jan.vindheim@gmail.com (Jan  Bojer Vindheim) wrote:
>H$(D??(Bvid A. Falch <decoy@tele2.no> wrote:
>
>>
>> True. And that is an interesting point. So many could do without it, but
>> still want it on the menu as some sort of political statement. In my
>> opinion, that can be traced directly back to the way certain organizations
>> and individuals campaigned against whaling in the last few dacades. Lies,
>> emotions and whatnot else they could get their hands on were thrown at us,
>> in what many pro-whalers consider the biggest fundraising campaign these
>> organizations ever embarked upon. Yes, that again. I get tired of repeating
>> it, but it was really all about money, and nothing was to stand in the way
>> of the "green movement" as they collected their cash.
>
>Actally your argument is deeply flawed. Your statement about the
>motivation of the antiwhaling campaigners are way of the mark, and prove
>that emotionalism  certainly is not confined to one side in this
>conflict.

How was it off the mark?  What do Greenpeace and the SSCS do,
other than collect huge sums of money?  Name one anti-whaling
organization that spends most of its money on something *other*
than administration (meaning salaries for executives).

Perhaps the people who *contribute* have other motivations, but
the organizations are all about money, not whales.

>As for commercial motivation,remember that some of the largest
>industrial corporations in Norway  (chemical factories and shipping
>corporations especially) were   founded on  the hunt for blue whales, of
>which there at one time, largely because og norwegian industroial
>whaling,  were only a few hundred individuals left.

That is true.  There is *no* question that we should *never*
return to unregulated commercial whaling.  The IWC is *supposed*
to come up with management plans to prevent the abuses of the
past.  However, they aren't doing it.  In the short term, a
moratorium may well be effective, but in the long run that is
very likely to result in a negative impact when countries begin
ignoring a non-functional IWC.

>As for the minke, the present population may be able to withstand a
>limited hunt,
> but actually I dont see the point in doing  it,
>except a childish wish to raise a finger at the international community.
>Not all traditions are worth keeping up.

People who want to eat Minke whales have just as much right to
eat them as you do to eat whatever it is that you eat.  If *you*
don't want to eat whale meat, *don't*.  But claiming somebody
else shouldn't is irrational.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com