i guess when we come to a point where we can clone whales and put tons of them in the ocean maybe they can hunt clones. I just don't see how anyone can condone hunting endangered species. if weed were endangered, we would have bigger problems than that, because the only way i see that happening is armageddon from a nuclear war or asteroid impact, maybe even an ice age. like i said the sea sheppards are pretty foolish, and i think they are actually going to try and board a harpoon ship next week, but still when you kill 50 endangered species a season, and claim it's for research, which is bull****, something is wrong.
yeah the hippies like to say that, but i think there is little chance they have ever really had any success whatsoever with this strategy. the thing to remember is is that their plan really isnt to disrupt whaling. it is feel like they are doing something. as long as they feel like they are making a difference. he almost surely didnt want his boat destroyed, but paul watson probably did want it destroyed, to bring press attention. thats the goal. why shouldnt they be slaughtering whales? the japs like to eat whales. i like to eat cows and chickens, dont you? what is the difference? whales are really big? so what. the hippies like to say that killing whales ruins the ecosystem, which ruins us eventually. but we all know that isnt true. and if the ultimate goal is to save the ecosystem for humans, because humans are important, then i know of far more efficient ways to save humans right now. but see thats the thing. they are not in it for the whales. they are in in it to feel good about themselves, because they have personality flaws and desperately need to tell themselves that they are good people. and also there are probably a few guys on the boat because it is alike a fun vacation and they are trying to get laid. there are a couple decent girls on board.
it was pretty clear to me that the whaling ship turned into the speedboat. and, according to the sea shepherds, their efforts have a big affect on the whalers. they somehow can track the # of whales caught (maybe the whalers have to report it) and the #s go way down when they are out there---despite the fact that they are f-ups.
well, according to the sea shepherds, the japanese shot a gun at paul watson, but the bullet was magically stopped by a badge or something he was wearing. also the whalers are willing to kill whales directly in front of the sea shepherds. i have never seen the shepherds stop whalers at all, even slightly, and i have seen every episode. i have however seen the shephers nearly kill themselves in a few different ways. i think it is far more likely that a sea shepherd gets themselves killed than saves a whale.
because they are endangered species. if they weren't i wouldn't have a problem with it. Hell, the whole thing has actually sparked my curiosity about how whales taste. below are the different whale species that are endangered and how many are thought to be still in the wild. northern right whale 500-1,000 endangered (ESA, IUCN) southern right whale 3,000 endangered (ESA); vulunerable (IUCN) bowhead whale 8,000 endangered (ESA, IUCN) blue whale 10,000-14,000 endangered (ESA, IUCN) fin whale 120,000-150,000 endangered (ESA); vulnerable (IUCN) sei whale 50,000 endangered (ESA) humpback whale 10,000+ endangered (ESA, IUCN) sperm whale 200,000 endangered (ESA) vaquita a few hundred endangered (ESA) baiji about 300 endangered (ESA, IUCN) Indus susu 500 endangered (ESA, IUCN)
1. we dont know that the japanese are killing so many that it threatens the existence of the whales. if their quota was small enough that the whales would continue to exist, you would be ok with killing the whales? how do you know that it isnt? 2. even if they were, i dont really understand why an endangered species is so important. why do you care if the whales exist? 3. if the whales were being killed off by some other force, something you consider "natural" like competition from another animal for food, would that be acceptable as part of the natural process of earth? keep in mind that in the course of evolution, virtually every animal that has ever existed is now extinct. i discussed this earlier in the thread so i guess i shouldnt go over it again.
Their quota is 50 a season, and it is a self imposed quota, which means they can change it at anytime. The second point you made is ridiculous. What about Tigers, Lions and Bears. If they were endangered would you advocate poaching them as well? Number 3, if they were being killed off naturally, then i think we should still do whatever we can to preserve them.
my point was not ridiculous. you just have never thought about it. there are really a staggering number of animals that are extinct. you know nothing of them, they existed, and now they dont. millions of species, perhaps billions, over the history of the earth, species have come and gone constantly. do you miss them? of course not. like i said before, virtaully every animal that ever existed is no extinct. and here we are still fine for the loss of them. we dont even notice. are we to take some snapshot of the animals that exist now and stop evolution here? no more changing, lets stop right here? why? animals come and go. as far as lions and bears or whatever, if they died out, it wouldnt bother me all that much. if there were no more lions, the gazelles would love it, and some other animal would start to take over their habitat, maybe a kickass cheetah or something, i dunno. things change. you didnt answer my question. how do you know the 50 whales they kill is a number that is unsustainable or threatening? you dont know that at all.
