It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama's "mind-numbingly dumb idea": lift a 24-year international ban on commercial whaling.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:23 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I guess the same place as PETA:

Outrage: Obama Backs Lifting Ban on Whaling
Opinion by PETA
(1 Day Ago) in Society / Animal Rights

By Karin Bennett

While U.S. residents watch and worry about the oil spill, a different kind of oceanic nightmare is brewing, one that will cause immense suffering and death for countless whales for many years to come.

On June 20, the International Whaling Commission will meet in Morocco to vote on a proposal to lift a 24-year international ban on commercial whaling for Japan, Norway, and Iceland—the three countries that have pretty much thumbed their noses at the ban. The Obama administration backs the lifting of the ban. Anyone who knows anything about the history of the ban—which has slashed the killing from somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 whales a year to between 1,200 and 1,700—is outraged that the president is going back on his election pledge to strengthen a ban and instead throwing the country's might behind lifting it.


Or Brosnan

They (US government) seem to be in favour of allowing Japan and Norway to go out and hunt whales again. It means they can go out there and start killing whales. It's in moratorium so it's not determined how many they can kill,' he said.

Or the New Zealand Herald where it says:

Some may argue that the "deal" being struck between whaling and non-whaling nations is a diplomatic and political victory. But so far it looks like a resounding defeat in terms of biology and conservation.


Instead of closing this loophole, the deal would legitimise scientific whaling and simply rename it commercial whaling.

You can read more here.

From Greenpeace:


I don't think you can easily dismiss this because FOX happened to report on it.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by loam]

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 08:21 AM
But Loam, where did they get this information? On what are they basing their information? If they have something that indicates Obama is supporting this ban, why can't WE see it? Why can't I find it? Why is it the only thing I could find after a day of research is that the US, in fact, supports the ban?

I'm not dismissing it because FOX reported on it. But I'm certainly not going to trust PETA. I'm and animal welfare proponent and PETA is freaking crazy. All these other people are trying to convince Obama NOT to agree with the proposal, but there's no indication, AS OF YET, that Obama DOES agree, that I can find.

Just because a rumor spreads doesn't mean it's true.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 08:23 AM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Fair enough. The proof may come on June 20.

We can determine then what happens.


Incidentally, I purposefully chose PETA and Greenpeace to counter the FOX source. There are others. Clearly, for those who follow the issue, there is a nearly universal assertion the US is supporting the change.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by loam]

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 08:43 AM

Originally posted by loam
Clearly, for those who follow the issue, there is a nearly universal assertion the US is supporting the change.

I know. That's what I found. But not once did I see support for that assertion from anyone. And if everyone is reporting that, I think I would have access to the source that has them convinced of it. Don't you?

You know... Obama says so and so. Here's the quote: "Blah, blah, blah" Obama said.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:33 AM
Two issues here..

(1) The IWC proposal..

(2) Whether Obama Supports it.

My personal opinion is the proposal is good.
Right now Japan...operates Illegally in that they have signed/agreed to the whaling moritorium, but then goes ahaead and commercially hunts whales claiming it is for scientific purposes.
Iceland and Norway...haven't signed on and just goes about hunting whales.

This proposal is only valid if those countries all sign on and agree to DNA testing of whales with market testing to confirm each whale originated legitimately...independant oversight of whaling operations etc. and it REDUCES the number of whales hunted by several thousand.

Greenpeace et al in my opinion are entrenched ideolougues...and ideology I often agree with, but a flavor of extremists all the same. By claiming that Obama supports this proposal, they are trying to push him to take a publicly oppositional stance.

If Greenpeace has thier way...everything would continue as usual and they would continue to ram ships.

I hope Pres Obama supports this proposal, but there is no direct evidence thus far he, let's see.

See here for some specifics..

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:57 AM
Worried, angry and scared people share one thing in common. They are all predictable. That is why you are constantly being bombarded with things to be worried, angry and scared about.

This is how they herd the collective human mind.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:57 AM
Did you ever see the episode of "Seinfeld" where george does the exact opposite of what his instinct tells him...well, imagine Obama doing that after elected.

There you have it, the Pres. Obama administration in a nut shell....

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 03:20 PM

Originally posted by maybereal11
Greenpeace et al in my opinion are entrenched ideolougues...and ideology I often agree with, but a flavor of extremists all the same.

Exactly. And I'm not into any kind of extremism. I mean, look at how well banning guns works... Constitutional right or not, when you tell people that they cannot do something legally, those who really want to will find a way to do it illegally.

If Greenpeace has thier way...everything would continue as usual and they would continue to ram ships.

Right. Greenpeace is a CAUSE. Without this proposal, their cause is strong and they can gain support. If this proposal works as it should and the numbers of whales killed decreases, their cause is not so strong...

I hope Pres Obama supports this proposal, but there is no direct evidence thus far he, let's see.

I don't know if I support it or not. It depends solely on its effectiveness to me. And we can't know that until it's passed.

Great post, mbr.

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:54 AM
I've never got why people feel the need that we ban any hunting on whales, since this is supporting hunting, but within set limits which these countries can't go over. I mean we commit far worse ecological disasters and over fish like hell. There are plenty of things as or more important to eco systems which get hardly the funding greenpeace and such give to the whale cause, its just because people only care about certain animals and issues.

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:42 AM
What's wrong with Whaling, exactly?

I've heard the arguments before, but I really fail to see the difference between Whale hunting and any other kinds of hunting, such as fishing or shooting.

Is it because Whales are "intelligent"? Seems to be the only argument anyone has against it, yet how exactly do you quantify an animals intelligence and compare it against another?

What is the cut off point for saying "Mmm, I'm gonna eat you" to "Awww, you're so cuddly I will save you"?

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 06:12 AM
reply to post by stumason

What's wrong with Whaling, exactly?

A good question...

Well, for me personally, the problem with whaling is to do with intelligence and sustainability.

Whales where very close to becoming another extinct species in the 80's... i wouldn’t want to go down that path again!!

Also, Whales, Dolphins and Some Primates have all been shown to have an intelligence level that is close to our own... It is said that if you kill a whales Calf it will feel the loss and suffer the emotional burden for the rest of its life... Like us they have the ability to Empathise... and not just a short term instinct... but long term emotional pain.

Now some may argue that the pig has similar attributes. True the pig is very intelligent... however the pig has been farmed for thousands of years... it is unrecognisable from its free roaming ancestors and is now a domesticated farm animal... Its is much smaller than the whale, making it easier to farm while giving it comfort and an illusion of freedom. When a pig is slaughtered, there are rules in place to make it as quick and painless as possible. It is true that these rules are not always followed, and there is much work to be done to correct this, but the rules are there. Whales are hunted with explosive tipped harpoons involving miles of chase. The whale can take hours to die... It’s mate will be aware of what is happening, its calf will be frightened, It is the equivalent of killing a man slowly in front of his wife and children.

Because of this i find whale hunting ethically questionable... however, for people like the Alaskan Inuit’s to hunt 50 a year is acceptable in my mind... after all life is life and that involves death...

But the mass slaughter from the whaling fleets of Japan, Norway and Russia just feels wrong.

You may argue, "where do we draw the line?" regarding intelligence... but you could use that argument on many rules in life...

Where do you draw the line with the age of consent? In Britain its 16... but why not 14? or 18? or whatever?? How do we quantify what age a person is ready for sexual relations? Some are ready far sooner than others...But the rule is there... and although some may not like it... i feel it is for the greater good!

We must have boundary lines in life or it simply becomes a free for all...

I realise that my answer has more emotion than hard data... but what else can i do if not use my heart... the best human emotions are the ability to empathise and find wonder in the natural world... i will not suppress these or go against my heart so that a few people can make a buck. We cannot just use logic alone... or we become robots... we must use a mixture of logic and emotion. That is what makes us Human!

Just my thoughts, Sorry for the long reply.


posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 06:28 AM
reply to post by Muckster

No worries, a good reply even if I don't necessarily agree with all of it. I do see you points about the empathetic side of things and killing a whale in front of it's "wife and child", for want of a better description.

Let me put this to you, if they could hunt the Whales sustainably and kill them in the most humane way possible, would you still be against it? Maybe shoot the whale with sort of hypodermic harpoon with an overdose of sedative, instead of blowing it's flank open with a frag grenade....

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 06:51 AM
reply to post by stumason

Another good question...

Lets just say, i wouldn’t have the same level of opposition... although i will never be pro whale hunting due to the whales ability to feel emotions very similar to our own...

Same as i will never be for the hunting of Gorillas or Dolphins... Once a creature has the ability to think as i do, and be hurt as i can be hurt (emotionally)... i find it hard to kill.

I am not against all hunting... I’ve been on a pheasant shoot, I’ve shot rats, and i would hunt certain other animals... But i have to clear about certain things...

1) The hunted has to be sustainable
2) It’s death has to be for a good reason (not just the pleasure of hunting)
3) I have to believe that the creature is not suffering unnecessarily
4) Its death does not negatively affect the lives of those around it

My own personal beliefs and ethics have drawn certain lines that i will not cross! I have to hold onto these... as a man i need principles... and i must hold onto them dearly.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in