South Korea to restart whaling

[Ralin]

Sure, let's wipe out entire species just to show westerners that we don't care about the environment!

Yes, exactly!

Now, maybe if western countries hadn't made it clear that they would never agree to a resumption of commercial whaling the Koreans and the Japanese would have been more reasonable, but they did. Hopefully a few whale species going extinct will teach everyone involved a lesson about what happens when you try to strong-arm other countries into doing things your way.

[Alkaloid]

Frankly I doubt the idea will get off the ground, not so much because South Korea doesn't want to do it, but because it's going to be really expensive, and given that the drivers for this are the South Korean fishing industry as a whole it gives groups like Sea Shepard and the other lower profile anti whaling activist groups a whole slew of other targets to go after. It matters a whole lot less if you can't find/catch/evade the security ships around the actual whaling ships themselves when sabotaging any and all commercial fishing operations in the area, while making it exceedingly clear that it wont stop until the whaling does, will be just as effective at actually stopping whaling operations. That and they will be able to milk it for bucketloads of money, I wouldn't be surprised if they got an extra ship or two out of it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And if the whale stocks have recovered enough to allow sustainable hunting I see nothing wrong with establishing a conservative whaling regime of national quotas. Conservation should be based on scientific management, not knee-jerk reactions on any side. When one side has already committed to a maximum position ("no whaling under any circumstances, ever") then there is already no room for compromise and the other side will do whatever it can within the framework it has to maneuver.

Yes, because that has worked out so well for every other fishery on the god damn planet. Oh. Wait. It has not. Even if I concede that it is OK to kill whales.

Let us pretend for a moment that I view human suffering as being qualitatively different from animal suffering and that the documented intelligence of ceteceans was not sufficient to make me concerned whatsoever that killing and eating them is the moral equivalent to eating children or deciding that the flesh of E.T's species is a delicacy. Yes. Let us pretend for a moment.

Even if I concede that killing whales, in itself, has no ethical problems outside sustainable harvest, the point remains that a sustainable whale harvest is not actually possible. They reproduce slowly, they have long life-spans (possibly measured in centuries for some species) and while Minke whales are not as far on this extreme as say, right whales or sperm whales are, it is still pretty damn bad. The only reason the alaskan salmon fishery is sustainable is because the salmon come to predictable places, making enforcement easy. With whales, this is not the case. The ocean is fucking huge. The tuna fisheries (and others) are already wracked with poaching. So, even if a sustainable harvest quota that was actually sustainable was agreed upon, there is no way to enforce it, and people will cheat. We know they will cheat, because they are cheating right now in other harvest quota systems.

That presumes of course that such a thing could be agreed upon. Said quotas are politically driven, always have been. The scientists file a report saying that the stock of a given fish is low enough that it will need to not be harvested for a while. The quota comes down at 10% of the current biomass of the organism, annually. What happens if countries have to stop or significantly lower it beyond that point? Well, Japan threatens to withdraw from being regulated in total. How about seals? Oh how the Canadians love clubbing their seals (not all of you, just fishermen and your government), they have "sustainable" quotas that are starting to collapse harp seal populations. Do you think that whales will be any fucking better, especially after--not just the meat--but ambergris and other whale products start being bought and sold on a commodities exchange?

And in the long run, a sustainable harvest now might suddenly be population destroying a few years down the line, when climate change submerges the gulf stream and otherwise alters the course of the entire deep ocean conveyor, creating less than pleasant shifts in the upwellings that bring nutrients and food to the deep ocean, while simultaneously acidifying the ocean and destroying the exoskeletons of the whale's primary food supply (and for that matter, the base of the oceanic food chain).

Especially telling is that this whole thing is not about the whaling tradition of the koreans, but about the whales eating fish stocks. So of course, the solution to your overfishing South Korea, is to further fuck up the entire oceanic eco-system. Good Job!

[Ralin]

And this is supposed to be a problem...why? Exactly what good does it do us to keep whales around? There are way too many big, stupid mammals in the world; anything that gets rid of some of them can only be a good thing.

[Alkaloid]

And apparently you are one of the stupider ones. AD just spelled it out for you. Ocean fishing is not agriculture and is in no way like agriculture. Killing off all the tuna, or all the minke whales or all the sea anenomies will not lead to the world going back to how it was before they were they like, say, burning all the corn fields will because they are not only there, they are a vital part of how the ocean ecosystem functions. Tuna are large, predatory fish, and if they all vanish all the fish they used to eat suddenly have a population explosion and start out eating other fish looking for the same thing, and larger fish/sharks/whales don't have them to eat and their population diminishes rapidly, compounding the problem. Whale shit actually does a pretty important role in maintaining the chemical balance of the ocean. And if you are so stupid as to say, its only the ocean and the complete disruption of the way it functions doesn't matter to me as long as I don't go in there, I will happily laugh at the wreckage of your house after the cyclone that was never supposed to happen destroys it because shock fucking horror, the ocean is pretty much the base that every weather pattern or ecosystem on the planet is built on.

[Vehrec]

And this is supposed to be a problem...why? Exactly what good does it do us to keep whales around? There are way too many big, stupid mammals in the world; anything that gets rid of some of them can only be a good thing.

Let's list some other big stupid mammals that live in the world and should be gotten rid of.

Lions, tigers, all bear species, elephants, rhinos, seals, sea lions, hippos, buffalo, bison, wolves, leopards, antelope, chimpanzees, gorillas, and any other non-domesticated species that we don't get any material good from their existance sound like a good short-list?

God has cared for these trees, saved them from drought, disease, avalanches, and a thousand tempests and floods. But he cannot save them from fools.

[Terralthra]

And this is supposed to be a problem...why? Exactly what good does it do us to keep whales around? There are way too many big, stupid mammals in the world; anything that gets rid of some of them can only be a good thing.

Damn straight, let's replace them with jellyfish!

Explosion in jellyfish numbers may lead to ecological disaster, warn scientists
A dramatic global increase in jellyfish swarms could damage the marine food chain

Tracy McVeigh
The Observer, Saturday 11 June 2011

Global warming has long been blamed for the huge rise in the world's jellyfish population. But new research suggests that they, in turn, may be worsening the problem by producing more carbon than the oceans can cope with.

Research led by Rob Condon of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in the US focuses on the effect that the increasing numbers of jellyfish are having on marine bateria, which play an important role by recycling nutrients created by decaying organisms back into the food web. The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, finds that while bacteria are capable of absorbing the constituent carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and other chemicals given off by most fish when they die, they cannot do the same with jellyfish. The invertebrates, populating the seas in ever-increasing numbers, break down into biomass with especially high levels of carbon, which the bacteria cannot absorb well. Instead of using it to grow, the bacteria breathe it out as carbon dioxide. This means more of the gas is released into the atmosphere.

Dr Carol Turley, a scientist at Plymouth University's Marine Laboratory, said the research highlighted the growing problem of ocean acidification, the so-called "evil twin" of global warming. "Oceans have been taking up 25% of the carbon dioxide that man has produced over the last 200 years, so it's been acting as a buffer for climate change. When you add more carbon dioxide to sea water it becomes more acidic. And already that is happening at a rate that hasn't occurred in 600 million years."

The acidification of the oceans is already predicted to have such a corrosive effect that unprotected shellfish will dissolve by the middle of the century."

Condon's research also found that the spike in jellyfish numbers is also turning the marine food cycle on its head. The creatures devour huge quantities of plankton, thus depriving small fish of the food they need. "This restricts the transfer of energy up the food chain because jellyfish are not readily consumed by other predators," said Condon.

The increase in the jellyfish population has been attributed to factors including climate change, over-fishing and the runoff of agricultural fertilisers. The rise in sea temperature and the elimination of predators such as sharks and tuna has made conditions ideal, and "blooms" – when populations explode in great swarms, sparking regular panics on beaches around the world– are being reported in ever-increasing size and frequency. Last year scientists at the University of British Columbia found that global warming was causing 2,000 different jellyfish species to appear earlier each year and expanding their number.

The proliferation of jellyfish has caused problems for seaside power and desalination plants in Japan, the Middle East and Africa. The blooms are also perilous to swimmers; the effects of a jellyfish sting range across the species from painless to tingling to agony and death.

(emphasis mine)

Turns out that when you depopulate the apex predators of an ecosystem, other species they prey on explode in population - with bad results. Minke whales, like all baleen whales, eat (literally) tons of plankton and krill. Killing off the whales would probably lead to higher frequency of harmful algal blooms, which can poison humans, impair coastal commerce, and make the water murky enough to choke off coastal fisheries. Polar Minke whales also form a large portion of the diet of Orcas, so depopulating them would also depopulate Orcas, causing knock-on effects in the other prey populations which Orcas help keep under control.

Ecosystems are complex, interrelated phenomena. You can't just cut out one part and say "So what?"

As for stupidity...only your own anthropocentricity allows you to say that sort of thing. Research indicates that whales, including Minke whales, have a similar complex brain structure to humans, supporting socially active, communicative, and problem-solving thought patterns. That they have feelings of pain, loss, and grief is also supported by research.

[evilsoup]

And this is supposed to be a problem...why? Exactly what good does it do us to keep whales around? There are way too many big, stupid mammals in the world; anything that gets rid of some of them can only be a good thing.

Fixed that for you.

[madd0ct0r]

Interestingly, I was just watching airarang (korean news channel) and they did mention the Whaling commission not granting extra powers to the UN. The mentoned Japan and Finland and Norway opposing it , and that the first uses 'scientific research' as an excuse while the latter two just ignore it.

Not once was the korean posistion mentioned, and attitiudes towards the whaling countries were not sympathetic.

[Simon_Jester]

Frankly I doubt the idea will get off the ground, not so much because South Korea doesn't want to do it, but because it's going to be really expensive, and given that the drivers for this are the South Korean fishing industry as a whole it gives groups like Sea Shepard and the other lower profile anti whaling activist groups a whole slew of other targets to go after. It matters a whole lot less if you can't find/catch/evade the security ships around the actual whaling ships themselves when sabotaging any and all commercial fishing operations in the area, while making it exceedingly clear that it wont stop until the whaling does, will be just as effective at actually stopping whaling operations. That and they will be able to milk it for bucketloads of money, I wouldn't be surprised if they got an extra ship or two out of it.

I really do hope the antiwhaling protestors turn the whole thing into a farce.

I'm imagining some protestors just sailing around in circles replaying distressed whale songs into the ocean at high volume, basically saying "oh crap there's a giant whale-killing ship-monster here!" in whalese. It might not be the most practical thing, but it's got a certain appeal to it.

It serves a very necessary purpose: Showing that South Korea and Japan are sovereign nations who will no longer be bullied into accepting an asinine ban on whaling because Americans, Europeans and Australians think that whaling is 'cruel' and that we should give a fuck about whether whales suffer when we kill them.

Sure, let's wipe out entire species just to show westerners that we don't care about the environment!
Because there isn't even an economical incentive to hunt whales, given that its not profitable and not a way to guarantee a steady food supply for a nation.

Is it that hard to imagine that strongarm tactics are bad BECAUSE people will defy them?

Look, if you're doing international relations, you're dealing with large groups of human beings led by politicians- most of which a bunch of arrogant, ignorant jerks. If you can't work with arrogant, ignorant jerks, you don't belong in diplomacy in the first place.

Starting up whaling in South Korea is the action of an arrogant, ignorant jerk. Like most countries, they're jerks about some things. Perhaps we should look at IWC policy- were they handling the jerk correctly? Because unless the IWC plans to nuke South Korea into glass to protect the environment, they're still going to be there. You're still going to have to deal with them. The IWC is still going to have to deal with them. And, unfortunately, the whales are still going to have to deal with them, until South Korea kills them.

So yes, it's actually important to think and talk about attitudes, and principles, and not going out of your way to piss off a bunch of foreign politicians who just might do something dumb to prove you're not the boss of them.

There are two reasons to sign on to a whaling ban.
1) I think whaling is evil. No one should do it.
2) I think whales are an endangered species, and we need to stop harvesting/killing them until there's enough left that it won't destroy the species.

Those are not the same thing. People who believe (1) and (2) will talk past each other about whaling. The Koreans (and a few other countries) think (2). Back when the whaling ban went into place, so did a lot of other Western countries. We changed our minds. They didn't.

Is it any wonder there's enough of a disconnect that a bunch of arrogant, ignorant jerks with chips on their shoulders (South Korean politicians) might decide the treaty is bullshit?

You can call the decision itself bullshit, I don't disagree with that. And I think the psychology of those politicians is disturbingly like that of a bunch of teenagers who don't want to have to do their homework. "I don't like your tone so I'm going to go shoot myself in the foot and screw over everyone else to spite you!"


But can we at least talk about this without someone deciding that gee, it must be a great idea to create a parody of a straw version of the argument! Fuck those South Korean barbarians. Don't they know whaling is murder? Fuck them!

I mean hell, this sounds like the Ryan Thunder school of diplomacy, where all conversations end in "Fuck you, you barbarian! You have no rights because you're evil! Fuck you!"

I have to ask, does anyone here really expect that to work? Should we run the world that way? How long would any kind of international order last under conditions like that, with the Swedes piously denouncing the Germans who piously denounce the British who piously denounce the Americans who... and so on down the line until you get into an argument over who gets to denounce North Korea since they're holding the moral low ground?

What does it say if we're too busy yelling "FUCK YOU YOU'RE EVIL" to think about international relations in a thread about a foreign country doing something stupid and destructive?

[Alyrium Denryle]

There are two reasons to sign on to a whaling ban.
1) I think whaling is evil. No one should do it.
2) I think whales are an endangered species, and we need to stop harvesting/killing them until there's enough left that it won't destroy the species.

This is the reason why I "assumed for the sake of argument" reason #2. The issue is that when we are not raising the organisms ourselves, it is almost impossible to have a sustainable harvest of anything anymore. We have so many people and our "extraction efficiency" is so high, that in the medium to long term, none of our catching of anything is sustainable, barring wierdness like the alaskan salmon fishery where literally every harvestable adult congregates in one place--and the local government is willing to babysit during the fishing season.

For something not so local, with a wide range and various products therefrom in international demand and commanding high prices... the organisms are fucked. Just look at bluefin tuna. They're screwed. They are screwed because people poach and enforcement is non-existent, and becuase the long term sustainable population is ignored. Bluefin for example dropped below that in 1975, and have continued to be fished--with the ICCAT conveniently redefining the long term sustainable population for the species without scientific consultation.

We simply lack the technical/logistical ability or the political will/lack of corruption to sustainably harvest any open water species, be they fish or whales, and whales are even more precarious than the fish because of their life history and demographic traits.

It is simply not going to happen. If we allow commercial fishing, we will be looking at the extinction of whales. Period. We are damn lucky we stopped when we did back in the 1980s, the population of most species still have not recovered. Norway and Finland are exceptions, mostly because they keep to the smaller more common species, have the ability to enforce their quotas (because it is just them), have really small human populations, and use whale products locally. You get international shit going and no nation will accept the amazingly low quotas split between them, so you have to raise the quotas or they simply withdraw from the treaty, and it becomes a giant fucking mess and the animals go extinct.

[Simon_Jester]

For what little it's worth, my intuition agrees- but that is itself a scientific argument: whale populations cannot be conserved if commercial harvesting continues. It's fundamentally practical: "experience since the 1980s has shown us that there is no safe threshold- even if whales returned to pre-1800 levels, commercial harvesting would kill them off so fast that the population would collapse again in a few decades." Or "your whale population is, in point of fact, not sustainable. Even though your politicians of the X party think so."

Which is a bit different from just saying "whaling is not an option;" it's saying "whaling is not an option because.

[Sea Skimmer]

I doubt Sea Sheppard or anyone else is going to pick a fight serious fight inside the South Korean EEZ, if they do it sure won't be a long one. Like ROK coastguard seizes ship and imprisons crew within hours. Very different legal situation then that of messing with the Japanese in international waters off Antarctica.

[mr friendly guy]

What is the legal standing of the EEZ? From my understanding its possible for another country to spend spy planes into another country's EEZ, so does that mean a non state organisation like Sea Shepherd is legally allowed to sail around in a country's EEZ, lets say putting themselves between the whales and the whaling vessel?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am reasonably confident that they could be stopped with sufficient creativity should the south korean government gives a certain number of shits.

[Grumman]

What is the legal standing of the EEZ? From my understanding its possible for another country to spend spy planes into another country's EEZ, so does that mean a non state organisation like Sea Shepherd is legally allowed to sail around in a country's EEZ, lets say putting themselves between the whales and the whaling vessel?

I do not believe so. The Sea Shepards are legally allowed to sail around in international waters, but so are the whaling vessels. Depending on the UN's definition of "detain", deliberately stopping another vessel sailing to its destination might even be considered piracy.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What is the legal standing of the EEZ? From my understanding its possible for another country to spend spy planes into another country's EEZ, so does that mean a non state organisation like Sea Shepherd is legally allowed to sail around in a country's EEZ, lets say putting themselves between the whales and the whaling vessel?

I do not believe so. The Sea Shepards are legally allowed to sail around in international waters, but so are the whaling vessels. Depending on the UN's definition of "detain", deliberately stopping another vessel sailing to its destination might even be considered piracy.

Nothing stopping them from scaring away the whales though. There are... ways. Sound of sufficient volume and at the right frequency range will send whales packing.

[Thanas]

Thanas, would you support the right of South Koreans to engage in whaling if they did it with rowboats and spears, like their ancestors?

As long as they stick to a few dozen and stop killing whales illegally (which is what they are currently doing) I don't have a problem with that because ancient hunting methods will not kill nearly as many whales as industrialized whaling does. Also note that the aboriginals hunting have voluntarily decreased their quotas in the past when the data regarding the whales was uncertain or worrying.

Is there any validity to the South Korean claim that it is also hypocritical for nations which promised to reconsider a whaling ban to say "we are permanently opposed to commercial whaling?"

I don't think any western nation is willing to say that. The problem is that commercial whaling is not sustainable in any shape or form for the same reason elephant hunting is not sustainable. Unless you talk about very, very few animals each year, but we know they won't stick to that.

One may reasonably say that saying that is not evil, since it kills no whales. But is it realistic to expect the good guys to be able to act hypocritically and go back on their word, and still be respected and taken seriously? If you want everyone else to walk the path of righteousness and begin with hypocrisy, aren't things like this a predictable outcome?

A lot of good things started that way yet I don't see you clamoring for the rights of the southerners to still have slaves.

Which is a bit different from just saying "whaling is not an option;" it's saying "whaling is not an option because.

Ok - which statements are saying "whaling is not an option ever"? What I see so far is opposition to scientific whaling, for which there is no rationale.

Nowhere in that article does anyone say that South Korea wants indigenous fishing rights. Nowhere did I say such a thing. It makes an ironic comparison to the decision to grant the Bequins whaling rights with the decision to shoot down the South Korean proposal. The South Koreans did not ask for the same rights and no pretense was made that their proposal would have the same impact as indigenous whaling exceptions. It served only to highlight why the South Koreans considered the process unfair, which is not a judgment that the author endorsed as such. It is not an argument for allowing the South Koreans to whale, it is a simple illustration of the South Korean perspective.

Dude, it is the first thing the Koreans themselves use to support their claim and to illustrate why they want to restart whaling. You are splitting hairs here. If I start an argument with "There is a real tradition to owning slaves. I will now submit a proposal allowing me to own a slave" then it very well is part of the overall argument, your attempt to claim otherwise to the contrary. South Korea chose that statement for a reason.

But I guess failing to rabidly denounce them in the most heated language available is "sympathizing" and perhaps even some kind of duplicitous advocacy. Like that thread over Haidt's article some time back.

I don't even know what you are referring to now, but if you enjoy playing the martyr some more, then don't let me stop you.

And what hypocrisy is that? The South Koreans want to assert their rights and will do so. They shouldn't, but their actions in no way betray their professed values. And they have the express right to hunt whales for scientific reasons under IWC rules. Meanwhile the West has hypocritically abrogated pledges that it made to bring the moratorium about in the first place. Which is the objectively duplicitous behavior?

I think claiming that science needs dead whales in order to kill something is more duplicitous than saying that commercial whaling should not happen due to it endangering the oceans.

They were told "fuck you, we're never lifting the moratorium."

By what official statement? I must have missed the word never ini there.

That's why the South Koreans are pressing forward to do what they can within IWC rules. There was certainly more room to set up timetables and push for more studies that would keep the particular populations protected without giving the Koreans the finger. Australia, the US, Germany, etc opted instead to make it clear that they would never approve the proposed hunt even if the populations had fully recovered.

Yeah, blame it all on the evil westerners.....although hey, there is some data out there that suggest Korea has previously lied to the IWC when reporting the number of whales already caught per year by more than double so maybe they are not that good at counting their whales in general. Or maybe they are the ones who pressed ahead with the whaling plan without showing proper documentation on their whales not being endangered? MUST KILL WHALE NOW.

Might makes right, eh?

Generally, tearing up agreements with other people and denouncing them as barbarians when they react badly to the fact does nothing to convince them of the superiority of your moral position.

[/quote]
Nor does lying to others.

[Simon_Jester]

Thanas, would you support the right of South Koreans to engage in whaling if they did it with rowboats and spears, like their ancestors?

As long as they stick to a few dozen and stop killing whales illegally (which is what they are currently doing) I don't have a problem with that because ancient hunting methods will not kill nearly as many whales as industrialized whaling does. Also note that the aboriginals hunting have voluntarily decreased their quotas in the past when the data regarding the whales was uncertain or worrying.

And it has the advantage of being small-scale enough to regulate, which helps Alyrium's concerns. OK.

Is there any validity to the South Korean claim that it is also hypocritical for nations which promised to reconsider a whaling ban to say "we are permanently opposed to commercial whaling?"

I don't think any western nation is willing to say that.

Some of the language I'm hearing quotes on this debate makes me wonder about that.

One may reasonably say that saying that is not evil, since it kills no whales. But is it realistic to expect the good guys to be able to act hypocritically and go back on their word, and still be respected and taken seriously? If you want everyone else to walk the path of righteousness and begin with hypocrisy, aren't things like this a predictable outcome?

A lot of good things started that way yet I don't see you clamoring for the rights of the southerners to still have slaves.

In the US, no one ever promised, even implicitly, that slavery would be reconsidered at a later date- both the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment were permanent.

Now, even if such a promise had been made, I would still be opposed to keeping it. But I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of racist clowns then started doing terrible things (think early Ku Klux Klan) as a gesture of "fuck you" against the establishment. Because people are like that.

Righteousness comes with a cost. Especially when it leads you to do things like sign a treaty under a certain understanding, and then ignore that understanding later.

Which is a bit different from just saying "whaling is not an option;" it's saying "whaling is not an option because.

Ok - which statements are saying "whaling is not an option ever"? What I see so far is opposition to scientific whaling, for which there is no rationale.

"We are completely opposed to whaling; there's no excuse for scientific whaling."

That's one of those things that can be interpreted two ways. You can hear that and say "the second clause matters and the first doesn't." Or you can hear that and say "the first clause matters, and indicates opposition to all whaling." Gillard being Labor, that would hardly surprise anyone- and I'm inclined to agree with her: in fact, I hope she's opposed to whaling on general principles.

But I do expect to get some trouble from certain nations about this.

[Sea Skimmer]

What is the legal standing of the EEZ? From my understanding its possible for another country to spend spy planes into another country's EEZ, so does that mean a non state organisation like Sea Shepherd is legally allowed to sail around in a country's EEZ, lets say putting themselves between the whales and the whaling vessel?

Aircraft and ships have unlimited right of innocuous passage in an EEZ. However a nation that has ratified the UN convention on the law of the sea, which the ROK has, also has sovereign rights of fishing, whaling and scientific research within its EEZ and the right to enforce its laws on such matters in this zone. Any attempt to interfere with those rights can be met with armed force.

So if Sea Sheppard wanted to sail around waving banners, the ROK couldn’t stop them, if on the other hand Sea Sheppard used any of its trademark harassment tactics to actively interfere the ROK would be entirely within its right to stop them, board them and arrest the captain and crew. If they refused to stop it would be entirely legal to open fire upon them. Argentina once put a halt to Soviet poaching in its EEZ… by sending out a 6in gunned light cruiser to shell the offending trawlers when they refused to surrender.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And it has the advantage of being small-scale enough to regulate, which helps Alyrium's concerns. OK.

Yeah, but that is not what they want. They dont want a ritualistic whale hunt where they go out in traditional hunts, kill a few whales, observe the proper ancient rituals and distribute the whale flesh among the hunter's families. That is what aboriginals do, and they reduce their catch if the data on whale populations is worrying because they actually give a shit about the whales themselves and respect them as beings in their own right.

The Koreans want to use the "it is a tradition" justification to mass-slaughter whales because their fishermen dont like whales competing for their over-exploited fish-stocks (Minke Whales eat small fish as well as krill swarms).

And they have the express right to hunt whales for scientific reasons under IWC rules

Yes, but that is not what is actually done. They plaster a commercial whaling vessel with the words "Scientific Research" and engage in a commercial whale hunt. The only papers that come out of Japan are papers on whale pod tracking methods and maximizing harvesting efficiency. They use the pregnant whale mothers they slaughter to create an embryological sequence for whales that we have had for over a hundred years thanks to naturalists on every whaling vessel throughout the 19th century, and in any case can get using captive dolphins non-lethally. Nothing they do actually requires the killing of whales to get. Their research would not pass muster at even the most "rubber-stamp" Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at an american university when the species of study were lab-rats in a fully artificial environment. They cannot even get their papers published most of the time because they dont meet the basic ethical standards for lethal studies on animals, and thus, no journal will take their papers. Nothing they do cannot be done non-lethally. Want data on whale movement? We have sat tags now. Want diet information? We have cameras that can be rigged to a short harpoon (not enough to penetrate the blubber and hurt the whale) and attached to the whale so you can see how often it eats given prey items and can be used to estimate mass. Eventually, the harpoon will degrade, the camera will detach, and either send out a signal for retrieval, or will upload its data to a satellite that is in orbit for that express purpose.

The Koreans already under-report their catch. What makes you think they will even bother to comply with their own claimed quotas? Oh...wait... they wont.

[Simon_Jester]

And it has the advantage of being small-scale enough to regulate, which helps Alyrium's concerns. OK.

Yeah, but that is not what they want. They dont want a ritualistic whale hunt where they go out in traditional hunts, kill a few whales, observe the proper ancient rituals and distribute the whale flesh among the hunter's families. That is what aboriginals do, and they reduce their catch if the data on whale populations is worrying because they actually give a shit about the whales themselves and respect them as beings in their own right.

Yes, I know.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And it has the advantage of being small-scale enough to regulate, which helps Alyrium's concerns. OK.

Yeah, but that is not what they want. They dont want a ritualistic whale hunt where they go out in traditional hunts, kill a few whales, observe the proper ancient rituals and distribute the whale flesh among the hunter's families. That is what aboriginals do, and they reduce their catch if the data on whale populations is worrying because they actually give a shit about the whales themselves and respect them as beings in their own right.

Yes, I know.

I know you know. I just want to make sure no one in here has any illusions about that subject.