Iceland killing whales again..Breaks Ban

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Iceland has just killed it first whales..breaking a ban set down 9 years ago.



Iceland feels the need to kill minke whales in order to "protect" its fishing rights..is utterly laughable & so dishonest...



Sorry the Reuters news links page flat out wouldn't work..but your all good at Googling news..
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    That's it- BOMB THE $HIT OUTTA THEM!!!



    Dey got any oil over there, or room for a strategic base/airstrip, btw?
  • Reply 2 of 23
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Randycat99

    That's it- BOMB THE $HIT OUTTA THEM!!!



    Never happen. Beautiful women 10:1 over there. It's the playpen of the new millennium for the rich white boys.



    Whales schmales...those chicks are HOT!
  • Reply 3 of 23
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Where are the multiculturalists? They should be here declaring that this cultural course of action is just as valid as the course of action other cultures would take. The environment be damned, there are feelings to which to be sensitive!



    Nick
  • Reply 4 of 23
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    The environment be damned, there are feelings to which to be sensitive!



    Heh. Like I said.
  • Reply 5 of 23
    Actually the whale population here in Iceland really is hurting fishing, and it's not an all out hunting season they can only hunt 38 whales, the stock is estimated at around 40.000.



    I don't like it but it has to be done, Icelands economy depents upon fishing.
  • Reply 6 of 23
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by no-one

    Actually the whale population here in Iceland really is hurting fishing, and it's not an all out hunting season they can only hunt 38 whales, the stock is estimated at around 40.000.



    I don't like it but it has to be done, Icelands economy depents upon fishing.




    I wonder if the whales are thinking about doing the same thing to humans? Maybe the dolphins can help.
  • Reply 7 of 23
    ibrowseibrowse Posts: 1,749member
    "Gotta nuke something!"
  • Reply 8 of 23
    It would be a war for oil...in a sense...
  • Reply 9 of 23
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    Arrrr, the venerable sperm whale oil. I sail ye high seas for the oil... (that's the best pirate impression I can muster )



    On a more serious note, are these whales really engangered species or not? I would find it hard to believe that they are not. So how can such a relatively small group of nearly extinct whales make an impact on the fish population? Must not be such a large fish population. So how did the fish population get to that level? Maybe a self-interested, local fish industry is to blame? A strategy more in-line with nature would just be to become a better fisher than the whales, right? So in classic human destructiveness, they decide the best plan is to just destroy the whales (a sanctioned number, of course). Well, that just places the natural balance in further contortion, so probably some other downside will then be created. So I guess either way, some amount of whales are slated to starve or be physically destroyed, just to save a fishing industry only focused on $'s. I dunno.



    Is there any good answer for this? Is it really "our" place to decide what the whale population "should be" (as meager as they are already) vs. just scale back the fishing as a favor to the environment?



    Here's an idea- we invade and take all their hot women (their real natural resource). Then they won't have as great a need to fuel their industry with tons of fish?
  • Reply 10 of 23
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Randycat99

    Is there any good answer for this? Is it really "our" place to decide what the whale population "should be" (as meager as they are already) vs. just scale back the fishing as a favor to the environment?



    I say grow fish in aquariums like cattle. Sure, some big fish like tuna would still have to be grown in the wild, but limit it as much as possible. Aside from that, net off 'aquariums' in the wild, in places where a population could grow in the ocean, but fenced in by a net. That way they're wild but still easy to catch. The fish population outside the net would do fine if they weren't being fished anymore, and the population inside the netted area would just keep spawning.
  • Reply 11 of 23
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Read the Uplift Trilogy by David Brin. It will give you a whole new perspective...especially in the afterword of the third book.
  • Reply 12 of 23
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    This is all Bush's fault. He has a lot to answer for this unilateral action.
  • Reply 13 of 23
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Why the hell do we care so much about whales? We've got pictures, just kill 'em all and give me their oil to use in my lanterns!
  • Reply 14 of 23
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Why the hell do we care so much about whales? We've got pictures, just kill 'em all and give me their oil to use in my lanterns!



    We're talking about Whales, not Iraqis.
  • Reply 15 of 23
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Quick! Everyone ignore the post from the Icelander and pretend this is an environmental outrage, even though we don't have the facts!"



    Damn steam-jockeys, killin' all the endangered whales for sport!



  • Reply 16 of 23
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by no-one

    Actually the whale population here in Iceland really is hurting fishing, and it's not an all out hunting season they can only hunt 38 whales, the stock is estimated at around 40.000.



    I don't like it but it has to be done, Icelands economy depents upon fishing.




    The published reason is scientific research; what does that have to do with reducing numbers that are eating fish?



    And by the way, over fishing is hurting fishing according to everyone but ... the people with a whaling industry.



    Why don't we ban that instead?
  • Reply 17 of 23
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by stupider...likeafox

    We're talking about Whales, not Iraqis.



    Hmm, are you saying we can grind up Iraqis, and use their bodily juices to power our SUVs?
  • Reply 18 of 23
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Outsider

    Hmm, are you saying we can grind up Iraqis, and use their bodily juices to power our SUVs?



    Of course. I removed the power supply from my computer and replaced it with a small engine that runs on the clean-burning slurry of pulverized Iraqi flesh.
  • Reply 19 of 23
    kelibkelib Posts: 740member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquafire

    Iceland has just killed it first whales..breaking a ban set down 9 years ago.



    Iceland feels the need to kill minke whales in order to "protect" its fishing rights..is utterly laughable & so dishonest...



    Sorry the Reuters news links page flat out wouldn't work..but your all good at Googling news..




    Iceland is not killing these 38 minke whales to protect their fishing right. It's part of a research trying to estimate the effect of increasing number of whales in the country's territory on the fish stock.



    The country that currently kills the most number of whales is actually USA. According to Greenpeace they are killed in their 1000's by USA to protect USA's Tuna fish interests.



    So for those of you so concerned about whales and their well being, maybe you should turn your attention elsewhere. As far as Iceland is concerned, 71% of the country's expoert is fish products so obviously this is an important matter for them.
  • Reply 20 of 23
    Save the Whales. Collect the whole set.
Sign In or Register to comment.