Youtube comments of Roy Sinar (@roysinar8238).

  1. If it was for food I would suggest there was a lot more weight to the killing of the whales, but its not. The meat and blubber are toxic and as such there are strict medical guidelines to how much anyone should eat per day. It is no longer an essential part of the islanders anymore, it is a nice to have for a small number of the population. There is new evidence to suggest that pilot whale populations are genetically diverse in the thousands. Therefore it would make the grind a very serious risk to a genetic population. It may well be that the grind will cease once the genetic evidence is finalised as it would certainly be unsustainable at that point. I do not believe you can force a population to give something up, but what you can do is keep pointing out the elephant in the room until such a time as the population sees that it is the right thing to do to stop. As the whales killed are migratory, and not actually from the local populations, it is something we can all have a say on. We share the oceans and the creatures within them as they know no borders.
    10
  2. +Jarred Frost Or maybe they just care about the barbaric slaughter of whales. I mean it is a possibility right?
    7
  3. +Mizz Tiger good, do point out where I have demonised anyone. I am likely to get further by not using a confrontational attitude with those who are willing to exchange good information. Your approach will usually lead to a negative experience.
    5
  4. +Nina Nyggju why does NAMMCO describe a population as being in the low thousands? Why do they say that they are not sure about numbers. These islanders could be destroying a genetically different population each year. So I agree their scientific studies (well actually they rely on others for this) should be taken into account and this killing stopped until the populations are understood.
    4
  5. +真田優 oh no more insults. How will I cope? I bet you are the life and soul of parties, wandering round yelling insults. If you has some facts or knowledge you would be dangerous.
    3
  6. 真田優 So what have I said that is racist? Whaling is no more Japanese culture than it is that of a European culture. I'm not vastly interested in Japanese whaling on this thread. When I want to comment on it I will find a thread on Japanese whaling.What lies have I said? What racial discrimination have I uttered? Prove you are not just hot air and rubbish and challenge me on something rather than spewing your message of hate.
    3
  7. +Demvry Lee I have no issue with the Faroese. As far as I can tell they are OK. But if the whales are so toxic that they can only eat small amounts safely then why hunt it. The lady in the video said as much (Faroese lady). They have a massive industrial fishing fleet, fish farming and enough sheep for it to be a fairly regular source of food. They have plenty of supermarkets and even a Burger King, so why waste time killing a lot of whales when you are not able to eat them? So taking away the false idea of it being for food, what other reason would you suggest might justify the scale of killing?
    3
  8. There is evidence out their to support Marcelle's suggestion: http://www.dagens.dk/krimi/p%C3%A6dofili-tre-gange-flere-b%C3%B8rn-misbruges-p%C3%A5-f%C3%A6r%C3%B8erne-end-i-danmark Not that it makes a massive impact on the rest of the evidence against the grind. It may however have some justification for suggesting that the tradition should be replaced.
    3
  9. I would love a glass of what you are drinking. You need to read more on the subject. Especially if you think it's about food and even more so if you believe Mizz Tiger uses statistics or logic. Why should anyone "walk away" from pointing out the obvious?
    3
  10. Mizz Tiger since when did you become worried about facts. Or any grind supporter for that matter.
    3
  11. +Mizz Tiger there is nothing wrong with their credibility. They have some good stuff on their website and I have used it myself so why would I undermine it. What I have done it highlighted where they are honest about their figures being incomplete and estimated. I have then pointed out how that relates to what you were claiming/saying. This in turn takes away a lot of the certainty with which you keep making those claims. I have not disputed that the grind is likely to be sustainable, I have cast doubt on it being as sustainable as you claim. I have not disputed any of NAMMCO's figures or data, I have highlighted what it actually means. All in all, unless you wish to dispute any of the figures or points I have used or made, you are just sabre rattling to try and conjour some sort of confrontation.
    3
  12. Mizz Tiger I didn't say they were not useful. My point was that they were estimations with a fairly wide degree of confidence. Using them to prove sustainability of the grind, you have used incorrect figures and stated something as fact when it isn't. What you should be saying is, as far as estimates allow, the population figures from 2007 generally support that the grind was sustainable then. Just. You and the other grind supporters do yourselves and your arguments no favours by relying on the 14 point script. Those only work if people don't check them for accuracy.
    3
  13. Mizz Tiger and were you accusing me of demonising or info145?
    3
  14. Mizz Tiger they are done using statistical analysis which is mathmatical and still an estimate. I'm not sure scientifical is a word. It wasn't a counter argument but just pointing out where your claim was inaccurate. You used inaccurate numbers and glossed over the whole estimate factor by claiming facts that are not facts and things to be scientifically proven even though they were wrong. What I did do is give you the actual estimates and associated facts. I think that is a bit better and altogether more scientific and less misleading.
    3
  15. +Mizz Tiger I see so your response was not specifically to that single comment so much as to all of info145s comments. Sorry you didn't make that clear. Now onto you accusing me of demonising the islanders or was directed at info145 despite the comment being directed toward me? Now I think everyone has had enough of the population claim you keep using (as well as other grind supporters). 0.001% or 0.1% of what exactly. the last NAMMCO survey (2007) puts the abundance around the Faroe Islands at an estimated 128,093, although the figure has a 95% certainty of being between 75,682 and 216,802. So the 0.1% could be either 7568 whales or 21680 whales. Well that must be wrong as in 2007, which is when the survey took place, 633 whales were killed in 10 drives. For it to have been 0.001% it would have needed to be between 75 or 216 whales. So on the year of the survey it is between 0.008% or 0.003%. The problem here is that the survey in 2007 was an estimate based on sightings and so none of these figures are facts as they can be seen to be disputable. NAMMCO also states that to maintain a grind of 678 whales a year the population would need to be between 50,000 to 80,000 (a reproductive rate of between 0.01 and 0.008%). That is around the lowest figure for 95% certainty. NAMMCO also go on to say "The apparent reduction of pilot whale abundance in the NASS index areas, which includes the hunting area around the Faroes, as well as the level of the catch in West Greenland compared to the population abundance available, should however be of concern". It is not as much a fact as you promote and not as sustainable or scientifically based as you make out. Like it or not, you have so far failed to acknowledge the genetic research which has suggested (see how I avoid the word "fact", because it isn't yet) distinct genetically diverse populations could be in the low thousands. While we await the latest population figures to be released by NAMMCO, it would be misleading to keep using figures from almost 10 years ago to base a claim about the current figures, especially using words like "fact" and "scientifically". The figures from 2007 just about make the grind sustainable if they are correct. Unfortunately they are the only figures available due to lack of surveys and knowledge of this species of whale.
    3
  16. Mizz Tiger true or not, the post in question did not "bash" anyone or indeed neither did I demonise anyone. To be honest, most of what you level at info145, I could and have levelled at you in the course of our many exchanges. I am sure you would say the same but I would challenge you to prove it and you know it.
    3
  17. +Mizz Tiger I would place it on the "wider reading" list. It is relevant in that we have discussed relative pollution in the oceans. It is relevant to the pilot whale as they will move along with their food supply. Cold water fish stocks are starting to be seen to be more abundant further north. There is a general concern this may be due to rising ocean temperatures. Therefore it could be seen as relevant to the abundance and localisation of pilot whales. It isn't, however, directly relevant to the grind or the video. Therefore why would you accuse +info145 of "bashing" anyone by posting them? Why would you accuse me of demonising the islanders by pointing this out? It's all very confrontational in tone. Bash, to criticize severely; demonise, portray as wicked and threatening.
    3
  18. +Mizz Tiger I believe those articles just highlight how much stress the oceans and ocean life are under. I don't consider those to be , in your favourite word, "bashing" anyone. They highlight the effect of airborne pollution more than  heavy metal pollution.
    3
  19. Just adding up how many have been seen and making an estimation based on those figures isnt very scientific. If the website was working we could share the section where they admit it is just an estimate. Since they started checking the genetic differences, that is scientific.
    3
  20. +Nina Nyggju Did you read the article I linked. The new genetic research would suggest that population numbers are in the low thousands from the point of view of genetic differentiation. In that case taking so many whales would now be unsustainable. These are those same scientists.
    3
  21. +Zombehnation1001 I've been watching your comments and wondering when you would be calling on me. At least you thought a bit first, although none of your comments so far show any depth of research. "most people don't adhere to 3.5g a day". Do you have anything to support this as most of those who are Faroese who comment and I have asked claim to either not eat whale or do so infrequently in order to have a proper meal without exceeding the guidelines. It's not their bodies I am overly concerned about either. If the entire islands were populated with adult males (whom the 3.5g limit is for) then the amount of whales required to supply that demand would be approximately 130 a year. So why kill around 5 times that (approx 650 not 800 on average)? Year on year? That massive overkill would suggest that the grind is about tradition and sport more than it is about food and sustainability. No one knows the population numbers of pilot whales and recent scientific evidence suggests that genetically different populations may be in the low (single digit) thousands. So yes 800 (or more accurately around 650) is a significant number from that population. Neither you, nor the rest of the world knows the population figures for pilot whales, therefore claiming they are "Non-threatened" is no less absurd than claiming the grind is sustainable. "pilot whales that aren't actively sought out". Really, then why is there a law that means that you have to report any sighting so it can be used to determine if there can be a grind? Seems like it is pretty active in that people look out for them and that you have to report a sighting. Those in boats have to go out and actively trick the whales in to shore. I will agree there are no reported cases where boats are actively seeking the whales, but then as a largely seafaring nation I would expect there are enough boats out there. You hit on the other point, these whales are migratory in the main. So they are heading to other areas of ocean controlled by other nations. Attacking such a migration would be badly received in pretty much most cases elsewhere, so why should this be different?
    3
  22. +The Demogorgon at 3.5g of meat a day (for an adult male) why kill them for food? You are a hunter, would you go out hunting for something you could hardly eat? Longevity is no excuse for carrying on something obsolete. I'm not telling anyone not to do anything. I am pointing out the obvious inaccuracies in the claims and arguments supporting the grind. It is not about food, this is about tradition. The islanders should be honest about it rather than fabricate justifications.
    3
  23. +D. M. Bell 0.1%, an interesting figure. Where exactly did you get that?
    3
  24. +DRajtify the Faroes has zero poverty and has one of the highest standards of living in Europe. They do not need this meat to live, that is rubbish. They survive perfectly well without whale meat or blubber and with only a small percentage actually eating it, how can anyone make such a claim as yours. Oddly Sea Shepherd fight ocean pollution worldwide and do ocean cleanup projects. This is what makes this whole thing so odd. The Faroese can't really eat the whales as they are too toxic due to oceanic pollution, yet those opposed to them killing the whales are responsible for a big drive to clean up the oceans and reduce pollution in the oceans. theoretically the Faroes should be supporting Sea Shepherd globally while they in turn want to stop this tradition.
    3
  25. Then I am right :). As long as we agree on that. That and that your insistence that Sea Shepherd were "running away" is inaccurate.
    2
  26. +Rahul Modgil yeah why not. I do care to answer. So in India, according to their religion, Hinduism, the cow is a sacred animal. Therefore they are allowed to wander at will where they like. Apart from two provinces there are no legal slaughterhouses for cows. The slaughterhouses in those two provinces are supposed to provide the beef for all those in India who are not such dedicated Hindus. So in short I would point out to them that their country consumes beef and transports those cows in extremely poor conditions to legal and illegal slaughterhouses. The illegal slaughterhouses, operating outside of the law also operate outside of regulation and therefore humane treatment is highly unlikely. I would take the time to point out to them that their country, like mine, farms these bovines and does so as a source of food. Therefore in most cases these cows are looked after and cared for to make sure they are fit for human consumption. I would also discuss with them the advantages of such a practice against the killing of wild animals which can lead to the ingestion of unwanted extras; parasites, chemicals and infections (bush meat, deer and whales). So in many ways farming animals for food and thus being able to control the quality of the meat is part of the reason farming is seen as one of the biggest cultural steps made by the human race. It allowed communities to stay in one place rather than having to follow their food around. As such trades could be established and not everyone was required for the supply of food. A large part of the uncertainty that surrounded the supply of food was removed thanks to farming. Now all that is well and good, tell me why the overkill of wild animals, that can barely be eaten safely, that migrate through many other countries boundaries, should not be a cause for others? If one African nation started mass killing migrating herds of wild animals that travel through other nations, do you not think those other nations might have some sort of say in that practice? No one is dictating to the Faroese as they operate inside their own law on the practice of whaling and as such, no one can. So what are you protesting about? All I am doing is pointing out the inaccuracies in the claims being used by those supporting the practice. They say it is for food, and I point out how little they can eat and how much they catch (thanks to the grind records this is quite easy). They say it is sustainable and I point out the only organisation to say that is the Faroese Whaling organisation. Even a group setup to support Nordic whaling NAMMCO do not say it is sustainable. Their best guess is that there are between 75,000 and 250,000 Long Finned Pilot Whales in the North East Atlantic. That is a massive margin for error, people just don't know the numbers. So if you can't be sure of the numbers, how can you clam it is sustainable? They say it is humane, tricky one this one as only a pilot whale could really answer. Pretty much most whale experts and scientists say it isn't. Personally I am with them. See I told you I would get back to you, I just had a busy weekend.
    2
  27. +Rahul Modgil "Did I say any lies?" yes you did. As I pointed out the majority of the Sea Shepherd crew (if not all) are vegan. After that there was a bit of ranting about different animals that are killed for food elsewhere. You forgot to include dogs. there is a dog eating festival somewhere. Standing your ground doesn't make your point right. As you can see, the majority of the pro-grind claims, opinions and justifications are not winning on this thread. That could be because none of them have any evidence to back up their claims. "LET'S SEE SOME NEW,ORIGINAL,GROWN-UP INSULTS", no lets not. It doesn't add to the dialogue and I do not think there is such a thing as a "grown-up insult".
    2
  28. +真田優 Shhh. Bed time.
    2
  29. 真田優 You are just a liar and a fool. Go on try find an insult you can hurl, it is easier than proving yourself intelligent. Anyway I am off to bed, so feel free to spout some insult and I'll laugh at you in the morning.
    2
  30. 真田優 Maybe you should. I made no comment on whale numbers. And you call me an idiot? Of course you mean the whaling for research. Not for food. Anyway I am glad you admit you are wrong and we need not discuss Japanese whaling on a thread which doesn't cover it. Have a good day, enjoy your whale meat.
    2
  31. 真田優 Really? OK lets try these on you. Whale consumption is declining in Japan. http://de.whales.org/node/7545 Or maybe this. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/10/14/national/researcher-aims-to-bust-myth-of-japans-whale-eating-culture/#.VsvC9_mLRD8  Yes years ago, maybe after the war when the country was on its knees and at the mercy of its neighbours, yeah whale meat was OK. These days no. Europeans have been whaling as long if not longer, so what makes it Japans culture? What makes killing endangered whales OK when the population doesn't really like the taste? You know I don't really expect a proper answer but a bit more venom and a bit more hiss.
    2
  32. 真田優 Why do you ignore facts? Why do you keep spouting ridiculous insults? Why are you rogue? Which human rights have the anti-whaling activists ignored? Here is your chance to start a proper dialogue.
    2
  33. +真田優 shouldn't you be holding up a large placard saying "Research". I like the use of calling people Nazis. We could be forgiven for thinking your mind has gone rogue. If only you knew what these things mean.
    2
  34. At least Asbjorn tries to engage in a language that is not his first language and I'll give him plenty of credit for doing so. I don't correct his use of words as he is understandable, far more so than I would be in Danish. The fact his arguments are flawed takes nothing away from the credit he should get for engaging the likes of me in my language.
    2
  35. Christian Sverri I would certainly agree that the efforts of Sea Shepherd has in fact, increased the amount of people eating whale. In that people do not like others telling them not to do something and so will do it intentionally as an act of defiance. I don't support the views of those who call names and generally abuse others for their views as it does no good. I certainly wouldn't think of anyone as mentally sick because they have a differing opinion to mine and have not used similar kinds of insults etc. I have been called a Nazi by grind supporters so they are just as bad as the anti-grind supporters. Most of my points have been around the medical evidence around the toxicity of the meat and flesh and the cruelty of the method of drive hunting of wild animals. Most hunting allows for animal selection to pick the animal to be killed, the grind takes in whole generations regardless of age sex or breeding cycle. Current genetic data shows that there are smaller distinctly different populations within the general pilot whale population. Should this data be confirmed, then it would render the Grind as unsustainable. So my concerns are about the cruelty of it and the unnecessary slaughter of these whales, much of which is not eaten. The difference with me is that I concentrate on the medical evidence and the science to show how it really doesn't need to happen, certainly not in the numbers it does. If anything the hyperbole whipped up in the wake of Sea Shepherd acts to motivate grind supporters such, that no matter how much good evidence is supplied, they will not listen to even moderate argument. I don't call names, I don't swear about it and I don't get overly passionate about it. At no point do I forget that no mater how much I might disagree with it, the Grind is still very much a choice of the Faroe Islanders. The only way it will stop is if they choose to stop. As I am not a Sea Shepherd supporter, although I do recognise their work across the globe along with their faults, I do not much care about what you or anyone else thinks about them.
    2
  36. Christian Sverri I have to admit you made me chuckle. The various slaughterhouses I have been lucky (not sure that is the right term) to visit seem to me to be more humane than drive hunting whales. We will have to disagree on that but then I have covered the relative merits of farming against the hunting of wild animals in great detail and so far no one has managed to argue that they are similar or relative to each other and you areno exception. I'm not in a position to comment on how good, or bad, a whales life might have been. I do know that there are concerns about the damage caused to the whales from the concentrations of the various toxins they ingest and consequently can pass on through being eaten by humans. There is a lot of concern that some of the beachings and strange behavior in pilot and similar whales, might be down to toxin based poisoning having effects on the internal organs and brains of the whales. So unless you have some psychic link to these whales, you are no better placed to describe their lives as good, bad or indifferent. I should imagine when being driven into the shore and then killed, we could certainly suggest they are having a bad day. The swearing is rather humorous to be honest (like when you first hear your child say "poo" and they think it is a bad word) but there is no need for it, it is not big and certainly not very clever. But if you need to be supplied with some that are actually really funny or vaguely insulting let me know and we can exchange some on another medium where children won't see them. It is more a matter of being a bit more adult about the whole thing and better manners. You seem like a decent sort, I don't think you really need it.
    2
  37. asbjørn poulsen This is a genetic disorder and has nothing to do with consumption of whales or non-consumption of whales. This is more likely to be related to an isolated population with a smaller than normal gene pool. As such any rare genetic disorder is more likely to be of a higher concentration than larger, less isolated gene pools. I certainly don't see any evidence that eating pilot whales "cures" this genetic disorder. It is interesting though as genetics is kind of a hobby for me.
    2
  38. I knew what you were saying, and I did it was linked above. It is even in Danish I believe so should be better for you as I had to translate it.
    2
  39. Then if I were you Asbjorn, I would be out there supporting the Sea Shepherd while they campaign for cleaner oceans (and they are doing more about it than the Faroes). Meanwhile I am sure the supermarket will be happy to sell you healthy food.
    2
  40. I don't send them any thanks, I give to the Red Cross. But it is important to recognise that they do actually do some useful stuff. The Japanese are currently being dealt with by the Australians after they broke the ruling against them. If no one had been there to see them taking heavy oil into the restricted zone, there wouldn't be a ruling. Mr Watson seems to be a marmite kind of character. People seem to either like him or hate him. I personally have no real opinion on him.
    2
  41. +Mizz Tiger I'll keep it short so as not to bore you:"According to the experts within this field they harvest 0.1 down to 0.0001 of a population that has a reproductional rate of 2.5 to 3.5 % annually" Your statement. Wrong and I proved it for you. Shall we start there. My comments are long because they contain good information. Feel free to disagree.
    2
  42. Mizz Tiger never substitute bluff and misinformation for research and facts, it has already backfired. Both sides have their fanatics and misplaced beliefs. Attempting to prevent whales being killed is not enforcing anyones belief on another, it is simply one side trying to stop the other killing whales and the other side following their tradition as they are entitled to regardless of the international condemnation. Their law says they can and so they do.
    2
  43. +Mizz Tiger what? Are you worried about the competition?
    2
  44. +The Dippin American I have no issues with people hunting for food. I'm going to guess you use a rifle and shoot a small number of animals. What do you hunt mainly. Do you eat it?
    2
  45. +Mizz Tiger I get by thanks.
    2
  46. Mizz Tiger I agree we should not jump to conclusions about population numbers. They have only just started to use science to determine the population. The figures currently used are vastly out of date and are fairly open to question as they are purely based on sightings. Hopefully the new figures will reflect the science and a slightly more accurate count. Before those are published, we are wasting our time if we make any kind of claims based on the old numbers.
    2
  47. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen did you not follow the links in my last comment and read the various scientific papers? The numbers of population, are you disputing those? The number of whales caught in the year I used, are you disputing those? Do you dispute the medical advice and the scientific evidence in the link provided? I take it you dispute the Faroese Medical advisers document which includes the reference to the survey for how many people on the islands eat the meat? It is all there in black and white. Giving me your guess at how many people you think eat it is hardly a scientific survey. Islanders in the film actually describe the whale as no longer being a food source. At the moment you seem to refute my figures on the basis that more whale is eaten than my figures support. That is fine if you have something other than your word to back it up. It would suit my argument to say that no meat is eaten and the islanders sacrifice babies while slaughtering whales in the millions. Obviously that is total fabrication but without evidence it is just me saying it (and as a point I wouldn't as I have not tried to denigrate the islanders). So far I have given a reasonable amount of evidence to support my comments and opinions. You have questioned my figures and evidence. All you have given to back up your opinion that I am wrong, is an unsupported version of your word. Which incidentally happens to suit your argument. Some more recent scientific evidence or government based figures would really help if you have some. Otherwise it is your word against my evidence. I know which one looks more believable.
    2
  48. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen not quite. Have another crack and see how you get on.
    2
  49. Eivind Lómstein Petersen another grind supporter who can't read. The figures are there. By all means dispute them. But to ignore them shows a certain lack of credibility.
    2
  50. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen I wouldn't rush you have a lot to go through there and I got loads more to support it.
    2
  51. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen especially if it is only in the name of tradition. Kill enough, if they have to, but really, this many. Ridiculous and nothing short of that. Maybe they should go as a rabble to their Burger King and assault the drive through. They could share the fries out among those present.
    2
  52. +TheAngryFinnishPerson An interesting one this. 1 yes true sort of. 2 well they have a right to express their opinion. 3 I am not sure how hostile the Sea Shepherd crews have been. The video doesn't show any hostile acts by the Sea Shepherd land team. The only hostility is shown by the Faroese towards the Sea Shepherd crew. So does 1, 2 or 3 make the reason for the international spotlight unjustified? No. They don't need to kill these whales just as the Spanish do not need to kill the bulls (and they get plenty of grief for that). The Faroes do rely on the EU in a number of areas and are coming to realise that. The laws they have brought in to limit and criminalise anyone not joining the grind have backfired by causing cruise firms to remove them from their stops. Who would want their entire crew made into criminals should they see a whale (which most consider a great thing) and not report it. I think the morons abound on both sides.
    2
  53. +Abella Seksa And your country? What about them. Gun slinging loonies hell bent on killing yourselves? Waving the bible and not living by it. "Seems like your country is filled up by money hungry, mass murdering devil worshippers" you must be looking in the mirror.
    2
  54. +Nina Nyggju red. Read is something you do with a book. I am sure the whales would rather keep it in them.
    2
  55. +Wolf 16 there are many alternatives available to the islanders. In fact the last scientific survey would indicate the majority of them never eat whale at all. The medical advice is not to eat more than a small amount of whale at any time and not at all for pregnant women. Eating it is far worse than eating farm reared meat or indeed the fish that they farm on an industrial scale. No one wants to be told what to do and this certainly applies in this case, but what they are doing by killing these whales is perpetuating a tradition that is out-dated and no longer required. Other cultures have had traditions that have been dropped due to them being out-dated and obsolete (or just impractical). Generally they are carried on in another form that is more acceptable to all.  After all slavery was considered traditional for many years.
    2
  56. +avion ellivi rofl, you said "academic facts". You might want to read what +mack man said in his comments as he is fairly much spot on about the cattle.
    2
  57.  @youwished8806  no they don't. Go check it, all there are facts and figures in the various posts around this ridiculous circus of a thread. No one wants this thread restarting. Regardless of the futile nature of the Grind and the general stupidity of poisoning themselves to prove a point, the only way to actually stop this insane practice is to ignore it. These people are stubborn beyond reason and as such will happily poison themselves rather than submit to outside interference telling them to stop doing it. Stop interfering and they start to follow reason on their own terms. Anyway, I'll not be responding to this thread anymore as it is as pointless as trying to paint the sky. You can't force someone to listen to the truth and accept it.
    2
  58. Jóhann Heðinsson NAMMCO does not state any numbers but does offer an estimate. If you check carefully they say that there is not enough data to make any accurate estimations. I haven't checked the IWC because I don't need to. Those organisations, like NAMMCO, which have been set up to try and support whaling and are funded by whaling nations have enough for me to question the numbers. They also go on to talk about the genetic diversity making a distinct population in the low thousands. At no point do they suggest that the grind is sustainable, although they do say it is probably sustainable, therefore contradicting themselves. They sure don't need my help. On the video you can hear the man talking about how little is safe to eat and he is pro whaling. The figures from the scientists do suggest that whale intake is down since the guidelines and women have mostly stopped eating it. So realistically the number of whales required a year, for a normal population (not all men as I used before to try and bias my figures towards the pro-whaling group), would be around 60-65 whales. Are you really suggesting that each year they have to kill 10 times that amount to preserve it? On average a whale gives about 0.5 tonnes of meat and blubber. Where the hell are they storing 295 tonnes of whale meat each year? Do they keep nipping down to IKEA for some more cupboards? So come the next year they have 295 tonnes of whale preserved and so they kill another load and now they have 590 tonnes of preserved whale. See how your figures and arguments are nothing but fluff? I don't think you are grasping what I have been saying and maybe English isn't your first language. Let me know if there is anything you might need me to simplify.
    2
  59. +Jóhann Heðinsson at 3.5g a day for adult men, I would just suggest a bit more of whatever they normally eat. It's not as if there is a poverty problem. Just because they use an outboard motor does not make it any less a tradition. I wasn't aware they used spears before.
    2
  60. +真田優 if they were compliant why did they end up with a ruling against them? Compliant now, maybe despite saying they will ignore the ruling and go whaling again. Compliant then, no they were not. You lie by calling me a terrorist. Do I worry, nah I just laugh because it is just rubbish.
    2
  61. 真田優 you should try facts. Modern knowledge, this from someone suggesting chasing whales around is OK. How modern your ideas are. How moral, hacking away at intelligent creatures. You tell me what human rights I have advocated ignoring? Think you can manage that?
    2
  62. +真田優 well the international courts agree with me not you. Taking heavy fuel oil into the southern ocean is against international war. And you are an idiot and an imbecile. :)
    2
  63. +真田優 whaling is no more a Japanese culture than it is most European countries culture. The difference here is that the Faroese don't happen to be breaking international laws with the grind. There is nothing in the above video that constitutes terrorism from either side. Considering the general depth of feeling, both sides behave quite well to each other. There is certainly no racism in the case of the grind and those opposed to it. I can't say I know what happens in Japan but then that is not what this thread is about.
    2
  64. +Ade Larsen ahhh bless. ;)
    2
  65. Ade Larsen maybe you can enlighten everyone what acts of terrorism have been committed and by whom.
    2
  66. +Abella Seksa Can you put up a link as to where you get your figures from? We went through this before and these figures are wrong.
    2
  67. +Mizz Tiger yeah the main reason for the development of the human race is terrible compared to eating toxic wild meat. You just don't erm, what's the next bit, oh yeah, get it.
    2
  68. +Abella Seksa really I wasn't aware all vegans were like that. I wasn't even aware I was a vegan. Generically blaming a group of people for something they are not, as a group, responsible for while defending (albeit badly) a group for something they are doing is a touch hypocritical.
    2
  69. +Nina Nyggju do you have the figures for the population there? How many whales constitute 0.1 to 0.001%. Where did you get the information on the reproductive rate of the pilot whale in the North East Atlantic? Surely without those how can you say it is sustainable? What is destroying the world is ignorants with wild claims thinking that people need them to use their voice to spread those wild claims. How can you be reliant on a food stuff when you can only eat 3.5g a day.
    2
  70. +geishathor ?
    1
  71. +geishathor I was pointing out a fact. I wouldn't assume you or anyone else might know it. Others who might read this thread may find it beneficial to know. I was correcting you on your capitalisation at the start of sentences.
    1
  72. +geishathor Good, do go on. Why?
    1
  73. +geishathor It was a statement. Nothing more. Do you have an issue with that?
    1
  74. geishathor Did I say that you said that they don't? What exactly do you think my last comment said?
    1
  75. +geishathor They eat mainly mutton or lamb. Note the capitalisation of the first word of the sentence.
    1
  76. Not sure who Ronand was targeting with that comment.
    1
  77. Fake science? Are you the new Trump? With regards to genetic diversity the killing of a pod can be considered significant. Given that the research into the impacts of decimating a genetic population is only just started being considered and researched, it would be too early to determine any lasting effects http://nammco.wpengine.com/topics/long-finned-pilot-whale/#1475843214679-e49183cc-36fc
    1
  78. That's ducks or geese fella. It is difficult to be sadistic to foie gras. Although I am sure some French guys have tried at some point in the past.
    1
  79. I do believe I have been blocked. Shame as I was hoping for a challenge. Oh well, guess that makes me right.
    1
  80. I'll not lose sleep over misreading your previous comment, not considering. As I pointed out I will admit when I get something wrong and accept when you do equally, without cheap gloating. As you have merged the other thread where you failed to address my points with this one, pick one where you would like to try an answer and get on with it rather than dodging the subject. Meanwhile I will get on with my sun bathing.
    1
  81. canucktunes you are correct. I misread your previous post and missed it being a question.
    1
  82. canucktunes I did. Those were your words not mine. Look at your previous posts. 😉
    1
  83. canucktunes an interesting if incorrect set of statements. At least I am honest enough to admit when I am wrong and the same for yourself. My point is still as valid as it was when you tried to deflect from it earlier in the thread and just now try to rubbish. Imperialist influencing through propaganda? Really? I don't mention my country or culture much. There is no need. I comment on the freely available evidence, mainly supplied by the Faroes or sympathetic sources about the subject of this video. I don't mention the Faroes in other posts I make about other subjects as they are not relevant in that context. You appear to be trying to attack the messenger rather than the message.
    1
  84. canucktunes you said it is logical to say all cetaceans are equally contaminated. You then went on to point out that some are less so than others. I think that constitutes a contradiction. And I am suggesting the risk should be considered against the validity of the continuation of a tradition. You are suggesting that continuation of tradition should outweigh the risks. At least if you are disagreeing with me you are. I couldn't care if you are disagreeing, that is up to you. Just don't falsify evidence and mislead and I'll stay quiet and not put you back in your box.
    1
  85. asbjørn poulsen I am not trying to change your mind. Nor am I trying to do anything to justify either your position or that of the protesters.
    1
  86. canucktunes why contradict yourself? We have discussed that it is bad for you, we have also touched on the differences between cetaceans and your logical idea would be wrong. As for tradition, many have changed when they become outdated and generally pointless. Often traditions change when they become unacceptable in the current society. Defending it badly just makes no sense. What do you think you might achieve? I'm unlikely to change my mind as you offer nothing new. Anyone else following the thread will not be able to distinguish your claims/points/reasoning from those who have already tried and failed to justify this tradition.
    1
  87. I've accepted Japan has a coastal whaling history and have been more specific regarding oceanic whaling so what are you disputing? 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? In this case the tradition is not popular and is declining in popularity generally. I'm having difficulty seeing your point here. I disputed the idea that Sea Shepherd ran away and also pointed out the pointless nature of referencing the injunction. You have conceded the point about Sea Shepherd and we have debated the injunction and it's relative impact. I believe we have covered this, now you are just rambling.
    1
  88. The Japanese have a history of coastal whaling (similar to the Faroes) yes, but not oceanic whaling which is the point they argue. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35397749 Whether someone hypes it up or not, it is no excuse for inaccuracy. Personally I believe anyone willing to sail the southern ocean pursuing an openly aggressive counterpart, has stones enough to be considered "brave". So we can settle part of the Japanese claim to whaling history and also the inaccuracy of Sea Shepherd running away.
    1
  89. I think you would find that the legality of bypassing an injunction by whatever means is only subject to the law of the country which passes that injunction. There is no confusion as no one is questioning what you have said. Again, what is your point? Unless that Japanese whaling ship was in an Australian harbour it puts some doubt on your claim around the Sea Shepherd ships "running away". At least we both agree the Japanese reached their quota or at least say they did. I, for one, have no reason to believe they didn't. Japan repeatedly claims to have a culture of whaling and often expresses this as its reason to pursue (actively with tax payers money) a return to commercial whaling. This despite there being a drop in whale meat consumption in Japan. Considering the amount of effort the Japanese government put into promoting the consumption of whale meat, this reduction in consumption will eventually drive an end to their whaling agenda. We were talking about Japan not the Faroes in this set of comments.
    1
  90. I didn't suggest Japan paid anyone. You clearly are not reading my post. I stated a fact, you agreed, therefore I was right. You can't start arguing and quoting when no one else has disputed what you have said. I'll put it down to over-enthusiasm. Like most Grind supporters, you seem to find it difficult when no one argues with you. I really couldn't care who paid who what all those years ago. What I do know is Sea Shepherd have a shiny new ship, they certainly paid for that and more recently. However those naughty Japanese whalers did quite well this year, so even with the new ship, it is fair to say Sea Shepherd had limited success in hampering the mission this year. I am sure they will try again next year, I don't think they are going away. You see your problem here is one source says one thing and the other says another. I have no reason to believe your idle ramblings any more than you need to believe mine. I gave you a reference to suggest the Sea Shepherd were actively looking for the whaling fleet, you have spouted a load about legal cases that clearly appears to have been a waste of your time and effort as it doesn't help. It distracts, a very good and usual Grind supporter tactic.
    1
  91. Not to mention that as a culture they were never a whaling nation.
    1
  92. Interesting reading for you: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/12/23/national/new-sea-shepherd-vessel-targets-japan-whaling-fleet-spotting-harpoon-ship-behind-iceberg/#.WOZSqjvyvcs Not sure they are running away. And Japan lost in court as well. The case you reference is in US courts only, the Japanese lost in the International Court of Justice.
    1
  93. +AndyLeCandy I guess you and Aaron go to the same school then.
    1
  94. Mizz Tiger I think that is more of an issue for both sides. Both have become entrenched in their position and it has turned both nasty and stupid. Hopefully NAMMCO will use the genetic data to step in and end this in a way that both parties can save face. They are both just like bickering children.
    1
  95. +Mizz Tiger OK, a short one. What is your honest opinion on the subject of the grind. Given the exchanges we have had, and the information we have all learned from over that time, do you think it should stop or not? And Why?
    1
  96. +Mizz Tiger That would explain why you never bothered to read any of the articles supplied to you previously that showed your arguments to be flawed. They do say ignorance is bliss.
    1
  97. +Mizz Tiger it's always black and white with you guys. It is either in a cage and tortured all its life or its free and a pilot whale. What do they eat that isn't whale. It can be local, sheep, birds and fish. I am guessing most of those are organic or close. I doubt they torture those all their lives. The fishing fleets do deplete the ocean but not massively (thanks to EU quotas and yes that is EU and don't argue it as I can prove it is the case). Do those other sources of food destroy the ocean and nature? No they probably don't. The supermarkets on the islands will stock what people buy. So what do they stock? Is it mass produced food and products or is it organically farmed food and products? After all unlike the city dwellers, those on the islands are fairly much well off with little to no poverty. That is not because they can nibble a gram of whale here or there. I've lived on not much in a city and I tell you what, it is not fun. You don't want to eat cheap crap but you do what you have to in order to get by the best you can, stretching every coin and note. Now I wasn't quite below the poverty line but I was close. Even at that point I wouldn't trade you some frozen mass produced crap in a bag in order to eat free organic whale that might increase the risk of Parkinson's or lower my chances at sexual reproduction, especially when that might lead to a greater chance of autistic children. So before you and the legions of grind supporters bash one more poverty stricken or low wage person, by trying to compare mass production industrial farming to unnecessary mass whale killing, let us just iron something out. There is a drive to reduce the impact of farming throughout the world. Many governments (mine included) are constantly working to clean up water supplies and reduce the amount of fertilizer used (oddly GMO helps reduce the amount of fertilizer by creating bug resistant plants). Animal welfare is getting better all the time with tighter restrictions on living conditions and slaughterhouses. True, like the human population worldwide, there are places where humans are treated as badly as farm animals, you find horrendous conditions in farms and slaughterhouses and it is not a surprise. So why are most developed countries trying to improve their farming techniques and reduce the impact on the lives of animals? It is because we learn and evolve. We have learned that better farming practices are better for the animals and humans alike. We have dispensed with old ways of doing things or in some cases dropped new ways to use older less impacting ways. We can do all this and yet you compare it to an age old tradition that needlessly slaughters these whales which are not fit for consumption and then you compare it to modern farming. There is no comparison, modern farming is about stopping doing the stuff that no longer is fit for purpose and learning all the time. The grind is just doing the same thing as we always did regardless of it not being of any real benefit. They could stop tomorrow and be no worse off but they carry on regardless despite the warnings. At least most of the rest of the world is trying to do something other than finding poor excuses to deflect blame by pointing out what others do. Right now I live in a place with clean water and locally produced organic food. I am lucky I reckon but I would never look to judge those who do not have my choice or waste just because I can, especially in cruel and inhumane ways. Remind me again why you support the grind.
    1
  98. +Mizz Tiger edible vs. none edible. I wonder which one you would pick?
    1
  99. +Mizz Tiger and have supermarkets and a Burger king and stuff.
    1
  100. +Nina Nyggju got a link to that New York Times article? I must have missed that one.
    1
  101. +Otta Otta I see the Faroese whaling website has undergone a big change. I notice that some of the mad claims have been removed. At least their media circus isn't floating. Great propaganda though even though they still go on about it being sustainable.
    1
  102. +avion ellivi rofl. I got a straw here if you want ☺
    1
  103. +avion ellivi talking of whining and not having any argument. How are you doing on finding anything substantial to back your position. Want me to look for you?
    1
  104. +avion ellivi so you haven't found anything to support your views. At least this exchange was short.
    1
  105. +avion ellivi having trouble finding a link again? Shame really because for a minute you looked like you knew what you were talking about. Then you lied about me being a Sea Shepherd supporter. Maybe you should read some of the links I gave you last time. At least my opinions have some credible external sources to back them up.
    1
  106. +avion ellivi organic, like the toxic chemicals in the meat. Free, unless you are a whale or value the genetic diversity in a population. Sustainable, now if only anyone knew how many there were then we could answer that one. That is why no one, other than the Faroese, say it's sustainable. Go ahead and supply some links to those who say it's sustainable.
    1
  107. +avion ellivi toxic, migrating, and not sustainable. Can't eat it so why kill it? We have covered all this before so go on.
    1
  108. +Mike C I haven't said they can't eat it. I'm pointing out that they generally don't and therefore the reason they give for killing a load of animals is rubbish. And I'm not your "dude". You are rather angry over something that really doesn't effect you.
    1
  109. +MICHAEL Papsong Burger King and their usual diet.
    1
  110. Oh I must have forgotten to mention only 17% of that study said that they ate whale more than once a month.
    1
  111. asbjørn poulsen and yeah it's a lot excessive.
    1
  112. asbjørn poulsen it's 21,000. Don't forget the children. It's not difficult. You multiply the 3.5g by just over double. In this case just over 8g a day. Although I think you have missed the point here. You said it is 800 whales per year. I did that calculation earlier.
    1
  113. According to one study 47 percent of the adult population don't eat whale at all. Which makes your stance on "we eat as much as we like" a bit absurd when the documentary we are commenting on shows advocates of the hunting talking about keeping to the guidelines. Are you suggesting a small number of the population (taking into account children) are somehow responsible for eating in excess of 53g of whale meat/blubber a day. Seriously? Around 14 times the recommended daily intake? And yet no one will say how much they eat a day. How much do you eat a day?
    1
  114. I'm saying that unless there is a massive amount of over eating compared to the medical guidelines then the figures suggest you are over hunting for what you need. Considering very few of those from the Faroes I have asked on here actually eat whale, there is no need to believe that generally (as per the video) most that do keep to the guidelines. How much whale do you eat per day?
    1
  115. That is enough for 50,000 adults to each have their maximum recommended amount of whale meat/blubber per day. Given that not all the 50,000 are adults and that not all of the adults in that population eat whale meat/blubber, 127 is probably more than a generous figure.
    1
  116. Therefore, unless you wish to dispute those figures, you would only need catch between 127 and 128 whales each year to cover the amount required even if all 50,000 people were 70KG adults (which they are not, approximately 21% are children). So even allowing for some adults eating way more than recommended, catching approximately 800 per year (your figures) is a massive over catch to supply subsistence requirements.
    1
  117. You have already correctly stated that the population of the Faroes is approximately 50,000. if all 50,000 people are adults of 70KG they would need 170KG of pilot whale meat a day to be eating the maximum allowed. That equates to 63875KG of whale meat per year. That is 63.875 tonnes of meat per year to feed 50000 adults. As the 50,000 are not all adults or 70KG+ we can reasonably say the actual amount required would be considerably less than 63 tonnes, potentially half of that amount. Would you dispute those figures?
    1
  118. The general medical advice is that a maximum of 3.5g of pilot whale meat can be safely eaten per day for an adult male of 70KG+. Would you dispute that?
    1
  119. On average each whale gives around 0.5 tonnes of meat and blubber (according to the logs for 2013 for example). Would you dispute that?
    1
  120. asbjørn poulsen and I did the maths which is why I know your explanation is rubbish. Don't forget you guys publish all the figures.
    1
  121. asbjørn poulsen see, I knew you would say that. Over 6 times more than you need and that is if everyone on the Faroes is an adult man. You are telling me that you eat 6 times the recommended amount for an adult male on a daily basis even the women and children. Pull the other one. Even in the video they acknowledge the limits. Explain that then. Oh yeah we sometimes eat a bit more. And don't regale me with curing meat. We are talking year after year of more than you need. One barren year does not alter the facts.
    1
  122. asbjørn poulsen so on average 127 whales would supply every Faroese with enough meat and blubber for a year (given the recommended amounts) so why kill more.
    1
  123. asbjørn poulsen then answer the question.
    1
  124. asbjørn poulsen and still no answer. Why not be open and honest about why you do it and stop pretending.
    1
  125. asbjørn poulsen I think we can take it that you don't want to answer that question. It does make a mockery of all the "subsistence" arguments. Also seems to remove a certain amount of the "environmentally sympathetic" credibility.
    1
  126. asbjørn poulsen still struggling to find an answer. If you can't answer the question then say so and we can move on.
    1
  127. asbjørn poulsen would you like to try a different question? You seem to be having trouble with the last one.
    1
  128. asbjørn poulsen not really answering again. Why not?
    1
  129. asbjørn poulsen wrong again. Have another go. Let's start with quantity. 127 whales would supply every Faroese with enough meat and blubber for a year (given the recommended amounts) so why kill more. Tell me where that comes from anyone else, go on have a go.
    1
  130. asbjørn poulsen not exactly doing well answering the points I have repeatedly made is it. Would you like me to reiterate them for you or do you prefer this ridiculous attempt to somehow make out that I am Sea Shepherd supporter. When have I lied? I have no need to. Come now answer some points.
    1
  131. asbjørn poulsen I don't try to make anybody look stupid. Some people just do that themselves. Answer some of the points I've raised rather than dodging them. This constant talking rubbish to avoid the obvious doesn't fool anyone.
    1
  132. asbjørn poulsen didn't realise they sold sheep fish in your supermarket. Maybe that is just the Burger King that sells it. Mad as a box of frogs.
    1
  133. To be fair you are right about his reasoning skills. The problem is that the Faroese like Asbjorn, are very much stuck in the mindset that you are either with them or you are a Sea Shepherd supporter. The idea that an independent thinker can make their own mind up seems to be very much alien to their way of thinking. It is tough to look at something that has been done for ages and for various reasons and something you have grown up with as normal and realise that it actually doesn't belong in this day and age and is no longer required. It is normal to rebel against outside pressure to change and entrench a ridiculous position that is utterly indefensible. In many ways I have a lot of sympathy for the Faroese as it is inevitable that this throw-back tradition will at some point in the near future, have to be allowed to drop into past where it belongs.
    1
  134. You believe what you like. You don't seem to let facts get in the way of your beliefs previously, so why start now. Maybe that is why you are so bad at this.
    1
  135. That is not what I said.
    1
  136. I don't believe what they say any more than I believe what you say. And no I have never been to the Faroes. It is not on my list of places to visit either. I have been aware of the Grind for a good many years and have read widely around the subject and have formed my own opinions from the various sources. I have collected a fair bit of data from a number of fairly reliable sources. I tend to avoid obviously biased information where I can as it hardly stands any scrutiny. That may go some way to explaining why you seem to have no joy in dealing with my points and comments. In fact like many others you seem to avoid dealing with them and use distraction techniques like the comments and question above.
    1
  137. asbjørn poulsen at least you are consistent.
    1
  138. asbjørn poulsen there we go again suggesting I support Sea Shepherd. Pity for you I don't. Doing well at being wrong. Again.
    1
  139. asbjørn poulsen and you have no answers to any points made other than we can do it so we will. An unfortunate lack of imagination or willingness to even contemplate having a rational discussion on the subject.
    1
  140. Bother me when you have something to add to this. Otherwise be beaten like you are.
    1
  141. But we have had this conversation many times. You cannot say the Pilot Whales you kill are not endangered. We cannot say they are because it depends on research based in the Faroes among other nations. Wriggle a little and writhe a bit each time is your way. You still can't front up to me and you know it. I got spiders in my house more honest.
    1
  142. asbjørn poulsen No one is suggesting that whale hunting was wrong all the time. Now you are not stupid so don't try and pretend you have forgotten that my point is that it has no place now. Partly due to the toxicity of the meat and blubber and partly as it is no longer needed as a food source. Personally I don't poison any animals and I get most my meat from a local farmer. I certainly don't feed my kids on dangerously toxic food. Modern farming methods are not always the best but 27 times less toxic is better than 27 times more toxic.
    1
  143. You are only wrong by 1500 years. Good effort though. And that is comparing global whale hunting against northern European farming. Obviously if it was global farming against global whale hunting it would be a much bigger number of years between the two with farming starting around 12,000 BC and whaling only 3000 BC. I have covered off which is more dangerous to eat before and it was definitely pilot whale. I believe it came in at 27 times more dangerous to eat than farmed red meat. Maybe that is why your supermarket likes to stock a lot of red meat.
    1
  144. Interestingly there is some stuff out there to support your claim: http://www.dagens.dk/krimi/p%C3%A6dofili-tre-gange-flere-b%C3%B8rn-misbruges-p%C3%A5-f%C3%A6r%C3%B8erne-end-i-danmark While the figures suggested may be skewed by the population for the islands being so low, someone is concerned. It is off message on these threads though.
    1
  145. How much of the meat and blubber do you consume on a daily basis would you say?
    1
  146. That just doesn't make sense. I think you got the wrong thread.
    1
  147. asbjørn poulsen nothing as my question was to someone else.
    1
  148. asbjørn poulsen thanks for repeating the same stuff as before.
    1
  149. asbjørn poulsen that wasn't my question. I'll wait for the answer from the person I asked. It's not a trick question or that I'm trying to catch anyone out. I am genuinely interested as it helps me understand the whole thing better. My opinions are never set in stone. Only an idiot would stick to an opinion in the light of new information learned. So the more I learn the better informed my opinion will be.
    1
  150. Heri Debes maybe you can answer a question that has been running through the threads of this video. Roughly how much and how often do you or your family eat whale meat and or blubber.
    1
  151. asbjørn poulsen that's a bit harsh, she is on the same side of the debate as you. Understandably biased when it is something you are born into and brought up with.
    1
  152. Where exactly in that sentence am I saying that you suggested something about a "law compelling people to consume processed meats" ? - Then why bring it up? I have not said anything about the grind being illegal, I am suggesting that it is fairly pointless and that it would be better replaced as a tradition and that only the Faroese can decide that. You asked for evidence about the cruise lines and the impact on the tourism trade in the Faroes, there you go I gave you some. If you don't like the wording then take that up with the author. Some cruise lines still go there but some have stopped, supports my point so that is sorted then. By all means share your videos, I believe there are ones showing bones as well if you go look. either way it has no impact on the accuracy of my point regarding the amount of meat/blubber not being consumed or consumed. Again you are avoiding the point. I'm not interested in your musing on the ethical nature of cruise lines and their various decisions.
    1
  153. There was a backlash against Sea Shepherd. Until they got involved the amount of whale being consumed was reducing. Since they got involved it has increased again. At least that is what I have been told by those I have questioned on this subject. It is a natural reaction and therefore I see no reason to dispute it. Are you disputing it?
    1
  154. At last. In this thread you will find links to you tube videos showing discarded whale meat etc. in the sea. So far not one of those from the Faroes I have asked has been able to account for the mismatch in the numbers or for where all that meat went. Although they all claim none of it was wasted and yet none of them claim to really eat any of it. (I even got some recipes) You can fit the entire population in a single half decent sports stadium, that is hardly a "considerable" amount of people. Even so the numbers still stack against the consumption of all of those whales. Sorry I hadn't checked where your quote on it being "probably sustainable" came from. I know I hadn't used them for a quote. the NAMMCO data does suggest that there are questions about sustainability and does say that more research is required to establish population numbers and units. While there are questions relating to sustainability it seems careless to just carry on killing them. What law compelling people to consume processed meats? Did I suggest that? Right cruise lines,: http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2015/08/articles/cruelty-murder-of-animals/stop-the-grind-boycott-cruise-lines-that-cruise-to-faroe-islands/ http://www.cruiselawnews.com/tags/faroe-islands/ http://www.dw.com/en/faroe-islands-cruise-boycott-hits-tourism/a-19397715 Have a bang on those.
    1
  155. Is that not just a matter of perspective? Therefore it is pointless to argue that point. Thanks for the useless Sea Shepherd time line. I'm not sure you are making a point at the moment, you certainly seem to avoid addressing the points and observations I have made. We shall just assume that I am right then and crack on.
    1
  156. Not being an expert on eco-tourism and whaling in coexistence I would probably defer to those cruise lines that have dropped the Faroes from their itinerary due to concerns over passengers breaking the law by not reporting whale sightings in case they cause the destruction of a pod (and possibly a population) of whales. "oh look at the majestic whales" followed by "Oh look at the majestic whales being butchered on the shoreline" are unlikely phrases to hear from eco-tourists. It has a trunk and big ears, it would appear to be the elephant in the room.
    1
  157. Please point out where I have suggested pregnant Faroese women are responsible for the majority of the whale meat consumption. My point was the complete opposite. Non sequitur my arse. I understand English may not be your normal spoken/written language so I would urge you to check your statement about that as it is wrong. I have also stated that no one can stop this, frankly pointless, tradition other than the Faroese. So that has dealt with your first 3 paragraphs. I haven't mentioned the IUCN, why bring them up? The fact remains that even NAMMCO, an organisation sympathetic to the Faroes, say numbers are likely reducing and that population units may be smaller than previously thought due to genetic research. All of my previous statements in regards to that are correct and accurate. Regarding consumption, lets assume I am correct, and that pregnant females are not eating whale meat and blubber. Let us also assume the guy in the video isn't lying and that the children are also not consuming whale meat or blubber. Out of a population of 50,000, how many do you reasonably assume are adult males over 70KG? Baring in mind that even if all 50,000 were adult males of at least 70KG they could easily hit their daily recommended maximum whale consumption with 127 whales. So why do you argue about the calculations I have made when it is fairly obvious that killing up to and over 1000 whales is wasteful in the extreme. In fact why are you even debating these points? What would be the problem in finding a less questionable form of celebrating the Faroese whaling tradition?
    1
  158. They are already living quite well but your point is valid. The money that could be made from whale and dolphin watching would more than subsidise the economy for what is a small sacrifice.
    1
  159. I would never suggest the Faroes are populated by mercury zombies. My point is that it does no harm to anyone to consider stopping the Grind and doing what most other cultures have done and replace it with a less objectionable symbolic tradition. The main reason for the stubborn stance on this is almost certainly the actions of Sea Shepherd. No one likes being told to stop something or what to do. They stop hunting the whales and no one is going to starve to death for want of a bit of whale. Each year this goes on it is pointless to try and defend it as it is too easy for anyone willing to read a bit to dismiss pretty much all support for it.
    1
  160. As the Faroes are not really covered by the IWC then yes it is irrelevant other than providing an example (as it was being used as such) of indigenous people hunting whales. In that case it is relevant as an example. It is important to be accurate when you claimed that the amount of contamination was reducing. It was reducing because those Faroese women were abstaining from eating whale meat and blubber. If anything that backs the point that really the Grind is unnecessary. In 2013, 1104 whales or 8302 skinns were harvested from pilot whales in the Faroes. That would be just over half a tonne a whale on average. Baring in mind that the study you mentioned was in 2012, who was eating all of this whale meat and blubber on an island of 50,000. You can run through the numbers yourself and realise that it is highly unlikely that it was all or even the majority of it, being eaten by the locals. Certainly not a portion of the women or children. Pilot whale meat also contains PCBs and it was found that the amount of selenium in the diet could not offset the methylmercury of both the fish and the whale meat. Now I would point out the obvious. "Probably sustainable"? The list says they are "data deficient" as there is not enough information to accurately determine the actual population to a statistically safe point. In fact NAMMCO says this "a decline appears to have taken place over the twenty year period. However, because of the high degree of uncertainty within survey estimates, this apparent decline is not statistically significant". I wouldn't pin my hopes on surveys when they have a high degree of uncertainty. NAMMCO goes on to say that genetic research suggests each pod could well be a genetically different population of pilot whales and therefore the population unit could well be quite small. Given that and the fact they also say that pilot whale meat is not fit for human consumption, it calls into doubt the sustainability of a hunt where a large portion of an individual pod is wiped out in one instance and also the point of doing such a hunt. Consider this, the general medical advice is that a maximum of 3.5g of pilot whale meat can be safely eaten per day for an adult of 70KG. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417701/ So if all 50,000 people are adults of 70KG they would need 170KG of pilot whale meat a day to be eating the maximum allowed. That equates to 63875KG of whale meat per year. That is 63.875 tonnes of meat per year to feed 50,000 adults. That would be around 127 pilot whales. Not all 50,000 people are adults and not all of them are 70KG.
    1
  161. Wow, someone who actually takes the time to check what they are writing. You would be a first among the Grind supporters then. Well at least you agree with me on slavery and the legality of the matter. So lets deal with the other matters. With regards to the rights of indigenous peoples, it specifically doesn't mention hunting and i would guess that it is for a reason. Such a reason would be the killing of animals that is not sustainable or for the sole purpose of tradition. Those hunts specified by the IWC are not indiscriminate and are allowed for subsistence. In the case of the Grind neither can be considered to be the case. It would be foolish, given the numbers, to suggest otherwise. The document "Cohort studies of Faroese children concerning potential adverse health effects after the mothers’ exposure to marine contaminants during pregnancy", which I have referenced many times already within the various threads on this matter, do not suggest a reduction in the contamination. They suggest a serious link to various diseases for those ingesting pilot whale meat or blubber. The Seychelles Child Development Study was around the impact of a diet where eating ocean fish (considered high in methylmercury) was prevalent. Now I don't need to point out to you that this cannot be considered as valid in the case of pilot whale meat/blubber. That would include the further studies you mention and for the same reason. Recommended reading for you: Dietary selenium's protective effects against methylmercury toxicity. While I have not suggested any crisis, the medical advice and the intense medical research around this subject and the focus of it on the islands would suggest someone is worried enough. I quote from that first article "It is ironic the this remote archipelago, which is not responsible for any significant mercury pollution, must now give up a traditional food source". It is a shame in some ways although with the additional information around the various sub-species of pilot whales coming to light, it is probably for the best in relation to the sustainability of the various populations of the pilot whale.
    1
  162. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has only one mention relating to animals, and killing them is not mentioned. It does talk about resources though which is fairly ambiguous and could be considered to cover animals as a resource. The list of indigenous peoples is very long with a great many who used to hunt whales. A more practical argument would be along the lines of Aboriginal Subsistence whaling as presented by the IWC, although the Faroes do not feature on the list of allowed hunts within that. Slavery is not a term related to animals. The Grind is not illegal. Doesn't stop it being unnecessary or questionable on sustainability grounds. It certainly isn't great as far as health is concerned. I see a lot of spam about rights to this and rights to that and references to various charters and such. At the same time I also see a lot of denial of the medical research and evidence, much of it from the Faroes themselves, that says eating these whales is bad for humans. Sometimes you can't reason with people when they feel wronged. No amount of pointing out the obvious will stop them defending the indefensible.
    1
  163. Christian Sverri you should give up altogether. You never seem to win.
    1
  164. Christian Sverri I was going on you saying that someone was killed a few weeks ago. If that is wrong then fair enough I could go check, it's unusual for me not to double check those comments made by grind supporters. Not saying they are generally false so much as less than reputable.
    1
  165. Dreck the Sea Shepherd group associated with the Grind protest are from the EU generally, but they do attract the odd American. Generally the homicide rate is calculated per 100,000 population. In this case if you had 1 homicide in a year the islands would rate as a 2 on the list, which is higher than Denmark but lower than the US. Either way I don't think Sea Shepherd care much about people killing each other, doesn't appear to be part of their remit. A more interesting point would have been to question how many mass species slaughter events they have in the US against the relative abundance of that species. That way you could compare apples and apples and determine if Americans commenting here are indeed being hypocritical, unless of course they protest about those as well in which case your argument/comment would be relatively irrelevant.
    1
  166. +Christian Sverri thanks for the view from the thinking section. Now you know how I feel each time someone doesn't read the thread and starts spouting on this subject. Maybe that's why the pro-grind people give up and harass others they think they might be able to argue against.
    1
  167. asbjørn poulsen you stick to that and keep telling yourself that. :)
    1
  168. asbjørn poulsen No. I suggest you read it again.
    1
  169. Christian Sverri but if you are killing and eating whales that are bad for your health, despite knowing they are toxic, then yes it kind of is your fault. We have already covered the fact the whale meat is not actually needed. So, realistically, you are doing yourself harm because you are failing to look past "we have always done it" and "we will do it because we wont be told what to do". Despite it being short sighted it is no better than a kid in a playground throwing a tantrum, only this is on a bigger scale.
    1
  170. asbjørn poulsen Do add a link to the doctors accounts. The whales are significantly more toxic than chickens, cows or pigs and we have been through that and I have given you evidence to that end and so far you have nothing other than you saying so to claim the whale meat is not toxic, so forgive me if I ignore your last comment as just being pointless and inaccurate. So unless you have the doctors accounts to provide, we have nothing more to discuss.
    1
  171. asbjørn poulsen There is thought that it may have prevented earlier acute symptoms because the meat is high in carnitine. The presence of it in the meat does not cure the genetic disease. It may have prolonged the lives of some people who have this disease. It does not mean that it hasn't caused a number of other issues in otherwise healthy members of the population. I don't think you can convince anyone that eating something that is inherently toxic to you is great as it can stave off the symptoms of a rare genetic disease. Good effort though.
    1
  172. avion ellivi Name the city and lets find out.
    1
  173. +Ruel Martinez why? Simple enough question. If you were to defend the grind against the considerable opposition to it, why would you do that? What is it about it that you think is right? Is there anything about it that you think is wrong or could be done better? It is not a trick question, I would just like to find out what you know about it and why you, as an outsider like me would have your view.
    1
  174. +avion ellivi Really. Which city might that be. Just because you don't know them doesn't mean they are not there.
    1
  175. +avion ellivi Then maybe you should start buying local. Support your local farmers and you can help cut down on the amount of industrialised food that is out there.
    1
  176. +avion ellivi So you missed the other article earlier. Fair enough I guess the mercury does that.
    1
  177. +avion ellivi why do you disagree with an Assistant Professor of Medicine on this subject? Lets play "who has the best reference links". I've gone first, now your turn to back up your absurd claim.
    1
  178. avion ellivi Along with the one I linked earlier in this thread they happen to show that, comparing recommended daily intake, red meat is around 27 times less bad for you than pilot whale. Does that help? At least they are links and have the opinions of experts on them and cover the subject. Teen magazine is unlikely to cover the toxicity of red meat or that of whale meat I would guess. I wouldn't know for sure as I don't read it. Maybe you can enlighten me on it.
    1
  179. +avion ellivi Just like the other links I have provided you, they show that eating red meat is less harmful to us than eating whale meat. You carry on about it being worse but you are wrong. Stop spreading misleading information. At least I have some links which seem to include opinions from experts, you appear not to have anything to support your point of view. Not even some dubious local rag. Sorry I don't read such magazines, maybe you can enlighten me on their opinions.
    1
  180. +avion ellivi http://www.shortlist.com/food-drink/is-this-burger-going-to-kill-you
    1
  181. +avion ellivi so it doesn't kill you then.
    1
  182. +avion ellivi feel free to back up your claim about red meat with some sort of link or evidence. You will excuse me being sceptical when all I have to go on is your say so. So far you have not shown yourself to be a reliable source of information.
    1
  183. +avion ellivi I never said anyone died as a direct result of eating whale. There is no evidence of anyone dying as a direct result of eating red meat. People die of diseases related to the consumption of these meats. Unless you happen to have some evidence you wish to share with me. I have yet to see or hear of a CoD of "Eating meat". But shortly when I have time I'll share plenty on Faroese scientists linking the eating of whales to a number of conditions.
    1
  184. +avion ellivi oddly there is plenty of evidence around how bad pilot whale, or more to the point, the various toxins are for humans. There is very little research into how bad industrialised meat is for humans. The problem with this is that it is easy to track smaller groups of compounds than it is to deal with the many complex interactions of a varied diet. Unwittingly the islanders actually help identify the effects of those toxins by providing a stable population which offers a great control group. Anything other fallacies you need sorting?
    1
  185. +avion ellivi and some other person caused me to actually go look a bit more about this and I found the following: http://www.everydayhealth.com/news/unhealthy-things-lurking-in-your-burger/ http://www.shortlist.com/food-drink/is-this-burger-going-to-kill-you So a burger is 27 times less toxic to us than whale meat. And your organic pilot whale, strange how it is referenced by doctors as known to cause disease and issues when consumed by humans: http://chriskresser.com/the-truth-about-toxic-mercury-in-fish/ Maybe the islanders should stick to fish.
    1
  186. +avion ellivi keep licking the mercury laden, immunodisruptive meat fella. Me and the various scientists disagree with you. I'll let everyone else decide who they think might be right.
    1
  187. ***** there is no need for hate on this, its more a matter of education. All you have said would be no different than those opposed to the abolition of slavery. When something is obviously wrong and creates unnecessary suffering to intelligent creatures, then I tend to take an interest. The only time I tend to get involved is when I see people spreading inaccurate information around the subject. I first heard about the grind when I was a teen, and I was angry then. I'm older now and have time to read around the subject extensively. I read both sides and inbetween and then make my opinions. You have not said anything so far that I didn't already know and understand.
    1
  188. +avion ellivi and you sound like all the others. They didn't fare to we'll using the same arguments as you. By all means do post your evidence about the burger compared to the whale meat. Trying to make me out as a Nazi or similar will do you no good. I do like your words as I have no doubt even you know they are misleading. You have nothing to back them up with unless you happen to have some evidence those before you failed to produce. Get over it and start thinking of the best way to back down graciously. That's the best advice for grind advocates. They like the Internet, well welcome the the modern world.
    1
  189. +avion ellivi I would agree that smoking is bad for anyone, personally I would rather it was banned in most cases. Alcohol in excess causes a number of issues. Anything in massive excess will kill you, especially if it falls from a great height. So your justification for mass killing more whales than are required so a few people can eat the toxic meat, which is heavily linked to major health issues, is that water can kill you so why not eat the toxic meat. Is your justification really that thin? By all means smoke and drink, but don't endanger the genetic diversity of an intelligent animal just because you want to damage the health of your children and yourself. This tradition is no longer needed and outdated, its time to replace it with something more fitting.
    1
  190. +avion ellivi strange, wine doesn't feature in their scientific presentations. Is the wine high in methylmercury or PCBs? Is the water related to autism in children?
    1
  191. +avion ellivi I don't believe the medical advice in the Faroe Islands covers not eating Burger King. Can't think why that might be. Any ideas? Also I think you missed the point. Still not to worry. The relative scaremongering about fast food has little to nothing to do with the medical advice on the Faroe Islands regarding whale meat and blubber. Now if they had advice suggesting that fast food was toxic and a likely cause for numerous medical conditions, I would agree with you wholeheartedly, but there isn't so your point is?
    1
  192. +Mizz Tiger Pointing out the needless killing of these whales.
    1
  193. +Txema Novelo With you till the point of "ethics of the Faroe people". I mean don't get me wrong I understand their reaction to being the centre on international attention. You might want to actually research what it is they are doing and why. You want to be associated with supporting a tradition of killing whales regardless of not being able to eat them? You were doing well for a sentence or two.
    1
  194. +Fire 4 First part right, second part wrong. How many additional bananas or oranges would be needed for those few islanders who do eat whale to replace the 3.5g of it a day they are allowed to eat? If I offered you a free steak laced with toxins that have been linked with multiple diseases or suggested you buy another banana, which would you choose?
    1
  195. +Mizz Tiger that will be a "not".
    1
  196. Lmao. Thanks I think I might be OK on this subject. I was more checking to see if you knew. I suspect maybe not. Your last point is closest to the truth, "what people fear they might". People fear the hype they read in the media, but we know better than that.
    1
  197. +Mizz Tiger I am interested in your understanding of GMO feeds and what that might mean with regards to the animals that are fed with feed containing GM material. What are the "bad effects" GM might have on nature? Do you understand what GM means? I don't think industrialised farming creates methyl mercury. It may be responsible for a small amount of PCB contamination due to pesticides, so growing feed for the animals might have a small negative impact. It's nowhere near the "mainly" claim you make. They mainly come from industry and burning of fossil fuels. I do not "bash" the islanders as you claim. I point out that the contamination, which you agree is there, means that these whales are no longer a viable food source and that the islanders should really stop killing them for food as they are too toxic to be eaten in any large quantity. Life long torture? Not my meat. I can see mine and I happen to know the farmers. You are going to have to find a better excuse than preference for meat filled with toxins which is dangerous to eat over meat from animals raised by caring farmers who constantly strive for better welfare and better quality animals. You can't do that and torture them. At least they are bred to become food unlike these inedible whales who have a good life with their families until some islander starts killing them in front of each other, not so great then is it. Spare me the romance, my priorities are fine.
    1
  198. +Mizz Tiger I'm going to have fun putting these threads right. Now if cows and pigs were implicated in serious diseases due to contaminants, I am not sure anyone would be eating them. but because they are farmed and carefully reared, they are not, so fine to consume. If only those pilot whales were not packed with contaminants you might have a case.
    1
  199. +avion ellivi are you going to troll me now?
    1
  200. +avion ellivi 1) No it isn't. No one knows how many there are in any region let alone migrating through the Faroe waters. There is nothing to back up the reproductive rate. Your rate differs from other grind supporters as well. Might want to find a page and stick with it. 0.1% of the entire North Atlantic population, which is unknown. Also the Faroe catchment area does not cover the entire North Atlantic. This whole point (1) shows a determined effort to disguise the truth by using misleading claims. 2) One of my favourites. It depends on the idea of the grind being cruel. It then compares relative cruelty when killing animals for food. Firstly I would contend that the food element of that is wrong as very few people eat enough whale for it to be anything more than a delicacy. Secondly, very few hunts of wild animals include indiscriminate killing. There is no evidence to back up the authors claims regarding the amount of time to kill and She ignores the drive completely. She also ignores the waiting and dragging when estimating time to kill. Again, misleading and unsubstantiated. 3) Couldn't care and not an argument I have used so move on. There are the odd sweeping inaccurate statements, but mostly irrelevant. 4) Not a tradition? That is odd because the National Geographic and The Guardian think it is and have said as much. The author then goes on to suggest it is for food. If that were the case you would have been able to debate with me when I compared the numbers and the number of whales killed and the amount that can be eaten, don't add up. Small amounts of whale may be being eaten but nothing that justifies the amount killed. If we could only eat 3.5g of bacon or beef a day I would reckon we wouldn't be farming it, note the difference, farming, not hunting. The authors comparisons flit between the two in order to further mislead. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/24/protesters-film-slaughter-hundreds-whales-faroe-islands http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140911-faroe-island-pilot-whale-hunt-animals-ocean-science/ 5) Not of interest to me and not a concern I have raised. Move on. 6) The author actually makes an accurate point. it is not for others to decide what the Faroese eat or don't eat. Absolutely right. It is very different from farming animals for food, which others can and do. The author presents nothing to back up their insistence that modern farming is so bad and we should all be vegans. The understanding of the world outside of the Faroes appears lacking. The statements are sweeping and inaccurate and take no account of regional differences. You are always at a disadvantage in these discussions as the rest of the world can easily categorise the Faroese while those defending cannot do the same to the rest of the world. 7) 8) and 9) Pilot whales are reckoned to be as intelligent as the Bottlenose Dolphin (http://acsonline.org/fact-sheets/pilot-whale/). No evidence offered by the author other than opinion. Also this again moves into the whole farming against mass hunting debate. You simply cannot compare farming of animals to hunting wild animals. Pilot Whales are indeed social and intelligent, but with farmed animals killed on a generational basis, it is fair to say that they do not have such bonds. Maternal yes but nothing beyond that. It is not normal for farmers to kill their breeding stock or pregnant females, this is not so with the grind. NAMMCO has research that shows significant genetic diversity between pods of Pilot Whales, enough to declare them different populations and therefore killing off a pod could well be killing off a culture. 10) Not something that bothers me or anything I have looked much into. At least if they sold the meat they may actually justify killing the odd whale or two more, although not enough to justify the current levels of destruction. 11) Couldn't care much about this point. The author was unaware that ties with Scotland and cruise firms would be impacted by the negative press around the grind. The perception is changing. 12) The only point with real detail and less opinion. I would agree that the contamination along with the genetic details will cause the Faroese to stop whaling. After that, over time, I think the realisation that it was unnecessary will mean that should contamination die down, the whaling will stay stopped. So even the author of the document used to argue for the grind accepts that it will end and that eating whale meat and blubber is bad for you. As you forgot, I will add the link to this article: http://elinbrimheimheinesen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/10-arguments-against-pilot-whaling-and.html
    1
  201. avion ellivi *yawn* Sorry did I trip trap over your bridge? You follow American politics? I am afraid I don't have the time or the inclination, too busy not being ignorant enough to allow you to win an argument about needless whale slaughter. If only you had some sort of evidence to help you. Shame I'll not be sharing the stuff that might.
    1
  202. +avion ellivi Oh this document. Pity it is rubbish as you have already found out. Let me know when you win an argument with it.
    1
  203. avion ellivi if you happen to come up with anything that is actually linked to reality or fact, do let me know as it will be better than the fantasy you seem to keep going on about.
    1
  204. No they don't. Stop talking rubbish, unless of course you happen to have a link that proves otherwise. I checked the Guardian and the New York Times, nothing. You said "the BBC", checked them and nothing. No one but those from the Faroe Islands suggest it is sustainable. The figures would suggest otherwise. Oh and while writing this I checked National Geographic and they say nothing about it being sustainable. You can post a link to the article in Politiken. Go ahead, don't be shy.
    1
  205. +avion ellivi and who is they? Face it, you are wrong. None of the main stream media agree that the grind is sustainable. Who can blame them when there is not enough information for anyone, even NAMMCO (who are biased towards the Faroes), to say it is sustainable.
    1
  206. +avion ellivi here you go, the BBC do not say it is sustainable but again quote those from the islands giving their view it is sustainable. The second link is rather good as it isn't Sea Shepherd leading the condemnation, its the WHO. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-35261244 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1111388 Looks like you arguing against the World Health Organisation amongst others. Now who would I believe? You, noted for inaccurate claims and repetition of a pro-whaling website, or the WHO, scientists from the island in question and the figures from NAMMCO and the islands themselves. Who needs Sea Shepherd for references?
    1
  207. +avion ellivi having not read most of the material from Sea Shepherd I wouldn't know what they claim or say. Feel free to detail which links I have used that are from Sea Shepherd. I see you have dropped The Guardian now as I demonstrated you were lying about their insistence that the grind is sustainable. Would you like me to check the BBC for you? I have already checked the New York Times. Just like The Guardian they were impartial and quoted those involved rather than taking sides or performing their own research. Only a blind fanatic moron would insist on not checking their reference material to make sure it backs up their claims. You are making a habit of being wrong on this topic.
    1
  208. avion ellivi if the real world is where you make stuff up and look to misinform and mislead, then I would rather be in my well informed and well referenced "bubble". It would appear my "bubble" is rather busy as it seems to be inhabited by the majority of people. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/21/scottish-town-cuts-twinned-link-to-faroe-islands-over-whale-killings  There is a whole Scottish town in there and a couple of German cruise lines. It's in the Guardian so it must be true. 
    1
  209. +avion ellivi Lets see shall we. You don't seem able to offer any links to back up your claims. So the New York Times don't mention the grind as being sustainable, I checked The Guardian and guess what, no mention other than a quote from a Faroese official. Because I cast doubt on your claims about all these news sources saying the grind is sustainable, you seem to think I am saying I am better informed than some of the world media (I wouldn't class all of your suggested sources as "best informed"). Maybe you are just lying and being misleading as per usual. I did find one good article for you though:  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/13/slaughtered-whales-grieve-thames
    1
  210. +avion ellivi That would be irresponsible journalism at best. Link the articles and I'll contact the journalist in each case as I would bet they always say "according to" or similar. I checked the New York Times and they seem to say nothing of the sort. Are you lying?
    1
  211. +avion ellivi Misleading are the constantly used figures the pro-grind supporters rely upon. The feeding of the masses has nothing to do with this as it hardly feeds anyone in regard to the toxic meat.
    1
  212. +Nina Nyggju A grind kills an entire family group of pilot whales as they travel in family pods and the grind targets a pod. So how many chickens is a generation? Got the numbers for pilot whale populations? No? Thats a shame as it makes the rest of your comment pointless as it can't be true can it.
    1
  213. +Nicholas skinner Sorry you were making a point? What exactly are you trying to say? The Faroese do not live off the land so much as the sea. They have many fish farms and an industrial fishing fleet, supermarkets and Burger King. So your point again?
    1
  214. If only you could eat all of it you would almost have a good argument. But you don't and you don't. I do wonder why you bother replying when you so far have managed to get no where. Other than "believe me I speak the truth because I am there" you do not present any useful arguments for the pointless killing.
    1
  215. Don't waste my time fishboy. Unless you got something remarkable, like your whole lot of you got together and came up with something vaguely good, don't waste my time.
    1
  216. And your point?
    1
  217. Actually I have not said it is the truth. I have said there is evidence out there to back up what Marcelle has said. I also didn't say it had anything to do with whaling. In another thread where Marcelle made the same suggestion and I posted the same evidence that does seem to back that up, I did suggest the number of people on the Faroes may actually skew the data and that the comment was "off thread" when it came to whaling. So your point is?
    1
  218. Their trade balance is very positive from their trade in fish, farmed and caught. Their income per head is rather good too. Their supermarkets are well stocked and they seem to be doing absolutely fine without nibbling on a bit of whale every now and then. It is a global problem and Sea Shepherd fight it globally as well as a number of other organisations. My ancestors butchered their way to the biggest empire the world has ever seen. Modern generations learned from that and realised it was wrong.
    1
  219. It might. When I get time I might go look. The toothfish operation seemed quite ok to me and the ghost nets too. As I said before, I'm not a fan of all they do, but I do realise that some of the stuff they do is good work. I'm less interested in the general mud slinging that seems to surround Watson.
    1
  220. +Tony Dadon They have chased down illegal toothfish fishing vessels in the Antarctic and brought them to justice. They have removed miles and miles of illegal ghost nets left by poachers. More over they have enabled the court injunction by Australia against Japan which prevents them whaling in the southern ocean. I think it is fair to say they have made a difference. And they continue to. While not a supporter of all that they do I still do acknowledge that they are doing something.
    1
  221. +Mizz Tiger or not. Mmmm whale shavings. How many shavings per whale.
    1
  222. +HORLA While you have your broad brush out, what is your opinion of the Sea Shepherd campaign to stop illegal deep sea fishing and their 10,000 mile chase of one of the worlds most wanted illegal fishing ships? What about their efforts to remove the ghost nets and their campaign to reduce the pollution in the worlds oceans? Go on, tell them to "fuck off" and stop doing those things. Go on. I know you want to.
    1
  223. +Otta Otta but good luck with their fledgling oil industry. Oh and their industrial fishing fleet. Don't make me fetch the violin. Oh it must be so hard for them, I mean no poverty, massive subsidies from Denmark, their push to become an IT hub. But look at the wooden boats, they must be good honest people just eking out a living. Makes I laff.
    1
  224. +avion ellivi you said that already. Which figures are you disputing. it looks like those of NAMMCO but it is difficult to say.
    1
  225. +avion ellivi so are you suggesting NAMMCO are wrong then? If they get their figures from NGS and UICN get their figures from NAMMCO which figures are you disputing.
    1
  226. +avion ellivi really, go on then explain why they are deemed "Data Deficient" as to numbers? Who says they are classed as sustainable? Best documented on earth, but yet you can't say how many there are or have much information on their genetic makeup and social group system. So where was your quote from? You are making it up again.
    1
  227. +Otta Otta to be fair they also let the Faroese people speak. Some of those don't even have a cute smile.
    1
  228. +Terrence Vergauwen the hint is in the name "Sea Shepherd". Hundreds of conservation groups go out there to try and save the elephants but then the main problem is the amount of money offered by Chinese and Japanese clients for the tusks of the elephant and the horn of the Rhino. You offer enough money and those defending face a tide.
    1
  229. +Mizz Tiger do be so good as to point out where I have demonised anyone. You accused me of being a Nazi. You can't argue on facts because you lose every time so you seek to demonise me for pointing out that the figures show the islanders kill a lot more whales than they eat. They are butchering their way through biologically diverse families of whales so a few of them can eat a bit from time to time. If their sheep were as toxic, would they slaughter them as per usual? If they always shopped in one supermarket and the meat their was so toxic, would they not go to another? Misplaced pride is stopping them and people like yourself admit that this no longer has to carry on. Meanwhile the animals that they supposedly care about, are being killed for close to nothing. I don't need to demonise anyone. I deal with the lies and misleading "facts". Maybe their pride should allow them to be honest and say "we do it because we like to".
    1
  230. +Mizz Tiger no its not. The only enforcement going on is daft questionable laws. What is ridiculous is constantly being unable to defend this tradition. Or is it a sport. Tricky one as we know it's not about the food. Do you think cheese rolling is a tradition or a sport?
    1
  231. +Mizz Tiger no read my comment. 80,000 is 5000 more than 75,000 which is the bottom line for the 75,000 to 250,000 figure for the population. So if the population happened to be around 75k, which is possible, and the islanders take 678 whales (the estimated average used for the sustainability calculation by NAMMCO) the grind is unsustainable or close to unsustainable by the current population as calculated by conventional legacy population methods. Hope that clears that up for you.
    1
  232. +Mizz Tiger you also forgot to mention the that NAMMCO say the grind requires 50,000 to 80,000 whales in the population to sustain it. That's potentially 5000 more than the overall north east Atlantic population, depending on which end of the figures each value falls. Then of course, genetically the population might be in the low thousands. And all those figures are easily available on the NAMMCO website and are put together by scientists and experts. Just for giggles, for the grind to only take 0.001% of the population then they must take between 0.75 and 2.5 whales or 75 and 250. Since we know that to be untrue then your figures are wrong or NAMMCO are wrong. Where did you get your figures from?
    1
  233. +Mizz Tiger sure of your numbers this time? Is that 300,000 out of the 800,000 or 300,000 out of the 75,000 to 250,000 that qualify for being killed in the grind? You need to be clear. I have already shown you the 0.001 percentages to be wrong. When you know it's wrong, stop repeating it. You are intentionally being misleading.
    1
  234. Stopthegreed I totally agree.
    1
  235. +Fort Evenson You will find that is fish, mutton or lamb and the supermarket. Unless they live on a couple of grams of whale a day, which according to scientific surveys, they don't.
    1
  236. +Luis Diaz Ortiz any chance you like my logic? I have used maths to the point that Mizz Tiger doesn't even bother anymore. We discuss this subject because it is fairly important that the correct message gets out. It isn't a message of anger or of hate. It is a message that a single aspect of an island tradition is outdated and cruel for no real reason. Therefore it should really stop. The only people who can stop it are the Islanders. But if the message comes out that this is required etc. then people like yourself might believe it and the cruelty will continue to the detriment of the biodiversity of the pilot whale stock. It is your choice.
    1
  237. Mizz Tiger or not. I'll pop the figures up again so the stragglers can see.
    1
  238. +Luis Diaz Ortiz we just disagree and it is quite an emotive subject which has been quite well discussed. Some people are more emotional about it than others.
    1
  239. +Nina Nyggju odd how my comments disappear on this thread isn't it. Almost like people are scared of the truth. Well I posted the links a number of times so we will assume I'm right.
    1
  240. +Nina Nyggju what is your opinion on the new genetic research? Should it show the hunt to be unsustainable from the point of view of genetic variance and populations, would your opinion on the grind change?
    1
  241. Rupert McNaught Davis no I didn't, it is called making fun of you ;)  I also took the time to point something out to you. Let me know if you would like me to go over it again. Meanwhile I am sure you have loads of evidence to show how the Sea Shepherd crews are like Nazis. Feel free to share and see if you can find anything original.
    1
  242. +Rupert McNaught Davis I think you will find the SS preferred to use more violent methods, although the Nazi regime did change laws to help them isolate their perceived opponents. Now who do we know who changed laws in order to do that? I think it is unfair of you to draw parallels between the islanders and the Nazi regime.
    1
  243. +geishathor I don't think they have a "land" as such. I hope you lot travel better than your football team.
    1
  244. +Daniel A. laughter is important, otherwise some of the mad comments you see on here would bother people.
    1
  245. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen you missed the point. The Faroese government are not able to legislate on police matters. That would make police enforcement of the Whaling Act wrong. The police that carried out the enforcement were Danish and therefore answerable to their government and as such the Danish government would be answerable to the EU. It has not been tested yet, but you asked why it could be brought to court in the EU. There is your answer. The Scottish could well bring about legislation closing harbours to the Faroe fleet should they be further annoyed by what they would consider illegal action by the Faroese government. The islanders are not the only ones with a government who can make decisions. Wouldn't be nice and playing fair but then it is all hypothetical. You can't just make up laws and expect others not to do the same.
    1
  246. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen because the Faroese government does not have legislative right over police action which includes the person or belongings. Therefore anyone charged with violating the Faroe Whaling act cannot be arrested and tried in a Danish court. They have not broken any Danish laws and the Faroese legislation in this case would not apply to the Danish police. I believe Sea Shepherd have a case and may well plan to take this to the EU. They could force the Danish Navy to hand back illegally seized vessels. So when they come again this year, who is going to arrest EU citizens for entering a dependency of a EU member? I hope the volunteers are all Scottish. Then when Faroe boats enter Scottish harbours and are seized? In short, The Faroe government have gone over their remit and the Danish government have enforced it by mistake. I fancy Sea Shepherds chances in the EU courts don't you.
    1
  247. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen do take some time to point out where I described the Faroese as "bloodthirsty" or similar. I said you made them out as thugs and you did, repeating the threat. Feel free to tell me when the Sea Shepherd teams resorted to violence. Didn't see it in the film we are commenting on. In fact the shore leader describes the islanders as nice and welcoming. So the evidence stacks against your opinion. Do you only open your mouth to change feet?
    1
  248. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen and there you have it. The people on the beach. Threats to the safety of none violent protesters and activists. You brand those on the Faroes as thugs operating outside the law. Wasting whale meat controversially harvested because they were drunk. They kill more than they need and the figures support that. They do not need the whale meat for food and if they did it is close to too toxic to eat and the science supports that. Well hopefully the new genetic population differentiation will cause NAMMCO to declare the grind unsustainable. What will you say then to justify your "tradition". But then what would anyone, willing to threaten violence, care about genetic diversity and conservation. You do know about this right.
    1
  249. Eivind Lómstein Petersen more to the point you openly admit that islanders wasted a whole load of whale meat due to them getting wasted. Must be really important this whale meat. Can't live without it. Respect the whales they do. What a hypocrite to say "it is all eaten" and then admit that "it is all eaten unless the islanders fancy a drink". And more of a hypocrite to talk about it being culture etc. Rubbish.  More than just Sea Shepherd contend that those dolphins could have been saved. They are not the only organisations on the islands that are against the grind and killing whales in general.
    1
  250. Eivind Lómstein Petersen Got the links now as you seem able to put them in but not to actually see them. So when is the fat old girl going to come up with some more laws for the police to ignore? Scotland are furious about Denmark breaking EU law in pursuit of Sea Shepherd. Cruise lines are stopping their visits due to the crude, ill thought out laws, that could mean passengers would be breaking the law if they spot a whale (which they all like to do and not for the idea of sport). The law about disrupting a grind was used when a grind was not taking place to arrest innocent activists for disrupting the none existent grind which was not taking place miles away. Keep letting that daft old fat lass make laws, soon the Faroe boats will have no where to dock but home. Even the Shetlands cut off ties with the islands. Beware who you hack off as the UK is your largest trading partner. Ask nicely and we might throw in a decent browser for you and some classes on how to use it.
    1
  251. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen then you can't see them as many others certainly have. Try using a different browser.
    1
  252. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen So did you manage to find those links? So lets get this straight, due to the populace being intoxicated, a whole load of whales were killed for no reason.
    1
  253. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen stop being obstructive and go back and look at the comment before that. Or do you need me to just put all the links as a single comment to help you out. You are not the first to feign stupidity to avoid the obvious.
    1
  254. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen If you can't defend them they are worthless. :) Catch you later.
    1
  255. jozsefkacsa no need for the caps lock issue. I can read fine.
    1
  256. jozsefkacsa I don't believe I said killing wild animals is illegal. I have never said the grind is illegal. I have not forgotten. Interesting insight though if not quite covering my point.
    1
  257. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen as a none smoker, yeah I would if you had to kill wild animals to get your smokes. I'll put up my info tomorrow and we can discuss it.
    1
  258. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen how much whale do you eat each day would you reckon? Thankfully the Faroese keep really good records so we know how much is harvested. We know what the recommended daily intake is. So while I appreciate you have a unique view on this that I haven't, what I can do is present that information (tomorrow now when I boot my computer) and ask you to explain why it doesn't add up. Maybe I overlooked something or there is something I don't know about I need to take into account.
    1
  259. +Eivind Lómstein Petersen I don't judge, I can point out that the amount of whale meat harvested is far more than could be eaten year on year, should those eating it stick to the guidelines. It makes a mockery of the excuse of it being for food. I'm not demonising anyone, I find my evidence myself by reading all sides of the issue. There is no need for the grind and I hope the Faroe islanders find better, less destructive ways to celebrate their heritage. As I mentioned, this is not one way traffic. I have been called a Nazi by grind supporters among other things. Despite not being a Sea Shepherd supporter, grind supporters feel the need to accuse me of being one. Neither side is covering themselves in glory, and yet no one wants to see evidence or admit they might be wrong.
    1
  260. jozsefkacsa I have not tried to dictate to anyone. I have made many good points as to why the Faroese should consider stopping an outdated tradition. I'm more concerned about the damage to a population rather than a species.
    1
  261. Abella Seksa oh no, look what I found. Maybe I don't need Google to do my research for me. Maybe I don't just read the first article that appears to suit my claim. You need to try much harder, and maybe try not to rattle my cage. It only leads to you looking foolish. And I quote "Displaying intelligence equal to that of the bottlenose dolphin, the pilot whale is easily trained" and here is your link. http://acsonline.org/fact-sheets/pilot-whale/ . Just so you know a link allows others to read the article you are referring to on the internet. You might want to try a few.
    1
  262. +Abella Seksa no he isn't but if you insist, prove it. :)
    1
  263. +DRajtify 30% is wrong, therefore the 70% must also be wrong. They hunt 0.1% of the population a year, wrong again. Do you know what the population is estimated as being? It is an exception and there is a scientific paper that backs that up. DDT wasn't mentioned so that is a bit left field. The rest of the contamination is increasing year on year and is thought to be the cause of whales dying themselves. The recommendations are stronger than that and include women, men and children. I don't need to search Wikipedia as I have already got links that take me direct to the various studies including presentation slide sets from the Faroese scientists responsible for the majority of the research in this area. Would you like some of those links?
    1
  264. +DRajtify cheers, done my research and those on the video would be an exception to the normal. You clearly here the guy on the video talk about how little they should eat. The woman actually says that it is no longer food. Maybe you missed that. Want to trade research as I'm game. Let's play "see if you can find a angle I haven't already got covered" and we can see who is the fool.
    1
  265. Abella Seksa since its not about food. Few islanders eat whale meat or blubber. Those that do do not enough to justify the amount of whales they kill. Without the whale meat they do absolutely fine.
    1
  266. +DRajtify not sure if wanting to avoid needless whale killing and cleaning up the ocean constitutes totalitarianism.
    1
  267. +Wiener Jim Indeed I believe it is the only option on board their ships etc.
    1
  268. +john papple I am sure that if they could read they would want to keep their books, although in this case I am sure the whales would like to keep their blood in them and prevent the sea becoming red.
    1
  269. +cheng chua boo they are vegans. This is not food for the Faroes.
    1
  270. +ottatiotta Do describe "non endangered" to me. Lets trade estimates and see who wins.
    1
  271. +Nina Nyggju or not.
    1
  272. Nina Nyggju I thought you quoted a link from a book about whales and whaling in Japan the other day. I would suggest you are better informed about Japanese whaling than you are about Faroese whaling.
    1
  273. +Nina Nyggju So the guys killing it say it is sustainable. How useful. The Danish authorities, who have nothing to do with this, say this is sustainable? Do post the link. The scientists and NAMMCO say it might be sustainable but their numbers point to it being a very close call. Unless of course you take into account the genetic data which shows a pilot whale population to be in the low thousands.At this point the whole thread ends as we already know you cannot defend the sustainability of this tradition. That is what it is and nothing else.
    1
  274. +Super Nova I could explain irony to you if you like. No you can't change everyone's mind. Some like yourself can never accept they are wrong. But others, they will see we are just pointing out the obvious and may change their mind. Either way, they should be honest about it and not try and make up excuses to do it and say "yeah we do it because we like to".
    1
  275. +Super Nova you need to start thinking before you comment.
    1
  276. +Super Nova it doesn't change the fact the Faroes have a huge industrial fishing fleet that I am not criticising. So how does that make me a hypocrite? The needless destruction of mammals against the fishing industry. At least we can eat the fish.
    1
  277. Super Nova My country is lucky that we have such great trading with the Faroes where they farm salmon. Back fire much? 
    1
  278. +Super Nova It was an example of traditions that do not stand the test of modern times when we have learned a lot more about it. You need me to point out the difference between breeding animals for food and hunting wild animals? These islanders have modern supermarkets and a modern lifestyle. They do not need this toxic meat so why kill these whales? I don't have to eat whale to understand the waste.
    1
  279. Super Nova Are you sure you know what my "standard" is? Your words sound like some sort of camp threat. This isn't an Enid Blyton novel. It isn't a matter of imposing views as educating and pointing out that this is no longer something they have to do or need to do. It is just for the sake of a tradition. Now my country fought wars to abolish slavery and lost many lives to change that tradition, I'm not sure this one will be as difficult. 
    1
  280. +Super Nova not quite. They are trying to save the whales and change ingrained ideas that are out of date.
    1
  281. The population of the Faroe Isles is approximately 50,000. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fo.html According to the number from the Grind logs we can work out the approximate average amount of blubber and meat mass harvested per whale in a typical Grind. So in 2013 a relatively large number of whales were killed (always good for an average) and 1104 whales gave approximately 8302 skinns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_the_Faroe_Islands#Catches This equates to a total mass of meat and blubber of around 597,744KG, divide that by the number of whales and each one gives 541.4KG. So its reasonable to say that 2013 yielded 0.54 tonnes of meat and blubber per whale on average. The general medical advice is that a maximum of 3.5g of pilot whale meat can be safely eaten per day for an adult of 70KG. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417701/ So if all 50,000 people are adults of 70KG they would need 170KG of pilot whale meat a day to be eating the maximum allowed. That equates to 63875KG of whale meat per year. That is 63.875 tonnes of meat per year to feed 50000 adults. This would allow a single meal per month, as advised, of just over 100g of meat and blubber. This years catch is smaller than 1104 whales. So how many whales do we need to feed the Faroe Isles. Each whale can be considered on average to supply between 0.5 and 0.52 tonnes of meat and blubber. Therefore 127 Pilot whales would suffice. For this to fulfil 30% of the dietary meat requirements of the Isles per year it would mean that they would need 212917KG of meat per year. This equates to around 12g of meat per person per day if all 50000 are adults. I just weighed a chicken drumstick at 60g. So either each of the 50,000 islanders live on less meat than a chicken drumstick each day and are following medical advice, or they are not following medical advice and must be eating (in 2013 at least) 32.8g of pilot whale meat a day. That is close to 10 times the safe limit. But according to the following source http://www.diebucht.ch/tl_files/pdf/Pal%20Weihe.pdf only 17% of Faroe Islanders eat pilot whale meat more than once a month and only 47% eat it rarely. So unless a fairly considerable number (8500 would be an approximate 17%) are eating the best part of 200g of whale meat a day, there is no way the whole of the meat or even a majority of it is consumed. Also bare in mind that the meat is less contaminated than the blubber and therefore even less should be eaten. As the figured supplied are for a combination of meat and blubber combined I have favoured the pro-grind opinion by treating the blubber as meat for the purposes of mass. Also not all of the 50,000 strong population are adults of 70KG and this again favours the pro-grind argument as I have assumed all 50,000 to be adults and at least 70KG.
    1
  282. No they farm fish. Some arable yes but mainly fish. Sorry I didn't make that clear. they get a lot of vegetables from imported foods.
    1
  283. Keep your open and have a good look at the information at hand. They do not rely on the meat from these whales. They have a modern fishing fleet and farming available to them and modern supermarkets. Their living standards are above any other in Europe thanks to their various fishing and fish farming and the Danish Government. Yes whales die but not in entire pods when there is no clear evidence that such a number of islanders consume this food source...and trust me I can give you the figures. I don't care about emotional accounts or peoples traditions. When something is obviously rubbish it is easy to research and prove to be just that. Those few whales? their method of hunting drags in whole pods of whales. Even their friends at NAMMCO describe a pod as being a genetically diverse population. Would you like the figures?
    1
  284. A couple of issues with this comment. Both the Sea Shepherd and the Faroes are actively involved in campaigning for less pollution. So why are they on opposite sides? Well it is not an insignificant number of pilot whales being killed. In fact the latest research from a Faroes supporting organisation now suggest genetically distinct populations of pilot whales are around the number in a pod. This hunting method works by targeting a whole pod and killing it. Having an open mind is great and important. I would suggest additional reading. I got a load of useful links, most of them come from the Faroes themselves.
    1
  285. +To Snak You seem to have managed to get farming mixed up with hunting. In the case of hunting, it is very unusual for a pregnant female to be targeted. That is why most hunting has a season in order to avoid this.
    1
  286. +richa16x then stop banging on about it. You think you are right and I disagree. Strange that those living in the third world, drinking out of streams, lacking modern medicine, have very short life expectancies. They die of horrific diseases. You better go tell them how strong they are and how much better off they are. Think of all that money we waste on aid every year when we should be looking to be eating more wild animals and drinking more mountain spring water. Sustainable. An interesting thought. Who says it is sustainable? Only the hunters. Everyone else says it might be or that they don't know. Animal friendly. Only the Faroese say this and present very little evidence to suggest it is. No one can say if it is better or worse than industrial slaughter. No one can supply any evidence. Providing for yourself and your country? If everyone in the Faroes was an adult male and ate the full allowance every day, or in a month, they would need around 130 whales. So why kill on average 600-700? So the only thing for you to defend is that last point. So explain the waste of around 500 whales a year.
    1
  287. +richa16x you seem to be clairvoyant. They immunise children and adults regularly in modern society. Are you advocating against immunisation? They immunise animals, are you against that? I know what is in what I eat. Maybe you should be a bit more picky about your food. The whole link you are suggesting between modern food and strength is unfounded and you provide little evidence to back it up.
    1
  288. richa16x most of the parasites in question cannot be seen, such as flukes and worms. What evidence do you have to support your claim that farmed meat makes your body weaker? I know what you are trying to say, but I would rather you make it clear. We pretty much eat a lot less chemicals these days as food regulations are tighter than ever. I reckon all those Olympic athletes must be missing a trick here. All they have to do is eat whales and deer and they will suddenly be  stronger. Sheep are indeed biological life forms and are no less free than the ones I can see from my window. Less assumption and more consideration.
    1
  289. richa16x deer meat can have parasites and other infections. The vast majority of farmed animals are treated to prevent those parasites and, in my country at least, there regulations as to how and when an animal can be medicated in order to ensure that any such medicines are always below safe limits. Normal farmed red meat is many times safer  for human consumption than whale meat with a recommended daily intake of around 70g.  Eating wild animals does not make your body strong. The Faroese are part of the supply of the mass meat industry. They have a thriving industrial fishing fleet and fish farming.
    1
  290. richa16x It is not a small amount of toxins otherwise the recommendation of only 3.5g of the meat or blubber a day would not be in place would it. Yes some other big fish have high toxin levels but NAMMCO and others say it is at its highest in marine mammals like the Pilot Whale.  Like deer except for the small issue of numbers. Most deer hunters hunt a small amount of deer. Even those they say can be dangerous to eat. This might be why most people rely on farming for food, just like the Faroese. You are not going to grow as big as those guys do on 3.5g of meat a day.
    1
  291. +richa16x And who have I told they can't do something? The meat and blubber contain the toxins. You are not an abusive person but then use the same sentence to call me a moron (yes that is spelt correctly). I am sure people felt the same about slavery. When have I insulted a culture? The one small detail? Which one I have loads on this.
    1
  292. +richa16x you are quite an angry person. Maybe being a lazy greedy pig (your words not mine) does that to someone. Talking of lazy, some of us deal with the whole "where does my meat come from" with our children, we know enough farmers and spend enough time on farms and around butchers explaining it to them for them to get it. I feel it is very important children do understand. So if those you know or you yourself are too lazy to do a bit of parenting then that is nothing to do with me or this discussion. Right a nice link for you, it is rather long but will sort out my point for you in some respects. I only just found this one so feel privileged: http://chriskresser.com/the-truth-about-toxic-mercury-in-fish/ The good doctor explains the difference between fish and a marine mammal. A tuna is a fish. Now on to burgers. As toxic as pilot whale? Errr no, not really. Bad for you, yes quite likely. Why? Well that is fairly easy to work out, this article helps along with the next: http://www.everydayhealth.com/news/unhealthy-things-lurking-in-your-burger/ http://www.shortlist.com/food-drink/is-this-burger-going-to-kill-you So a lot depends on the quality of your burger and the amount of red meat you are taking in and the spread of food stuffs. At no point are they discussing antibiotics and other such chemicals. That is because they have a greater than basic knowledge of biology and know that antibiotics and most chemicals such as steroids are closely monitored and by the time any meat is used for human consumption, at worst, there are only trace amounts left. So fish are not as toxic as pilot whale meat. Burgers are not as bad for you as toxic whale meat (27 times less). Rather than get angry and start being abusive, try reading round the subject on all sides and even on subjects related. Sometimes what you find will change your mind.
    1
  293. +richa16x apart from the inaccuracies about the tiny, requires medical advice, amounts of, is seen as the cause of a number of problems, toxic chemicals. The islanders have no issue with exporting a lot of fish from their industrial fishing outfit. Doesn't seem to bother them to have well stocked supermarkets and import from other countries. Others disagree with the timings around the herding and killing. Have a read of your own last comment, "most humane way", of "dragging it closer". How does that sound humane? While I don't doubt some eat a steak here or there, we are talking of tens of tons of whale meat and blubber. And I would argue intensive fishing and fish farming pollute the ocean as much as the cargo ships that are needed to supply the island. Either way it doesn't justify threatening the genetic survival of a marine mammal just so a few people among an island population can indulge every now and again.
    1
  294. Eric Bower but if you don't need to hunt for food, what then? If the islanders did need it and stuck the the medical guidance then they are still overkilling. It would be much better to have a festival to replace this outdated tradition and be happy with their fishing, fish farming and livestock. The meat is loaded with toxins so why keep killing for it? I don't buy the idea it is so delicious that people risk their health for it. I understand that people are so upset by Sea Shepherd tactics that they might eat it to make some daft stand. Sometimes pride is a good thing, but in this case it is the whales paying for that pride.
    1
  295. +richa16x I prefer properly farmed meat to meat that is close to inedible. I know my local farmers and they care for their animals very well. The abattoirs are run according to the laws which prohibit animal cruelty and deal with offenders. I mean we could pretend that there are not those who break the law, but I don't. That would be like spreading inaccurate claims about the amount of time a grind takes. How many seconds? Is that after the dragging up the beach or does it include that and the waiting in the shallows? If the meat were eaten (even most of it) then it would be a closer thing, but it isn't as it is toxic. Lets say the Burger King there started offering free burgers but they contained a load of toxic compounds, do you think they would queue to get their free burger? I prefer my meat farmed with care. I prefer to be able to eat it without having to eat it in tiny slices or risk my health. I prefer it killed and butchered according to strict rules not chased around for hours and then killed when some guy gets round to it. Its not an essential part of the islanders diet anymore and it is barely food.
    1
  296. +Nina Nyggju the word you seek is "farmers". They farm animals for food. They don't scare the crap out of them with boats and then slaughter them all. They don't chase wild animals they can't safely eat and indiscriminately kill them in the quest to save a few coins.
    1
  297. +avion ellivi You have misunderstood the point made. You should re-read the comment by shrew76. So the Faroese now farm whales. When did this start?
    1
  298. +Abella Seksa is American and hasn't a leg to stand on. I reckon in the US the animals fare a lot better than certain civilians and a lot worse than in the UK. Commending those for an unsustainable hunt in the name of tradition sounds like the NRA saying "guns don't kill people". Guess I know, but, maybe a Palin follower.
    1
  299. Jóhann Heðinsson No worries. (Sorry been away) You can find it in this document:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417701/
    1
  300. +ChinaLake100 yes I remembered so I went on the NAMMCO website and checked. The latest figures they have put the population, probably, between 75,000 and 250,000 for those in the north west Atlantic. Globally the number of pilot whales is estimated near the 800,000 mark, I can't remember the actual figure but then it bears no relation to the grind so I would have just browsed past it. I don't believe everything that I hear on a video, I go and check. Now maybe you can tell me why the 800,000 figure is not important when considering the grind.
    1
  301. +avion ellivi so why comment on it. Just ignore it.
    1
  302. +avion ellivi I'm sure they will publish it in time. Until then and probably after they will still be massively inaccurate. I'm not doubting them or any other scientists. Even they admit to not really knowing what the numbers are.
    1
  303. +avion ellivi Sustainability is based on knowledge of population numbers. Shame no one has any good numbers for Pilot Whales. So the sustainability argument holds. There is no evidence against industrialised farming compared to drive hunting.
    1
  304. +mack man Pig welfare in the UK is improving no end thanks to outdated methods being outlawed and new and improved methods being developed, especially for breeding females with young. Added to this UK chicken welfare is improving thanks to the addition of new elements into the chickens lives and the increasing free range, out of doors methods of farming them. There is a chicken farm about 3 miles from me and they are always out during the day roaming a very large area. They taste great and their eggs are pretty damn fine. No criticism mate just thought I would support your comments to show that as usual, in Europe, the UK is leading the way in improved farming methods and animal welfare. Other good news is that the grind has managed to improve the speedboats and the type of knife and hook they use. Not bad in 500 years. Crap when compared to farming evolution in the last 10. And they didn't improve the speedboats but merely purchased them.
    1
  305. +Otta Otta maybe if I have nothing better to do this evening. Does it discuss the difference between farming and whaling?
    1
  306. +Otta Otta see I told you that you didn't understand.
    1
  307. Otta Otta rubbish and you know it. You have no idea if pilot whales have better lives than farmed animals, there are too many unknowns and variables such as the type of farm and where. Definition of free range for you as you seem to be having trouble with it:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_range   Not that it matters as we are not talking about farmed animals but whales. 
    1
  308. +Otta Otta it wouldn't matter if it did and it doesn't matter if I support that kind of farming or not. This is not a thread about farming. It is a thread about a documentary which has a subject of Faroese Whaling. It would be worth pointing out that a lot of farm animals do not have a natural environment due to them being very different from the originally domesticated animals. It may even be considered that their natural environment is on a farm.
    1
  309. +Otta Otta you have no idea about my views on farming. Maybe that is down to this thread not being about farming. You also have no knowledge of what the farming is like where I live as you don't know where I live. So how can you offer opinions on how bad it is? It might be hypocritical of me to say my countries farming practices are better than those in the Faroes, but I haven't. The whaling in the Faroe Islands however is cruel and unnecessary. I have not commented on my opinions of anything else to do with the Faroes or the people who live there. So rather than trying to mislead or distract, deal with the matter at hand. Just in case you are still unable to grasp why you are wrong, here are a couple of definitions for you: Farming - the activity or business of growing crops and raising livestock. Whaling - the practice or industry of hunting and killing whales for their oil, meat, or whalebone.
    1
  310. +Otta Otta If we were comparing the relative cruelty of some farming methods against other farming methods and we were discussing it on a thread related to farming, then maybe I might be hypocritical to be criticising your farming methods. But this is a thread about whaling in the Faroe Islands. My country doesn't whale and I don't eat whale. In fact I don't eat much in the way of hunted wild meat, but that which I do eat is shot by a hunter with a rifle. Now, personally, if you want to do a documentary about the poor farming practices in various countries I will happily contribute. Otherwise, how am I being hypocritical by suggesting the grind is unnecessary and cruel. Compared to my hunter and his rifle dispatching the odd animal now and again, it is cruel and unnecessary. I am not telling anyone not to do anything, I am just pointing out it is cruel and unnecessary and leaving it to them to decide what to do. If they don't like it then they can try and change my mind with some sort of proof, which is exactly what I am trying to do. Just seems there isn't anyone pro-grind who has any proof to challenge my point of view. I wonder why that is.
    1
  311. +Otta Otta so you don't consider there to be a difference between farmed animals and wild animals. So you are saying the world should stop farming animals. Yet you admitted earlier that not all farms fit that description. Make your mind up.
    1
  312. +Otta Otta Why is it hypocritical? Go ahead explain your point. Even though you have contradicted yourself from earlier, explain why farming and farming methods constitute hypocrisy when discussing the hunting of wild animals. After that, supposing for a minute you manage to make a half decent crack at it, we can discuss the difference between hunting for food and hunting for tradition. I have lots of examples and links handy so you better be able to back your point of view with something better than just your word. And again the meat is not industrialised, it is the methods and process. How did you guys ever outwit a whale?
    1
  313. +Otta Otta so essentially you are saying that all farm animals, anywhere in the world, under any circumstances, are cramped, stressed and tortured? This would include the normal day to day sheep farming in the Faroes? So because of this, no one can suggest the grind is cruel as we freely support farming. Therefore only those who subsistence hunt and gather wild vegetables would qualify to say the grind is cruel, although they themselves would be hunters of wild animals and therefore hypocrites. An interesting point of view you offer there. The methods of farming you are referring to would be "industrialised" not the animals. Farming was one of the biggest advances in human history and not all farms or farming methods are the same, yet you would have us believe that all farms and methods fit into your narrow view of farming as it is convenient to deflect criticism of the grind. Shame you are wrong and sorry but we do dare and we are right. Farmed animals are specifically farmed for food or other products and are raised to certain standards enforced by law in order to be considered food. The standards require the minimising of harm and stress to the animals in question at all stages of their lives. At no point are they wild animals running free (unless you count cows in India, but they are not for food). Now I'm not an expert (although I do know some) but those sheep outside my window do not appear stressed. They do however look a bit hacked off at the persistent rain and I have been informed that can happen with livestock.
    1
  314. +Otta Otta not one which has been bred, reared and looked after? Surely it must be better to chase an animal packed with toxins round the sea for a bit, then drag it from the sea with a hook and wait for some guy with a lance to pop along and dispatch it. Then, if you are not hammered from all night drinking, you can stroll down to pick up some barely edible whale meat. After all modern farming cannot compare with those kinds production systems. Don't talk such rubbish, red farmed meat is many times better for you than whale meat and a damn sight more sustainable. There are always odd exceptions to any rule, but that does not change the reality of the majority.
    1
  315. Not there. But yes they are modern and trying to build an IT business.
    1
  316. You are kind of missing the distinction between farming and hunting.
    1
  317. +真田優 the racism? So you couldn't be arsed to check out what that means? prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior You started it so I guess you are the racist. You have given examples about religious differences and accused me of racism, on what count? Yeah sorry I watched a bit more TV and so made you wait. Narrow minded idiots deserve to wait. You have trouble with this I am fairly sure I can get it translated for you by my Japanese friends.
    1
  318. +真田優 while I watch this TV program you go away and check the definitions for some of the rubbish you are coming out with. Then when I've finished I'll pop back and help you if you still have no idea what you are talking about. Especially try checking the word racist, terrorist and cheat. You might want to check lying and lies while you are at it.
    1
  319. +真田優 you should reflect on the rubbish you keep trolling out. Have you got anything useful to say about the Faroese whaling and the grind or are you hoping that by being insulting will make you look less like a noisy child. I love the advice by the way. You say I am lying, really about what?
    1
  320. +真田優 I mean just look at Japanese game shows, more like torture than games. Don't be going for the high ground as I'm not sure you have that map. Liberal, yeah right. Idiot, yeah.
    1
  321. +真田優 can we all get some of your reality. I don't know what you have been drinking, but you clearly are a right loony. Hands up everyone living in a country that has an international court ruling against it to do with whaling. Oh that would be Japan then. So you are lying about complying with international law. If all you got is calling names and yelling terrorist at everyone who has different views it shows you to be of little worth along with the hot air you are venting. And if you are going to start going in the histories of others you make assumptions on religion, I'm not being funny but Japan doesn't have the greatest human rights record.
    1
  322. +真田優 well at least you make me laugh. I find you highly amusing because I guess you think I care. Really I am having some fun at your expense and I am sorry but sometimes one has to let ones hair down on a Friday night. How many moons are there in your universe? You and your rogue nation you. ;)
    1
  323. 真田優 I am guessing "rogue" translates better for you. Maybe if this were about Japanese whaling I would care what you thought. Go find a thread about Japanese whaling and have some fun.
    1
  324. +真田優 Oooo check you. Yes I know but they still broke international law by taking a heavy fuel oil tanker into the southern ocean. Either way they break laws and as you say they have a ruling against them from the international court. Either way it's nothing to do with the grind. So take your lies elsewhere. Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries.
    1
  325. +真田優 Oooo check you. Yes I know but they still broke international law by taking a heavy fuel oil tanker into the southern ocean. Either way they break laws and as you say they have a ruling against them from the international court. Either way it's nothing to do with the grind. So take your lies elsewhere. Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries.
    1
  326. +Ade Larsen ROFL. Nothing to say? Like I said before, bless. Back under the bridge for you.
    1
  327. Ade Larsen Excellent do share some of the results with us. Odd that this facility exists. There has been no coverage of this facility in the media which is surprises me as reality doesn't always require something to exist before it is used by the pro-grind supporters. Are you sure your facility exists or is it as dubious as the rest of the claims by the pro-grind supporters, after all your posts do not show you to be someone who should be believed. Although if you can tell us about this testing facility and disprove the entire scientific community, I will personally help you compose the email to the medical officer explaining that his science is flawed. I am sure they will save you the blow hole if nothing else.
    1
  328. +Ade Larsen lol, are you the scientists test subject?
    1
  329. +asbjørn poulsen really? So you know what I eat then? The grind supporters admit people eat whale on the islands so I have something to base my comments on. I do not believe I have said what I eat or drink. Not entirely sure I have said where about I live. You can guess the country easy enough but you are guessing at where. Like so many of your previous posts you are lacking substance to your evidence and a good deal of credibility. I am sure you would like to put everyone who disagrees with your barbaric sport into a nice box you can label. Good luck, you are going to need it.
    1
  330. +asbjørn poulsen by all means harvest your food. But you can hardly eat the whales so why do it? We know it isn't for food. And yeah the killing equipment has been slightly updated to make the killing stroke somewhat quicker but it is hardly humane to chase them, drag them and eventually kill them. Then we have been through all of this and you ran out of excuses. Enjoy your sport while you can, but don't try and justify it. Sooner or later it will stop. Meanwhile have fun with the international reputation the islands are getting. I will lobby my MP to reduce the amount of trade my country does with the islands.
    1
  331. asbjørn poulsen yep some people never want to move forward or look past what they want. Lets hope NAMMCO and the authorities take it out of your hands.
    1
  332. +asbjørn poulsen apparently it's now just you and Greenland hunting pilot whales, and they kill a lot less. So who would you like to point the finger of blame at now in order to try and distract attention. Whose fault would you like it to be this time? What do you know about what you need as it seems to be in stark contrast to the various surveys and evidence? One idiot saying we need this or that whether they live in one place or another is still just an idiot. If I am wrong dispute my figures and evidence with something tangible. You talk about farming in other countries and go on about animals in cages etc. What gives you the right to talk about that unless we have the right to talk about what it is you do? Oh we wouldn't know because we don't live there. How do you know? You don't live here. You don't live in the US. You don't live in France, or Spain, or Africa. Yet you see the films and the documentaries and say "Hey look, you can't criticise us because this is what you do". But we see the films the documentaries, some of us read extensively and create evidence you don't seem able to dispute, but you say "How can you know, you don't live here". I answered your concerns on farming in my country and you seem unwilling to fight that corner as you know I was right. I raised my concerns on your whale mass culling, you fought that and lost on evidence. Now you want to base your defence on how wrong others are too? Do yourself a favour and be honest and say you do it because you like it so we can end this embarrassing discourse. It is becoming more one sided than a grind.
    1
  333. +asbjørn poulsen are you accusing me of hiding? At least that is more honest. No daft figures or claims, just we want to kill whales and so we will. In that you are correct unless something changes. Doesn't make it any better and will continue to cause people to complain about it. Personally I can hope that by stripping away false facts and reasons, some islanders might realise that they don't need to do it.
    1
  334. +asbjørn poulsen Calling for proof is great but I have a reputation for providing it. Are you that desperate to justify your tradition despite everything stacking against you? You don't have a good reason, you can't put in a decent effort at disputing my figures or evidence. Every time you just try a poor attempt at questioning my claims/evidence. Then next thing you know it is back to the Sea Shepherd stuff, despite me hardly ever referring to Sea Shepherd. It is getting a bit pitiful. I don't feel sorry for the islanders I deal with as they do like to use their 14 point script and really climb into the anti-grind supporters. The 14 point script really sucks if anyone spends a bit of time reading.
    1
  335. +asbjørn poulsen Don't flatter yourselves. While I don't follow much of the Sea Shepherd campaigns, I do know, they spend a lot of their time elsewhere. The Faroes are just one such campaign, but I guess the islanders feel like they are after them. Maybe if you checked out what your "nemesis" is up to, you might have a better idea of reality. So your figures are wrong by your own admission and the best you have is to point out "Hey look there goes another bad man". Bit weak don't you think. I'm up for a bit more of this if you like, but you are running out of space to wiggle.
    1
  336. +asbjørn poulsen Honestly, how do you lot catch whales?
    1
  337. +asbjørn poulsen 0.2% of 800,000 is 1600. Less whale more school mate.
    1
  338. +asbjørn poulsen what you kill 1600 whales a year? So in 2007 the number could have been between 75,682 and 216,812. In order to make the grind sustainable it was reckoned between 50,000 to 80,000 pilot whales are required for an average grind of 678 whales a year. So if the figures state that 75,682 might be the figure for pilot whales around the Faroes, and up to 80,000 might be needed to make the grind sustainable, I believe I have every right to suggest that the grind might be unsustainable. Those are the figures, got an issue with them feel free to take it up with NAMMCO. It certainly isn't as cut and dried as as most supporters make out. Although NAMMCO do point out that their figures are estimates and their figures are not that accurate. But as grind supporters like to use those figures it makes them fair game for me. That's not being brainwashed, that is checking the figures and being able to use a calculator before making absurd claims. We did other stupid stuff for thousands of years (killing "witches", slavery, conquest etc.) and longevity is no basis to justify anything. Just because you have always done it does not mean it is not incredibly stupid in the modern day. It is called progress.
    1
  339. Yes thanks. And that data is significantly newer than any figures on numbers. The estimates are so inaccurate that the confidence range is massive. At worst it makes the grind unsustainable. They hardly help your cause.
    1
  340. +asbjørn poulsen yeah in 1989. And that is an estimate. Got anything on the genetic research yet? Errr let me guess. No.
    1
  341. What are your thoughts on the genetic research by NAMMCO which may prove a genetic population is in the low thousands.
    1
  342. +asbjørn poulsen not sure that addresses the issue. I didn't question the various regulations. You questioned slaughterhouses.
    1
  343. +asbjørn poulsen seen it and that incident was dealt with by the authorities. All slaughterhouses are required to comply with regulations or face action. This one didn't and as such was deslt with.
    1
  344. +asbjørn poulsen so you want less tourists. The whales do not feel any pain. There has been a misunderstanding between Sea Shepherd and a rowing competition and the movie doesn't show any aggression. OK I can't comment on whether the rest of the Faroes share your view on less tourists. Seems odd though and an unusual defence for the grind to be sure. Most slaughter houses are very heavily regulated and any that throw and kick animals are shut down. They do use electricity to stun the animals before killing them so they do not feel pain during the slaughter. The average time to death TTD for the whales is in minutes after the hook is inserted and the killing of the whole pod can take over an hour. These whales sit in the blood of their families and they do know family and can communicate, waiting to be killed. Licensed or not the guys with the lances need time to administer the killing blow. I would have to disagree with you on this.I can't think of a more brutal way for them to leave this world. I can't comment on the whole rowing competition thing as I have not seen any details on this. It is possible someone waved a knife and I suppose that could be considered aggressive. Do you dispute the man swearing at the Sea Shepherd crew in the video? Do you dispute that they were described as the enemy and jeered when arrested?
    1
  345. +asbjørn poulsen I certainly do not condone any of the online messages that are abusive or incite violence. But it is not one way traffic. One grind supporter used the term Nazi to describe Sea Shepherd supporters in a recent thread. The only person hurling abuse in the video is a Faroe Islander. They described the Sea Shepherd supporters as "the enemy" and jeered at them when they were arrested. The leader of the land crew actually describes the Faroe Islanders as nice and generous (obviously while they are not mid grind). One was disturbed by the change in the islanders during the grind. Not one of the Sea Shepherd crew in the documentary says anything nasty about the islanders. Unfortunately once things move to the internet you deal with the darker side of some peoples personalities and you get the sort of drivel and hate speech you mentioned. The islanders do not "need" these whales to survive or even to prevent poverty or hunger. I know it and you know it. I don't care about the various claims and counter claims, if those whales stopped coming what would happen? Nothing much, the islanders would commemorate this part of their history in another less barbaric way. They could drop these daft laws which are causing cruise lines and some tourists to stay away. Think how many tourists would come if there were whale watching cruises.
    1
  346. +asbjørn poulsen Oddly Sea Shepherd campaign for less pollution in the oceans and are actively removing ghost nets from the oceans to prevent fish getting tangled up in those nets. I honestly think that once you guys get over your mutual hatred for each other, you actually share a lot.
    1
  347. Abella Seksa you are wrong, the Islanders who hunt it claim they eat it all. The figures would suggest otherwise and it is contradicted by other groups. I don't need to prove it. You have nothing to back up your claim and as such mine is just as good without me having to bother to support it.
    1
  348. Abella Seksa so you don't have a link then? So you can make a random claim without any basis or evidence and when I say it is inaccurate you say that I have to back up my claims with evidence? In that case, the Faroe Islanders do not eat all of the whale meat from the whales they kill. That is my claim. If you want to question it you better have evidence.
    1
  349. http://www.miklagardur.fo/
    1
  350. +Nina Nyggju of course to accept that I am correct would undermine the idea that the grind is sustainable, but your silence would suggest you can see that already. You have won the first argument in the pro-grind history with me and you don't acknowledge it? Can't think why.
    1
  351. +Nina Nyggju and I said that you were correct. What problem do you have with that? I gave you their actual status, which is "data deficient". Any issues with that?
    1
  352. Nina Nyggju You are correct. Pilot whales are listed as "data deficient". In other words not enough is known about population figures for them to be determined as requiring protection. Strictly speaking the Atlantic White Sided Dolphin and the Rissos Dolphin are not on the endangered list either. They are on the protected list from ASCOBANS (along with the Long Finned Pilot Whale). Oddly while doing your research for you it has shown Denmark to have acted adversely to the treaty they signed up to. It is applicable to any member state "that exercises jurisdiction over any part of the range of a species covered by the Agreement or whose flag vessels engage in operations adversely affecting small cetaceans in the Agreement area". With two frigates protecting the grind, it would put them outside of the agreement and contrary to that which they signed up to. Whoops.
    1
  353. +Nina Nyggju he is right about the dolphins being on the endangered list. They do kill them as well. Would you not consider it prudent not to go around killing pilot whales when nobody knows if it is sustainable? Surely the right thing to do would be to stop until some decent population figures can be obtained and therefore then decide if it sustainable or not. That would be the right thing to do.
    1
  354. +Nina Nyggju Your figures are wrong. If you actually stop to check it could well be that the grind endangers the whale numbers and you are using the daft formula from the 14 point script. The one that is inaccurate and is easily proven to be. I'll go figure for figure with you and prove you wrong. All you have to do is put your hand up and admit it. Stop quoting outdated and misleading information or get ready to put that hand up.
    1
  355. Had it and it was brief.
    1
  356. +Solomon Kincheloe (kinchnaga) The fall out caused by this last year has been significant. Politically the islands and their government has been under pressure from those around them and cruise firms have dropped the islands from the list of destinations. The Danish government has faced a number of protests and some political fallout around this as a result and may face a court case as they allowed the Faroese to overstep their jurisdiction.
    1
  357. +Abella Seksa He has a point. You do seem to have some personal grudge against Paul Watson. A lot of general bad mouthing etc. The thing is, no matter how much you dislike Watson, Sea Shepherd and the anti-grind people, it is no reason to justify the grind. I've lost count of the threads where pro-grind supporters have to give up due to a lack of anything in the way of science, research or opinion backing them up.
    1
  358. +Nina Nyggju Some ill informed people liken drive hunting to farming. They think they can compare the two but they can't. Some ignore the whole driving part of the hunt and what it does to intelligent wild animals.
    1
  359. +Abella Seksa You have something against vegans? Why?
    1
  360. +Olaf Sunstein well at least that enigma is sorted out.
    1
  361. +breezyjr Other than any intern in any major company. I agree with you on that volunteers should never have to pay but use a bit of brain.
    1
  362. +Poppin DEEZNUTS I thought they were all supposed to be vegan.
    1