Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know if Obama wanted to help save whales he could stop American whaling. My guess is since only Indian tribes are allowed to do it he would have a ton of historical precedence for the president acting unilaterally on the matter too.
Disgraceful if Obama backs this deal to lift the ban. We need stricter anti-whaling policies globally. Japan et al get away with going around the ban by saying they only hunt whales for 'research' purposes. Bunch of BS.
Only Japan does the "research" whaling on a large scale currently (in the past even the US did it to make a stockpile of whale oil), the other countries lodged protests and are not bound by the ban (the IWC is entirely non-binding anyways). Japan lodged a protest but under pressure went to the "research" whaling.
In many ways this is the result of the sea shepherd eco-terrorists creating international incidents, now even the anti-whaling countries want to take away their basis for acting.
As it is, under the proposals, only non-endangered whales like the minkes will be hunted on a small scale, which will end the hunting of some threatened species. One thing some forget is the whaling ban was a moratorium, a temporary end, passed for the purpose of allowing study of the populations before resuming commercial whaling. this is lost on some who don't understand it was never intended to end whaling as the anti-whaling activists would like it to.
This may be just semantics, but how do you illegally exploit a loophole in the law? If there is a loophole, would that not mean that you are legally exploiting that loophole.
It's not illegal, the IWC takes part in issuing the permits to hunt the whales, it's only illegal in the minds of some animal rights activists...
This may be just semantics, but how do you illegally exploit a loophole in the law? If there is a loophole, would that not mean that you are legally exploiting that loophole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
It's not illegal, the IWC takes part in issuing the permits to hunt the whales, it's only illegal in the minds of some animal rights activists...
You illegally exploit a loophole by claiming you are whaling for research only to have the whale meat you collected end up in commercial eateries.
Nope, as I said, the IWC requires the meat be sold on the open market and not go to waste.
Yes it is read the article I linked.
"Killing sei, fin and minke whales was outlawed by the International Whaling Commission in 1986, and trade in their products is forbidden by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species."
"Killing sei, fin and minke whales was outlawed by the International Whaling Commission in 1986, and trade in their products is forbidden by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species."
That's the moratorium on commercial whaling from 1986. It does not apply to whale meat from research whaling sold in the country in which the research is based out of (i.e., the whale meat can be sold in Japan but not exported). Dig a bit deeper than that article...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
