Yes, the New Zealander working for the Japanese is right, at least superficially.  If our interest is only in making sure we do not hunt whale species to extinction, there do indeed seem to be enough minke whales (Balaenoptera acutirostrata), and even perhaps enough fin whales (B. physalus), to support a fishery in a "sustainable" way.  And then the ban on whaling can be restricted only to some species which we know to be endangered, e.g. the northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) and the blue whale (B. musculus), and others the stability of which we cannot be sure of, e.g. the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus).  And thus our responsibility toward all the whales is fully discharged.

But, on the other hand, that is not necessarily the case, is it.  It is most appropriate to ask the ethical question, Do not the whales' sensitivity, intelligence and vulnerability establish a powerful claim on our conduct toward each one of them, regardless of how many other individuals like them there may be?  The slaughter of a whale is hardly a painless, fright-free, quick and humane event.  So how can people bring themselves to participate in it?  And how can others condone it?  And how can scientists accept that such cruelty is performed in the name of science?

The New Zealander is absolutely right about dry-land slaughter houses: if they had transparent walls, a lot less meat would be sold.  He seems to find it unfair, though, that the Japanese whalers have been less successful at hiding what they do from at least a few observers.  God bless Greenpeace, and others, for making sure we can see and understand.

Comparing the "capturing" of whales to the slaughtering of cattle is invalid ecologically.  A more apt comparison would be to compare the "harvesting" of whales to "harvesting" deer or wildebeest.  Whales are wild organisms, free-living; they are not "owned" by a rancher, nor by the whalers.  Under U.S. laws, they would be considered a "trust" resource owned by all American citizens.

All questions about the rights of the individual whales or the pain and suffering that they experience aside, it is totally misleading to compare eating meat from whales to eating meat from bovines (unless your bovines are cape buffalo or something like that).  The ecological comparison is to "bushmeat," the parts of wild animals that can be purchased in markets in many parts of the less-developed world.

The problem with treating wild populations as if they were domestic livestock is that wild populations experience ecological forces that cattle in feedlots and pasturelands (or chickens or hogs, so forth) don't.  Nobody is explicitly protecting whales from the effects of warming oceans, from the effects of military sonar and other weapons, from the effects of prey population crashes (even if someone were trying to do this, it's unlikely that they would be able to do so).  Whale populations may crash next year from any number of causes, anticipated or not.  

People who value biological diversity need to get past superficial comparisons like that offered by the Australian.  Hunting a wild species has direct and indirect effects on biodiversity (such as the extinction of African monkey species or even chimps).  Hunting whales in the oceans is no different from killing monkeys in African forests.  Buying a whale steak is not the same thing as buying a Big Mac.

It works, that's how we got deer and turkeys back. In many ways, if you want to save a species or a population, the best way to apply it is to provide legal and well-regulated means of hunting. If there are enough data on habitats and reproduction then I am not against whaling, as it is another meat source, which can and has been utilized (and I do not mean exploited). Permits for the right to 'harvest' the animals can go to fund habitat restoration (hard to do) or enforcement of applicable laws. This is also hard to do, as this has already been a major issue for the regular fishing industry.

The best way to approach it in my opinion is a combination of the Greenpeace approach regarding market influence and the conservation hunting approach. One thing that is unfortunate about Greenpeace is that they are extremely pushy and turn many people off despite doing a good thing.

Side note: one thing that upsets me is the use of 'fish' or 'fisheries' regarding these mammals.

When I said:  "which can and has been utilized (and I do not mean exploited)." I meant like it has been exploited commercially and utilized by 'subsistence' hunters

OK, Chadroberts, let me see if I understand what you are saying.  If I understand you correctly, then I accept what you are saying, and accept that a statement of mine was gravely incomplete, and so agree with you.  But I rather wish you had expressed yourself more clearly.  (E.g., your use of "ecological" as a standard of value, without explaining what you mean by it, leaves a bit too much to the reader's imagination.)

Following up on the no doubt very talented and well-paid New Zealander's words, I distinguished between our interests to preserve species ("science"), and our interests to conduct ourselves well toward individual sentient beings ("philosophy").  And so, on the one hand, the arguments of the Norwegians, Icelanders and Japanese that they should be allowed to kill (yes, kill; let us call a spade a spade, and not use the way too pleasant metaphor "harvest") whales of at least one species, in a "sustainable" fashion, make sense.  But on the other, I doubted that that could be done, in consideration of animal rights.

Now you come along, Chad, and dismiss the entire "philosophy" side.  I dislike that, but it does not matter, because I suspect we are going to come down on the same side eventually, and you may be in a stronger position to talk with the Japanese and their new "friends," whom they are trying to strong-arm into joining the IWC and voting with the Japanese to life the ban.

On the "science" side, you appeal to biodiversity, without explaining why you like biodiversity so much; I agree, biodiversity needs to be valued and preserved, but we need always to be ready to explain why.  And probably this is what you mean by "ecological," as a kind of value.  What I understand you to be saying, then, is that no whales, of any species, should be allowed to be killed, because the death of any one of them will result in a disruption of their ecological community.

OK, excellent.  That is where I was too narrow, earlier.  Thanks for pointing this out.  I also appreciate your observation that while domesticated animals raised for their meat are "taken care of," whales are not.  The "ecological"/ethical point is, while we have a good sense of how to keep going the populations of our cattle, chickens, etc., we have no real positive way to preserve the populations of our ("our"!) whales.  Therefore it is imprudent, and maybe even wrong (?; but that is more complicated to argue), to kill any whales.

So at this point, I am very grateful for your contribution.  Your argument ought to make a great deal of sense with anyone who truly tries to appreciate a "scientific" argument for killing hundreds of minke whales.

In defense of Greenpeace, it seems they have gone out of their way to be non-violent.  I admire that organization greatly; its "effectiveness" can be judged in more ways than one.

As for animal welfare considerations, I am sorry, Chad, that you are so willing to discard them.  And much more important, I am sorry, that most people in the world are not ready for them.

I very much hope that you, and others who argue as you do, will be able to convince the world that there is absolutely nothing "scientific" about whaling.