Whaling could it start again?

[KOMPRESSOR]

The reason that fish once considered inedible are being caught and eaten is because we've globally decimated fish populations (and European fishing fleets have been among the worst offenders). The destruction of the four hundred year old cod fishery off Canada's Grand Banks is just one of many examples.

Wrong. It's because it is the best fishmeat you can get, and the market demands it. The fishermen USED to think it was to ugly to sell. Maybe you shouldn't make such hasty conclusions?

The main reason for the suspension of whaling was because certain species were close to extinction. A second is that--as is proving to be the case with sharks--we have only a very limited and crude understanding of their role in the ocean's complex ecosystem. The third, for many of us, is that whales are a highly evolved and intelligent species, with complex social behaviours. When African elephant herds have to be culled because of the shrinking habitat available to them, wildlife officials have found the only humane way of doing so is to surround and quickly kill an entire extended family because otherwise the surviving animals will suffer tremendously from the loss. This is not based on sentimetality but on scientific observation.

We are already stripmining and polluting our oceans and subjecting cetaceans to other extreme stresses ranging from extremely loud sounds and deafening military sonar and communication devices to mechanical injuries. The additional trauma of dragneting and random assassination of family members, whether by quick or slow means could well be the final factor in stressing some whale species beyond endurance.

We have already wiped out many species, and pushed countless others to the brink of extinction. (Apparently there are delicious recipes for "bush meat" including mountain gorillas, too, just as there were for "long pig".) Unless our insight and our ability to control our own appetites and actions finally grows to match our ravenous compulsion to consume and our immense power to destroy, these creatures haven't got a prayer. Some will care little about their tragic demise. They will be less able to ignore the catastrophe that will follow: the death of millions of humans as the ecosystems these species were integral to finally collapse.

The whaling ban, imperfect as it may be, is at least a step in the right direction.

Your opinion, which you are entitled to. Although I think you base your opinion on some faulty information.

 

[archman]

Wrong. It's because it is the best fishmeat you can get, and the market demands it. The fishermen USED to think it was to ugly to sell. Maybe you shouldn't make such hasty conclusions?
.

No, Erich's making fairly accurate statements. The current deepwater fisheries are in operation precisely as a result of exhaustion of more shallower occurring stocks. The name "chilean sea bass" was coined by seafood chefs in as a result of lackluster response to the original name of "patagonian toothfish". The "orange roughy" name was coined in 1979 by marketing firms that didn't like the classical name of "slimehead". Deepwater fishes tend to be quite ugly, and their older names reflect this. So, we change the common names, and avoid showing seafood consumers anything but fillets of these things as much as possible. No doubt as we exhaust these fisheries, a new "ugly fish" will take its place on the gourmet scene. At least until we run out of fish, anyway. EVERY commercial marine fishery in the United States is in decline except for menhaden, incidentally. We grind up menhaden to make chicken feed.

How many people know what a chilean sea bass actually looks like? Grouper they are not, but not so icky in appearance as slimeheads. They kinda resemble cod.

 

[Albion]

:11:

And for the record, whale meat has nothing to do with fish. It's dark meat. Should be treated carefully though, not to be cocked to long.

I think we should leave it there big boy :11:

 

[Boogie711]

I had no idea you thought all of Scubaboard members were vegetarian. I'm sure not!

I proudly eat mammals, of many sizes, shapes and descriptions. Just because a whale lives in the water doesn't preclude it in my books.

 

[KOMPRESSOR]

Well, for a staff member you shure speak you own opinion. I think you should be a bit more careful with what you write. I have reported this post.

 

[KOMPRESSOR]

:11:
I think we should leave it there big boy :11:

And would you believe I came out top of class in adv. english in a US high school.... Imagine what the others in my class may write if you let them

 

[KOMPRESSOR]

No, Erich's making fairly accurate statements. The current deepwater fisheries are in operation precisely as a result of exhaustion of more shallower occurring stocks. The name "chilean sea bass" was coined by seafood chefs in as a result of lackluster response to the original name of "patagonian toothfish". The "orange roughy" name was coined in 1979 by marketing firms that didn't like the classical name of "slimehead". Deepwater fishes tend to be quite ugly, and their older names reflect this. So, we change the common names, and avoid showing seafood consumers anything but fillets of these things as much as possible. No doubt as we exhaust these fisheries, a new "ugly fish" will take its place on the gourmet scene. At least until we run out of fish, anyway. EVERY commercial marine fishery in the United States is in decline except for menhaden, incidentally. We grind up menhaden to make chicken feed.

How many people know what a chilean sea bass actually looks like? Grouper they are not, but not so icky in appearance as slimeheads. They kinda resemble cod.

In general he is correct. However, this was specificly about monkfish. And I repeat, it was to ugly to sell before. Now it's well known as the fish for the very best dishes in fish restaurants all through Europe. You simply cannot find any better, that's my opinion!

MONKFISH, ok?

For deep sea fishing outside Chile I share your conserns 100%!

 

[Boogie711]

OK - someone not only edited BigJetDriver's comments, but they also edited the comments as I quoted them back in MY post.


I guess his original vitriole was beyond the pale?

 

[DivePartner1]

Good grief. What do North Americans and urban Europeans think happens in slaughterhouses, or chicken pens, or hog farms? At some sense all animals feel and, like many of them, we are omnivores. We eat them.

And what is so much different about the millions who kill monkeys for food compared to societies that kill to improve medicine. Both have a legitimate need. Frankly, the killing-for-food is easier on the monkey.

And since when do Americans want to start insisting that others conform to international popularity contests? Sometimes the biases of the international hoi polloi are dead wrong, especially from pedestrians who have no skin in the game (so to speak).

As to Norway, they have earned a reputation for conscientious and responsible conservation of their resources. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that their harvesting of local whales would be any different, even if nine point nine out of of ten urbanites who have never been there think so.

North Americans should be harvesting the deer overpopulation we've created but can't because urban culture is crippled by misconceptions stemming from the mythology of "Bambi." I grew up in a hunting culture and, though I don't hunt, I understand the need to balance the ecosystem that we've changed. Like Bambi, views of whales can be just as ill =-informed and tainted by the emotional manipulation of fiction such as "Free Willy."

And Bambi, like Willy, is great with BBQ sauce!

Which goes to my point. One culture's taboo is another's delicacy and while some convictions may be more or less popular, it does not make other customs and convictions wrong.

 

[DivePartner1]

The only creature that kills for pleasure on this planet is man

You've never seen a cat toy with a mouse?