Why don't we exploit whales commercially?

[Cedars]

Snipped some content

Yes - I know this is a touchy subject. But, if we start exploiting whales commercially, we:

 

a) Ensure their survival!

 

We exploit them now commericially with whale watching tours. At a much reduced cost to their (whale) futures.

 

:xx: Consume a resource as close to the base of the marine food chain as possible.

 

We as consumers, have exploited a number of species to the point of depletion. What makes you think we can control our appetites for whale meat any better than we can for tuna, cod or a number of other (much faster producing) marine life?

 

c) Okay - a whale might take 5 to 10 years to mature, whereas a cow will be ready for slaughter in approximately 2 years.

 

An investment of 5-10 years to show any kind of profit when alternatives (current domestic farm animals) which produce a return in 1-3 years is enough to thwart any farming efforts. And the 5-10 year harvest turnaround time is highly optimistic. This would be a "new frontier" with a limited knowledge base to begin with. SeaWorld and such attractions would be the best source of "how to farm whales" and they have many unknowns in their own attempts to breed and keep healthy, those animals. Combined with a probable high failure rate on that investment would exclude most from spending the monetary resources needed to make whale farming a viable option in the best conditions.

And already, lack of demand is driving prices down, because cheaper alternatives exist:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/asia/07/31/japan.whalemeat/index.html

 

d) Baleen whales, on the other hand, consume plankton which is the biggest concentration of nutrient mass on the planet. So, in consuming whales and farming them scientifically and sustainably, we will have less of an impact on the ecosystem.

 

The plankton supply may not be significant enough to support a whale farming effort without taxing the existing wild populations (including the other animals which depend on plankton for their survival). As I understand whales and their habits, they move to the food, free range whale populations would need to do this also:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/08/16/satellite.plankton.glb/index.html

 

e) Obviously there will be cases of "stock theft", cattle farmers all over the world suffer it as well. That can be treated on a technical, legal way. But the principle of whale farming should be investigated further, I think

 

Yes, it seems many persons from around the globe will violate the waters and laws protecting different ocean species:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/08/26/australia.pursuit.toothfish/index.html

Even those countries who have given themselves permission under the "scientific research" cover:

http://www.ems.org/whales/endangered_whales_trade.html

 

There may come a time in the future, when the depleted whale stocks have recovered enough to allow some commerical hunting. This time is probably 100 years away (or more), given the natural death rate, the low birth rate, and all the unknowns on things that affect whales, such as beachings, feeding / habitat needs, ect.

[Boerseun]

Hi Cedars, and welcome to hypography!

 

Well put, point(s) taken.

 

I started this thread to come to the core of the whale protection issue, as well as to stir some debate. I agree that we should protect whales, but then it should be for the right reasons. If you look a couple of posts back, I've mentioned the attempts at conserving elephants (another sensitive issue) in the Kruger Park in SA, with disastrous effects for all involved. This was done for very similar reasons that whale-hunting is frowned upon.

 

This thread is more of an mental exercise than anything else, for there are good arguments both ways - I'm just trying to seperate the emotional arguments from the scientific arguments.

[Cedars]

OK I re-read your elephant post. First, the issue you present, while valid in many ways, is not applicable here. The park you present in your example is twice the size of Israel. I would have to say this would be like trying to cage whales in the Hudson bay and then having a population explosion that stresses the environment. That is not going to happen with whales for several reasons including: How in the world would you be able to fence them in? :xx:

 

Additionally, with elephant culling, a hunter can identify a bull from a cow before firing upon the animal. I do not believe this is possible with whales for the most part, with the way whales are hunted. I may be wrong.

 

Has poaching increased? When there are larger numbers of elephants, it makes the probablity of a poacher bagging a protected animal higher. Is it more that poaching success has increased because the availability of elephants is higher? Maybe some former poachers who had found other animals to take for profit (still poaching),or had found other means of income, have taken up elephant hunting again because they are more available than in the past. And if you do allow a legal hunting, how will this prevent the illegal taking of the elephant?

 

But you do have a point with this park. And in my state, there are animals (the gray wolf) who were never given the "endangered" status but were classed as threatened to ensure protection. Due to the efforts of many persons, organizations, and law enforcement, these animals have made a remarkable comeback in the last 30 years. One of the things that is preventing this removal from the "protected" status is the stability of the gray wolf population in surrounding states. You can read more here about the population recovery: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/recovery/r3wolfct.htm

 

This would seem to be the same with the elephant status. Once the neighboring regions are supporting a reasonable and viable elephant population, I would expect these former methods of population control to be allowed. But again, the only way this is going to happen is if there isnt anymore illegal taking of elephants by these neighboring regions which are preventing the full recovery of their own elephant populations.

 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15741939%255E30417,00.html

 

Oh, and of course if people in other regions didnt demand Ivory, it would make the killing of the elephant for the tusks a moot point. That is another law enforcement issue which crosses more than park boundries.

[goku]

it's simple, if you don't eat it distroy it. if the animal isn't food why should we compete with it for food.

it might be wise to leave some scavengers for their disposing abillities.

[Cedars]

it's simple, if you don't eat it distroy it. if the animal isn't food why should we compete with it for food.

it might be wise to leave some scavengers for their disposing abillities.

 

Are you talking about whales? or elephants?

 

If whales:

I think whales do not compete directly with people for food. If I remember right, most whales eat plankton or krill. Except for the orca, but they were not a whaling target as the big whales were. But I admit I do not know that much about whales.

 

And if elephants:

 

Living in the usa, neither of us has any competition for food, from elephants. And if I remember right, the hunting of elephants that brought their numbers so low was not defending farms from elephants, but rather the harvest of the ivory. By your profile, you indicate you enjoy both hunting and fishing. I would have to guess you understand that conservation is what allows hunting to go on past your lifetime and into the future.

 

How much fun would you have stalking a holstein through the wilds of your pasture? Isnt there much more in it for you for to challenge your hunting skills tracking that big buck? *do you have mule deer or white tail? Yet these animals take a toll on crops too, competing directly with you in your attempts to feed your herd of milk cows.

 

Would you rather fish at a trout farm or go out on some stream with no houses in view and challenge yourself with nothing more than your skills with a fly rod? or whatever game fish / tackle combination you prefer.

 

I guess what I am saying is kill anything that we dont eat seems a bit drastic when the world is as big as it is, and there is so much we do not know about how all these things are connected and reliant on each other for the overall balance in the bigger picture of how the world works.

[Michaelangelica]

An interesting pro-ish article on whaling

Save the whaling | COSMOS magazine

Save the whaling

Issue 3 of Cosmos, September 2005

by Jennifer Marohasy

Save the whaling

The dwarf minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata

Image: GBRMPA

 

Whaling can be done just as sustainably as other forms of marine harvesting - if we remove our cultural blinkers.

 

Why is it that the International Whaling Commission condones the slaughter of rare whales by indigenous peoples using what are, arguably, inhumane traditional methods, while ruling against the commercial harvest of more common species by more humane methods?

What do you think of "Indigenous Subsistance Whaling?

The issue of Aboriginal subsistence whaling needs to be acknowledged and discussed.

Australian Aborigines and Danish Farosese fisherman may kill the animal with a traditional weapon, but they do this from motorised boats.

Save the whaling | COSMOS magazine

 

Cosmos is a great Australian Science magazine. Many of their articles are on their web site

COSMOS magazine | The science of everything

[chrissy]

Catching whales by " historic methods" ( ie a a guy in a canoe with a pole)

is not contested. What is contested is going out on the high seas, fully

loaded and thwacking exploding harpoons into highly sentient mammals.

 

Chrissy