What the hell is going on?

[Norseman]

<font color='#0000FF'>Hmm...

Well let me start that I enjoy a good argument too, and though I don't have a very firm opinion on the subject I'd still like the opinions out there to be based on the truth rather than speculation and irrational argumentation. (That was not meant at anyone in particular!) I really haven't been much into this earlier, so I've learnt a lot from this discussion.

The first link, Lizardfish, was very informative and rational, and it is in no way BS. A couple of things though:
- Although that small community in the Lofoten islands have whaling as an income I don't think you can say that it has a very big impact on the rural economy in general. Let's say 100-200 families have whaling as their main source of income, but I doubt even that. After all the whaling season is only for 4 months.
- 711 whales out of a minke whale stock of somewhere between 75.000 and 112.000 should give us somewhere in the area between 0,006 and 0,009% of the total. That's not 2%. Perhaps they've included the Japanese quota in it?

The other article I thought was more or less crap, simply because it seems to me that Mr. Morley is a twat. In my view he should fix his own fishing fleet and get control of the extensive trawling and overfishing performed by the British fleet, depleting your own fish stocks. It seems to me Mr. Morley is motivated by the Public Opinion rather than facts. But hey, that's me.

Now,
Leaving the cuteness and the tradition behind us, let us argue from an environmentally sound perspective. Let's put some rationale into it for a moment. Follow my argument and give me your opinion:

Norway, the UK and Europe as a whole is depleting the stocks of fish in the Eastern Atlantic, particularly in the North- and the Norwegian Sea. Cod is particularly vulnerable, also because it is also the most attractive asset. If fishing in the North Sea (Yup, that's where Mr. Morley comes in) isn't done with stricter sanctions the cod will be totally gone within a few years, simply because the are no old fish left and they're now going after the youngsters...
Now, if we're able to replace some of the demand with whale meat from a sustainable stock harvested in the strictest way possible... What's wrong with that?

Simply put, we replace a non sustainable food source with a sustainable one.

So looking away from your (ie the World's) &quot;culinary imperialism&quot; I don't see much point in banning any licensed and closely monitored harvesting of the sea. Not only that, I think it's environmentally unsound.

Eat your fish and chips while you can.

Kyrre
(Who might think the subject has been discussed to death and might be on his way back into discussing standard diving issues
)

[John Gulliver]

But why do we have to replace cod (and haddock, hake, whiting and half a dozen other threatened species) with whale meat? Surely, we can eat more chicken, lamb or pork instead? Or more farmed fish and/or shellfish (that should provide your whalers with an alternative source of income)? We (you) would need to improve the way we (you) farm the fish and shellfish, so it would have less adverse ecological effects, but that shouldn't be impossible.

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (John Gulliver @ Sep. 17 2003,10:25)]But why do we have to replace cod (and haddock, hake, whiting and half a dozen other threatened species) with whale meat? Surely, we can eat more chicken, lamb or pork instead? Or more farmed fish and/or shellfish (that should provide your whalers with an alternative source of income)? We (you) would need to improve the way we (you) farm the fish and shellfish, so it would have less adverse ecological effects, but that shouldn't be impossible.

<font color='#0000FF'>well of course we don't have to, John. It's just that if we don't harvest it's.. uh.. kinda.. all lost.

There are several issues to farmed fish as well. The threat to the environment/ecology is HUGE, the possibility of farmed fish running away, the vulnerability of it all (Millions of farmed Salmon were killed a couple of years ago because of a certain jellyfish)

They've also just found out that Cod actually leave the fjords with farmed Salmon.

Rambling on you have the problems with the fact that we've already regulated species which means that no habitat is &quot;natural&quot;. Wham, there's Katmchatka crab everywhere and theres no other fish around...

We can't win, really. We can only try to monitor or descend into the grey and murky masses. Feet first in case of monsters &nbsp;

Kyrre

[Dr Stevil]

I've seen footage of the annual pilot whale slaughter, the image that sticks most in my mind is that these quite large animals are (relatively slowly) decapitated by a guy with a hand held knife, about the size of a diving knife.
Putting aside for a moment the pros and cons of killing or not, to kill any animal (domestic or wild) which can sense pain in such a horrific manner is barbarous by anyones standards.

[John Gulliver]

I'm well aware of the dire ecological consequences of present-day fish-farming methods, which is why I referred to them, but you don't have to keep on doing it that way. The marine biologists say the problems can be solved if you farm the fish on land (in large tanks) instead of in the sea and that it need not mean that it becomes uneconomical. I'm no expert, though. I just saw it as one alternative to whale-hunting.
Still, we all know you Norwegians enjoy killing animals, whether it's whales, wolves or those lovely baby seals &nbsp;

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (John Gulliver @ Sep. 17 2003,13:45)]whether it's whales, wolves or those lovely baby seals  

<font color='#0000FF'>The problem with baby seals is that it's difficult to get hold of enough sesame seeds to cover the Baby seal Blubber Burger Buns. &nbsp;

Kyrre

[Mr T.]

There's been a lot of passion in this debate, from both sides, and this combined with some very salutary fact and some woefully overly emotional (what passes for) 'fact' - ergo mere opinion. Indeed, reading some of these links and posts put me in mind of Disraeli's quote to an opposition back-bencher:

&quot;The honourable member (of Parliament) uses facts and statistics like an inebriate uses a lamp-post: for support rather than illumination......&quot;

It is a truism that, invariably, the most vocal element on the subject of hunting foxes, hare-coursing etc. are 'Townies', i.e. those with precious little concept or grasp of the nature of the devastation and loss of an already greatly depleted income which those who work the land have to suffer; a growing problem where increasing numbers either shut-up-shop and leave the livelihood (if they’ve not committed suicide first) or go bust due to the ever diminishing returns. What then for their families?

The bottom line is that both foxes and hares are pests: foxes attack both sheep/lambs and farm fowl (chickens and turkeys etc.) and in doing so NEVER only take/kill the one bird - they decimate whole runs and leave carnage in their wake – with the resultant lack of livestock for the farmer to sell; compounding an already painful situation. Hares are the root cause of a lot of crops left unusable and land riddled with warrens and, as this encroaches, resulting in it having to be left fallow, putting it further out of useable/profitable reach of the farmer; further blighting an already meagre income for those who work on and live off the land.

I can't remember, and I'm not going to guess at the percentages, but most UNBIASED sources will tell you that the vast majority of hunts ('Rides-to-Hounds') result in the packs getting no where near the fox. And even when they do, the hounds only do to the fox what the fox does to anything it sees as food - tears it to pieces. Quid pro quo? FACT: individual foxes have a higher kill ratio per year than all the combined hunts in the country in a similar period.

So, if a bunch of public-school twits (the chinless wonders who then go on to run the nation's Civil Service) want to dress up in red, shout 'Tally-ho!', call each other Tarquin and Farquar and go barking off in chase of something they'll invariably never catch (the unspeakable chasing the inedible), then let them get on with it.

The problem is one of perception: from the Middle Ages onwards, with the linear and nuclear growth of small-holdings/farms into hamlets into villages into boroughs into towns into cities into metropolitan conurbations, man (that's the species/genus, not the sex!) has moved further away from his hunter-gatherer-farmer role in his need to kill to eat (please note that there are no vegetarians in most famine blighted parts of the world where such practices are still commonplace! Ditto sufferers of Anorexia!!!)

This has resulted in the once common sight of animals being slaughtered/butchered (the original connotation of those words and not the contemporary and overly and irrationally emotional use) being removed from the everyday palate of the madding crowd. Folk now get their meat in pleasantly pleasing shrink-wrapped Tesco packages - they see nothing of the process which results in said bird/lamb/cow/deer being brought your palace of purchase.

This de-sensitising to matters rural, combined with the fact that certain once former wild animals i.e. dogs etc. have now been brought into the home as pets (not pests) and now lie at our feet by the hearth is anathema to most rural folks. The ‘Townies’ quite easily transmogrify the ‘cute’ wee foxy to the mutt at their feet – how, God alone knows. Even worse, somehow the common hare gets transmuted to the fluffy bunny nowadays seen in its hutch in the garden. Nothing could be further from the truth or more self-delusional. By way of proof, and if anything were more asinine, witness the most vocal element of MP’s who make up the anti-hunting lobby: to a man and woman they are from inner-city and suburban constituencies where the nearest they get to a fox is when they see their bin-liners torn apart by said early morning visitors. Indeed, the only thing these ‘representatives’ have in common with scenes rural is a healthy dose of bullshit. And with all the other ills of the nation, is it really a number one priority to ban hunting?? Come on. Waxing lyrical about the evils of unemployment and then putting 55,000 people plus out of work at the stroke of a pen? Sorry, doesn’t compute.

We've also discussed Scando here. OK, let's look at the hunting of stag/deer/moose/elk etc. for a moment.

I think the Scando's will back me up when I say that in certain areas these animals are considered pests also. But more importantly, and with a thriving hunting populace over there, these animals breed in such numbers that an annual cull is state sanctioned - to the point where if the country's hunters don't bag the allotted number every year, then the respective armies of these countries have to go out and shoot the residue. If you're ever in this neck of woods (literally, the woods) during hunting season, for God's sake make sure you're wearing something very obviously ORANGE!! It's a colour that doesn't appear naturally in nature (certainly the temperate and maritime forests of Europe) and has hence been chosen globally by hunters so they don't end up shooting each other by accident.

The above said, I am neither a fan nor proponent of fox-hunting, but I accept it and and am happy for it to continue. I feel there are more burning issues in society (battered kids ring any bells?? Child prostitution??) that need our collective attention way in advance of banning hunting. And here’s the lie: The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) – the animals get Royal patronage, where the humans have to make do with being thrown to the vagaries of Man and trust to state beneficence?? Priorities?? Again, doesn’t compute.

[CotoChris]

<font color='#0000FF'>Couldn't agree with you more there Bren, as for foxes they are real pests more than the urban dwellers realise. A couple years ago I kep over 20 chickens that were slaughtered by a fox, 19 butchered and left there and one I presume he took it to eat or whatever. The fox is very cunning and now a pest in towns going through the rubbish and as I read the other day was inside a house in some childs room! I'm certainly one in agreement with fox hunting.

As what John said about the fishing was interesting. Last year when the Prestige oil disaster spilled on our shores it caused real devastation. I was still able to dive in Vigo bay as the oil stayed outside. Well the months after there was a fishing ban and I began to see 1,5m octopus, the fish overall were larger and also began seeing varieties I havn't seen before such as dogfish. Last week I saw dolphins and even saw a whale in March, OK the dolphins &amp; whale may have been luck but as for the rest I gave no doubt on what a ban on fishing can do. Unfortunately the ban has been lifted and now the large octopus have gone. There are talks of making large marine reserves which I believe are crucial, but also there should be mini reserves sporadic across nacional shores. there is a project in the south of Portugal where they are making artifical reefs in order help fishstocks recover.
The problem with the sea is that most problems are unseen and I worry governments will only react when it is late, hopefully not too late.

[Mary]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Bren Tierney @ Sep. 17 2003,13:39)]So, if a bunch of public-school twits (the chinless wonders who then go on to run the nation's Civil Service) want to dress up in red, shout 'Tally-ho!', call each other Tarquin and Farquar and go barking off in chase of something they'll invariably never catch (the unspeakable chasing the inedible), then let them get on with it.

Oi! I have a chin!!

but we've never caught a fox and only even caught sight of 1 once.

prefer pheasant for the pot.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Mary @ Sep. 17 2003,14:20)]but we've never caught a fox and only even caught sight of 1 once.

Quod erat demonstradum.