It is whales’ alien otherness, meshed w/their obvious intellectual and emotional intelligence, that makes these animals special. Additionally, their status as symbols – for human environmental/moral victory in the 70s, has to be factored in. Finally, these are wild, natural creatures in remote, and often (almost, except for the whaling) pristine wilderness areas.

Cattle, sheep, and chickens, w/their blank stares, just don’t illicit an emotional response for me, or others. Pigs, on the other hand.. I have stopped eating them, but you’re right that they are not *cute*, pointing to injustice on that front… However, that wrong does not justify this one.

I suggest everyone watch this video (again if you already have): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27nX3Dsv9Xk (note, what it doesn’t show are the whales fleeing, terrified and too exhausted to dive, for 30 minutes prior)

Really? It’s pretty readilyavailable. I thought I gave you some evidence in my last comment but here’s another go.

In the early 90s, the IWC estimated Southern Minke whales as numbering around 760,000. They later withdrew this estimate and it is now widely discredited. However, the Japanese government (and, incidentally, you – strange bedfellows!) continue to use it.

Populations now appear to be in decline, possibly by as much as around 60%, although people aren’t yet sure of the cause. The IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Red List says: The data analyzed by standard methods suggest a reduction of approximately 60% between the 1978–91 period and the 1991–2004 period. However, alternative hypotheses to explain the apparent decline are still under investigation. If the decline is real […] the species would qualify as Endangered. Pending resolution of the uncertainties relating to the apparent decline, however, the species is listed as Data Deficient (DD).
http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/2480/0

To summarise:
There is no agreed estimate of current population
Studies suggest a reduction of approximately 60% between the 1978–91 period and the 1991–2004 period.
If this reduction is found to be real, the species will qualify as Endangered.
Until further research about the apparent declined is finished, the species is listed as Data Deficient (DD).

Now when it comes to animals becoming endangered, I think we should err on the side of caution. As I said in my previous post, this is particularly important with whales as they tend to recover poorly from species reduction. We know this already from the devastating effect that whaling had last century and the difficulty in undoing the damage. For example, the blue whale population of the Antarctic has been protected for 40 years and is still less than 1% of their original numbers.

The other problem with your theory of “sustainable whaling” is that whaling is taking place alongside a number of other threats which include:

1. Climate change – their habitat is in an area likely to face some of the most severe effects of climate change.
2. Overfishing of krill – the fishing industry is depleting krill stocks for aquaculture feed and this has devastating effects on marine ecosystems
3. Marine pollution – particularly a problem in breeding and feeding grounds, and we still don’t understand the long term effects of this, especially as toxins move through the food chain;
4. Noise pollution – noise from shipping traffic is known to impact on Minke whales
5. Other effects from fishing industries – entanglement in fishing gear etc

Now I am no scientist but it seems to me that when a species if facing this many problems AND its population is in a rapid decline for reasons that are not fully understood AND the decline may be significant enough to declare it endangered…. than hunting it cannot be defined as sustainable.

I have quite a few comments on your more ideological arguments but I’d rather establish some agreement on the facts first. Do you still hold to your statement that the whaling is sustainable?

I also have one question for you. Most of the Australian population (and I’d suggest the populations of most countries) DON’T support hunting of Minke whales in the Southern Ocean and Southern Pacific. Greenpeace even suggests that the majority of Japanese don’t support it.
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/issues/whales/our-work/japanese-opinion-poll
You even say the Australian government is “currying support from the majority of Australians who are opposed to whaling.”

So why, according to you, DO the majority of Australians oppose whaling? Are they all wrong? Are they all racist? Are they all dupes of the Australian government? Or could it be that, after years of campaigning, the majority of people have been won to an progressive environmental stand on this issue?

Ian, can I ask a question. I am trying to understand the position, not criticise it. If whales are the people of the sea, (I hope I am not caricaturing your position – correct me if I am wrong) what is your position on pigs, and cattle? Is there some sort of sentient gradation that exists for you, and where does one draw the line?

Chav, my understanding is that whale meat is expensive; indeed as a blogger critical of me point, around $80 or more a kilo.

And as one of the critics on this site pointed out it costs a lot to mount these inefficient expeditions to kill whales for ‘research’ and sell them in the market to recoup costs.

It has to do in part I think with Japanese attempts to secure its food the future, and maybe well be, as GF says, some sort of muscle flexing.

Maybe the analogy is with Wagyu beef.

It sells evidently for up to $600 a kilo in Japan. But my point in raising land and sea abattoirs was to try to understand why one is treated differently to the other.

Maybe Ian has given me a hint of an answer – pigs and cattle are perhaps ‘less human’ to the protestors than whales.

What if exploitation by one group decreases the intrinsic value of the resource to the other?

I cannot, now, simply sit and imagine a whale, an activity which once was an escape – serene and timeless, without considering their slow, agonizing, terrified, bloody murder at the hands of my fellow man.

These are sentient, or near-sentient beings. They recognize self, they recognize other. In some parts of the world, mothers, calf alongside, will approach and interact with tourists. Elsewhere, they must learn to flee from us in terror.

On several levels, my relationship to these beings is profoundly affected by whaling. If nothing else, the knowledge of how little my fellow humans share my values – my core beliefs about the value of sentient life – is enough to make me question everything.

Japanese whaling degrades this shared resource, making it unsuitable for my use.

That’s a really bad analogy Sebastiano. The Republicans lost the civil war because the wrong factions (Stalinists and Anarchists) came out on top.

John, I don’t see why you can’t seperate whaling from common commercial abbottoirs. I mean, how many people actually eat whale meat and isn’t it quite expensive, thus putting it out of the reach of most Japanese workers? That would seem to make an elitist pasttime in itself?

Sorry I don’t respond to you immediately. I have just had an operation today. Other times I work.

Look, if the left thinks human liberation will come about through the actions of the Sea Shepherd, then fair enough. I just happen to disagree.

As for the Civil War analogy I’ll repeat, I am not fighting against sea shepherd. I am disagreeing with their approach.

Further on Spain, the communists killed the people in my general political tendencies.

I don’t see me avoiding your comments. I am trying to engage with what you are arguing. Maybe it is a dialogue of the different and we aren’t understanding each other.

So let me ask you a question – what do you see, if anything, as the agency of fundamental change in society, a change so fundamental that all human and animal exploitation will end?

I have one last comment for you, as I see you regularly avoid answering to the most difficult objections raised by those who disagree with you. I hope this comparison will be clear enough for you.

You are like those who during the Spanish Civil War spent more energy and concentrated their fanatic and dogmatic efforts fighting other factions inside the Republican side than they did fighting the fascists, and therefore the war was lost.

You think fighting Sea Shepherd is more important than fighting the whalers, and this is your basic mistake. Luckily, most on the left are smart enough to know which side to be on. And we will not lose the war, despite you and those like you.