Slashdot Mirror


200 Dolphins Await Slaughter In Japan's Taiji Cove

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "CNN reports that more than 200 bottlenose dolphins remain penned in a cove by Japanese fishermen, many of them stressed and bloodied from their attempts to escape before fishermen start to slaughter them for meat. Until now, the fishermen have focused on selecting dolphins to be sold into captivity at marine parks and aquariums in Japan and overseas as twenty-five dolphins, including a rare albino calf, were taken on Saturday 'to a lifetime of imprisonment,' and another 12 on Sunday. 'Many of the 200+ Bottlenose dolphins who are in still the cove are visibly bloody & injured from their attempts to escape the killers,' one update says. Although the hunting of dolphins is widely condemned in the west, Japanese defend the practice as a local custom — and say it is no different to the slaughter of other animals for meat. The Wakayama Prefecture, where Taiji is located condemns the criticism as biased and unfair to the fishermen. 'Taiji dolphin fishermen are just conducting a legal fishing activity in their traditional way in full accordance with regulations and rules under the supervision of both the national and the prefectural governments. Therefore, we believe there are no reasons to criticize the Taiji dolphin fishery.' Meanwhile the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society describes how about 40 to 60 local fishermen work with nets to divide up the pod, whose initial numbers were estimated by the group at more than 250. 'They tighten up the nets to bring each sub-group together then the skiffs push them toward the tarps. Under the tarps in the shallows is where the trainers work with the killers to select the "prettiest" dolphins which will sell and make the best pay day for the hunters,' the group says. The fishermen will 'kill the "undesirable" dolphins (those with nicks and scars) under the tarps to hide from our cameras when that time comes.'"

47 of 628 comments (clear)

  1. That doesn't seem right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dolphins are intelligent, they'll figure a way out of this.

    1. Re:That doesn't seem right. by twocows · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uh, creating lines based on a standard of intelligence is not arbitrary at all. And nobody "supports" animal "murder" (you may want to look up the definition of that word). They tolerate it as a means toward living a convenient life. I tolerate this practice as well, but I do not tolerate killing dolphins because there is significant research to suggest that they either possess an intelligence similar to ours or are approaching it. That is something that, to my knowledge, does not exist with any other species.

    2. Re:That doesn't seem right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's saying that you're not intelligent.

    3. Re:That doesn't seem right. by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's tempting to think that. But the top 3 animals for intelligence after man are the dolphin, the chimp and the pig, with the exact order open to debate. Yet people are quite happy to kill and eat pigs.

      Cats and dogs are much lower on the intelligence scale, but most cultures find it unacceptable to kill them for sport or food.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm completely against killing dolphins too.

      But the list of what animals we will kill for what purposes is somewhat arbitrary.

    4. Re:That doesn't seem right. by JonWan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bender: Who wants dolphin?
      Leela: Dolphin? But dolphins are intelligent.
      Bender: Not this one. He blew all his money on instant lottery tickets.
      Fry: OK.
      Leela: Oh, OK.
      Amy: That's different.
      Farnsworth: Good, good.
      Leela: Pass the blowhole.
      Amy: Can I have a fluke?
      Hermes: Hey, quit hogging the bottle-nose.
      Farnsworth: Toss me the speech centre of the brain!

    5. Re:That doesn't seem right. by BStroms · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, I've seen research that indicates the extreme intelligence attributed to dolphins is largely myth based on brain size. And most of the larger dolphin brain is simply focuses on their echolocation. The speed of sound is much greater underwater, and processing all that information requires much more brain devoted to it than our own sense of hearing.

      In most intelligence tests dealing with items such as problem solving and the like, dolphins are not only far below humans, but below many animals people wouldn't think of, such as several species of birds, and I believe ferrets. But my memory as to the exact rankings is a little fuzzy.

    6. Re:That doesn't seem right. by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the top 3 animals for intelligence after man are the dolphin, the chimp and the pig, with the exact order open to debate.

      Not to say dolphins and pigs aren't intelligent, but I think there's a couple of other apes (e.g. bonobos) in there too...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:That doesn't seem right. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be more accurate, there were multiple Auschwitzes, and I was talking about the one where, when it was in full operation, no arbitrarily high amount of intelligence would have saved you beyond some point. In matters of survival, there simply are unsolvable situations. The OP saying that "dolphins are smart" was being facetious.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:That doesn't seem right. by LifesABeach · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of all speices of animals on the planet, Dolphins are the only non domesticated animal that has been documented to go out of its way to help a human.

    9. Re:That doesn't seem right. by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Funny

      that may not be true, you only hear about the ones that were playfully pushing humans toward shore. you didn't hear about the other 70% of times they playfully pushed a screaming human into the open sea to drown.

    10. Re:That doesn't seem right. by dryeo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Some zoo keeper once said something like, "give a chimp a screwdriver and it will use it for everything but its intended purpose. Give a Gorilla a screwdriver and first he'll show fear, then try to eat it. An Orangutan will show disinterest, hide the screwdriver and later when no one is looking, disassemble his cage"

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    11. Re:That doesn't seem right. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      The ability to do so was also limited - not every Jew is an Einstein, and many countries had restrictive immigration policies in that time period (e.g. US had a quota system under the "National Origins Formula" in that time period, and Australia restricted immigration to whites).

      It should also be noted that the restriction on Jewish rights under the Nazis was also gradual. Early on, many people felt, not unreasonably so, that the risk and expenses inherent in a move (especially overseas) far outweigh the inconveniences. By the time the full extent of the danger was realized, they were already significantly curtailed in their ability to move. Even so, in 1938, there was an international conference devoted to the question of Jewish immigration from Nazi Germany, and Hitler himself said that he'd be happy to get rid of any Jews willing to leave so long as some other country is willing to take them. All other Western countries have declined, some in quite racist terms - e.g. Australian representative saying that "as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one". The only country that extended an invitation to a considerable number of refugees was Dominican Republic, and that, ironically, was because Trujillo was trying to "whiten" the population of the country, and considered Jews as white for that purpose.

      Then, of course, only some places proved to be safe to flee to, like US or UK. But who in 1938, much less 1933, would expect that France - the same France that was part of the winning coalition of WW1, and contributed significantly to German defeat - could not hold its own? At the same time it was a more attractive destination for German Jews, seeing how it is an adjacent country, making the move logistics easier.

  2. Is this a cuteness thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, dolphins are cuter than cows and pigs ... is harvesting one worse than the other?

    How many million cows are slaughtered every year? How many pigs? How many chickens?

    This sounds like one set of animals has better PR than another.

    1. Re:Is this a cuteness thing? by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a dolphin is demonstrably smarter than a chicken and because of that people feel it is more likely to experience pain and suffering during this "fishing".

      Not a personal opinion of mine, just one hypothesis for the reaction.

      --
      I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    2. Re: Is this a cuteness thing? by rilister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny that you chose chickens out of that list. How about pigs? Pretty well known to be one of the smarter mammals around. At least, they've never launched a pointless war to my knowledge.

      --
      'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
    3. Re:Is this a cuteness thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pigs and chickens aren't going extinct precisely because we like to eat them.

    4. Re:Is this a cuteness thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a species the bottlenose dolphin is not endangered. There are well over half a million bottlenose dolphins swimming all over the world, and their population numbers ARE stable.

    5. Re:Is this a cuteness thing? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, no. I'm a carnivore but there should be a line somewhere in terms of intelligence.

      Careful with that. You don't want to end up with Sarah Palin on your plate just because of some arbitrarily low line.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Is this a cuteness thing? by Wycliffe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a dolphin is demonstrably smarter than a chicken and because of that people feel it is more likely to experience pain and suffering during this "fishing".
      Not a personal opinion of mine, just one hypothesis for the reaction.

      I noticed that out of the 3 choices you picked the chicken. The "demonstrably smarter" doesn't really hold very well when
      you compare dolphin to pig instead. A pig is right up there probably falling somewhere above dog and below dolphin.
      I like pork but I still think it is an important debate. Would farm-raised dolphins be acceptable? If not, why not?
      Why is eating dogs and horses frowned upon in alot of areas? Should we let animals live out their natural lives in
      comfort before harvesting them? What criteria do we as a society use to decide what should and should not be be eaten
      and when and how it is humane to harvest it?

    7. Re:Is this a cuteness thing? by meerling · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is a distinct possibility that dolphins are not just smart animals, but actually sentient beings.
      Why can't we communicate with them? We can, just not very effectively. That's understandable, they are more alien to us than the average hollywood extraterrestrial. Just look at the environment they are evolved for, living in water their entire life, relying on sonar, having to return to the air layer on a regular basis. Decidedly not the same as a terrestrial life.

      And here's a biggie for you. They've been trying to decipher the dolphin language for a long time. They don't know much about it, but they have found out some very interesting things. Dolphins share knowledge and instructions. They also gossip. Of course, to gossip you need individual names to reference the individual you are talking about. They do. They've clearly tracked unique sound identifiers that are apparently being used with regards to specific individuals, in other words, personal names.
      When was the last time you heard about pigs sharing instructions verbally or using personal names?

      Is it right to eat another sentient being? Most people would say no.
      It's part of the reason why they wanted to study E.T. and not BBQ him.

    8. Re:Is this a cuteness thing? by Stargoat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I like killing and eating geese and pheasants; I call it hunting. I would not torture one for several days before I killed it. That would be wicked and cruel.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    9. Re:Is this a cuteness thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly where do you get your information? All the sources I can google expressly state they are "Not Endangered"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottlenose_dolphin#Conservation
      http://www.marybio.org/en/MM-Bott_Dolp-conservation.html

    10. Re:Is this a cuteness thing? by tsqr · · Score: 4, Funny
    11. Re:Is this a cuteness thing? by Hatta · · Score: 3

      I'd eat that.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  3. Why is this even on /.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Really, this isn't the news I would expect for this site.

  4. Re:Might be tasty!!! by clickclickdrone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're mammals, not fish.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  5. Nice to be at the top of the food chain by sideslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cows and especially pigs are highly intelligent animals. And they are totally delicious. Let's change our minds about those before we beat up the Japanese too badly, shall we?

    1. Re:Nice to be at the top of the food chain by sideslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would suggest that you are mistaken about cows. (I grew up on a farm and live in farm country.) When cows are very old or sick or are in a small pen, they just stand around, because they don't have much choice. But when they are young and have access to wider pasture, they wander around and explore their world. It's true they spend a bunch of time grazing, but they also don't miss a chance to ogle anything unusual. For example, a turtle walking through a cow field will often capture the attention of the herd, which will follow it (cautiously, it might be dangerous!) on its way through.

  6. Re:Nice subjectivity by Parafilmus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not a biased piece at all. Never would have thought so with ''slaughter'' in the headline /s

    I don't see evidence of bias in the word choice. "Slaughter" is the normal English word to describe the killing of animals for food. Pigs and cows are "slaughtered" routinely, in buildings clearly labelled as "slaughterhouses."

    What other word would you have them use?

  7. So if this dolphin is canned... by salahx · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...will they be able to certify it as tuna-safe ?

  8. click-bait? by markhahn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, this is not clickbait.

    Normal, mentally-healthy humans have a lot of empathy - otherwise we're psychopaths. Sure, the amount of empathy varies - mainly as a function of whether the animal in question tends to act human-like. We should embrace this, not cynically write it off - empathy *IS* humanity.

    Yes, that also means that anyone who is intelligent and reflective will be uncomfortable with eating meat, concerned how the animal died, and of course what kind of animal it was. This is basically orthogonal to issues of environmental or ecological impact.

    1. Re:click-bait? by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Yes, that also means that anyone who is intelligent and reflective will be uncomfortable with eating meat"

      Empathy clashes with survivalist instinct. I can gnaw on the bones of a cow and feel empathy for it, but that doesn't mean im going to stop eating meat. At the base level, our brains see nothing wrong with killing these animals for food. We are the stronger species, we win. Empathy is evolutionarily expensive.

      --
      Good-bye
  9. Nothing like some tech news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    How does this matter to a nerd? Will it affect the release of a stable btrfs?

  10. Re:Nice subjectivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "200 yummy dolphins await being turned into delicious food"

  11. Please REPEAT by Jack9 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is NOT tech news.

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
    1. Re:Please REPEAT by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a nerd site, not a tech site. Non-human intelligence, sentience, and the rights of those possessing it seems like a reasonably nerdy subject to me. Plenty of sci-fi books and shows have examined those themes.

  12. Everyone creates arbitrary lines by vistic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Vegetarianism is about the minimization of cruelty and suffering.

    Plant life does not factor into it because they can not suffer. They can’t suffer because they have no nervous system with which to think. They also have no physical mechanisms with which to feel pain. And even if they did, they have no thoughts, so the pain would mean nothing. They have no fear, panic, or sadness. They live, but they live without consciousness. So you can not torture a plant or make it suffer.

    On the animal spectrum, not all animals are the same since some animals have small brains and simple thoughts and other animals have complex brains and complex thoughts. At the top of the animal spectrum you have humans with the most complex brains and abstract thoughts and intense sensations of fear. Humans have a high capacity to suffer. On the other end of the spectrum you have animals like spiders with comparatively simple nervous systems and simple thoughts. They have a much smaller capacity to suffer. That’s why it would feel more painful to watch someone rip the legs off a spider than watch someone rip the legs off a cat or horse or chimpanzee. So there’s a spectrum of animals ordered by how self-aware they are and how complex their thinking is: spiders, fish, chickens, ravens, octopus, cats, dogs, pigs, cows, horses, dolphins, gorillas, chimpanzees, humans... roughly something like that. Everyone draws a line on the spectrum, whether consciously or unconsciously, what they are comfortable with. Some people are fine eating fish and chicken, but not pigs and cows. Other people are fine eating pigs and cows, but not chimpanzees, who are almost human. Some people are even fine eating chimpanzees and feel no empathy when they shout and panic. Almost everyone at least agrees that it’s not ok to eat humans. But some people even do that. A vegetarian draws the line at it being not ok to eat any animal.

    Some people argue that oysters, despite being animals, are vegetarian. They aren’t, by definition of the word vegetarian, but it is true that the argument for plants applies to oysters. Oysters do not have a central nervous system, no consciousness, and no thoughts. So they can not suffer.

    Not all vegetarians are vegetarian for the same reasons. Some people have a spiritual belief that all life is sacred and equal, but that’s not my belief and not something that’s supported by any facts I’ve seen. What I outlined above, though, is simple fact and simple reasoning.

    1. Re:Everyone creates arbitrary lines by dmbasso · · Score: 4, Informative

      While I mostly agree with you, please consider being more open about some concepts, like consciousness. You simply assume that plants are unconscious, because "they have no nervous system". Actually they have, although one very dissimilar to our own [1]. How can you affirm that their subjective interpretation of bodily damage is not similar to e.g. a fish's one?

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(physiology)

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    2. Re:Everyone creates arbitrary lines by jafac · · Score: 5, Informative

      Plant life does not factor into it because they can not suffer.

      according to your definition of "suffer".

      They can’t suffer because they have no nervous system with which to think.

      Why is thinking a necessary criterion for suffering?

      They also have no physical mechanisms with which to feel pain.

      Their mechanisms are different from those of animals, to be sure. No nerves, etc. But plants DO have mechanisms for registering and even communicating physical damage and distress.
      http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/0187702-mechanism-for-biosynthesis-release-and-detection-of-volatile-chemical-in-plant-insect-interactions.html

      And even if they did, they have no thoughts, so the pain would mean nothing.

      Yes. Thoughts have "meaning" to us human beings. We have no idea what meaning (if any) thoughts have for animals. And we have no idea of a plant's experience, and whether there is anything which has any "meaning". In this completely anthrocentric view - why is "meaning" of thought, more important than "meaninglessness" of plants? In fact, human suffering and thought, and meaning, when viewed in certain contexts, can shrink to almost nothing. Imagine stubbing your toe. Now imagine the meaning of that thought, 1,000,000 years from now. Not so much meaning to that, is there?

      They have no fear, panic, or sadness. They live, but they live without consciousness.

      Why is a plant's existence any less meaningful than an animals? Why does consciousness preclude suffering?

      There is an argument about meat-eaters, that since they eat cows and pigs, but not dogs or cats, that this is really an argument of "survival of the cutest". Dogs and cats are the most human-like, and they are cute, so we don't eat them. But they are not human, so it's really no different if we ate dogs or cats. (some cultures eat dogs, of course). But if we can extend our humanity to dogs and cats because they "feel pain" or "have conscious thought" - then we can really extend that to most of the mammals, and many higher animals. And if dogs and cats have thoughts and feelings (though, clearly they're different from human thoughts and feelings) - why would we place value on those, and not the thoughts and feelings of cows and pigs - which are clearly even more different. And if we can conceive of an existence of cows and pigs being sacred - then why is not all life (even plant life) sacred? Where do you draw the line, and why do you draw one? What is "complex" enough to merit not being eaten? It's either a biological argument, or it's an argument of empathy. And even the biological argument is empathic. We draw our lines of distinction at the classification boundary between the plant and animal kingdom?

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    3. Re:Everyone creates arbitrary lines by LostInTaiwan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Um, Veganism is about minimizing cruelty and suffering. Vegetarianism is just a form of diet. I know plenty of vegetarian with leather handbags and leather upholstered car interiors.

      I do eat meat but I am a bit uncomfortable with the whole classifying living things into how complex they are according to human definitions. It goes without saying, life is essential to every living being regardless of their CNS complexity. Just because something doesn't feel what humans perceive to "pain" does not mean that they do not feel "pain." Everyday we learn something new about our environment and our fellow Earth cohabitants. The old thinking that crustaceans do not feel pain is being dispelled by new research data.

    4. Re:Everyone creates arbitrary lines by adiposity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If a thought has no meaning to us, as humans, then it is hard to develop any sympathy for that thought. Since sympathy is essentially the basis for treating intelligent animals "humanely," it is pretty hard to swallow that we should give the same deference to seaweed as chimps.

      But, you can argue for any mode of thought. Perhaps oxygen molecules don't like being inhaled, and we should just let ourselves die from suffocation. It's kind of silly to approach life that way, though. A better approach might be to preserve that which we think is worth being preserved. There isn't really any way to do that other than a selfish point of view (from the point of the species, the region, or the individual). If there is no value in saving the life of all seaweed, then we don't do it. If there is a value in keeping dolphins alive, then we do it.

  13. Re:Local customs can change. by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Speaking of WWII and Japan, we encouraged them to eat more dolphin and whale when we were rebuilding them. Custom? Please. It's a dying generation remembering what they ate in grade school because that was the cheapest meat available, and an industry which doesn't want to admit to it's shareholders that it's time to fold.

  14. Re:Nice subjectivity by Parafilmus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Slaughter implies butchering and the headline makes it sound as if the animals were to be butchered in the cove.... Slaughtering in the cove sounds unsanitary.

    I suppose I don't know how sanitary it is, but they really do perform the slaughter right there in the cove.

    eg:
              http://digitaljournal.com/image/102641

              http://unleashed.org.au/images/blogs/The-cove.jpg

  15. Wow! by DarthVain · · Score: 5, Funny

    That sort of escalated rather quickly.

  16. Dolphins vs Syrians? by EMG+at+MU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is it that some people seem to care more about the death of 200 dolphins than the death of 200,000 Syrians?

    1. Re:Dolphins vs Syrians? by EMG+at+MU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it that some people seem to care more about the death of 200 dolphins than the death of 200,000 Syrians?

      Why is it that some people care more about the death of 200,000 Syrians than the death of over a million jews during WWII?

      See? I can find a bigger problem too.

      It might have something to do with WWII ending in the 1940's while the dolphin 'slaughter' and the Syrian conflict are current.

  17. Go after the buyers of dolphin meat. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Japanese consider dolphin meat to be a delicacy and serve it in their high priced restaurants. See if any of those restaurants are used to cater/host sales conferences or other such bashes of Japanese brand names. Then just publicize the info. Headlines like "Tonda Corp or Hoyota Motors hosts its sales kick off conference with dolphin meat serving restaurant" in US Market will have some salutary effect. If big name players stop supporting restaurants serving marine mammal meat the market will be greatly diminished. Hopefully.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact