The International Whaling Commission has decided that it's time to kill whales again. We've done it for quite a few years already, but now the rest of the world might follow . Willy didn't swim far enough, and neither will the rest of them!

I trust you won't bother pretending to be killing them for research purposes only. Nobody believes that lie when the Japanese whalers use it, so they aren't going to believe your whalers.

If you want to hunt large mammals, why not start with John Prescott?

Was it made illegal? I know you blokes were still doing it around the time of WWII, but I didn't think it was that popular with you Scandos.

Apparently they still hunt a set number of minke whales each year link.

Grenade-tipped harpoons? You learn something new every day!

I don't mind whale hunting, but pretending that shooting something with an explosive bolt is humane...come on, lads. Try again.

I don't think we can get whale meat here in the UK, though we'll gladly rip any unlucky foxes to shreds. Owzat for humane?

*Grabs the phone and calls his local arms dealer about getting an offer on some russian Akula attack subs*
Please do ignore that line above....Especially if you are a whale catcher.
It might be a way to 'protect' the whales....At least until they develop their own anti-whaler weaponry.
Like doing a bellysplash right on top of the whaling boat.

Trouble is thatr the sonar tends to confuse the whales. But I like the idea of a Q-ship strategy - disguising a Russian submarine as a defenceless whale and then sailing round waters known to be infested with whalers

We've had that idiot Watson and GreenPOS nagging about the whaling for years. Our scientists know a bloody lot more about the number of whales than them. As for the way of hunting them, the dynamite explodes soon after entry, so it's no worse then anything else. Those bloody GreenPOS should look into bullfighting, dogfights and so on instead. The number of whales is monitored closely, and only an acceptable number is hunted, like with any other hunt.

Still, they're quite large and you can't be picky on where the harpoon hits. If a grenade goes off in it's intestines for instance, that's not too humane.

How do scientists monitor the whale population anyway?

And who funds the various studies?

"And what do you do, Professor?"

"We watch whales have sex."

"...I see."



Well, exactly. I don't really mind them blowing open huge mammals with explosives, but just don't pretend it's a nice way to go, eh? I mean, they're killing them, so painless or not doesn't really matter much. Painful death is the natural order of things.

You'd have to ask them, but I figure the good old counting works well there as well. That's how they monitor many wild animal populations (combined with radio marking etc.)

As for funding, it is the state (or my tax money to be more precise).

@Pete: And sometimes hunters miss with their guns, and only wound elks for instance. Should we ban all hunting because of it?

No, of course not, but I don't think I've ever heard a hunter claim shooting a deer with a large calibre rifle is humane.

Ah, he got there before me

No, hunters don't generally describe blowing an elk's brain across the scenery as humane (unless they're the delusional redneck sort) but the whaler's defense always seems to be that sticking spikes in the side of an animal (now with added grenades no less! ) is humane...

(On a barely related sidenote, is it true that fish that, well... err... fishermen catch have no feeling in the side of their mouths, or is this just another "let's make it sound humane" ploy? I mean, did they base that study on the fact that a hooked fish doesn't say oww or what? They don't look too bloody cheerful with a hook in their face Not that I particularly care about fish as they're stupid in general and I swear down they get hooked for kicks).

Elks die before they realize they've been shot, unless it's a faulty shot. It's humane. What is your idea of a humane kill?

Slaughter, humanity's understanding of the oceans is so limited that I doubt we can accurately count the population of each whale species. My concern about studies carried out by the Norwegian government is that they are pre-arranged to conclude that the whale population is too high in order to keep both the whalers and conservationists happy on election day; our government is always using that trick. Likewise, Greenpeace studies are pre-arranged to say to the public "unless you give us more money, whales will become extinct." Academics are easy to bribe...

There's some statistics on Norwegian whaling activities in recent years here and here.

There is also a BBC article on the 'humane' method currently used for killing whales here.

Not all headshots are fatal... take Edward Norton in Fight Club as an example

Getting a headshot on a deer would be quite a feat. Generally, you shoot for the front shoulder, where the heart, lungs and liver are. It's not instantaneous, but almost certain to bring it down. I've never seen anyone headshoot a deer. To my way of thinking, it's far too difficult a target. Maybe they do it differently in Norway?

Most hunting does not end in painless death, though my experience is with land animals and birds only, I admit. I can understand whalers saying "Certainly, it's humane." in the face of the strong opposition they face. But it isn't. Doesn't mean it's wrong, though.

If folk need whale meat, why not just buy it off japan?

Once they're done "researching" their catch, they sell it. However, the market got flooded with whale meat, so even after selling it as pet food, they had to scale down a bit.

Hence I'd assume they'd export it quite cheaply.