We kill whales...FOR FUN!

[Slaughter]

The International Whaling Commission has decided that it's time to kill whales again. We've done it for quite a few years already, but now the rest of the world might follow . Willy didn't swim far enough, and neither will the rest of them!

[Accounting Troll]

I trust you won't bother pretending to be killing them for research purposes only. Nobody believes that lie when the Japanese whalers use it, so they aren't going to believe your whalers.

 

If you want to hunt large mammals, why not start with John Prescott?

[FullAuto]

Was it made illegal? I know you blokes were still doing it around the time of WWII, but I didn't think it was that popular with you Scandos.

[Accounting Troll]

Apparently they still hunt a set number of minke whales each year link.

[Pete]

Grenade-tipped harpoons? You learn something new every day!

[FullAuto]

I don't mind whale hunting, but pretending that shooting something with an explosive bolt is humane...come on, lads. Try again.

 

I don't think we can get whale meat here in the UK, though we'll gladly rip any unlucky foxes to shreds. Owzat for humane?

[Crazy Gringo]

*Grabs the phone and calls his local arms dealer about getting an offer on some russian Akula attack subs*

Please do ignore that line above....Especially if you are a whale catcher.

It might be a way to 'protect' the whales....At least until they develop their own anti-whaler weaponry.

Like doing a bellysplash right on top of the whaling boat.

[Accounting Troll]

Trouble is thatr the sonar tends to confuse the whales. But I like the idea of a Q-ship strategy - disguising a Russian submarine as a defenceless whale and then sailing round waters known to be infested with whalers

[Slaughter]

We've had that idiot Watson and GreenPOS nagging about the whaling for years. Our scientists know a bloody lot more about the number of whales than them. As for the way of hunting them, the dynamite explodes soon after entry, so it's no worse then anything else. Those bloody GreenPOS should look into bullfighting, dogfights and so on instead. The number of whales is monitored closely, and only an acceptable number is hunted, like with any other hunt.

[Pete]

Still, they're quite large and you can't be picky on where the harpoon hits. If a grenade goes off in it's intestines for instance, that's not too humane.

[Accounting Troll]

How do scientists monitor the whale population anyway?

 

And who funds the various studies?

[FullAuto]

"And what do you do, Professor?"

 

"We watch whales have sex."

 

"...I see."

 

Still, they're quite large and you can't be picky on where the harpoon hits. If a grenade goes off in it's intestines for instance, that's not too humane.

 

Well, exactly. I don't really mind them blowing open huge mammals with explosives, but just don't pretend it's a nice way to go, eh? I mean, they're killing them, so painless or not doesn't really matter much. Painful death is the natural order of things.

[Slaughter]

How do scientists monitor the whale population anyway?

 

And who funds the various studies?

You'd have to ask them, but I figure the good old counting works well there as well. That's how they monitor many wild animal populations (combined with radio marking etc.)

 

As for funding, it is the state (or my tax money to be more precise).

 

@Pete: And sometimes hunters miss with their guns, and only wound elks for instance. Should we ban all hunting because of it?

[FullAuto]

And sometimes hunters miss with their guns, and only wound elks for instance. Should we ban all hunting because of it?

 

No, of course not, but I don't think I've ever heard a hunter claim shooting a deer with a large calibre rifle is humane.

[Pete]

Ah, he got there before me

 

No, hunters don't generally describe blowing an elk's brain across the scenery as humane (unless they're the delusional redneck sort) but the whaler's defense always seems to be that sticking spikes in the side of an animal (now with added grenades no less! ) is humane... ;)

 

(On a barely related sidenote, is it true that fish that, well... err... fishermen catch have no feeling in the side of their mouths, or is this just another "let's make it sound humane" ploy? I mean, did they base that study on the fact that a hooked fish doesn't say oww or what? They don't look too bloody cheerful with a hook in their face Not that I particularly care about fish as they're stupid in general and I swear down they get hooked for kicks).

[Slaughter]

Elks die before they realize they've been shot, unless it's a faulty shot. It's humane. What is your idea of a humane kill?

[Accounting Troll]

Slaughter, humanity's understanding of the oceans is so limited that I doubt we can accurately count the population of each whale species. My concern about studies carried out by the Norwegian government is that they are pre-arranged to conclude that the whale population is too high in order to keep both the whalers and conservationists happy on election day; our government is always using that trick. Likewise, Greenpeace studies are pre-arranged to say to the public "unless you give us more money, whales will become extinct." Academics are easy to bribe...

 

There's some statistics on Norwegian whaling activities in recent years here and here.

 

There is also a BBC article on the 'humane' method currently used for killing whales here.

[Pete]

Not all headshots are fatal... take Edward Norton in Fight Club as an example

[FullAuto]

Getting a headshot on a deer would be quite a feat. Generally, you shoot for the front shoulder, where the heart, lungs and liver are. It's not instantaneous, but almost certain to bring it down. I've never seen anyone headshoot a deer. To my way of thinking, it's far too difficult a target. Maybe they do it differently in Norway?

 

Most hunting does not end in painless death, though my experience is with land animals and birds only, I admit. I can understand whalers saying "Certainly, it's humane." in the face of the strong opposition they face. But it isn't. Doesn't mean it's wrong, though.

[Bomb Bloke]

If folk need whale meat, why not just buy it off japan?

 

Once they're done "researching" their catch, they sell it. However, the market got flooded with whale meat, so even after selling it as pet food, they had to scale down a bit.

 

Hence I'd assume they'd export it quite cheaply.

[Slaughter]

Not all headshots are fatal... take Edward Norton in Fight Club as an example

If you went for head shots, your career as a hunter would be short (as FA explains)

 

@Troll: Whaling means virtually nothing to our economy, so the politicians doesn't make an issue of it. The government bodies that looks after the whale population is the same that does so for other animals to my knowledge. They remain in place regardless of who governs the country. They can't count every individual whale of course, but I believe they are fairly accurate. More so than GreenPOS and the others at least, that's for sure. I have no idea why people are care so much about whales and their "inhumane" deaths, when ox are tortured to death elsewhere in the world. "I've seen Free Willy, and it's so cute..."

[Pete]

People love whales more I guess?

 

If I put my girly head on, I'd say whales are far cuter.

[FullAuto]

Pigs are quite intelligent, as animals go, and we kill them in their tens of thousands every day. The link between Babe trotting around and pork chops on the shelf is hidden from the eyes of most people though, because even at it's best, it's not for the squeamish, and their business can't risk vegetarianism becoming more popular. Hunting for anything other than subsistence is seen as evil, because that link has been obscured for quite a while. Most animals, including humans, die in pain. A bullet or explosive bolt isn't what I would call humane, but it's certainly more humane than the natural equivalents.

[Accounting Troll]

FA, I agree with you about how insulated most of us are about the processes involved in getting meat onto a supermarket shelf, neatly wrapped in plastic. Some months ago, a British TV chef got into trouble for slitting the throat of an animal on camera prior to cooking it. Are people so ignorant that they don't realise that animals have to be slaughtered before their meat can be processed?

 

Killing an animal by cutting its throat, which is traditional in the part of the world the TV chef was visiting is probably more humane than the method currently used in Britain. Here, animals are rounded up, shoved onto a lorry and then transported to the slaughter house. Owing to EU hygeine and animal welfare legislation, this trip can last for several hours as there are only a few large slaughterhouses in the UK. During this time, the animals are frightened because they are in what for them is a very alien environment. Physically, they are killed by a bolt to the head, which is considered to be more humane than having the throat slit because the animal suffers less physical pain. However, the animals are stressed out by the long journey, and then they arrive at a slaughterhouse, where the sights, sounds and smell give them a pretty good idea what is going to happen next. Maybe it would be better not to see it coming.

 

Slaughter, don't forget that whaling has become a major environmental issue because some whale species have been hunted to the verge of extinction; a species that we farm does not face the immediate threat of extinction, although environmental activists in the UK have been quick to point out the suffering of battery chickens. There is also the matter of the intelligence of whales and dolphins, which has gained a lot more attention in the media than the matter of the intelligence of pigs (possibly because pig farmers have a vested interest).

[FullAuto]

Not forgetting several Asian countries' penchant for dogs. Not sure if I could eat that. I'd like to try whale, though.

 

A weekend slaughtering chickens cured me of most of my illusions, and quite frankly I think chickens are just as bright without heads. They certainly run well enough.