Japan accepts court ban on Antarctic whaling

[Irbis]

My understanding is that the Inuit practice subsistence whaling which I don't view as a threat to the hunted species. People have to eat and that's a part of the world that is not suited to extensive agriculture. As long as it stays on a subsistence level, and the smaller whales, it's not going to pose a threat to the species.

Though that still doesn't make it right. Better solution IMHO would be for the local government to give them a deal and offer food credits on whatever meat they want for stopping the hunts.

[mr friendly guy]

Australia does use its military vessels to conduct fishery patrols already, doesn't she? Wasn't that one of the main reasons for the armidale class?

As to the whales in the arctic, Japan wants to hunt big whales (fin and humpback) predominantly found in arctic waters.

Fair point. Although AFAIK people smugglers and illegal fishermen don't respond the same way Sea Shepherd does. Military vessels may very well backfire on the Japanese just like the sinking of the Ady Gill flooded Sea Shepherd with donations. Especially since unlike Australian fishery patrols, the Japanese might find they don't have a legal leg to stand on. Especially with the recent judgement.

But onto my other piece of speculation. If it does come to a confrontation where a military vessel uses force on the Sea Shepherd vessel, would other nations start becoming more willing to send military vessels and in more numbers when patrolling disputed territories because they worry the Japanese or some other government would now start sending military vessels to accompany civilian ones? Hopefully that doesn't happen.

[Broomstick]

My understanding is that the Inuit practice subsistence whaling which I don't view as a threat to the hunted species. People have to eat and that's a part of the world that is not suited to extensive agriculture. As long as it stays on a subsistence level, and the smaller whales, it's not going to pose a threat to the species.

Though that still doesn't make it right. Better solution IMHO would be for the local government to give them a deal and offer food credits on whatever meat they want for stopping the hunts.

You're talking about an area of the world, at least in North America, that is already heavily subsidized by various levels of government.

Also, there are limits on what these guys can take, limits like "1 whale of this type every 2 years per settlement/tribe/community of X size, 1 whale of this other type every 13 years for settlement/tribe/community of X size". They've been doing hunts at this level for centuries, if not millennia, without impacting the population. These aren't the people who decimated the whales in the first place, they have very limited opportunities to support themselves, and why should they have to give up their independence (such tatters as remain) because asshats like the Japanese can't control themselves?

Where do you think meat comes from in those communities? Wal-mart does not exist in the high arctic. That's why the US government allows these folks to use food stamps to purchase ammunition, arrows, snares, and traps where there are no roads and no stores and every scrap of food is either flown in from hundreds of kilometers away or hunted down by the locals. I'm not talking about continuing something no longer needed and done traditionally, I'm talking about communities that are truly subsistence hunters, that's where the vast majority of their diet comes from, them hunting or fishing it themselves. They aren't selling it to outsiders, they're using it to feed their families.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Not only that, but these were people who were, by and large, decimated (more like nonimated. 90%) by westerners and had their lands seized. We have treaties with them now that we actually respect (as opposed to the earlier ones) that mandate a degree of autonomy and subsidy. We have fucked them over enough, taking their ancient subsistence hunting practices would be a bit much. I am dubious about the ethics of killing whales at all, irrespective of sustainability concerns, and even I dont think we should be taking that away from them, unless and until we are absolutely sure that whaling is murder.

[Irbis]

You're talking about an area of the world, at least in North America, that is already heavily subsidized by various levels of government.

I mean a subsidy specifically for this, so there would be no excuses later. A subsidy designed to make their lot better, not something making it worse, like a lot of them do.

Also, there are limits on what these guys can take, limits like "1 whale of this type every 2 years per settlement/tribe/community of X size, 1 whale of this other type every 13 years for settlement/tribe/community of X size". They've been doing hunts at this level for centuries, if not millennia, without impacting the population.

One, they have been doing it when whale population was far larger than it is today. Two, I find "doing for centuries" to be pretty shitty excuse. Europeans have been killing each others in duels for about as long time - is that reason to make duels legal? Especially seeing it won't make a dent in human population?

Bottom line is, we know about whale intelligence far more today, enough to know killing whales isn't really that far from killing big apes, humans included.

These aren't the people who decimated the whales in the first place, they have very limited opportunities to support themselves, and why should they have to give up their independence (such tatters as remain) because asshats like the Japanese can't control themselves?

Because humans did enough shit to environment to warrant saying 'time to stop, no excuses'?

Will we allow tribes of cannibals with equally long tradition to hunt humans unpunished? Or allow natives to hunt critically endangered species even if they weren't the ones that made them so? To me, answer to both is 'no'.

Where do you think meat comes from in those communities? Wal-mart does not exist in the high arctic. That's why the US government allows these folks to use food stamps to purchase ammunition, arrows, snares, and traps where there are no roads and no stores and every scrap of food is either flown in from hundreds of kilometers away or hunted down by the locals. I'm not talking about continuing something no longer needed and done traditionally, I'm talking about communities that are truly subsistence hunters, that's where the vast majority of their diet comes from, them hunting or fishing it themselves. They aren't selling it to outsiders, they're using it to feed their families.

You know, most of the time when a location is so unsuitable for human life, people do abandon it (or die). Should we enable people who refuse to admit defeat and cling to a spot, ecological costs be damned, to still do it?

To me, the answer is no, but I believe in reducing humanity's footprit at any means possible. That's why I proposed special subsidy, to be spent on best food replacement possible, whatever they want to respect their identity. And no, it doesn't have to be flown. If they can hunt whales, you can transport it by sea. And IMHO paying for occasional boat trip with supplies to leave whales alone is well worth it.

Not only that, but these were people who were, by and large, decimated (more like nonimated. 90%) by westerners and had their lands seized.

I happen to live in the land where 90% to 100% of some populations were killed, 3 of them in fact in last 70 years, yet somehow no one is proposing to give the survivors any special rights besides a few symbolic ones.

White man guilt shouldn't IMHO be turned off in some cases. You can keep it in human-human relations, fine, human-animal relations, where animals are even weaker side than natives is not one of them.

We have treaties with them now that we actually respect (as opposed to the earlier ones) that mandate a degree of autonomy and subsidy.

That's why I proposed a separate deal for that. Respect for one's laws ends where another's rights begin.

We have fucked them over enough, taking their ancient subsistence hunting practices would be a bit much.

Ancient. Tell me, when was last time you beat someone with stone axe on the head? Do you feel the loss of that 'ancient tradition'?

I am dubious about the ethics of killing whales at all, irrespective of sustainability concerns, and even I dont think we should be taking that away from them, unless and until we are absolutely sure that whaling is murder.

Well, duh, even if it isn't, maybe, just maybe, it's right thing to do even if victims aren't really 'murdered'. We fucked up environment enough.

Do you ask right wingers for opinion if women should be allowed to vote or abort a pregnancy, or you you try to do right thing, "traditions" be damned?

[Broomstick]

You're talking about an area of the world, at least in North America, that is already heavily subsidized by various levels of government.

I mean a subsidy specifically for this, so there would be no excuses later. A subsidy designed to make their lot better, not something making it worse, like a lot of them do.

Yeah, if only we knew how to do that reliably, every time. Part of the problem with just handing out money to these groups is a disturbing tendency to spend the money on alcohol rather than food. Turns out letting folks hunt and fish for a living is actually healthier than just handing them money, or even food rations. In fact, simply handing shit out is one of the reasons some of those communities are so fucked up.

Sometimes it really is better off leaving well enough alone.

Also, there are limits on what these guys can take, limits like "1 whale of this type every 2 years per settlement/tribe/community of X size, 1 whale of this other type every 13 years for settlement/tribe/community of X size". They've been doing hunts at this level for centuries, if not millennia, without impacting the population.

One, they have been doing it when whale population was far larger than it is today.

Keep in mind that these folks are not idiots. They don't take on the really big whales that were the main targets of commercial whaling but rather the smaller species like beluga, some of which have never been threatened. Seriously, you're in a small boat hunting whales with a harpoon and rifle - are you going to take on a blue whale at 30 meters length and 170 tons or are you going to go after the 5.5 meter, 1,600 kg beluga? The Inuit are not, and never have been, the main threat to whales of any sort.

Keep in mind, too, there is not a mandate for these folks to hunt whales. Some choose not to. Some have been happy to capture whales alive for sale to aquaria - another disputed practice, but the upside is that the whale is still alive and we've learned a shit ton about the cetaceans from those in captivity (enough, perhaps, that may no longer be able to justify this in the future).

Two, I find "doing for centuries" to be pretty shitty excuse. Europeans have been killing each others in duels for about as long time - is that reason to make duels legal? Especially seeing it won't make a dent in human population?

I am uncomfortable with one culture running roughshod over another. While I personally am not in favor of dueling I'm not in favor of imposing a ban from afar.

Bottom line is, we know about whale intelligence far more today, enough to know killing whales isn't really that far from killing big apes, humans included.

True. However, I would much prefer to concentrate efforts on stopping the Japanese from slaughtering 2,500 whales with factory ships each year than 175 taken by Greenlanders annually or the 50 bowheads taken in Alaska, many of which are still taken by methods that given the whales some chance of defending themselves from the hunters. Stopping the big commercial operations is going to have a much greater effect than pursuing Natives. When we stop the industrial/first world folks from pursuing whales let's then discuss the subsistence hunters.

These aren't the people who decimated the whales in the first place, they have very limited opportunities to support themselves, and why should they have to give up their independence (such tatters as remain) because asshats like the Japanese can't control themselves?

Because humans did enough shit to environment to warrant saying 'time to stop, no excuses'?

The industrial world did that shit to the environment, not the Inuit. So why fuck up the Inuit for the sins of others?

Will we allow tribes of cannibals with equally long tradition to hunt humans unpunished?

Actually, the most recent tribe that I know of to give up cannibalism (the Fore of New Guinea) did so because of an illness called kuru rather than by imposition by outsiders. Most of the tribes in places like New Guinea were willing to give up the practice along with near-constant raiding/low-level warfare and other problems endemic to the area. With some backsliding during WWII but of course just about everyone will resort to humanitarianism during severe famine - Leningrad reputedly had some of that going on during the WWII siege, and there were reports of it during the North Korean famine of the mid-1990's. It's not really analogous.

Or allow natives to hunt critically endangered species even if they weren't the ones that made them so? To me, answer to both is 'no'.

The whales hunted by the subsistence level folks are not the endangered species. The commercial whalers really like to conflate what they do with what subsistence hunters do but they are really two different things. The only time a subsistence hunter is going to eat a blue, bowhead, humpback, right, or other mega-whales measured in 10's of meters and hundred ton weights is when one washes up on the beach before it rots - an exceedingly rare event. Subsistence hunters take whales from shore-based boats, usually in the 3-6 meter range. Why? Because even whales in the size range they hunt can smash their boats and kill them, it would be a bit insane to go after the huge whales.

But hey, nothing like commercial guys in factory ships using modern weaponry bitching about guys in seal-skin boats using pointy-sticks to drive home a point, right? Tell me, who do the likes of Sea Shepherd go after? The Inuit/Native/Siberian subsistence hunters or the factory-type ships owned by Japan, Iceland, and Norway? I don't doubt that Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, etc. would like to see the subsistence hunting end but they're going after the greatest threat, which is the commercial whaling not the subsistence whaling.

Another factor is that in communities where subsistence whaling is still practiced whale meat is up to half of the meat consumed in a year, and these people have a diet 90% or more animal flesh. Where they've been convinced to give it up there is immediate pressure on every other animal in their environment. There is concern in some places that such pressure is sufficient to start a decline in caribou herds, trading a minor to non-existent threat to whale species that are not threatened for a potentially serious threat to some other species. The fact is, these folks aren't going to suddenly stop eating. If they can't eat whales they'll eat something else, which is going to cause pressure on other species.

Again, sometimes it really is better to leave well enough alone.

Where do you think meat comes from in those communities? Wal-mart does not exist in the high arctic. That's why the US government allows these folks to use food stamps to purchase ammunition, arrows, snares, and traps where there are no roads and no stores and every scrap of food is either flown in from hundreds of kilometers away or hunted down by the locals. I'm not talking about continuing something no longer needed and done traditionally, I'm talking about communities that are truly subsistence hunters, that's where the vast majority of their diet comes from, them hunting or fishing it themselves. They aren't selling it to outsiders, they're using it to feed their families.

You know, most of the time when a location is so unsuitable for human life, people do abandon it (or die). Should we enable people who refuse to admit defeat and cling to a spot, ecological costs be damned, to still do it?

Old school these people regularly suffered famines that killed off significant percentages of their population, and then abandoned the old, the sick, the handicapped and the very young in such times as a survival measure. If you're OK with a resumption of such things then sure, we can ban a source of half their food. Is that truly preferable to you? The environment does allow people to survive, but it imposes severe costs. Well, since the "enlightened" outside world has ended infanticide and abandoning, or even outright killing, the old and lame there are going to be more people to feed. OK! Let's give them modern hunting tools so they can more effectively feed themselves - whoops, population boom. Oh, crap, now they're eating more of the local animals. Well, if we don't want the caribou wiped out maybe we need to allow them their traditional fishing rights.

In other words, outsiders coming into "fix" things have again contributed to the current problems. These people were never "defeated" by the environment, they survived quite well in it for thousands of years. And then outsiders show up and start fucking things up in the name of "progress".

To me, the answer is no, but I believe in reducing humanity's footprit at any means possible. That's why I proposed special subsidy, to be spent on best food replacement possible, whatever they want to respect their identity.

You mean traditional foods, like caribou (which has to be hunted in their environment) or arctic hare (same) or seal (same)? You can't raise cows, sheep, and goats in that environment - the Greenland Norse died trying to do just that.

And no, it doesn't have to be flown. If they can hunt whales, you can transport it by sea. And IMHO paying for occasional boat trip with supplies to leave whales alone is well worth it.

What part of "there are no roads" do you not understand? These folks are NOT setting out from ports, they're launching kayaks from sandy beaches - when they aren't icelocked. The only boats that can land there are likewise small boats, not big, cost-effective supply ships. Which is why the bulk of goods transported in the high arctic go by airplane. Everywhere, around the whole of the high arctic, airplanes are the main transport for outside supplies for settlements. Sleds/ice roads are, to some degree, possible in the depths of winter, but have their issues, too.

This is not an environment like the rest of the world.

I happen to live in the land where 90% to 100% of some populations were killed, 3 of them in fact in last 70 years, yet somehow no one is proposing to give the survivors any special rights besides a few symbolic ones.

Well, some other nations are doing things differently. Deal with it.

White man guilt shouldn't IMHO be turned off in some cases. You can keep it in human-human relations, fine, human-animal relations, where animals are even weaker side than natives is not one of them.

In traditional arctic whaling the whales are hardly "defenseless", it was fucking dangerous for the human whalers. It still is.

Even in the 19th Century whaling was fucking dangerous for human beings.

We have treaties with them now that we actually respect (as opposed to the earlier ones) that mandate a degree of autonomy and subsidy.

That's why I proposed a separate deal for that. Respect for one's laws ends where another's rights begin.

We do not yet grant equal rights to any species other than H. sapiens.

We have fucked them over enough, taking their ancient subsistence hunting practices would be a bit much.

Ancient. Tell me, when was last time you beat someone with stone axe on the head? Do you feel the loss of that 'ancient tradition'?

Do not conflate warfare and crime with making a living/obtaining food to eat.

I am dubious about the ethics of killing whales at all, irrespective of sustainability concerns, and even I dont think we should be taking that away from them, unless and until we are absolutely sure that whaling is murder.

Well, duh, even if it isn't, maybe, just maybe, it's right thing to do even if victims aren't really 'murdered'. We fucked up environment enough.

So why punish people who aren't the problem? It's not subsistence hunters that nearly drove the big whales to extinction, it's commercial whalers.

Do you ask right wingers for opinion if women should be allowed to vote or abort a pregnancy, or you you try to do right thing, "traditions" be damned?

I'm not proposing we invade Ireland in order to legalize abortions, if that's what you mean. I'm not proposing we invade Saudi Arabia to improve the lot of women there, either. I don't like those aspects of their systems, but it doesn't justify changing their societies by force.

So why would it be justified to invade these arctic peoples and change their societies by force?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I happen to live in the land where 90% to 100% of some populations were killed, 3 of them in fact in last 70 years, yet somehow no one is proposing to give the survivors any special rights besides a few symbolic ones.

So we should break out treaties? AGAIN? Do you have even the slightest fucking idea what happened in North America to the indigenous people? It makes the holocaust look like a band of cute foxes raiding a chicken coop. It finally ended with the much reduced tribal territory being essentially declared semi-autonomous regions legally speaking (although there are still some fucked up caveats as a result of those treaties being signed at gunpoint, like having all mineral rights held "in trust"). If we break them (by say, making their whaling illegal) we are in violation of those treaties, and their lands revert back to their own sovereignty. Unless you propose using violence to subjugate them. Again.

White man guilt shouldn't IMHO be turned off in some cases. You can keep it in human-human relations, fine, human-animal relations, where animals are even weaker side than natives is not one of them.

What part of "treaty obligation" do you not understand?

That's why I proposed a separate deal for that. Respect for one's laws ends where another's rights begin.

Go ahead. Prove that bowhead whales are fully sapient and thus merit the legal protections otherwise known as human rights. I will grant that it is somewhat likely that they are, however, we need to know for sure before we start breaking treaties over the matter.

Well, duh, even if it isn't, maybe, just maybe, it's right thing to do even if victims aren't really 'murdered'. We fucked up environment enough.

Do you ask right wingers for opinion if women should be allowed to vote or abort a pregnancy, or you you try to do right thing, "traditions" be damned?

That "we" does not include the Inuit. They were not a party to our 19th and 20th century commercial whaling regimes, our ongoing love affair with deforestation and climate change etc. What they do does not damage whale populations.

[Borgholio]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27079462

There we go....

Wow...I totally didn't see THAT coming...

[Channel72]

Whale you see, tastes like shit. It is hanging on by a traditional thread, and that is about it.

Really? I've never tried it but I've heard it tastes "gamy", like venison or moose - which sounds pretty tasty to me.

[Broomstick]

Yes, I've heard the complaints about "gamey" game food before. Oddly enough, though, no one has ever complained about my venison stew. Asked for seconds, sure, but not complained.

Here are my thoughts on "gaminess" and food:

1) Different types of animal flesh require different techniques for optimum flavor. You don't cook beef, lamb, pork, chicken, duck, etc. all the same, so why would you cook, say, deer the exact same way you cook beef? Answer: you don't. You cook it in a manner appropriate to the item you have in front of you. Failure to do so - cooking one type of flesh as if it were another - results in yuck. Interestingly enough, one of the traditional ways to consume whale is to eat the skin and attached blubber raw, basically whale sushi. This is actually a very important source of vitamin C in the traditional diet which, as mentioned previously, may be nearly entirely meat and for large parts of the year lack fresh plant food entirely. It's also high in vitamin D, which is sort of important if you live in a part of the world where winter nights are measured in months with no daylight and therefore you can not produce it via exposure to sunlight.

2) Some people like that "gamey" flavor, some don't. This is like arguing whether dark meat or light meat in domestic chicken or turkey tastes better. Which is better depends on who you are. Some people like strongly/distinctly flavored flesh and some prefer bland, and as a general rule the latter won't be particularly fond of wild meat.

3) Older and more muscular animals will have a stronger flavor. Whales, with long lifespans, who swim 24/7 for all their lives, are probably going to come down on the "strong" end of the flavor scale. They will also likely be tougher than domestic food animals, which tend to be younger and less active when butchered.

4) Whales, like everything else in the sea, and like apex predators everywhere, concentrate environmental toxins and pollution in their flesh. In high enough concentrations this might result in off-flavors. (It also might result in human health problems as is a reason why limiting or eliminating whale consumption might be a good idea.)

[Thanas]

Whales have crazy amounts of fat and mercury poisoning, like Broomstick said. Definitely not health food, probably even way below the quality of what fast food joints are selling.

[Broomstick]

People have managed to acquire mercury poisoning by excessive consumption of fish with "safe" levels of mercury - if you eat, say, salmon or tuna 3 times a day 7 days a week you might, in fact, build up significant levels of toxic crap. Yet another reason to have a varied diet.

[Welf]

So we should break out treaties? AGAIN? Do you have even the slightest fucking idea what happened in North America to the indigenous people? It makes the holocaust look like a band of cute foxes raiding a chicken coop. It finally ended with the much reduced tribal territory being essentially declared semi-autonomous regions legally speaking (although there are still some fucked up caveats as a result of those treaties being signed at gunpoint, like having all mineral rights held "in trust"). If we break them (by say, making their whaling illegal) we are in violation of those treaties, and their lands revert back to their own sovereignty. Unless you propose using violence to subjugate them. Again.

And this treaties can't be changed or amended? Isn't it possible to offer alternatives?

True. However, I would much prefer to concentrate efforts on stopping the Japanese from slaughtering 2,500 whales with factory ships each year than 175 taken by Greenlanders annually or the 50 bowheads taken in Alaska, many of which are still taken by methods that given the whales some chance of defending themselves from the hunters. Stopping the big commercial operations is going to have a much greater effect than pursuing Natives. When we stop the industrial/first world folks from pursuing whales let's then discuss the subsistence hunters.

It is much better if 225 whales a year get hunted instead of 2.500, or rather 2.725 since those numbers add up, but 0 is still the best number. The Pleistocene megafauna of north America was decimated by subsidence hunters, too. Obviously 10 times or more effort should be put into banning commercial whaling, but I see no reason to not also find ways to reduce hunting wherever possible.

[Thanas]

People have managed to acquire mercury poisoning by excessive consumption of fish with "safe" levels of mercury - if you eat, say, salmon or tuna 3 times a day 7 days a week you might, in fact, build up significant levels of toxic crap. Yet another reason to have a varied diet.

Yeah and Whales have such levels that it would be illegal were it not for...tradition. Also, that fat...you might just as well eat just the white fat from bacon. Would be healthier.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Whale you see, tastes like shit. It is hanging on by a traditional thread, and that is about it.

Really? I've never tried it but I've heard it tastes "gamy", like venison or moose - which sounds pretty tasty to me.

Whales dont really hold their breath, at least not the ones that dive for any significant depth or duration. When they dive they exhale most of the air so that the titanic pressure can collapse their rib cage (which is adapted to fold inward)*. They they store O2 in their blood and muscle tissue, the adaptations for which make their meat taste like shit. Now, I am certain that some people grow to like it but...

*when they rise toward the surface, the lungs expand again, CO2 in the blood has somewhere to go, CO2 fills the lungs, and it is vented upon exhalation.

And this treaties can't be changed or amended? Isn't it possible to offer alternatives?

Not unilaterally. Many tribes have given up whaling voluntarily, but in the high arctic, it is a primary source of food and they dont want to give up a cultural practice that not only sustains them, but is, frankly, a social and religious festival.

[Broomstick]

And this treaties can't be changed or amended? Isn't it possible to offer alternatives?

Treaties can be amended if both parties agree. What if the other side doesn't want to deal?

I'm also curious what "alternatives" you intend to propose. "Hi, we'd like you to stop consuming an item that comprises half your normal diet. What should you eat instead? Well... you can either increase your hunting of other animals, risking shortages there, or rely on us to heavily subsidize other foodstuffs which we will have to fly in, at steadily rising expense, and there may be interruptions in supply due to weather and fuel costs, and the next political administration may cut the budget in which case you'll have to come up with the money to do this yourselves. Despite a lack of paycheck-producing jobs in your area. OK?"

Yeah, right.

Got a better offer?

True. However, I would much prefer to concentrate efforts on stopping the Japanese from slaughtering 2,500 whales with factory ships each year than 175 taken by Greenlanders annually or the 50 bowheads taken in Alaska, many of which are still taken by methods that given the whales some chance of defending themselves from the hunters. Stopping the big commercial operations is going to have a much greater effect than pursuing Natives. When we stop the industrial/first world folks from pursuing whales let's then discuss the subsistence hunters.

It is much better if 225 whales a year get hunted instead of 2.500, or rather 2.725 since those numbers add up, but 0 is still the best number. The Pleistocene megafauna of north America was decimated by subsidence hunters, too. Obviously 10 times or more effort should be put into banning commercial whaling, but I see no reason to not also find ways to reduce hunting wherever possible.

Yeah, OK, let's for the sake of argument say ideally hunting of whales should be zero. Are you going to throw away the good of stopping 2500 whales deaths because you can't get that last 225 or so? If you can't solve a catastrophe immediately then go for harm reduction. Solving the "problem" of subsistence hunters will be a completely different solution than solving the problem of commercial whaling by first world nations and cultures.

I will also point out that the megafauna extinction in North America by subsistence hunters is a theory that is not conclusively proven. Certainly, they had an impact but there could have been other factors at work as well. The remaining megafauna certainly weren't threatened by subsistence hunters, it took an invasion of Europeans with guns to do that.

Anyhow, your "solution" to the subsistence hunters seems to be either:
1) tell them to stop doing it
2) force them to stop doing it
3) mass relocation

Historically, these "solutions" have seldom if ever had good results. Tell me why the end result would be different in this case.

[Broomstick]

They they store O2 in their blood and muscle tissue, the adaptations for which make their meat taste like shit. Now, I am certain that some people grow to like it but...

This might explain why the fat and skin are in some ways the most valued edible parts of the whale.

The other thing is that if you have nothing else to eat you'll learn to tolerate some really horrible tasting food. I also suspect that modern high arctic people value imported condiments and spices rather highly as they can go a long way towards moderating objectionable tastes.

[Welf]

Treaties can be amended if both parties agree. What if the other side doesn't want to deal?

I'm also curious what "alternatives" you intend to propose. "Hi, we'd like you to stop consuming an item that comprises half your normal diet. What should you eat instead? Well... you can either increase your hunting of other animals, risking shortages there, or rely on us to heavily subsidize other foodstuffs which we will have to fly in, at steadily rising expense, and there may be interruptions in supply due to weather and fuel costs, and the next political administration may cut the budget in which case you'll have to come up with the money to do this yourselves. Despite a lack of paycheck-producing jobs in your area. OK?"

Yeah, right.

Got a better offer?

I would prefer a policy of subsidized food. Seems the easiest way. And since there is no real future for coming generations in the Arctic cold I doubt there will be much growth. Rather it will go the way the same way as most subsidence economies and disappear in a few decades.
But I'm not sure anymore, because I'm a bit confused that treaties are sometimes impossible to change if one side disagrees and sometimes can be abolished at whim.

Yeah, OK, let's for the sake of argument say ideally hunting of whales should be zero. Are you going to throw away the good of stopping 2500 whales deaths because you can't get that last 225 or so? If you can't solve a catastrophe immediately then go for harm reduction. Solving the "problem" of subsistence hunters will be a completely different solution than solving the problem of commercial whaling by first world nations and cultures.

So it is only possible to formulate and peruse exactly one policy, never two? And if it was possible to peruse two different approaches, it would be impossible to split the invested effort in any other ratio than 50/50?

I will also point out that the megafauna extinction in North America by subsistence hunters is a theory that is not conclusively proven. Certainly, they had an impact but there could have been other factors at work as well. The remaining megafauna certainly weren't threatened by subsistence hunters, it took an invasion of Europeans with guns to do that.

Anyhow, your "solution" to the subsistence hunters seems to be either:
1) tell them to stop doing it
2) force them to stop doing it
3) mass relocation

Historically, these "solutions" have seldom if ever had good results. Tell me why the end result would be different in this case.

I actually wanted to suggest a policy where you make them stop doing it by offering an alternative that has at least same benefit to them and has ovberall less cost or better effect.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is much better if 225 whales a year get hunted instead of 2.500, or rather 2.725 since those numbers add up, but 0 is still the best number. The Pleistocene megafauna of north America was decimated by subsidence hunters, too.

I forgot to mention this before. No. No it was not. The advance and retreat of icecaps and changes in the vegetation structure contributed just as much if not more.

I would prefer a policy of subsidized food. Seems the easiest way.

Which is expensive, native americans tend to get screwed over (still) by white authorities, and later administrations may cut back the funding. Broomstick already ripped this part.

But I'm not sure anymore, because I'm a bit confused that treaties are sometimes impossible to change if one side disagrees and sometimes can be abolished at whim.

It depends on the treaty. A condition of First Nations people coming into the united states was that their reservations be set up as semi-autonomous regions (more or less). They have their own governments, and in some ways have more local control than states do (in some ways less). They get certain benefits, and are exempt from some parts of US law because of this particular status.

Those treaties form the basis of legitimate US territorial control over that land. But unlike strictly international law (like, say, the UN Convention Against Torture) where a superpower can basically ignore a treaty and no one can stop them, this is a semi-domestic treaty. Abrogating that treaty would delegitimize our own domestic law and would likely result in...well... armed resistance. Justified armed resistance. We abrogate those treaties, the native american lands revert to their own sovereignty, and we would basically have to invade them to take control. That would not be politic.

[Broomstick]

I would prefer a policy of subsidized food.

What food(s)?
Subsidized how?
Transported to where it is needed how?

You're talking about settlements where there are NO roads. People who live largely without cash. People who can not grow their own food due to the climate and environment (Inuit DO make extensive use of edible plants in their environment, from seaweed to land plants, but it's still only about 10% of their diet at best). A climate that puts great demands on the human body such that the base caloric needs of a human being can be double or even triple that needed in a more temperate climate. You're talking about a part of the world where dogsleds are still a significant means of transport and wild life like polar bears don't have a problem stalking and killing human beings.

You're also talking about convincing them to give up half their food supply.

WHAT are you going to offer them in return? How reliable will transport of this food be? Will you genuinely be able to guarantee that food supply forever?

And since there is no real future for coming generations in the Arctic cold I doubt there will be much growth. Rather it will go the way the same way as most subsidence economies and disappear in a few decades.

Ha ha ha. Right. And if we kill off the buffalo and send the kids to boarding schools where they're beaten for speaking their native language the Plains Indians will wither away in just a generation... except they didn't. And the survivors got pissed.

People have lived in the high arctic for thousands of years. Now, MY people have wandered the world so we aren't particularly attached to any one location but I'd still be mad as hell if someone attempted to coerce me to move by fucking with my food supply. For people who have lived in a region for thousands of years whose identity is rather tightly bound up with the land and waters do you seriously think their culture will just wither away and die willingly? Is there anywhere that has worked without a few massacres to help that along?

Truth is, there are STILL people living a nomadic lifestyle even in places like Europe - they're called gypsies and travelers. There are STILL subsistence cultures all over the earth, from the Hadza hunter-gatherers in Africa to subsistence farmers in the US. They're a minority culture, but they don't go away. Enough people want to continue to live in such a manner the lifestyles and cultures remain and as long as it is voluntary I see no reason to compel them to do otherwise.

In fact, given the limited resources of the high arctic, it's actually a good thing if a sizable portion of their children decide to live elsewhere, overpopulation in such a region would be devastating. Thanks goodness these days the population can be controlled by migration rather than death, like in the old days.

I know your heart is in the right place - you want to make things better for both the humans and the whales. What I don't think you grasp is that many of the Inuit don't regard the arctic as some hellish exile, it's their home. No one is forced to live in those little settlements and villages. They stay because they want to live there, rather than somewhere else.

Despite the fact that the populations of North American arctic people have declined up to 90% thanks to disease and various types of disruption the Inuit are still a majority of people in the Canadian province of Nunavut. I wouldn't count these folks out or assume they'll just disappear oh so conveniently.

Yeah, OK, let's for the sake of argument say ideally hunting of whales should be zero. Are you going to throw away the good of stopping 2500 whales deaths because you can't get that last 225 or so? If you can't solve a catastrophe immediately then go for harm reduction. Solving the "problem" of subsistence hunters will be a completely different solution than solving the problem of commercial whaling by first world nations and cultures.

So it is only possible to formulate and peruse exactly one policy, never two? And if it was possible to peruse two different approaches, it would be impossible to split the invested effort in any other ratio than 50/50?

First of all, you haven't advanced a policy to dissuade subsistence hunters and the high arctic peoples from their traditional hunting and fishing practices.

Second, the approaches required are completely different. In one case you have people based on land under sovereign or semi-autonomous governments. In the other case you have the high seas and international waters where no nation has sovereignty. It's not a matter of "splitting efforts 50/50", they are completely different problems requiring completely different resources and personnel.

Third, for the most part folks are far more concerned with commercial whalers than a few guys hunting from hide-sided kayaks. This includes the major opponents to whaling who are actually out there confronting whalers.

I actually wanted to suggest a policy where you make them stop doing it by offering an alternative that has at least same benefit to them and has ovberall less cost or better effect.

OK, what you are talking about is putting half their food supply off limits forever, and somehow suggesting that a different stack of food can be substituted, food that has to be produced thousands of kilometers away and transported much father than their traditional food supply. Why the hell would you think this could possibly have "overall less cost"? What makes you think it would have "better effect"? Do you know why the Inuit can live active, healthy, and normal-length human lives consuming a diet composed of 75% pure fat? It takes a fuck ton of calories to keep warm in their environment. Look it up - travel by humans hauling their own sleds uses about 6500 calories a day. Traveling by dogsled requires 5000 calories per day for the humans involved. Even using a modern machine like a snowmobile requires the traveler to eat 3300 calories per day. Compare that to the average 2000 required by the typical first-world human being. What the fuck do you propose to replace the calorie-dense traditional foods? Keep in mind, too, that much of these traditional foods also provide things like vitamins C and D.

What are you proposing to replace that? C'mon, I want to hear some actual suggestions.

[loomer]

Welf, would you also be down for forcibly ending the practice of raising cattle for meat? It is, afterall, ecologically disastrous and inefficient on a much larger scale than anything the Inuits could ever hope to achieve. Arguably, small-scale regulated whaling (with its cultural and religious signifiance to boot) is actually environmentally friendly compared to the vast majority of modern agricultural and pastoral practices, not to mention when compared to modern fishing practices (which, let's face it, pretty much amount to aquatic genocide. Tasty, though!)

[Grumman]

...religious significance...

A practice should be neither condoned nor condemned by the law on the basis of its religious significance.

[loomer]

...religious significance...

A practice should be neither condoned nor condemned by the law on the basis of its religious significance.

Yes, but when that religious significance extends to the creation and practice of fundamentally responsible conservationist practices it should be considered in that light for purposes of environmental discourse. Or do you disagree?

[Purple]

Just out of curiosity. What exactly would happen if all the whales went extinct?

[Metahive]

Don't know about the ecological repercussions, but I'd prefer to not add another notch to the "species wiped out by human jackassery"-stick, along with the Passenger Pigeon, the Dodo and who knows what else, thank you.