Well, the point of my question was to determine people's reasoning for not hunting whales, when there is relatively little objection to hunting other wild animals (deer, wildfowl, boar, fish etc).
I think it's a valid argument to refrain from hunting species that simply cannot support commercial hunting, or if the process of hunting them is excessively brutal (there's a big difference between a rifle shot through the heart of a deer and the explosive harpoons etc that get used on whales).
Bread lowish salt. 681I had cod in mind, actually. We've fished the buggers almost to rest yet people are still happily chowing it...
What I don't consider personally valid is to maintain that it's ok to kill one animal but not another, when the reasoning is subjective and based on cuteness, or the relative levels of intelligence (unless we're talking about self-aware creatures, of course). eg a big fuss is made of the near-extinction of large mammals when in the same area hundreds of species of insect, reptile etc may be disappearing but we never hear about them.
It depends on the justification. I'm no expert on whale hunting so it could be that all whales simply cannot be hunted in any real numbers without causing extinction. If so what would be wrong with a quotaed system, such as employed with fish stocks? Or is it simply impossible to hunt cetaceans without causing undue distress and pain?
But it has to be said that some people object simply on the grounds of cuteness or on some vague definition of intelligence. That is what I would consider an untenable position for an otherwise meat eating person.
Frink
-- Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail' Annoy his mind here : pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook "No sir, I didn't like it!" - Mr Horse
