# Ady Gil Loses Bow to Japanese Whaling Vessel



## Larkvall (7 Jan 2010)

It appears from this video shot from the Japanese whaling ship that those whacky Sea Shepherd guys actually moved into the path of whaling ship causing the collision.  :

I wonder if the Japanese can sue for a new paint job?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dXCR9LX-Kc


----------



## Maelstrom (7 Jan 2010)

pretty clear in this view that the Japanese ship turned to intentionally ram the Ady Gil...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbuq0YEIPNU&feature=popular

Wonder if they can sue for the damage caused to that beautiful ship  :


----------



## fire_guy686 (8 Jan 2010)

Tragic.....  : :


----------



## COBRA-6 (8 Jan 2010)

[Capt Mancuso] "The hard party about playing chicken is knowing when to flinch" [ /Capt Mancuso]

I doubt the sea-hippies can sue for anything.

Besides being eco-terrorists and general retards-of-the-waves, harassing the lawful Canadian seal hunt and the lawful Japanese whale hunt, in this case they deliberately placed their flimsy speed boat in the path of a much larger, much less manoeuvrable ship.  I thought little was supposed to give way to big at sea??  


Also, Fuuuuuucka You Dolphin! Fuuuuuuucka You Whale!!!


----------



## Monsoon (8 Jan 2010)

Maelstrom said:
			
		

> pretty clear in this view that the Japanese ship turned to intentionally ram the Ady Gil...


Not so obvious to me. The Japanese ship made two alterations (one to starboard and then one to port), but it's not clear that they were made with the intention to ram. Given the combination of the two videos, I'd say the Sea Shepherd boat was on an intercept course with the trawler, which altered to starboard to pass under its stern; then the Sea Shepherd boat stopped, so the trawler had to alter back to avoid ramming it at its midsection (which would have capsized the un-seaworthy piece of crap) and nicked its bow.

Generally, you can expect that a fishing trawler isn't going to make and release a video of an encounter with another vessel that it's intentionally trying to ram.


----------



## Maelstrom (8 Jan 2010)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Not so obvious to me. The Japanese ship made two alterations (one to starboard and then one to port), but it's not clear that they were made with the intention to ram. Given the combination of the two videos, I'd say the Sea Shepherd boat was on an intercept course with the trawler, which altered to starboard to pass under its stern; then the Sea Shepherd boat stopped, so the trawler had to alter back to avoid ramming it at its midsection (which would have capsized the un-seaworthy piece of crap) and nicked its bow.
> 
> Generally, you can expect that a fishing trawler isn't going to make and release a video of an encounter with another vessel that it's intentionally trying to ram.



Well what ever the intentions of either crew a powerboat that can go 50 knots should have never been put anywhere near that position... I would not want to sail with those fools. 

but it is definitely a sea worth vessel, originally Earthrace. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrace


----------



## DBF (8 Jan 2010)

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society website has announced that the _Ady Gil _ (ex-_Earthrace_) sank while being towed.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-100107-1.html


----------



## Pat in Halifax (8 Jan 2010)

That is a crying shame (that it sank). If I am not mistaken, Discovery or History Television recently did a documentary about the builder and his crew doing an around the world passage in this thing. Alot of passion but obviously, they must have run out of money??


----------



## Otis (8 Jan 2010)

I thought I had read somewhere that the guy who built the Earthrace was a big environmentalist who donated it to Sea Shepard.


----------



## FDO (8 Jan 2010)

I can remember back in the mid 80's the NATO fleet came in to Halifax. There was a French Figate with them. Greenpeace had a few zodiacs trying to interfere with the ships coming alongside. One of them got between the French and the jetty as the French had a sternline ashore. The outcome was  one French warship secured alongside one Greenpeace zodiac compressed on a log fender and 3 protesters being arrested for tresspassing on DND property. As I recall the news blamed the French for endangering the lives of the protesters and said the French should be made to pay!

 My personal view is if you don't want to swim in Halifax harbour stay away from a warship trying to secure alongside. I'm all for protecting the environment and all that frizzy haired tree hugger stuff BUT don't cry if you get in the way of someone or something bigger doing nothing against the law.


----------



## Rheostatic (8 Jan 2010)

Otis said:
			
		

> I thought I had read somewhere that the guy who built the Earthrace was a big environmentalist who donated it to Sea Shepard.


Somewhere, Bruce Wayne sheds a single tear...


----------



## Scott (8 Jan 2010)

Out of simple curiousity I watched a few episodes of "Whale Wars" I was not left with the feeling that it's a very safe thing to do: capsizing FRC because of miscommunication, lack of training on simple safety systems and procedures, sailing a non ice rated vessel into pack ice - to name but a few.

Regardless of anyone's views on the right and wrong of whaling, seal hunts, whatever - protesting with a death wish is just plain stupid and I believe that Sea Shepherd preys on youthful exuberence and ignorance of these factors to crew their ships. I think it's a shame.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jan 2010)

As I recall the rules of right-of-way of the sea, agile ships must give way to less agile ships.  So, a small speedboat that can turn on a dime has to yield to the Supertanker.  In this case, the enviro-ship would have been in the wrong.


----------



## Thompson_JM (8 Jan 2010)

Watching the Bat-Boat get Pwned by the Whaling ship immediately brought to mind (in my head) the phrase "This is why we cant have nice things!"  ;D


----------



## Monsoon (8 Jan 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> As I recall the rules of right-of-way of the sea, agile ships must give way to less agile ships.  So, a small speedboat that can turn on a dime has to yield to the Supertanker.  In this case, the enviro-ship would have been in the wrong.


Sort of (for specific cases: sailboats, fishing vessels, etc), but not in this case. Nevertheless, you can bet the Sea Shepherd guys pulled a whole lot of legitimately illegal moves to get to the position they were in. There's not a maritime court in the world that would back them (which is why they probably won't go to court over it).


----------



## VIChris (8 Jan 2010)

I watched the aforementioned show about that boat, and am definitely sad to see it go. Very good story behind it, and a crafty crew got it around the world in record time. 

Doubly sad that it was lost to an act of sheer ignorance after all it went through on it's record run. 

As for the patchouli  patch kids who sank her, well, screw them.


----------



## Otis (9 Jan 2010)

Scott said:
			
		

> Out of simple curiousity I watched a few episodes of "Whale Wars" I was not left with the feeling that it's a very safe thing to do: capsizing FRC because of miscommunication, lack of training on simple safety systems and procedures, sailing a non ice rated vessel into pack ice - to name but a few.
> 
> Regardless of anyone's views on the right and wrong of whaling, seal hunts, whatever - protesting with a death wish is just plain stupid and I believe that Sea Shepherd preys on youthful exuberence and ignorance of these factors to crew their ships. I think it's a shame.



I agree, I also watched out of pure curiosity ... I couldn't believe the pure irresponsibility on the part of the "command" with regards to basic seamanship safety. 

It's one ting to put your crew in danger for your beliefs or to protect the defenceless, but to put your crew at risk for training? And the risk is because they've been poorly instructed and thrown into situations they're unprepared for? THAT'S criminal even if they think they can justify the rest of their actions!


----------



## Scott (9 Jan 2010)

Otis said:
			
		

> I agree, I also watched out of pure curiosity ... I couldn't believe the pure irresponsibility on the part of the "command" with regards to basic seamanship safety.
> 
> It's one ting to put your crew in danger for your beliefs or to protect the defenceless, but to put your crew at risk for training? And the risk is because they've been poorly instructed and thrown into situations they're unprepared for? THAT'S criminal even if they think they can justify the rest of their actions!



Makes you wonder, eh? I wonder if the only reason they can stay registered out of whatever country the ship is flagged is because they are a NPO and the crew are all volunteer - bringing with it a different set of rules than if they were actual employees of the organization.

I know of no law covering _attempted_ negligence and, unfortunately, the only time I have ever heard of someone being written up for being stupid was while I was on my BMQ (and no, it wasn't me)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jan 2010)

If I try to park my VW Jetta in front of a tractor trailor to try to stop it, because the trailor was full of, I dunno, a shipment of KFC and I am against KFC, that would make me an idiot.  Not much difference here IMO.


----------



## Otis (9 Jan 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If I try to park my VW Jetta in front of a tractor trailor to try to stop it, because the trailor was full of, I dunno, a shipment of KFC and I am against KFC, that would make me an idiot.  Not much difference here IMO.



Slight difference ... you know how to properly drive your Jetta, and your passengers know how to act properly as passengers.

If you want to accurately portray this scenario as a comparison ... have your passengers ride on the roof on the WAY to get in front of the tractor trailer ... oh, but don't teach them how to use any safety straps or harnesses you give them first ... just get them up there, they can learn on the fly ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jan 2010)

Takes all kinds, doesn't it?   ;D


----------



## Retired AF Guy (9 Jan 2010)

Scott said:
			
		

> Out of simple curiousity I watched a few episodes of "Whale Wars" I was not left with the feeling that it's a very safe thing to do: capsizing FRC because of miscommunication, lack of training on simple safety systems and procedures, sailing a non ice rated vessel into pack ice - to name but a few.
> 
> Regardless of anyone's views on the right and wrong of whaling, seal hunts, whatever - protesting with a death wish is just plain stupid and I believe that Sea Shepherd preys on youthful exuberence and ignorance of these factors to crew their ships. I think it's a shame.



Never watched the show because I consider the Sea Shepard group to be a bunch of idiots, but after reading your remarks I will try to watch the show if it comes back in re-runs.


----------



## Larkvall (11 Jan 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Never watched the show because I consider the Sea Shepard group to be a bunch of idiots, but after reading your remarks I will try to watch the show if it comes back in re-runs.



Well this video gives a taste of what they do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6yfV_kCD6E


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jan 2010)

If I was a Japanese whaler and intent on ramming these idiots, I wouldn't have clipped the nose of their Bat boat. I would have gone at them like a destroyer would to surfaced sub in those old war movies. Full steam ahead, prepare for ramming and run right over the middle of these stupid bastards. Then just carry on as if they were so much flotsam. 

However, I'm neither Japanese nor a whaler.


----------



## Thompson_JM (11 Jan 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If I was a Japanese whaler and intent on ramming these idiots, I wouldn't have clipped the nose of their Bat boat. I would have gone at them like a destroyer would to surfaced sub in those old war movies. Full steam ahead, prepare for ramming and run right over the middle of these stupid bastards. Then just carry on as if they were so much flotsam.
> 
> However, I'm neither Japanese nor a whaler.



+1

Sea Crapherd are a bunch of hippie idiots..... 

Someone should tell them the Japanese are whaling off the coast of somalia..... 

Sea Shepherd vs Somali Pirates... now THERE's some sweet Prime Time TV worth watching!


----------



## larry Strong (11 Jan 2010)

I wonder how much their morale was affected, considering the fact that their new toy got destroyed at the start of the season .


----------



## BearPusher (11 Jan 2010)

Watching that clip reminded me of the closing sequence of Captain Ron "They'll get out of our way. I learned that on the "Saratoga" while in a power boat.  
Although it's sad to see such a fine boat lost to such idiocy.


----------



## FDO (11 Jan 2010)

Supidity does not stop at these guys. People who are supposed to know what they are doing are just as bad.

This past summer on Lake Ontario just south of Toronto Island I heard a 35 ft sailboat hail a Freighter and ask it's intentions. When the sailboat got the reply he actually said for the Freighter to alter course as the sailboat had the right away.

In a technical way he did. They were in "open" water. However, all boaters know of the "gross tonnage" rule. This rule states that the biggest boat has the right away. I shudder to think what would have happened if this 35 ft plastic sailboat would have looked like after the couple of hundred foot steel freighter had had a problem stopping. 

The Greenpeace guys do not need a licience to operate the craft in international waters. In Canada you do if the craft meets a couple of size requiriments. IMHO everyone who operates a craft on the water needs to be certified. 

On the up side stunts like this tends to clear out the shallow end of the gene pool!


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Feb 2010)

*Protesters fire acid at whalers*

SYDNEY, Australia - Three crew members of a Japanese whaling vessel suffered face and eye injuries from acid fired by anti-whaling protesters during their latest clash in the Antarctic Ocean, their Japanese employers said Friday. 

The Sea Shepherd protesters said they shot butyric acid, produced from stinking rancid butter, which they often aim at the whalers to try to disrupt the annual Japanese hunt. *The activists maintain that butyric acid is nontoxic.* 

The injuries Thursday were the first to Japanese whalers this year during confrontations with Sea Shepherd, although there have been two ship collisions that each side blamed on the other. 

Japanese Fisheries Minister Hirotaka Akamatsu lashed out at the activists on Friday, telling reporters: "I am full of rage. I could not believe they did such a thing." 

Glenn Inwood, spokesman for Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research, which sponsors the hunt, said the injuries were not serious, but he cautioned that butyric acid can cause temporary blindness. 

The injuries occurred during a several-hour confrontation between two Sea Shepherd boats - the Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker - and four Japanese vessels. 

More on link

From the MSDS for Butyric acid



> Potential Acute Health Effects:
> Very hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of ingestion. Hazardous in case of eye contact (irritant), of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive, permeator). Liquid or spray mist may produce tissue damage particularly on mucous membranes of eyes, mouth and respiratory tract. Skin contact may produce burns. Inhalation of the spray mist may produce severe irritation of respiratory tract, characterized by coughing, choking, or shortness of breath.
> 
> Potential Chronic Health Effects:
> ...



I am against whaling, at least the way it's being done and the fact that near-extinct species are being killed, however, the tactics used by these "activists" are nuts!


----------



## infantryian (14 Feb 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I am against whaling, at least the way it's being done and the fact that near-extinct species are being killed, however, the tactics used by these "activists" are nuts!



Agreed. I like whales, and they havent really done anything all that bad to me, but to risk lives and ram ships is just plain insane. The Sea Sheppard group getting themselves killed won't change a darn thing.


----------



## bdave (14 Feb 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> the fact that near-extinct species are being killed, however, the tactics used by these "activists" are nuts!



Do you have anything to back up these claims?

Apparently the japanese hunt minke whales, which supposedly number in the millions. Their conservation status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_status) is at "least concerned". This is as far as a rating from extinction as you can get (on the conservation scale).
They hunt some sperm( and other types of) whales but it's not even close to the number of minke whales they hunt.
Minke whales are so plentiful, that they are actually becoming a hazard to other types of whales, who compete for the same food in the same waters.

I am going off of wikipedia here, which is not the most reliable source but I honestly think this issue has been blown out of the water (hur hur).

What I don't understand is why people care.
How does this effect us in any way?
If the Japanese bring about the extinction of the whales in their vicinity, then they won't be able to whale anymore. I don't think they'd let that happen. In any case, as long as they don't tread in our waters, what is the big deal?


----------



## Loachman (14 Feb 2010)

infantryian said:
			
		

> The Sea Sheppard group getting themselves killed won't change a darn thing.



Sure it will.

They'll be a lot quieter.


----------



## bullitt (14 Feb 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> I am going off of wikipedia here, which is not the most reliable source


Not a good start


			
				bdave said:
			
		

> What I don't understand is why people care.
> How does this effect us in any way?
> If the Japanese bring about the extinction of the whales in their vicinity, then they won't be able to whale anymore. I don't think they'd let that happen. In any case, as long as they don't tread in our waters, what is the big deal?



Really........
Well first it's not the Japanese's vicinity there are hunting in, it's Antarctica! Second whales don’t just stay in a single area of the ocean; they travel between hunting and breeding grounds, hence the whale watching seasons in Canadian waters off the West and East coasts! The big deal is the extinction of these whales and the way they are being killed. Harpooned dragged and then when exhausted from trying to get away they are shot over and over with a rifle until a major organ is hit. Does it affect you personally, maybe not but one day I would like to go see them off one of our beautiful coast. Can't really do that if we follow your master plan! Are the sea Shepherds idiots at sea, probably, but your attitude of who cares is just as stupid as their sea going knowledge…. No offence, and just my opinion.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Feb 2010)

Since a precedent has been set for using Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan



> During the 2009-10 season, the Japanese fleet included a factory ship, four harpoon ships and two security patrol vessels. The Japanese quota includes *935 minke, 50 fin and 50 humpback* whales per season.



http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/whales/species/Humpbackwhale.shtml



> POPULATION COUNT
> It is estimated that there are over 10,000-15,000 humpback whales world-wide. *Humpback whales are an endangered species.*



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_Whale



> *Like all other large whales, the fin whale was heavily hunted during the twentieth century and is an endangered species.* Almost 750,000 fin whales were taken from the Southern Hemisphere alone between 1904 and 1979 and less than 3,000 currently remain in that region.  The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has issued a moratorium on commercial hunting of this whale, although Iceland and Japan have announced intentions to resume hunting, the latter stating it will kill 50 whales for the 2008 season.



http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/whales/species/Spermwhale.shtml



> POPULATION COUNT
> It is estimated that there are about 200,000 sperm whales world-wide. S*perm whales are considered an endangered species.* These whales (and many other large whales) were over-hunted for many years, since their meat, oil, and other body parts are very valuable.



Good enough?


----------



## bdave (15 Feb 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> Apparently the japanese hunt minke whales,. [...]their conservation status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_status) is at "least concerned". This is as far as a rating from extinction as you can get (on the conservation scale).
> They hunt some sperm( and other types of) whales but it's not even close to the number of minke whales they hunt.
> Minke whales are so plentiful, that they are actually becoming a hazard to other types of whales, who compete for the same food in the same waters.


*Minke* whales.



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> Well first it's not the Japanese's vicinity there are hunting in, it's Antarctica! Second whales don’t just stay in a single area of the ocean; they travel between hunting and breeding grounds, hence the whale watching seasons in Canadian waters off the West and East coasts! The big deal is the extinction of these whales and the way they are being killed. Harpooned dragged and then when exhausted from trying to get away they are shot over and over with a rifle until a major organ is hit. Does it affect you personally, maybe not but one day I would like to go see them off one of our beautiful coast. Can't really do that if we follow your master plan! Are the sea Shepherds idiots at sea, probably, but your attitude of who cares is just as stupid as their sea going knowledge…. No offence, and just my opinion.


Why would it be stupid? Hundreds of thousands of animals go extinct every year.
Your reason for banning whaling; an industry which feeds many people both figuratively and literally, is so you could one day go see them...maybe.


In all cases, i REPEAT.
THEY MOSTLY HUNT MINKE WHALES.

http://wildwhales.org/?page_id=42

These whales happen to not be extinct.
The other whales, while endangered, are not close to extinction.
"POPULATION COUNT
It is estimated that there are over *10,000-15,000* *humpback* whales world-wide. "
"The Japanese quota includes 935 minke, 50 fin and* 50 humpback *whales per season."

50/10000 = 0.5 percent of the entire humpback whale population.
Hardly a dent in their numbers.



Anyway, I am sorry for going off topic.
Sea Sheppard people are dumb.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Feb 2010)

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-100215-2.html



> Sea Shepherd News
> 
> Monday, February 15, 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## Loachman (15 Feb 2010)

I sense another South Park episode forthcoming.


----------



## bullitt (15 Feb 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> *Minke* whales.
> Why would it be stupid? Hundreds of thousands of animals go extinct every year.



WOW really! This must be another of your Wikipedia sources again! Hundreds of thousands eh! Can you even name 1000 animals period? I'm guessing you will need Wikipedia for that one too! OHH they feed their starving people with the whale meat, I guess those fifty whales really made a world of difference keeping the population of Japan well nourished and full!!!  If you took the time to read you would see that my problem is the way they kill these animals, and that it does affect other people; not just Japan!


----------



## Fusaki (15 Feb 2010)

F**k whales.


----------



## Loachman (15 Feb 2010)

Pass, thanks.


----------



## infantryian (16 Feb 2010)

From watching the Whale Wars tv show, it was stated that the Japanese claim the whales they are killing are for scientific research. After the research is done the Japanese admit to selling the whale meat as it is no longer needed. 
My question to put out there is how many whales do you need to kill before you have a large enough sample size on whatever it is you are "researching"?

One of the Sea Sheppard crew members was actually former Canadian Navy (officer I think, but not sure). She came up with a small checklist to speed up loading and launching of smaller raceboats. The checklist also had some items addressing safety as they had capsized one of their boats while launching it. The first officer completely ignored it and even told the camera something along the lines of 'adding a military checklist to our campaign could only make things take longer and endager more lives.'


----------



## ArmyRick (16 Feb 2010)

hey wonderbread, why do say "f**k whales"?

Just joking I hope. Seriously, whaling is one industry that need not exist. One thing I am absolutely for is conserving animal species and reducing unneccessary slaughter.

I take offence to your remark.


----------



## ballz (16 Feb 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If I try to park my VW Jetta in front of a tractor trailor to try to stop it, because the trailor was full of, I dunno, a shipment of KFC and I am against KFC, *that would make me an idiot.*  Not much difference here IMO.





			
				Otis said:
			
		

> Slight difference ... you know how to properly drive your Jetta, and your passengers know how to act properly as passengers.
> 
> If you want to accurately portray this scenario as a comparison ... have your passengers ride on the roof on the WAY to get in front of the tractor trailer ... oh, but don't teach them how to use any safety straps or harnesses you give them first ... just get them up there, they can learn on the fly ...



Unless your cause is to satisfy hunger, then I'd volunteer to get up on the roof.


----------



## Fusaki (16 Feb 2010)

> I take offence to your remark.



I'm not being serious.  I'm just trolling, that's all. ;D


----------



## bdave (22 Feb 2010)

bullitt said:
			
		

> WOW really! This must be another of your Wikipedia sources again! Hundreds of thousands eh!


http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2007/05/22/would-you-believe-3-species-go-extinct-every-hour/
http://forests.org/archive/general/coolfact.htm
http://www.whole-systems.org/extinctions.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100126024245AABdKlC

To name a few. All of them have links to other credited sites.

'The American Museum of Natural History in New York reports: "Three species become extinct every hour of every day. More than 30 species become extinct while you sleep at night. More than 20,000 species become extinct every year."'

Good enough?

However, http://dodosgone.blogspot.com/2007/06/extinction-rate-estimates.html


While hundreds of thousands was a hyperbole, the extinction rate is several (tens of)  thousands a year.




			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> OHH they feed their starving people with the whale meat, I guess those fifty whales really made a world of difference keeping the population of Japan well nourished and full!!!



"Typical weight of a blue whale: 108,000 kg (238,000 lb); up to 136,000 kg (300,000 lb)."
50 times 100 000 kg = 5 million kilograms.

We can say that a person eats 100kg of meat a year. That's 220 pounds. I'm sure it is much much less than that, but for the sake of discussion we will claim 100kg.
5 million kilograms / 100kg per person =  50 000 people. This is an entire year of food for 50 000 people.
If you cut it down to 20kg per person, it's a quarter of a million.

Then again, this is only half a percent of the entire blue whale population. You are blowing this out of proportion.
Also, "An estimate of the recent rate of increase of blue whale abundance in some regions of the North Atlantic yielded a result of 5.2% per year"


source: http://www.animalinfo.org/species/cetacean/balamusc.htm



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> If you took the time to read you would see that my problem is the way they kill these animals, and that it does affect other people; not just Japan!
> [...]
> "Harpooned dragged and then when exhausted from trying to get away they are shot over and over with a rifle until a major organ is hit"



How do you suggest they kill the whales then? 
When people say things like this it always reminds me of lions chasing buffalo. 
We are only allowed to kill animals painlessly, right?


----------



## bullitt (23 Feb 2010)

Ohhh boy, here we go
1) You said hundreds of thousands of animals- not SPECIES!!
2) all your fancy sources (excluding yahoo answers lol) say that that nice number of three per hour you spouted off, is species of insects plants and micro-organisms! NOT ANIMALS!
3)We are talking whales not plants, which by the way if you read your sources says most have not even been discovered yet- They are estimating!
4) I like your math on the weight of the whale, but those figures are for whole whales, after they are gutted and sliced up the amount of usable meat is far less, not that it matters because!!!!
5)"Whale was an important protein source for an impoverished Japan after World War Two, but has become an expensive, gourmet food that rarely appears on family dinner tables and can usually be eaten in just a handful of specialty restaurants." Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST23751320080415 (I know its no yahoo answers from some grade 10 student but it will have to do!)


			
				bdave said:
			
		

> how do you suggest they kill the whales then?
> When people say things like this it always reminds me of lions chasing buffalo.
> We are only allowed to kill animals painlessly, right?


Finally Lions hunt because they have no choice- they die if they don't, we are not animals were human ( don't think I need to source that?). Japan hunts and kills cruelly because of the almighty $$$ 

I am done wasting my time on this, My only problem was the cruelty and your observation that it effects no one else. You came back with all these sources which quite frankly don't support your argument. OHH and yes as human being who are able to have some sense of moral enlightenment we are only allowed to kill animals painlessly!! Unless you feel the need to drown kittens in a sack I dunno.....


----------



## Dean22 (23 Feb 2010)

I would just like to point out that over 50% of species that are currently recorded on our Green Earth are types of beetles.


----------



## ballz (24 Feb 2010)

bullitt said:
			
		

> Finally Lions hunt because they have no choice- they die if they don't, we are not animals were human



Wtf.... we're just smarter, more evolved animals? Or some of us anyway.

What's going to kill a lion if it eats some grass instead?


----------



## 1911CoLt45 (24 Feb 2010)

Crazy video.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Feb 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> What's going to kill a lion if it eats some grass instead?


Starvation and malnutrition would kill a lion if it gets no prey: that's how they work.  Same with us (more or less), UNLESS we supplement protein with replacements.  

People, it's much easier to just eat some meat once in a while.  As for the whales, well, I have no opinion on the matter.


----------



## ArmyRick (25 Feb 2010)

I am ok when it comes to hunting animals that are in abundance and not wasted (meat, bones, etc is all used). In fact I quite enjoy a tasty mammal, fish or bird myself.

But that just it, what benefit is there to hunting whales? None. They are on the decline and it has a major impact on the ocean's ecological system.

I love Bison steaks and burgers. If they were endangered or there was a serious threat of them going extinct, I would glad pass on my favorite burger for a few years to allow the population to recover. 

Thats my opinion anyways.


----------



## bdave (26 Feb 2010)

bullitt said:
			
		

> Ohhh boy, here we go
> 1) You said hundreds of thousands of animals- not SPECIES!!


Splitting hairs.



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> 2) all your fancy sources (excluding yahoo answers lol) say that that nice number of three per hour you spouted off, is species of insects plants and micro-organisms! NOT ANIMALS!



Insects are animals.
If 10 000 species go extinct every year, and 90 percent are insects and plants (which is probably too high a figure), then that is still 1000 species of 'animals' that go extinct.



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> 3)We are talking whales not plants, which by the way if you read your sources says most have not even been discovered yet- They are estimating!



And?
These same estimations tell us if they are endangered or not. 



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> 4) I like your math on the weight of the whale, but those figures are for whole whales, after they are gutted and sliced up the amount of usable meat is far less, not that it matters because!!!!


Again, splitting hairs.  How do you know the organs aren't used as food or bait? It's not wasted.



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> 5)"Whale was an important protein source for an impoverished Japan after World War Two, but has become an expensive, gourmet food that rarely appears on family dinner tables and can usually be eaten in just a handful of specialty restaurants." Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST23751320080415 (I know its no yahoo answers from some grade 10 student but it will have to do!)



Completely irrelevant. Once again, it is 0.5 percent of the blue whale population.  Which, regardless of what you want to think, is an incredibly small number. The 900 or so mink whales are not even close to extinction and are actually overly abundant.
I repeat, the "endangered" whales are so scarcely hunted that it doesn't even need to be mentioned. 
The other whales are in abundance. So exactly where is this danger of whale extinction?
What, you think people with an agenda might actually grossly exaggerate their claims? This cannot be!




			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> Finally Lions hunt because they have no choice- they die if they don't, we are not animals were human ( don't think I need to source that?). Japan hunts and kills cruelly because of the almighty $$$


Money makes the world go round, money also allows certain people to have jobs. If they have no jobs, they have no money; if they have no money, then no food, and if they have no food, they die.
To quote you :"Finally, Japanese fishermen hunt whales because they have no choice- they die if they don't".
Surely you can understand that.

And what a stupid thing to say. We aren't animals? 
While the term can refer to any living creature other than humans, we are very much animals.
Just because we're incredibly intelligent does not mean we aren't animals. If you replaced our intelligence with strength, would we then be animals and not humans? Do you equate intelligence with humanity? 



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> I am done wasting my time on this, My only problem was the cruelty and your observation that it effects no one else. You came back with all these sources which quite frankly don't support your argument. OHH and yes as human being who are able to have some sense of moral enlightenment we are only allowed to kill animals painlessly!! Unless you feel the need to drown kittens in a sack I dunno.....


My argument? All i had to back up was the fact that several thousands animals die a year...which they do.
I gave you many sources.

You said:
 'the fact that near-extinct species are being killed, however, the tactics used by these "activists" are nuts!'. 

I called you out on it and then said many animals go extinct a year. You called me out on that and I proved you wrong by citing 5 organizations claiming what I was saying.

It doesn't affect anyone else. Had you never heard about these whales being killed for their 'meat', would you have noticed? I sincerely doubt it. Hell, you can tell me they're killing off the panda bear, and I still wouldn't know.
So, again, how does it affect YOU?
And, again, your misplaced concept that we are not animals is just sad. Intelligent people don't limit themselves because of some misguided sense of arrogant self righteousness. 
If anything, I am being more compassionate than you are because I put animals on the same plane of existence.
It's the circle of life.

I like how you equate killing an animal to eat (regardless of how painless it is...because it's not always possible to kill an animal without hurting it in some way) to drowning kittens.


----------



## ballz (26 Feb 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Starvation and malnutrition would kill a lion if it gets no prey: that's how they work.  *Same with us* (more or less), UNLESS we supplement protein with replacements.



Wow I didn't know that... I'd better go take a steak out for supper ;D I only ate meat 3 times yesterday but one can only be so safe you know?


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Feb 2010)

I'm going to split a hair here.  .5 of 1% is not a huge number to you?  That's one in every two hundred animals...yearly.  If one in every two hundred people in your home town were killed, annually, would that be considered a high number by you?  I have no dog in this fight, as Free Willy never deeply touched my heart, and I do not have any close personal cetacean friends, but whaling, in this day and age of microwaveable bacon and synthetic cheese, is an antiquated and barbaric activity that has no place in the modern world.


----------



## ballz (26 Feb 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I'm going to split a hair here.  .5 of 1% is not a huge number to you?  That's one in every two hundred animals...yearly.  If one in every two hundred people in your home town were killed, annually, would that be considered a high number by you?  I have no dog in this fight, as Free Willy never deeply touched my heart, and I do not have any close personal cetacean friends, but whaling, in this day and age of microwaveable bacon and synthetic cheese, is an antiquated and barbaric activity that has no place in the modern world.



Come ON... COME ON... You're really comparing hunting animals for food/furs/etc etc which all still comes down to food on the table, to killing a human being???

This is about sustainability...

Newfoundland awards about 30k moose licenses a year, and the moose population is about 120k-150k. There's an 88-90% success rate. That's at the very LOWEST 17.6% of the population.

Guess what? They're still overpopulating the damn island to the point that 200-300 get killed a year because they were crossing the street at the wrong time.

But I guess this is a bad example because we Newfs are sea-kitten murderers so we're just as bad as the Japanese.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Feb 2010)

Just so we're clear ballz for brains, my point was about .5%  being a large part of a population.  I don't give a shit if you're a Newfie or a left handed lesbian eskimo, what the fuck does that have to do with anything?  We kill lots of moose and deer and other delicious critters out her in Alberta too, and plenty also still get killed on the roads, what's your point?  You guys are up to your arses in moose because there is no natural predation, and if there were you'd just kill them off, let's face it, your conservation record ain't the best.  There was supposed to be enough cod to last till the end of time, how did that work out for you?  To compare the number moose in Canada to cetaceans in the ocean is ludicrous.  A moose matures to full adulthood in 2 years, how long to replace a killed adult whale?  Don't trot out that poor misunderstood Newfie bullshit on me, I'm not buying it, and it has nothing to do with what I said, killing whales is UNNECESSARY in this day and age.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Feb 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Come ON... COME ON... You're really comparing hunting animals for food/furs/etc etc which all still comes down to food on the table, to killing a human being???
> 
> This is about sustainability...
> 
> ...


If you _must_ know, moose are not native to Nfld.  Their population there is _very well controlled_ by the moose hunt.  If the whale population could be that well documented and controlled, we wouldn't even be discussing this.  As far as them getting hit due to overpopulation, that's just stupid.  They're getting hit because there is a highway in the middle of their migration and feeding paths.

IMHO, I don't think Kat was comparing killing a human to killing an animal.  He was using that comparison to portray the _numbers_ (0.5 of 1%) quoted by someone else.


----------



## COBRA-6 (26 Feb 2010)

Well if the Minke population is around 665,074 like it says on the ref linked on wikipedia, and the Japanese are harvesting about 900 Minke's per year, then that would be a harvest of about 0.135% of the local Minke population, or between 1/10th and 2/10th of 1%.

Now I'm no whale biologist like the guy in the pic,  but that seems pretty sustainable to me...


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Feb 2010)

You harvest corn, you kill animals, and it's still unnecessary.


----------



## ballz (26 Feb 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> If you _must_ know, moose are not native to Nfld.  Their population there is _very well controlled_ by the moose hunt.  If the whale population could be that well documented and controlled, we wouldn't even be discussing this.  As far as them getting hit due to overpopulation, that's just stupid.  They're getting hit because there is a highway in the middle of their migration and feeding paths.
> 
> IMHO, I don't think Kat was comparing killing a human to killing an animal.  He was using that comparison to portray the _numbers_ (0.5 of 1%) quoted by someone else.



I do know that moose are native to Newfoundland... That's irrelevant. They are here now, and even though we kill off 20ish percent of them every year from hunting alone, they're still thriving. They are getting hit because there's a gazillion of them. You do not know what it's like here. They're everywhere.

I realize Kat was pulling that 0.5 from someone else, but in terms of conservation, if an extra .5% of humans were killed every year, we'd still be populating the earth like weeds. 0.5% is SFA, and if a species can't survive losing 0.5% due to predation, then Darwin and I say screw 'em. 

So it's a terrible example for sustainability, so it DID come across as a "how would you like it you" comment whether that was intended or not.

I could argue with you about the migration stuff, but I don't think there's going to be much facts to find about moose in Newfoundland... But besides the fact that our highway goes *around* the island, and not through anything, and the fact that I don't think moose here migrate (why would they.. there's no reason. There is not one time of year where my area isn't full of moose. They're everywhere, in all areas. Even if they do migrate you'd never know the difference... West moose are moving east, east are moving west. They're just everywhere). The caribou, however, do migrate, and they're rarely killed on the roads.



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> You guys are up to your arses in moose because *there is no natural predation,* and if there were you'd just kill them off, let's face it, *your conservation record ain't the best.*  There was supposed to be enough cod to last till the end of time, how did that work out for you?  To compare the number moose in Canada to cetaceans in the ocean is ludicrous.  A moose matures to full adulthood in 2 years, how long to replace a killed adult whale?  Don't trot out that poor misunderstood Newfie bullshit on me, I'm not buying it, and it has nothing to do with what I said, killing whales is UNNECESSARY in this day and age.



There is tons of predation here for them. Newfoundland has the biggest black bears in North America and they're rarely hunted, there's plenty of them. Coyotes here are actually a hybrid of a wolf, and take down Moose and they're decimating the Caribou population. Add in humans taking their 20% share....

I wasn't pulling out an "misunderstood Newfie" crap. You seem to be all against whaling just because it was killing a poor whale, nothing to do with sustainability, so I figured your next comment would be something along the lines of our sealing industry. It's not like you didn't try and take a shot at our conversation record, which is hardly anything to do with OUR fishing industry... maybe a few other country's...

But since your point is that .5% of the population is large, that's why I brought moose into it. Yes, moose might mature quicker, (2 years instead of 7 to 10 years from what I'm reading), but have way longer lifespans. Even if they didn't, my logic tells me if they take 5 times longer to mature, then you'd be able to kill them off at 1/5th the rate... I'm no biologist obviously so my logic may be flawed, but 1/40th the rate is pretty convincing to me that it's not a big deal...


----------



## bullitt (26 Feb 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> Splitting hairs.


I'm splitting hairs because I called you on a gross over exaggeration? 



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> Again, splitting hairs.  How do you know the organs aren't used as food or bait? It's not wasted.


Again you exaggerated and I called you an it! And how do you know they are not wasted????



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> Completely irrelevant. Once again, it is 0.5 percent of the blue whale population.  Which, regardless of what you want to think, is an incredibly small number. The 900 or so mink whales are not even close to extinction and are actually overly abundant.



So my point is irrelevant when I am disproving your previous claim that they hunt whale meet to feed the starving people of Japan???????? 


			
				bdave said:
			
		

> Money makes the world go round, money also allows certain people to have jobs. If they have no jobs, they have no money; if they have no money, then no food, and if they have no food, they die.


lol thanks for the economics tip, I'm sure glad we have whaling to keep those people from starving to death! I wonder how the unemployed in other countries do it? I guess they just all fall over and die! Must be really hard in Alberta and Saskatchewan... you know being so far from an ocean and all!



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> To quote you :"Finally, Japanese fishermen hunt whales because they have no choice- they die if they don't".
> Surely you can understand that.



That's not my quote but thanks.



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> And what a stupid thing to say. We aren't animals?
> While the term can refer to any living creature other than humans, we are very much animals.



You should re-read your line there stud! They key point is "any living creature OTHER THAN HUMANS"!!! Regardless there are two definitions that you can go by, and this argument is in many scientific circles right now, which I know I'm not qualified in and I know your not either. However, I choose to believe humans are mammals not animals for the record!



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> My argument? All i had to back up was the fact that several thousands animals die a year...which they do.
> I gave you many sources.



That was not your argument you said hundreds of thousands of animals go extinct every year!! Ohh and you gave me yahoo answers and Wikipedia as your sources!


			
				bdave said:
			
		

> You said:
> 'the fact that near-extinct species are being killed, however, the tactics used by these "activists" are nuts!'.


 Never said this either??? Do you even know my argument and point???



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> I called you out on it and then said many animals go extinct a year. You called me out on that and I proved you wrong by citing 5 organizations claiming what I was saying.



Again you gave me Wikipedia and Yahoo answers for your sources and you again said hundreds of thousand of animals go extinct each year, now its many hahahah! But yea you sure proved me wrong alright! Again do you even know my argument?



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> It doesn't affect anyone else. Had you never heard about these whales being killed for their 'meat', would you have noticed? I sincerely doubt it. Hell,
> So, again, how does it affect YOU?


 Would I have noticed if they were killing whales for reasons other then meat??? ummm probably more so! I have been over how this effects me! but you don't like to read over my last post obviously so what can I say.



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> you can tell me they're killing off the panda bear, and I still wouldn't know.


This does not surprise me as I see it takes multiple attempts to get information through to you!



			
				bdave said:
			
		

> And, again, your misplaced concept that we are not animals is just sad. Intelligent people don't limit themselves because of some misguided sense of arrogant self righteousness.


 Yea because I believe humans are mammals not animals I'm misguided and sad? Sorry Darwin I did not know you were such an expert on animal- mammal physiology that you have solved the scientific debate over the two!

I'm never gonna get these 10 mins of my life back am I? I feel dirty!


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Feb 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> I do know that moose are native to Newfoundland... That's irrelevant. They are here now, and even though we kill off 20ish percent of them every year from hunting alone, they're still thriving. They are getting hit because there's a gazillion of them. You do not know what it's like here. They're everywhere.
> 
> I realize Kat was pulling that 0.5 from someone else, but in terms of conservation, if an extra .5% of humans were killed every year, we'd still be populating the earth like weeds. 0.5% is SFA, and if a species can't survive losing 0.5% due to predation, then Darwin and I say screw 'em.
> 
> ...


 I can't recall who's figure .5% is, so I'll let that one go.  Should we do something based solely on whether it's sustainable? ridiculous precedent.  Black bears kill calves almost exclusively, and those not very often, a bear is an opportunity eater, and there's plenty of easier pickings than a moose.  Out here we have real bears that will take on the job, but not often.   Your coyotes are no different than those in Quebec or NB, the Eastern Coyote, not a hybrid at all, and again will not attempt to take down any but the oldest or youngest of moose.  the reason for lots of moose is that they breed like rabbits... how many calves can a cow moose produce in a lifetime?  How many can a cow whale produce in it's lifetime?


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Feb 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> I do know that moose are native to Newfoundland... That's irrelevant. They are here now, and even though we kill off 20ish percent of them every year from hunting alone, they're still thriving. They are getting hit because there's a gazillion of them. You do not know what it's like here. They're everywhere.


I don't know what it's like there?  Really?  That's funny, because I used to live there.  Even got my moose hunting license one year.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I could argue with you about the migration stuff, but I don't think there's going to be much facts to find about moose in Newfoundland...



Yes, hard to find info about _Newfoundland_ moose, but not to find info that moose (and deer and caribou) do, in fact migrate, or, for want of a better word, move to find food, depending on precipitation, season, etc.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> But besides the fact that our highway goes *around* the island, and not through anything,



This is your definition of around?







And no, I'm not against the seal hunt.  They're nowhere near extinction.  I'm not even really against whaling.  I don't think _anything_ near extinction (animal, plant, etc) should be needlessly destroyed.

Reminds me of the movie Medicine Man with Sean Connery.  Some plant or animal is going to be rare or extinct and we will find out it holds the cure to cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, AIDS.....the list goes on.

I'm starting to be sorry I made the whaling comment at all.   :-\


----------



## ballz (26 Feb 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I don't know what it's like there?  Really?  That's funny, because I used to live there.  Even got my moose hunting license one year.



Didya now? I was on four kills during last year's season alone. I've probably been on over 50 kills in my short life.



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Yes, hard to find info about _Newfoundland_ moose, but not to find info that moose (and deer and caribou) do, in fact migrate, or, for want of a better word, move to find food, depending on precipitation, season, etc.



What exactly do you think the moose in Newfoundland would stand to gain from migrating? It's an island, a small one at that. There's no real differences in weather, vegetation, etc at any point during the year. There is nowhere to migrate to. And with only 111,390 sq km, and with over 120,000 moose, they don't really have to go far to mate. 

Moose here do not behave the same as moose on the mainland of the continent. They have their own environment which they've adapted to. That is why I said "there's not much info on Newfoundland moose" because they're simply not the same as the status quo.

The biggest difference in their living patterns is they go deeper into the woods during winter. They don't travel from St. John's to Corner Brook, and even if they did they'd only have to cross the highway twice.

For every km you drive on the Trans Canada you're potentially driving past 2 moose within 1 km of the road... that is all year round, not during rutting season. That is why they're on the roads, not because the one highway in Newfoundland is smack dab where it shouldn't be.



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> This is your definition of around?



Uhhh yes, look at that damn highway... At no point is it any further than 50km from the water, and tons of it is within eyesight... What would be your definition of around? Building 1-10km bridges over every single inlet and harbour?



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> And no, I'm not against the seal hunt.  They're nowhere near extinction.  I'm not even really against whaling.  I don't think _anything_ near extinction (animal, plant, etc) should be needlessly destroyed.



Then why are we arguing about moose and whales? Neither of which is falling off the face of the earth anytime soon.


----------



## ballz (26 Feb 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Should we do something based solely on whether it's sustainable? ridiculous precedent.  Black bears kill calves almost exclusively, and those not very often, a bear is an opportunity eater, and there's plenty of easier pickings than a moose.  Out here we have real bears that will take on the job, but not often.   Your coyotes are no different than those in Quebec or NB, the Eastern Coyote, not a hybrid at all, and again will not attempt to take down any but the oldest or youngest of moose.  the reason for lots of moose is that they breed like rabbits... how many calves can a cow moose produce in a lifetime?  How many can a cow whale produce in it's lifetime?



"Real bears?" What's a real bear? Is it because black bears are small that you said that? I told you, Newfoundland has the biggest black bears. They weigh in up to 270kg. Why would it matter if they were only eating calves anyway? A calf is a moose isn't it? A calf needs to grow up if the moose population is going to be sustained doesn't it? Every predator targets the weaker prey. Wolves target calves as well.


from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/04/20/nl-coyotes-caribou.html#ixzz0ggBHFxaZ
[/quote]*Western coyotes aren't known to kill big animals like caribou, but Eastern Canada is likely dealing with a bigger variety that's more like a wolf*, says Paul Wilson, a researcher at Trent University in Ontario.

"*The eastern coyote is, in fact, a hybrid between the eastern wolf and coyote* that expanded from the west," Wilson said. "Whatever animals made it over to Newfoundland probably came from this hybrid eastern coyote."[/quote]

A cow moose typically only has 1 calf, sometimes 2. In a lifetime? 20 years is a high lifespan, and they take about 2 years to sexually mature, so you do the math... I wouldn't exactly compare them to rabbits.

Whales certainly have a higher lifespan (sperm whales 75 years, blue whales 35-40 years is what I'm reading, just for random examples) so even if it takes them 7-10 years to mature, I don't think there's any dramatic difference in these animals ability to mate that being hunted 40 times more couldn't make up for....


----------



## GAP (26 Feb 2010)

This thread is well past it's half-life, the points have been made, argued, made again, argued again......fine........now we're arguing about moose.....what's next? Ants.?


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Feb 2010)

never mind, kill 'em, there are plenty to go around.


----------



## ballz (26 Feb 2010)

There's a period after that "1, sometimes 2" part. 

I meant 1, sometimes 2 per year. Then gave you the other stuff to "do the math" to find the answer to your own question. I wasn't trying to say they have 1 or 2 calves in a 20 year lifespan.

Anywho, I'm not arguing about this anymore. 0.5%, or 1 in 200, is SFA. That was my original point and I still stand by it.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Feb 2010)

I edited my previous post.  Just info for the sake of continuity.


----------



## bdave (26 Feb 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Just so we're clear ballz for brains, my point was about .5%  being a large part of a population.


No, it's not.
If I told you that I had a million dollars and I'd give you .5 percent, would you be ecstatic? 
Cause let me tell you, 0.5 percent is only 5000 dollars. Half of a percent is not a large part of a population, at all.



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Don't trot out that poor misunderstood Newfie bullshit on me, I'm not buying it, and it has nothing to do with what I said, killing whales is UNNECESSARY in this day and age.


Of course you would think this. Your lively hood does not depend on it.
Many things are "unnecessary" if you break them down like that.



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> I'm splitting hairs because I called you on a gross over exaggeration?


Alright, tens of thousands of species die a year.
Now let's move on.




			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> Again you exaggerated and I called you an it! And how do you know they are not wasted????


I don't really know. It's more of a common sense thing. Many people eat entire parts of animals. Whether it's guts turned into sausages or duck's feet turned into pate. I would assume they would have some use for all those hundreds of pounds of guts, heart and etc.



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> So my point is irrelevant when I am disproving your previous claim that they hunt whale meet to feed the starving people of Japan???????? lol thanks for the economics tip, I'm sure glad we have whaling to keep those people from starving to death! I wonder how the unemployed in other countries do it? I guess they just all fall over and die! Must be really hard in Alberta and Saskatchewan... you know being so far from an ocean and all!


Again with the rhetoric.



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> That's not my quote but thanks.


You know exactly what I meant. Way to avoid answering.



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> You should re-read your line there stud! They key point is "any living creature OTHER THAN HUMANS"!!! Regardless there are two definitions that you can go by, and this argument is in many scientific circles right now, which I know I'm not qualified in and I know your not either. However, I choose to believe humans are mammals not animals for the record!


You can choose to believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster, for all I care, it doesn't make you right.
If you believe in evolution, then we've evolved from animals. Hence, we are animals.
If you don't believe in evolution, then you can look at how scientists/biologists classify living organisms. You will see we fall under the animal kingdom.
There is one definition and that is the one I just described to you.



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> That was not your argument you said hundreds of thousands of animals go extinct every year!! Ohh and you gave me yahoo answers and Wikipedia as your sources! Never said this either??? Do you even know my argument and point???


Wikipedia is a credible source, believe it or not. Especially since many of them have sources (scroll to the bottom of the page) and some university professors accept wikipedia as valid sources.
I gave you way more organizations than i did yahoo, so your point is moot.

My initial argument was a reply to this:
"the fact that near-extinct species are being killed,"

Then it kept going into what it is now.



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> Again you gave me Wikipedia and Yahoo answers for your sources and you again said hundreds of thousand of animals go extinct each year, now its many hahahah!


Alright, I take it back. Tens of thousands of species die a year. Man, glad we got that out of the way...because it really changes anything.



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> But yea you sure proved me wrong alright! Again do you even know my argument?


Yes, that it is cruel how whales are killed. However, my initial calling out was on the fact that you claimed that these were near extinct whales being killed. 



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> Would I have noticed if they were killing whales for reasons other then meat??? ummm probably more so! I have been over how this effects me! but you don't like to read over my last post obviously so what can I say.
> This does not surprise me as I see it takes multiple attempts to get information through to you!



Good one. I like how you completely avoided the question. I'll repeat it for your sake:
If no one had told you about whaling (personally, through some news source or whatever), would you know it was going on? The answer is obviously no. However, if you're so stubborn as to say yes, then please state exactly how whaling has or would have affected you, even if you didn't know it was happening.
If someone kills the elephant, bengal tiger or panda bear, I would not be affected by it in any way. Nothing in my life would change. So exactly how are you affected by whales dying? How does something that does not affect you, and affects others, become any of your concern?



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> Yea because I believe humans are mammals not animals I'm misguided and sad?


Yes, because humans cannot be mammals and not animals. It's a contradiction. Again, refer to the actual classifications used by scientists/biologists (for lack of a better term) used and not some airy fairy "humans are superior' idea that you've come up with.
All animals are unique. Some can fly, some can stay underwater, some can live in pitch black environments, some are very fast, some are very strong and some are very intelligent. Just because we are one and not the others, does not mean we are not animals.



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> Sorry Darwin I did not know you were such an expert on animal- mammal physiology that you have solved the scientific debate over the two!


I have actually studied classification of animals and their physiology, though not extensively. While i do have some knowledge, I am not an expert by any means. I am using animals and species interchangeably here (though it's incorrect really) because in such a discussion, it's irrelevant.



			
				bullitt said:
			
		

> I'm never gonna get these 10 mins of my life back am I? I feel dirty!


Yes, because who would have thought that people don't debate on forums.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Feb 2010)

Nuke the gay whales for Jesus.

Locked

Milnet.ca Staff


----------

