Quote:

I can back it up
But from which book I remember that from ...


I'm not against Whaling, but I think the reasons that the Nipponese give, let alone the methods aren't justified. Why won't they admit to just being 'overpopulated' and needing to exhaust resources because of that?
...I think also that they hate being called Japanese (which probably sounds like being called a 'Nancy' in their own tongue) for want of Nipponese. Mind you, there is much 'mis-labled' people, places, species out there - like Australia

Don't worry. I might come across as a Conservative - but I'm just as against the 'laziness' of the Environmentalists/Conservationists in providing an 'alternative'.
Take Fishing.
You can't stop Fishing (unless the Fish run out) - people need to eat Fish, though I can blame 'overpopulationalised nations' a fair bit.
Which is possibly why there has been a number of 'stoppages' against Fishing?
So if you can't stop Fishing ...generally, what can be done to boost Fish stocks.
This is where purposely designed and researched Artificial Reefs come into it and this is what the E & C's  must get stuck into ...creating something that not only regenerates Fish stocks, but stimulates are more bountiful growth pattern more-so than was previously done - naturally. Just dumping ex-naval ships ain't the go, especially when they are dumped for Divers, more than fish.

So.
Stop the Whaling ...but the Nipponese can demand that the E & C's come up with a 'Proliferation Plan' as well.
I think Whales are a different kettle of Fish to Fish themselves ...mammals don't breed as fast, especially at that size.
I would love to see a day (like the very old days when 'life' was indeed plentiful) when we can chow down on Whale meat, knowing that they aren't a "Threatened Species".

>>>Yesterday, if I was 5 minutes faster, I would have had a mother and calf Humpback 'breaching' on the surface above me down at the Gutter at Bass Point in Shellharbour.  Oh well, it was good watching them go past so close to shore.

Quote:


I wonder though if these 'scientists' are basing their "resumption" on the statistic of Whale numbers being back to the amount 200-300 years ago before the mass slaughter on the seas.
I think Whale numbers haven't returned to the 100% that they once were.
I think the 'resumption' is based upon the fact that 'there is growth' (like der ) since 'protection' so thats more than enough to resume killing again.
I would have thought a 100 year protection for a 100% return rate would be justified for 'our' human actions.?

...but there is something more sinister at hand.
The fact that Species like Orca are being killed because they have become 'competitors' for dwindling fish stocks, tells me that Whales will be hunted again for various reasons beyond the 'numbers' excuse.

You and I know that Whales aren't killed for FOOD
They are killed for MONEY.

freediver wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 9:22pm:


Sorry jasign...I'm with FD on this one.
The idea that the Native American Indians had wiped out 75% of the bison before Europeans arrived is rubbish......and proven wrong by the accounts of the American settlers themselves....

It's a silly as the suggestion that it was early man (the Clovis People), not the changes in the climate, that wiped out Woolly Mammoth.....

Don't get me wrong, I'm against the Japanese whaling too.....although possible for slighty different reasons to you.....

It's a little off topic, but I feel I must...

"Bison once roamed from Canada to Mexico, grazing the great plains and frequenting the mountain areas of the North American continent. Their number being so great that the early explorers could not count them, describing them as "number-numberless," and "the country was one black robe" and the "plains were black and appeared as if in motion" with the herds of bison. The most commonly used estimate of their former numbers is approximately 60 million.

A strong relationship between the human and the bison has existed for thousand of years. Bison were the center of life for the Plains Tribes of Native Americans, providing them with food, shelter, clothing and spiritual inspiration. Legend tells "the Great Spirit brought the pipe to the people. She came as a young woman wearing a white buckskin dress and moccasins. After the Great Spirit presented the pipe to the people and explained the significance of that pipe, she left the teepee as a white bison calf."

The near extermination of the American Bison did not occur just in a few short violent years. The fur trade, which began in the 1600s, initially focused on beaver but then demanded that bison (buffalo) robes be shipped to Europe. By the early 1800s, trade in buffalo robes and buffalo tongues significantly increased and caused approximately 200,000 bison kills annually on the plains. The 1830s to 1860s were the four decades in which most of the slaughter of bison occurred. Wagon load after wagon load of robes, tongues and, occasionally, selected cuts of bison meat, moved east. Soon, collection and shipping of bison bones to eastern cities where they ground up for use as phosphorous fertilizer or bone char became common. The arrival of the railroads further exacerbated herd conditions for the bison and by the early 1880s there were only a few free-ranging bison.

In 1886, zoologist William T. Hornaday needed specimens of the plains bison for the National Museum in Washington, D.C. Knowing that the plains bison were now becoming quite scarce, he went west and collected in eight weeks time only 25 bison in a region (Montana) that had supported tens of thousands a few years earlier. His thorough search clearly demonstrated that the species was indeed in danger of imminent extinction. By 1893, the estimates were only slightly more than 300 bison left of the herds that conservatively numbered near 60 million animals."

http://www.americanwest.com/critters/buffindx.htm

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Nov 1^st, 2010 at 10:47am:


Well if the Native Americans (and the primitive tribes before them) had 7000+ years to 'decimated' the bison, how come the numbers were so large when Europeans first settled???

A single bison (which can weigh up to an imperial ton, 2000 pounds, about 900 kilos) would be enough food to feed a tribe for about a week....depennding on the tribe size of course......

Going by those numbers, it'd be nearly impossible for the Indians (or the clovis people) to have even kept up with the bison birth rate, let alone wiped out 75% of the population...

Think about it, when the white man arrived, there were 3 times as many bison in America as there are PEOPLE currently in Australia.....

60 million bison...and they're herd animals, so it's about 3 to 1 female to male, so about 45 million females.....if even half of the cows have 1 calf a year that's still 22.5 million more per year....there is NO way that there'd be anywere near enough of the Plains Indians to kill more than 100,000 bison in a year....

Those figures are very rough.....but you get the general idea of the numbers....

You say my estimates are 'rough'.
How on earth could they have 'estimated' 60 million ...MILLION, back then?
I'm banking on a severe exaggeration just like the old 'sea monster pictures'.

The Namerindians were 'mostly' nomadic compared to their Central and Southern brethren. A lot of tribes would just 'follow the Bison' like parasites. With the later introduction of Horses, the hunts just up'd the ante for more kills. Like I said, thousands of years.
...the Aboriginals just 'barbacued' the MegaFauna out of existence with 'Fire Farming'.
I just believe/think that the Namerindians were no 'Angels' in comparison to other Indigenous/Aboriginal/Indian peoples who committed much Environmental/Conservational damage as did modern races and cultures ...although over a longer period - but still a period of decline.

Name me one part of the world or time of the world, where the Environment and the Animals 'proliferated' via Human occupation ...and this doesn't include 'domestication' (slavery).

Well I will have to concede with you on this issue Freediver as yes, it is coming across as vague in relation to cold hard facts from my own personal input here.

But Science sometimes falls short many times of plain Common Sense and that is how I sometimes play the game.

Yep.
As far as indigenous peoples go around the world, right down to Easter Island -
"reputation precedes them".

I think I read the 'statistic' I mentioned before, in the Jesse Martin book "Lionheart" (which I can't find to confirm) ...?

A Scientist will tell you that the Earth is not at the Centre of the Universe.
But a Spiritualist will tell you that the Earth IS the centre of OUR universe.
...both are right.

So with that said.
I still think it is 'MONEY' that drives the Scientific assessment that Whaling is free to commence.
I think this is 'premature'.
I'm in no delusion that the NATURAL world can go back to the way it was and that we can't put an entire HALT upon all Fishing activities
and
as much as I agree with Environementalist/Conservationist,
I think they can get off their butts and do a lot more that just tell people from 'overpopulated' nations to STOP.
They need to come up with ways to help 'proliferate' wild food stocks more so than they did previously.
If E/C's are 'over the top' with their demands to stop whaling, deforestation, etc ...it is in pure reaction to the 'blantant wastage' of the natural world.
Hunt for purpose and food, not Trophy or for the sake of it.

The SpearFishing scene in New Zealand is taking a new approach as the 'protectors' of their underwater environment with 'responsible' actions and education. "We are protecting 'our' environment, 'our' future" one said on a Dive Forum.
Commercial Fishing Australia is looking to turn the entire NSW coast into a 20km NO TAKE ZONE - Sanctuary. This knocks out the local 'Recreational' competitor (who sometimes undercuts the Commercial Fisherman and sells to Restaurants) who the majority - can't get out past 20km's. It also follows the Poor Knights and Goat Island system by allowing a 'buffer' to build up stocks naturally and allow the Aust Commercial Fishing Industry to reap greater size and number 'spillover'.

Quote:


Short term pain - long term gain. I for one agree with the Commercial Fishing Industry on this one - they are protecting their assets for the long term. The damage already done (over-fishing)is the 'price' that will be paid for the adjustment.

Quote:


Not as much no - the loss of Species by Bantu (africans) was very minimal ...and you can blame deforestation in the Sahara region to the Arabian-Berber-Egyptian peoples in the old days.
The Bantu was one people who could live in the Garden out of choice, rather than out of inability to build cities - they were Farmers basically, and they farmed Wildly, as well as domesticatedly.
Great Zimbabwe was built between the Shona (dated a Colonel once and she was hot!) and the Ndbele, more as a 'fortification' than a city structure. Mostly, the common Bantu building was a Kraal. Northern Africa had influences from Egypt, the Mediterreanean, Asia.

I think the Australian Aboriginal peoples - ironically the most 'land' dependent peoples ever "we are a part of the land", were also responsible for the most extinctions - namedly, the Mega Fauna.

Quote:


Not even close Gizmo - you get rid of the Trees (etc) and you are drying the area out. You are removing that cool moist barrier between canopy and ground.
And BBQ (Carib) has been around for a long time with the Aboriginals doing it on a large scale. When the settlers arrived, Sydney Basin was neatly 'burnt' to keep underbrush to a minimum - resulting in nice forests of trees only.

There is so less many trees today (75% reduction I reckon) - coincidently bringing the idea of Global Warming.
Put in 6+Billion carbon dioxide producers and things a kinda warm indeed. Ever been in a small room with heaps of people - gets kinda stuffy and sweaty real fast
...common sense.

Wrong.
The Equator provides 'lush and vibrant' growth like Amazon, Central America, Indonesia, south India  - monsoon activity.
You are probably thinking of the 'Dry Belts' of which Australia is unlucky enough to be within. But this doesn't negate good rainfall, if it is 'provided' for ...by planting more Trees to cool the surface temperature, etc.

I remember the Orange Roughy was nearly obliterated by so-called 'responsible and scientifically backed' Trawling.
Another unique species nearly wiped out!
Again, reputation precedes and I wonder why the Ferals get angry and the Hippys cry foul to much extreme.

Why should Whales pay the price of our irresponsible greed and over-population?

Sticker on Car: Re Petrol and Cigarette price rise - if I pollute, I might as well 'pay' for it.

So I wonder when the Govt is gonna cough up $500 million to the Environmentalists/Conservationists in compensation for allowing the Nipponese to Whale illegally in 'sanctuary' waters - rather than giving it to the Indonesians?

Quote:


Yet you cling to similarly absurd views about terraforming despite the evidence. Is this another case of 'common sense' trumping facts for you?

Yeah I do realise that Gizmo - I've just finished reading "Gum" which is all about Eucalypts and the people involved with them over the centuries.
...but so-called 'Clever Australia' can't even bother to live in Straw Bale Houses as a Fire Preventative measure, because it is deemed too "hippy" or "alternative". So do you think living in a constantly 'Fired' environment with the way things are is going to go?
Eucalypts are very 'intelligent' trees and are adaptable ...there will still be fires for them.

I wouldn't call my 'terra-forming' views absurd. They do well for the Nile Delta and a few other places around the world. We just have the potential to do it on a grander scale.
...noticed Abbott was out at the Murray-Darling.








...what a waste.

I really can't wait until Humanity is replaced.

Quote:


smacking loathesome.

Just finishing the book "Someone else's daughter": The Life and Death of Anita Cobby.
In it the Judge says this:
"Wild animals are given to pack assaults and killings. However, they do so for the purpose of survival and not as a result of a degrading animal's passion."
and
"Not so these prisoners. They assaulted in a pack for the purpose to satisfy their lust and killed for the purpose of identification."

...I can only say that there is a major percentage of Humanity that carries out such a behaviour that is 'beneath' the character of Animals, upon Animals themselves.

To kill Whales for a fabricated excuse of 'scientific' is just such a level of behaviour.

I am no Greenie ...if I was, I would have a Gun and camoulflage and  working for the Military not Political Industry - thats for sure.


...I rest my case.

Don't pilot whales toy with their prey before they kill them?

But pilot whales and Orca are both actually members of the dolphin family....

Not really whales.....

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Nov 8^th, 2010 at 11:49am:


I think they meant 'play with' as in the same way a cat toys with a mouse, you know??
And while the parents do 'toy' to teach young to hunt, they also do it when they have no young one with them....

Depends Freediver.
The Solomon Islanders were very fruit orientated, but when 200 chinese landed upon their islands uninvited ...only two young boys survived - because they were considered too 'scrawny'.

What are you afraid of? That the Conservationists keep the animals from those pitiful Cooking Shows that are all the rage for Australia's growing obesity? Probably yes. If you see the Chefs in China at the Worlds biggest Resturant in action - you would see the attraction of 'cruelty' that such offers.

This clip shows how I wouldn't wish this 'death' upon anyone, so why an animal? I work in a Hatchery - it always reminds me of what happened to the Jewish people, when the unwanted chickens are gassed and dumped in the slush bins ...they used to be macerated and even live a bit more ago.
Now I know Australia leads the world in 'dignifying' the death of produce animals and we are changing the methods of Halal, etc in the Middle-East.


Nothing is perfect, but progress is being made.

We should ban a lot of things FreeDiver,
but we should also be telling the Conservationists (Environmentalists, etc) to 'provide' better alternatives rather than just say "stop" and "no".
We can't bring back the past, but we can't hold forth the future.

So I agree that Whaling needs to be stopped. But an 'alernative' method or any other efforts, need to be addressed.

eg: If I told the Commercial Fishermen around Wollongong to hold off Fishing around the Five Islands, I would say it was for 'their' gain just as much as that of the Aquatic Life. So it would be a 10 years of tough fishing for the Fleet then everything will improve then on due to the 'spillover' effect of the Five Islands No Take Zone.
...it would never happen though.

We have risen up from our caveman monkey beginnings and conquered the animal kingdom...the world.
But now we just don't know how to stop.

Personally, I may state all the above FreeDiver - but I give little hope for it all. I honestly think Humanity will ravage this world with but 5% of major life forms surviving, trees included. This is probably why I'm not a practicing or official Greenie, etc.
There is no hope.