't change that point either because traditional dishes are not always consumed by the masses, through-out a nation. For example, fiddleheads are a traditional food in Atlantic Canada and it can make you seriously sick or kill you if it isn't cooked well. Yet nobody's running around saying it isn't a tradition because most Canadians don't eat it and nobody's hyping up the dangers of this food because most people know consuming undercooked beans and nuts is quite risky too. To clarify, i'm speaking about the perception of tradition and popularity, specifically.
1
Whether it is more than they need or not does not make it less traditional, nor does the source of the ingredients of these dishes. I've encountered this argument before, as well as argument in regards to the manner the ingredients involved are obtained. It still doesn't change the fact that the use of this meat/blubber was traditional, as defined in the english language. "Are you also saying that because one custom eats something dangerous to health, that it invalidates any argument against Japanese whaling? In this case the tradition is not popular and is declining in popularity generally." That question does not make sense, and appeals to popularity are inherently fallacious. Whether a people choose to reduce their consumption or not is up to these people. But in this case we've got foreign parties exaggerating the risk and not placing it in context to manipulate not only the people directly involved but the general public. Is it logical to claim all cetaceans are equally contaminated by mercury and are therefore as dangerous as the most contaminated cetacean ? Is it logical to claim that the same amount of toxins can be found through-out all cetaceans and individual cetaceans ? The ignorance in regards to exposure and bioaccumulation is being used by propagandists against the use of all cetaceans whilst the consumption of more heavily contaminated seafood is being served around the world. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is an expression that can be applied to what's going on here and history is plagued with situations where a moralist group of people used deception to impose their will on another "for their own good". In other words, the exaggeration of risk does not make an activity less traditional. And levels below 0.5 ppm have been found in the meat and blubber of whales of certain whales, especially those sourced in Antarctica. Consult the EIA's own report, entitled "Mercury Rising", and look at the results of the whale meat and blubber of those caught in the southern hemisphere. The significant reduction in bioaccumulation has been attributed to Antarctica's distance from industry and the Antarctic circumpolar current. And Australia and New Zealand are hoping to reduce this bioaccumulation further.
1
Marcelle - Any comparison made with an act that involves the killing of a human being is voided by the fact that as a society we do not attribute the killing of an animal as murder and have not instated equal penalties to both acts since the creation of law. Any comparison made in regards to the maiming of human beings is also voided by the fact that the unlawful maiming of animals is also categorized separately from unlawful acts performed on human beings in law and that the non-leathal sampling of whales is vegan, regardless of the fact that it qualifies as harm. These comparisons are tantamount to calling biopsy sampling "rape" because consent was not obtained by whales prior to the procedure, which involves the sampling of tissue several centimetres below the skin of the animal and may be stressful to the animal. It may be intrusive but "rape", it is not. A logical person would recognize all of these comparisons as false. But an argumentative, illogical person would attempt to tu quoque to appear right.
1
Oh, really Hylia? Can you link me a front page story about this? Then no, the world isn't up in arms about it.
1
I'm pretty sure importation is not good for the environment because of its dependence on oil and the associated risks of collisions in-between vessels and cetaceans.
1
"you said it is logical to say all cetaceans are equally contaminated" Oh, here we go. Please quote me...
1
"is it logical to claim all cetaceans are equally contaminated by mercury and are therefore as dangerous as the most contaminated cetacean ?" <— Only 20 hours ago.
1
Roy - Of course those were my words ! I posted them 20 hours back, followed by : "Is it logical to claim that the same amount of toxins can be found through-out all cetaceans and individual cetaceans ? The ignorance in regards to exposure and bioaccumulation is being used by propagandists against the use of all cetaceans whilst the consumption of more heavily contaminated seafood is being served around the world." Now, please quote me in regards to your claim that I had said "all cetaceans are equally contaminated" or plonk.
1
I trust Roy has used the find function in his browser to determine the use of the words "all cetaceans are equally contaminated" and found the first instance was a question by yours truly, not a statement. Had Roy actually read the whole paragraph in which this question was found, the context of the question would have been apparent to him so I don't believe it was a simple error on his part. I was also accused by him of not reading this comment in full : "Not to mention that as a culture they were never a whaling nation", which is beyond preposterous because that claim was fully addressed in the subsequent comment by yours truly. Here are other claims by Roy : "At least I am honest enough to admit when I am wrong and the same for yourself." Uh huh ? "You appear to be trying to attack the messenger rather than the message." I do believe I was accused of "rambling" and then "contradicting" myself before I posted the comment Roy complained about so… PLONK!
1
Is that generalization suppose to somehow reduce the costs involved?
1
Ah, so it isn't being prepared and consumed in a traditional manner? You still haven't addressed the fact that imports are costly.
1
To Ronand and Vermillion, ICDR Case No. 50 20 1300 0952. Enjoy.
1
Rene, please cite the law that makes them "criminal". These islands are not a member of the IWC, nor are they in the EU. And they don't actually export the meat in question so the CITES does not apply.
1
Zach, had they "no respect of Marine Species" they would not have altered their methods over time and consulted with veterinary experts in regards to the methods involved. The ASCOBANS Secretiat confirmed in March 2012 that newer methods were being introduced at the time so you are merely repeating propoganda here.
1
Well, I have encountered some calling it to be invaded by force resulting in the death and forced relocation of the residents. Apparently, they haven't considered that all of the nearby countries are guilty of killing the specific cetacean in question, through ship strikes, by catching and pollution.
1