What does "intelligence" or "niceness" have to do with it?

[Otter]

... I would never do any of those things myself - but I don't see that as giving me any right at all to tell others that they can't if it's legal where they are.....

There are problems with this position and that is the (supposedly illegal - we will get back to that in a moment) actions that are taking place outside of the legal boundaries of Japan.. I can't carry a gun in Mexico even though its legal in the US.

Second, the treaties, agreements, etc... that govern the high seas are largely a joke. If its not in a nation's national interest (think Kyoto amongst others), then they don't agree. There isn't even consistency on what constitutes international waters.

That being said, the majority of the world has agreed on a ban on Humpback whaling since 1963. Japan nows says it needs 50 Humpbacks, 50 Fin, and 950 minke whales for scientific purposes -- and oh by the way, the agreement that allows for this says that they can sell the whale meat for commercial purposes. So while they might not be violating the letter of the law, they are clearly violating the spirit. Some might call it fraud...which is illegal in Japan.

But to the point, there is nothing but the 'court of world opinion' to enforce these agreements and so they go on....

 

[DA Aquamaster]

I think Dr. Bill's comments are on the mark. Most whales, porposies and dolphins tend to be social animals who have close interpersonal relationships so the killing or capturing of one animal can have a significant detrimental impact on the rest of the group and could result in the death or suffering of others in the group.

We tend top apply that logic to other less intelligent species as well when we design hunting seasons to limit the killing of female deer during the period of time when they may be caring for a fawn that would in turn die, or by limiting the shooting of the number of female mountain lions that are likely to have litters.

The problem with dolphins and whales is that those bonds and dependency issues are much more human in nature due to their much more human like social and cultural bonds and the lifelong presence of those bonds. There just is not a particular season when those factors do not come into play when they could be shot any more than there would be a good time to shoot the average person.

One of the major arguments in favor of using hunting as a means to control populations is that in many cases apex predators have been eliminated or greatly reduced and if hunting is not done, the population of former prey animals in question would exceed their carrying capacity and perish from malnutirition, disease, etc. - not a pretty thing to see.

This problem and resulting need for management tends to occur most often with prey animals that, because they are prey animals, have high reproductive rates and fairly quick sexual maturation. This does not apply to most whales and dolphins who are either apex predators themselves or are large enough that almost no predators mess with them once they are fully grown and not yet old and infirm and these attacks are further limited by there social groups as they provide mutual defence. In fact, smaller groups make them more susceptible to being preyed upon, so the management effort becomes a downward spiral.

Hunting also does not apply as a management tool given very low reproductive rates and the decade or longer period before a replacement animal reaches sexual maturity and is able to reproduce.

Then of course there is the problem that whales and dolphins are no where near a point that they are exceeding their carrying capacity and at best are at perhaps 10% of their former natuiral population levels.

Using the arguments discounting the value and impact of intelligence and social bonding and the problem with exceeding carrying capacity you could field a far better argument for managing human populations through hunting than you could supporting the hunting of whales and dolphins who are arguably at least as social and are nowhere as near to the point of exceeding their carrying capacity.

 

[Divedoggie]

I personally think that Sea Shepherd is going to get someone killed sometime - they've aleady come close several times.

If you want to support that I suppose there isn't a lot to say.

After reading through this thread, it seems that you are trying to get someone to equate some of the intelligent or cute animals with humans.

Cuteness has nothing to do with hunting an animal, beyond the simple attachments that we humans have for cute animals.

On the other hand, intelligence as a species has everything to do with it. At what point does one draw a line between hunting and murder?

During the days of slavery, people of different skin color or heritage were de-humanized by society in order to make it acceptable to kidnap, own, cause suffering, even kill, the slave.
Hitler tried to do the same.

As a species, based on brain size, social interaction, communication, higher levels of thinking, whales and dolphins have been shown to rival and even surpass human behavior and intelligence on many levels.

The problem people have with whaling or killing dolphins is that it isn't too different from killing other humans.

Maybe that person that gets killed due to the Sea Shepard, believes in his or her sacrifice. If that person is a trying to save whales, maybe he believes that the life he is saving is as valuable as his own.

The intelligence of a species has everything to do with its survival. If that were not the case then you could argue that human intelligence, as a species, is not reason enough to prevent our own slaughter.

Just because the whale doesn't have technology to prevent being harpooned when she comes up for a breath, doesn't mean we have the right to kill her.

If that person, who gets killed because of the Sea Shepard, is a whaler, he must believe that killing a whale is more important than his own life. Maybe he should get a job doing something else.

 

[Otter]

...snip.. you could field a far better argument for managing human populations through hunting than you could supporting the hunting of whales and dolphins who are arguably at least as social and are nowhere as near to the point of exceeding their carrying capacity..snip...

....so instead we get

..snip......the population of former prey animals in question would exceed their carrying capacity and perish from malnutirition[sic], disease, etc. - not a pretty thing to see.

Which is pretty much going to happen to humans if we don't change what we are doing on land and in the sea....sigh.

 

[Divedoggie]

What if aliens, with such incredibly superior technology, showed up on earth and declared open season on us. Anytime we went to the bathroom, BAM, your dead carcus gets hauled up to a spaceship and gets turned into appetizers.
The only defense, the only hope, that we would have is for the aliens to recognize our intelligence and to put a ban on the act. Make those appetizers illegal. It would be the alien's responsibility to allow us to live out our lives.

 

[Kim]

After reading through this thread, it seems that you are trying to get someone to equate some of the intelligent or cute animals with humans.

Actually I think the opposite is true. I think that equating some animals and their behaviour with humans is basically what a lot of people do who think hunting them is therefore so bad. I certainly don't do it at all.

As for social bonding...... lot's of animals do that and it's never been a reason not to hunt them. Some dolphins ideas of social bonding include the practice of infanticide - not exactly something I'd equate with human behaviour.

 

[diversteve]

You don't have a very good track record with whaling either. Neither do several other countries that are protesting so loudly now.

The countries that still whale now aren't exactly the reason the problem was created in the first place. (sound familiar?)

I couldn't agree with you more. But the difference for me personally is that we saw the errors of our ways and signed the IWC treaty. I could draw hundreds of paralllels throughout history where species have been decimated for personal gain only to later decide it was a bad idea. Here and elsewhere... .

It doesn't make any of them right.

I personally think that Sea Shepherd is going to get someone killed sometime - they've aleady come close several times.

If you want to support that I suppose there isn't a lot to say.

I personally agree with you. Maybe that's what it will take to wake up the rest of the world to this situation.

But if you bother to read the reports of the previous ramming, you'll note that technically the Whaling ship rammed the Sea Shepherd vessel as there was no way that the Sea Shepherd could've backed-up into the whaler. The damage incurred by the Sea Shepherd vessel was consistent with being rammed since the struts were bent forward and not backward which would be consistent with a ramming.

So shouldn't your statement more accurately be:

I personally think the Japanese Whaling fleet is going to get someone killed sometime - since they've already rammed the Sea Shepherd vessel once.

If you want to support that I suppose there isn't a lot I can say...

 

[Tigerman]

After reading through this thread, it seems that you are trying to get someone to equate some of the intelligent or cute animals with humans.

Cuteness has nothing to do with hunting an animal, beyond the simple attachments that we humans have for cute animals.

On the other hand, intelligence as a species has everything to do with it. At what point does one draw a line between hunting and murder?

During the days of slavery, people of different skin color or heritage were de-humanized by society in order to make it acceptable to kidnap, own, cause suffering, even kill, the slave.
Hitler tried to do the same.

As a species, based on brain size, social interaction, communication, higher levels of thinking, whales and dolphins have been shown to rival and even surpass human behavior and intelligence on many levels.

The problem people have with whaling or killing dolphins is that it isn't too different from killing other humans.

Maybe that person that gets killed due to the Sea Shepard, believes in his or her sacrifice. If that person is a trying to save whales, maybe he believes that the life he is saving is as valuable as his own.

The intelligence of a species has everything to do with its survival. If that were not the case then you could argue that human intelligence, as a species, is not reason enough to prevent our own slaughter.

Just because the whale doesn't have technology to prevent being harpooned when she comes up for a breath, doesn't mean we have the right to kill her.

If that person, who gets killed because of the Sea Shepard, is a whaler, he must believe that killing a whale is more important than his own life. Maybe he should get a job doing something else.

Murder is killing another human being, its not defined by intelligence, but species.
The de-humanization of other skin colors during the slavery and by the nazis was based on the belief that the different skin colors where different races.

As far as intelligence and survival of the species goes, would you call bacteria an intelligent life form? Cyanobacteria is supposedly the oldest species still alive and its claimed to have been around for 4 billion years. Guess bacteria has to be pretty damn intelligent if intelligence defines survival..

"If that person, who gets killed because of the Sea Shepard, is a whaler, he must believe that killing a whale is more important than his own life. Maybe he should get a job doing something else."
Is the single stupidest claim Ive heard since "there is no war, there is no americans here".
I guess its ok for me to walk into your workspace and shoot you because you have the wrong job too...

 

[Tigerman]

What if aliens, with such incredibly superior technology, showed up on earth and declared open season on us. Anytime we went to the bathroom, BAM, your dead carcus gets hauled up to a spaceship and gets turned into appetizers.
The only defense, the only hope, that we would have is for the aliens to recognize our intelligence and to put a ban on the act. Make those appetizers illegal. It would be the alien's responsibility to allow us to live out our lives.

If they hunt us to extinction, its wrong, from an ecology perspective.
If they harvest us and keep our population healthy, its well within their right.
Infact, with the population growth and how we abuse this planet already, it would maybe be for the greater good if some alien race came around and thined out the ranks a little...

Brutal? Sure, but were just ANIMALS and were part of the nature, just like the frogs or the whales.
Just as any other creature tho, we probably wouldnt just roll over and die like you make it sound like we would.. Wed probably shoot a few nukes up their ass first and heck, maybe itd end up with US having THEM for apetisers instead..

 

[Divedoggie]

Actually I think the opposite is true. I think that equating some animals and their behaviour with humans is basically what a lot of people do who think hunting them is therefore so bad. I certainly don't do it at all.

As for social bonding...... lot's of animals do that and it's never been a reason not to hunt them. Some dolphins ideas of social bonding include the practice of infanticide - not exactly something I'd equate with human behaviour.

I meant to say that you were trying to get people to admit that their argument against hunting, was equating some animal's behavior with humans.

I took the plunge.

But I am saying that it is justifiable to equate some animals with humans due to their intelligence.

I believe that we have the right to hunt in so far as we need to hunt. Either for food or for management. Hunting whales is not necessary for food, and their population numbers are still alarmingly low.

Elk and deer are hunted, but the money that goes into liscensing is spent relocating, feeding, even breeding herds. Food animals are grown in tremendous numbers. I'll eat meat, and hunt for it. I'll not go a harpoonin a whale.

These arguments cannot be made for dolphins, whales, and even many of the cute fuzzy critters which you mentioned.

Many people believe in a god given right. That everything on this earth is for man's consumption. That is an archaic attitude.
I truly disagree with the attitude that an animal is an animal. A human is a human. Humans are superior. Humans are paramount. Animals are lesser, and they are here for our taking. That we humans have the right to be masters of the world.

We have the right and obligation to be custodians and keepers of the world.