# Japanese Whaling?



## numbercruncher (19 December 2007)

> Japan has apparently agreed not to kill humpback whales during its current Antarctic hunt, the US ambassador to Tokyo said on Wednesday, a move that could help ease criticism of its controversial whaling program.
> 
> Japan has long resisted pressure to stop what it calls scientific whaling, *insisting that whaling is a cherished cultural tradition.*




Well thankfully we seem to have got one concession and they are leaving the Humpbacks alone ...

Whats this though with the shift from "Scientific" to "Cultural" tradition ?

Did the ancient Japanese sail down to antarctica hundreds and/or thousands of years ago to smoke themselves some whales ? I think not, what a farce.

Maybe the best way to show dissapproval is to simply not buy anything made in Japan, if it hits their GDP im certain youll see some change in " Cultural Traditions" !


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2007)

*Re: Japanese Whaling !*

...something like 

a)   

b)  

c)  :samurai:  :screwy:...


----------



## vishalt (19 December 2007)

*Re: Japanese Whaling !*

Why be such cultural imperialists for?


----------



## chops_a_must (19 December 2007)

*Re: Japanese Whaling !*



vishalt said:


> Why be such cultural imperialists for?
> 
> How do you feel when the Muslim community tells you (us) that women should not show their face in public? --> We say piss off, we'll live the way we want, so let the Japs do what they want?
> 
> ps their GDP is already pretty bad, 1.3% annual growth ... stellar truly.




The difference is a) Muslims say that from their own countries, and b) if not, we tell them that's not the way it's done.

The oceans aren't owned by the Japanese. If anything, WWII should of proved to them they have no cultural prowess when it comes to naval conflict. Sheesh, there is something really wrong with Japanese culture.

P.S. - it was only really post WWII that the Japanese started hunting whales in large numbers. I don't call that a strong cultural link. Hence the lack of reaction to the Norwegians and Inuits with their whale things.


----------



## vishalt (19 December 2007)

*Re: Japanese Whaling !*



chops_a_must said:


> The difference is a) Muslims say that from their own countries, and b) if not, we tell them that's not the way it's done.



Wrong. 

It's been common in the news and every so often you will here a Muslim sheikh saying that women should be covered and/or everyone should switch to Islam. 

And on your point b - it's exactly what the Jap's say? "We're doing it for scientific purposes." (in other words you won't get in our way) 



chops_a_must said:


> The oceans aren't owned by the Japanese. If anything, WWII should of proved to them they have no cultural prowess



So then who is the Ocean owned by? It's for everyone to share, the Japs simply feel its their right to kill whales, just like how beach girls in Western countries feel its their right to swim in it with bikinis while Muslims look down upon it?


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2007)

*Re: Japanese Whaling !*

Garrett showing his green credentials  

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/19/2123346.htm?section=justin



> Opposition cautiously backs anti-whaling measures
> Posted 2 hours 42 minutes ago
> Updated 1 hour 34 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## chops_a_must (19 December 2007)

*Re: Japanese Whaling !*



vishalt said:


> Wrong.
> 
> It's been common in the news and every so often you will here a Muslim sheikh saying that women should be covered and/or everyone should switch to Islam.



Yeah, and they get told to jump.



> And on your point b - it's exactly what the Jap's say? "We're doing it for scientific purposes." (in other words you won't get in our way)



I don't think anyone would care if they stuck to their own waters, which, surprise surprise are massively over-fished.



> So then who is the Ocean owned by? It's for everyone to share, the Japs simply feel its their right to kill whales, just like how beach girls in Western countries feel its their right to swim in it with bikinis while Muslims look down upon it?



No, it's not the same thing. They venture into our territorial waters to track whales. They dock in our ports. They are using our facilities to the detriment of our own economy. Bikini clad girls aren't sent out in force to bathe on Muslim beaches.

Then it's our right to sink Japanese ships in international waters, or their waters perhaps.

But hey, if you want to support pushing a species into the brink of extinction, go ahead. I just wouldn't expect anyone to support the Japs when their territorial waters are taken over by the Chinese in the near future...


----------



## vishalt (19 December 2007)

*Re: Japanese Whaling !*



chops_a_must said:


> No, it's not the same thing. They venture into our territorial waters to track whales. They dock in our ports.



Looks like that's fine by us, what does that tell you?



chops_a_must said:


> They are using our facilities to the detriment of our own economy.



I'm not sure if either of us will be accurate on this point but I thought they were paying us? 



chops_a_must said:


> Then it's our right to sink Japanese ships in international waters, or their waters perhaps.



Yeah as much as its their right (how they feel it is) to kill Whales. 

Of course we could sink their boats but you also have to remember that Japan is a vital player customer to Australian businesses  (hello BHP and Rio), the world's richest people, the wealthiest tourist, the biggest total car exporter, the home of Nintendo/Sony, the world's second biggest economy and a military super power with the ability to crush most other countries, so sinking a Jap whaler would be quite consequential. 



chops_a_must said:


> But hey, if you want to support pushing a species into the brink of extinction, go ahead. I just wouldn't expect anyone to support the Japs when their territorial waters are taken over by the Chinese in the near future...



Who said I support it? I don't, but I'm respectful enough to see it from a Japanese perspective as their right to do it, if that means the end of whales, fine by me.

ps the whole world seems to be allowing it due to this "loophole" - I don't think much better of either side!


----------



## numbercruncher (19 December 2007)

*Re: Japanese Whaling !*



vishalt said:


> Looks like that's fine by us, what does that tell you?




Im sure that wont be fine for too long under the Labor/Green coalition :


----------



## chops_a_must (19 December 2007)

*Re: Japanese Whaling !*



vishalt said:


> Who said I support it? I don't, but I'm respectful enough to see it from a Japanese perspective as their right to do it, if that means the end of whales, fine by me.



ROFL.

You say you don't support it, but then say that it's fine if that means the end of certain whale species. Fantastic.

I don't think a few ships docking in our ports would make up for the multi million, or billion, I forget now, whale tourism industry.

Just because Japan is a big economy, doesn't mean we should sell our soul because of it. Perhaps this is the reason Japan has shown total disregard for international calls over the years. Maybe it's time they swallowed a bit of that pride.

Obviously, I wasn't being serious about sinking whalers. Although I wouldn't object if they were found doing it in our waters. But you can see the absurd conclusion it reaches if everyone has a "screw you world and everything, it's my right"  attitude on the high seas. A bit of common sense just has to prevail here...


----------



## numbercruncher (19 December 2007)

*Re: Japanese Whaling !*



chops_a_must said:


> Obviously, I wasn't being serious about sinking whalers. Although I wouldn't object if they were found doing it in our waters. But you can see the absurd conclusion it reaches if everyone has a "screw you world and everything, it's my right"  attitude on the high seas. A bit of common sense just has to prevail here...




I'd party all night long if someone sank a Japanese whaling boat. My Granddaddy used to smoke Japanese criminals all day long out of a Catalina flying boat. Whalers are the same difference in my humble and perhaps slightly extreme opinion. (Humans are animals too)


----------



## Ageo (20 December 2007)

Im all about sustainable harvesting, if you can harvest a certain quota without harming the population then i dont see a problem. 1 thing i do disagree with thow is how they cannot kill them instantly and humanely. A cannon should be used instead of a harpoon to instantly kill the beast without putting it through so much pain and suffering.

Remember if they are roaming through our waters then its because the Aus government is letting them (a slice of the profits perhaps??)


----------



## --B-- (20 December 2007)

Ageo said:


> 1 thing i do disagree with thow is how they cannot kill them instantly and humanely. A cannon should be used instead of a harpoon to instantly kill the beast without putting it through so much pain and suffering.
> )




do u have the same problem with, say, people fishing from a jetty? its not uncommon to see fish flapping about and bleeding and then sliced open while still alive..


----------



## IFocus (20 December 2007)

*Re: Japanese Whaling !*



numbercruncher said:


> I'd party all night long if someone sank a Japanese whaling boat. My Granddaddy used to smoke Japanese criminals all day long out of a Catalina flying boat. Whalers are the same difference in my humble and perhaps slightly extreme opinion. (Humans are animals too)





I am with you Numbercruncher few things anger me more than Japanese whaling, research how can they pretend what rubbish, trust them to keep it sustainable yeah right just like the tuna stocks completely screwed like all the other fishery’s they have destroyed.
If you every spend some time reading up you will soon see whales are beyond special, the cannons should be mounted on the customs ship going south to humanely dispatch the mongrel Japanese whaling fleet  Grrrrrrrrr


Focus


----------



## nioka (20 December 2007)

Ageo said:


> Im all about sustainable harvesting, if you can harvest a certain quota without harming the population then i dont see a problem. 1 thing i do disagree with thow is how they cannot kill them instantly and humanely. A cannon should be used instead of a harpoon to instantly kill the beast without putting it through so much pain




The harpoon has an explosive head which usually kills the animal instantly. If it doesn't then a killer harpoon is iuusally used as a follow up. There are cases where things go wrong and these are the ones greenpeace keep showing. ( It is always the same one on the news).
Australia doesn't own the oceans. I doubt if the Japanese will whale in Australian waters. What happens if the Japanese send their navy to protect the Japanese commercial fleet? Do we send our Collins submarines after them?


----------



## IFocus (20 December 2007)

nioka said:


> The harpoon has an explosive head which usually kills the animal instantly. If it doesn't then a killer harpoon is iuusally used as a follow up. There are cases where things go wrong and these are the ones greenpeace keep showing. ( It is always the same one on the news).
> Australia doesn't own the oceans. I doubt if the Japanese will whale in Australian waters. What happens if the Japanese send their navy to protect the Japanese commercial fleet? Do we send our Collins submarines after them?




The whales almost certainly are not killed instantly and as for not standing up and saying this is wrong then maybe we should say to the generation that spend time as POW's to stop whinging we don’t want to offend Scheeeezzzzzz


----------



## nioka (20 December 2007)

IFocus said:


> The whales almost certainly are not killed instantly and as for not standing up and saying this is wrong then maybe we should say to the generation that spend time as POW's to stop whinging we don’t want to offend Scheeeezzzzzz



I've been there. I've worked there. Have you? I know how it works.


----------



## --B-- (20 December 2007)

IFocus said:


> The whales almost certainly are not killed instantly and as for not standing up and saying this is wrong then maybe we should say to the generation that spend time as POW's to stop whinging we don’t want to offend Scheeeezzzzzz




are you equally opposed to (amateur) fishing where fish suffer needlessly and are often left to bleed to death?


----------



## numbercruncher (20 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> do u have the same problem with, say, people fishing from a jetty? its not uncommon to see fish flapping about and bleeding and then sliced open while still alive..




Whales are Intelligent mammals that use advanced concepts such as communication through song, the sperm whale brain is the largest brain to have ever evolved on the planet. It is about 9,000 cubic centimeters and weighs 7.8 kilos by comparison another mammal the human, has a brain that is 1300 grams and is about 1300 cubic centimeters.

Its just a shame they dont have technology so they can fight back 

Fish simply dont even come close to these Mammals (but it is essential to have carefully controlled and monitored sustainable fishing), whats next let the Japanese start turning Dolphins into Sushi? Barbequed Gorilla burgers? Lion roast? Pygmy pie perhaps?

Save the Whales!


----------



## IFocus (20 December 2007)

nioka said:


> I,ve been there. I've worked there. Have you. I know how it works.




No Nioka I haven’t worked in the industry but knew several people who work at Albany here in WA (last Australian station I think) and at the time I was pro whaling hassling the anti whaling protests jeering Jim Cairns etc in fact back then I was a bigger red neck than the whalers some say I haven’t changed.
But for the life of me I can see no point in whaling to me there is just some thing special about an animal that size.
I guess we will remain at either end of this discussion……

Focus


----------



## chops_a_must (20 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> are you equally opposed to (amateur) fishing where fish suffer needlessly and are often left to bleed to death?




I think you're missing the point here B. Largely, amateur fisherman aren't dealing with various species on the brink of extinction. From a visual point, harpooning seems to be far more barbaric than hooking, although both are quite cruel IMO.


----------



## --B-- (20 December 2007)

ok so one animal can be bled to death while another cant because it has a bigger brain and sings songs.

what about the slaughter of halal meat? same deal?

it simply appears that many believe whales deserve special treatment and it seems to me that this is a fairly hypocritical position to take.


----------



## nioka (20 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> I think you're missing the point here B. Largely, amateur fisherman aren't dealing with various species on the brink of extinction. From a visual point, harpooning seems to be far more barbaric than hooking, although both are quite cruel IMO.



 Whales are no longer on the brink of extension and the Japanese helped this to come about.


----------



## numbercruncher (20 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> it simply appears that many believe whales deserve special treatment and it seems to me that this is a fairly hypocritical position to take.





All animals were created equal, but some Animals are more equal than others


----------



## --B-- (20 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> I think you're missing the point here B. Largely, amateur fisherman aren't dealing with various species on the brink of extinction. From a visual point, harpooning seems to be far more barbaric than hooking, although both are quite cruel IMO.




we were discussing the method of the slaughter which was raised as a primary concern in all this. i honestly dont see harpooning any differently to hooking. i really dont know how else the whalers are supposed to capture and kill a whale.

in any case:

minke whales are not on the brink of extinction.
Humpback whale populations are growing and are not endangered.
Fin whales are endangered and i am 100% opposed to the slaughter of this species.


----------



## chops_a_must (20 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> Humpback whale populations are growing and are not endangered.
> Fin whales are endangered and i am 100% opposed to the slaughter of this species.




They are growing, but they are nowhere near levels where it would be viable to have a sustainable and commercial level like the Japs want. Given their total incompetence when it comes to managing their own fisheries, how long do you reckon the population would remain growing if they were allowed to do whatever they want?


----------



## --B-- (20 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> They are growing, but they are nowhere near levels where it would be viable to have a sustainable and commercial level like the Japs want.




50 per year?

do you know japan wants to slaughter more or is this a guess?



> Given their total incompetence when it comes to managing their own fisheries, how long do you reckon the population would remain growing if they were allowed to do whatever they want?




im not advocating allowing them free reign to slaughter as many as they want. i dont however see a problem with the slaughter of 50 as this seems sustainable.


----------



## numbercruncher (20 December 2007)

Anyway I just think its a sham, firstly they call it Scientific, now its cultural, its nothing short of a Bloodthirst.

Here they are Slaughtering Dolphins .... Not sure maybe Medicinal reasons for this or some other feeble excuse/lie.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayltvUYnD2Y&eurl=http://www.flightofthehumpback.org/


----------



## --B-- (20 December 2007)

maybe they just like to eat some whale, numbercruncher?


----------



## ithatheekret (20 December 2007)

Did we know that it was the EOF and Mc Arthur that introduced it for an immediate food supply ?


I've never tasted either , looks blaaaah . Has anyone here ?

I don't see the sense in it now that Asia is fish farming .


----------



## nioka (20 December 2007)

ithatheekret said:


> Did we know that it was the EOF and Mc Arthur that introduced it for an immediate food supply ?
> 
> 
> I've never tasted either , looks blaaaah . Has anyone here ?
> ...



I've eaten plenty. Not only that I've fed it to people who thought they were eating beef. I've also given rabbit to people who thought they were eating chicken. I can remember a chinese restraunt being found to be serving cat in their meals for some time before being caught. Whale, cat, rabbit, all protein in a protein starved world.
Never eaten dolphin but I did help put it in fish traps as bait when it was the thing to do. Snapper love it.


----------



## prawn_86 (20 December 2007)

nioka said:


> Never eaten dolphi.




So you havn't ever eaten canned tuna then?


----------



## Ageo (20 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> do u have the same problem with, say, people fishing from a jetty? its not uncommon to see fish flapping about and bleeding and then sliced open while still alive..






hehe B im a recreational fisherman and hunter, i know what your saying. I understand they have explosive heads on the harpoons but i have noticed a few videos that the whale is still kicking. When im out hunting, any projectile i use is enough to make sure that it takes the beast down with 1 hit, be it rabbits or even water buffalo.

Regarding fishing i know its the same as the whales but the difference is you dont have amutuers running the operation. If a professional fisherman handled fish as you mentioned then that would be unacceptable. Im just saying when hunting or fishing the animal deserves to be destroyed humanely as possible. Those few times where the whale was still kicking they should have known that they were being filmed and a 2nd harpoon should have been fired.


----------



## numbercruncher (20 December 2007)

nioka said:


> I've eaten plenty. *Not only that I've fed it to people who thought they were eating beef*.





Thats virtually as low as spiking someones drink with GHB or feeding someone their pet dog and saying its a lamb roast, hope your proud of yourself,  I think thats simply repulsive behaviour.


----------



## Ageo (20 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Thats virtually as low as spiking someones drink with GHB or feeding someone their pet dog and saying its a lamb roast, hope your proud of yourself,  I think thats simply repulsive behaviour.




Not always, i have fed many of my family members roo meat (which is so good for you) yet if i told them before that it was roo that would have declined in eating it. 

The point being we need to snap out of being warm and fuzzy about eating things and eat whats good for us.


----------



## --B-- (20 December 2007)

Ageo said:


> Regarding fishing i know its the same as the whales but the difference is you dont have amutuers running the operation. If a professional fisherman handled fish as you mentioned then that would be unacceptable. Im just saying when hunting or fishing the animal deserves to be destroyed humanely as possible. Those few times where the whale was still kicking they should have known that they were being filmed and a 2nd harpoon should have been fired.




i dont disagree with this however this seems to be more an issue of how they slaughter then the slaughter itself.

obviously there are times when the harpooning doesnt work as desired and these are the scenes plastered on our TVs to get the best reaction. 

if the big issue for people is the occasional whale that writhes around half dead then perhaps we should be talking about better harpooning techniques rather than whaling itself.


----------



## Ageo (20 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> if the big issue for people is the occasional whale that writhes around half dead then perhaps we should be talking about better harpooning techniques rather than whaling itself.




lol but is it ever the issue people really talk about???

its like saying crimes with illegal handguns are on the rise so the only solution is to ban legal handguns. lolol makes no sense

Same with the harpooning, when they see the whales being dragged with blood etc.. they feel all upset and its not the harpooning technique they focus on but the actual slaughter when it should be the other way around.

Alot of people speak emotionally and never about facts, and thats why groups like the greens and peta have succeeded in gaining popularity, its because scare and hype tactics usually wins peoples views.


----------



## chops_a_must (20 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> 50 per year?
> 
> do you know japan wants to slaughter more or is this a guess?



And how would either of us know how many they would want to catch?


----------



## numbercruncher (20 December 2007)

Ageo said:


> Not always, i have fed many of my family members roo meat (which is so good for you) yet if i told them before that it was roo that would have declined in eating it.
> 
> The point being we need to snap out of being warm and fuzzy about eating things and eat whats good for us.





Im glad your Family have a good sense of Humour, Im pretty sure that misrepresenting what you feed people is Illegal, if it happened to me I would certainly consider pressing charges.

Its a brave new world out there


----------



## --B-- (20 December 2007)

Ageo said:


> l
> 
> Same with the harpooning, when they see the whales being dragged with blood etc.. they feel all upset and its not the harpooning technique they focus on but the actual slaughter when it should be the other way around.




fully agree.



> Alot of people speak emotionally and never about facts, and thats why groups like the greens and peta have succeeded in gaining popularity, its because scare and hype tactics usually wins peoples views.




absolutely. green groups are 100% based on propagating fear and misinformation to push their agendas.


----------



## --B-- (20 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> And how would either of us know how many they would want to catch?




im not sure chops, but when you said 



> They are growing, but they are nowhere near levels where it would be viable to have a sustainable and commercial level like the Japs want.




i assumed you knew otherwise.


----------



## chops_a_must (20 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> absolutely. green groups are 100% based on propagating fear and misinformation to push their agendas.



As opposed to who? Lol!


----------



## --B-- (20 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> As opposed to who? Lol!




and its up to the intelligent and reasonable to be alert to this chops.

much like the GW debate which we have discussed recently.


----------



## Pat (20 December 2007)

I think whaling sucks!
But no way will I boycott Japanese products. I love my Toyotas and Yamaha's.
To say that the Japanese are bad because of whaling is silly, whatever the reason they kill whales, it must be a good one. I just hope they can help conserve and help grow the whale population, to a point that there not on the ENDNGERED LIST. Actually till there the pest of the seas. Then they can eat all the whale they want.


----------



## nioka (20 December 2007)

Ageo said:


> I understand they have explosive heads on the harpoons but i have noticed a few videos that the whale is still kicking. When im out hunting, any projectile i use is enough to make sure that it takes the beast down with 1 hit, be it rabbits or even water buffalo.
> .



A few videos or the same scene repeatedly shown. Thrashing around and bleeding does non necessarily mean not dead. Chop off a chickens head and it still runs around for a bit of time but it is very very dead. Most whales when shot will shudder rather than thrash around a lot as the bomb is usually near the spine. If the bomb doesn't detonate the whale will act differently.
 When you are hunting you don't have greenpeace making it hard for you to get the best of shots so you could say when they are there the chance of a poor shot is greater. I've seen a lot of whales shot and can only remember one incidence where things went wrong and I felt sorry for the suffering of the whale. I spent a lot of time in an abbatoir and can recall quite a few times when an animal got up from the knocking box and ran amock.


----------



## adobee (20 December 2007)

nioka said:


> I've been there. I've worked there. Have you? I know how it works.




Come on man.. I havent worked there but there is no way in hell that those whales are dead.. you are kidding yourself!!!!!

That doesnt mean I am for or against it though; I really think that if Japanese want to eat whale they can however they should 
a) Stick to their own waters
b) Really try to assist in growing the whale populations and put some money into .. like fishing companies are doing with Tuna..

*Every country has there own customs likes and dislikes.. We in Australia eat Kangaroo meat how does this look to the world they are 
a) A mammal (could be a marsupial) but still it suckles its young
b) Its our national animal
c) Real Aussies go out on the back of uts shooting them for fun*

I am not into whaling personally and would prefer if people didnt do it but still they have there rights ..

People make such a big deal about whales and sheep in iraq.. no one gives a sh*t about genicide it africa and other third world countries, 1 in 2 aboriginal children are being raped etc.. *I am sorry but get some priorities..!*


----------



## IFocus (20 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> we were discussing the method of the slaughter which was raised as a primary concern in all this. i honestly dont see harpooning any differently to hooking. i really dont know how else the whalers are supposed to capture and kill a whale.




in any case:

B killing whales in this day and age to me is insanity no matter what the method. 

As for whales recovering in numbers that is also way off the mark. I get the feeling the pro whalers think that they will soon recover to some where near previous numbers. 

In the days when Nokia was eating his whale meat the food source for whales was exponentially bigger than current stocks world wide which we will never see the like off again this is not scare mongering its fact. Whales will never recover to previous stock levels ever.
Ask Nokia what the fishing was like 30 / 40 years ago and what it’s like today whether fishing in close or out wide, extrapolate that through to whales and their food sources.

Practices of past centuries simply do not translate though I guess the question is why kill whales I am yet to hear a valid argument all the products taken from whales were produced by other means well before the 60’s?


Focus


----------



## IFocus (20 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> fully agree.
> 
> 
> 
> absolutely. green groups are 100% based on propagating fear and misinformation to push their agendas.




B if this is what it takes then so be it the Japanese can hardly claim the high moral ground


----------



## numbercruncher (20 December 2007)

adobee said:


> People make such a big deal about whales and sheep in iraq.. no one gives a sh*t about genicide it africa and other third world countries, 1 in 2 aboriginal children are being raped etc.. *I am sorry but get some priorities..!*






How can you expect people to give a flying Razoo about human rights when they couldnt even care less for defenceless creatures such as Whales ?  Least Humans can fight back !


----------



## x2rider (20 December 2007)

Hi folks

 Just a question . 

Would people be as outraged about the taking of whales if they were done in a less barbaric looking way ? . The firing of a harpoon looks pretty gruesome but if a quicker way was found to kill them would we then rate them up against any other animal that we butcher for meat . 



 Cheers martin


----------



## Pat (20 December 2007)

IFocus said:


> Whales will never recover to previous stock levels ever.



 Never is a very long time and I disagree, but if you mean as long as humans are around to pollute the planet, then yes, your statement is true.
Agree that things are very different now as opposed to 30-40 yrs ago. So much so, that even the mighty Great Barrier Reef is said to disappear in our life time


----------



## vishalt (20 December 2007)

Anyone actually tried whale? It's pretty good, maybe try it first before accusing Japanese of exerting their right to live their culture in their way.


----------



## chops_a_must (20 December 2007)

vishalt said:


> Anyone actually tried whale? It's pretty good, maybe try it first before accusing Japanese of exerting their right to live their culture in their way.




But in their waters.


----------



## IFocus (20 December 2007)

Pat said:


> Never is a very long time and I disagree, but if you mean as long as humans are around to pollute the planet, then yes, your statement is true.
> Agree that things are very different now as opposed to 30-40 yrs ago. So much so, that even the mighty Great Barrier Reef is said to disappear in our life time




Yes Pat as long as humans are around, the growth in populations India / China (another 2 billion consumers, think USA only 250 million) that have aspirations to reach say our living standard will pretty much crush many eco systems.

Its unfortunate about the Barrier as it doesn't look good but there are much bigger environment issues coming.

Focus


----------



## bearmarket (20 December 2007)

Mr.Rudd will ensure that the Japanese won't exterminate the whales. 

bearmarket


----------



## IFocus (20 December 2007)

vishalt said:


> Anyone actually tried whale? It's pretty good, maybe try it first before accusing Japanese of exerting their right to live their culture in their way.




Vishalt hunting whales in the Antarctica has nothing to do with Japanese culture but everything to do with Japanese technolgy

I find it offensive in my culture that they hunt whales......


----------



## justjohn (20 December 2007)

bearmarket said:


> Mr.Rudd will ensure that the Japanese won't exterminate the whales.
> 
> bearmarket




Jeez i bet the whales feel a lot safer after that statement


----------



## bearmarket (20 December 2007)

justjohn said:


> Jeez i bet the whales feel a lot safer after that statement





I would estimate that they would feel much better knowing that the Japanese would be facing the Australian Navy rather than some of the waffle that is thrown about in discussions on whaling.

bearmarket


----------



## Nyden (20 December 2007)

Whales are beautiful, they're intelligent, & generally placid creatures - great, ancient, mysterious - why would anyone want to hurt them? They're part of the ever dwindling giants of the earth. Heck, we never even get to see giant squids :

To compare them to western-cows is just silly as well, (as some do). Cows have been bread just for our purposes; when do you ever see wild cows/bulls resembling the ones you see at farms?


----------



## numbercruncher (20 December 2007)

Japs are back to murdering Humpbacks ....




> TOKYO (AFP) ”” Japan said Thursday it has made no agreement to stop hunting humpback whales, denying comments from the US ambassador here that suggested a temporary deal had been struck.




http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jkcs2WppMJQyp9lGeio8IpdxDjKA


----------



## numbercruncher (20 December 2007)

> Japanese whalers won't say if they'll spare Migaloo
> 
> Migaloo, whose Aboriginal name means White Fella, is believed to be the only completely white humpback whale in the world and is often spotted among the humpbacks which form the basis of Australia's whale-watching industry.
> 
> AAP inquiries of Japan Fisheries Agency about the fate of Migaloo and other white whales were met with "no comment".





http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/japanese-whalers-wont-say-if-theyll-spare-migaloo/2007/11/12/1194766553482.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 December 2007)

bearmarket said:


> I would estimate that they would feel much better knowing that the Japanese would be facing the Australian Navy rather than some of the waffle that is thrown about in discussions on whaling.
> 
> bearmarket




so what are you saying here bearmarket?
that Greenpeace are waffle?
that Japs talk of "scientific research" is anything other than "waffle"?
correction "serious waffle"

PS nc, I (also) drive a Toyota, so didn't vote option a) - "boycott japanese"
but looking at that photo of the white mother and calf 
I think my next car might be something other than Jap lol. 

(and other than French, since their terrorists blew up the "Rainbow Warrior" in Auckland -   - well done to the Kiwis for catching the bastards who did it too. )


----------



## nioka (20 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> PS nc, I (also) drive a Toyota, so didn't vote option a) - "boycott japanese"
> but looking at that photo of the white mother and calf
> I think my next car might be something other than Jap lol.




I think the white one would be safe. Even a red neck like myself would draw the line at something as rare as that. By the way another white calf was supposed to have been spotted off the coast here this year. Migaloo is said to be a daddy.


----------



## Ageo (20 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Im glad your Family have a good sense of Humour, Im pretty sure that misrepresenting what you feed people is Illegal, if it happened to me I would certainly consider pressing charges.
> 
> Its a brave new world out there




lmao! so you would press charges against your own family?

brave world? you mean insane world


----------



## gimme some (21 December 2007)

What is it about whales? 
What about all the other poor little animals that are being slaughtered every day?
What about all the starving people?
Who out there, so worried about the poor whales actually give a stuff about what is going on in Zimbabwe? Or even just up north with our own Aboriginals?
Anyhow, now that I've got that of my chest,I'm off to drop another live crayfish into a boiling hot pot of water.
Mmmmmmmmm delicious.


----------



## chops_a_must (21 December 2007)

vishalt said:


> Anyone actually tried whale? It's pretty good, maybe try it first before accusing Japanese of exerting their right to live their culture in their way.




Thaty's like saying, "human tastes good so it is ok to kill and eat them." And yes, to some homosexuals, and probably certain women, certain aspects of humans perhaps do taste good. But does this make it ok to kill and eat humans?

P.s. - i'm a bit tipsty if you havcen't already giuessed.


----------



## Sprinter79 (21 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Thaty's like saying, "human tastes good so it is ok to kill and eat them." And yes, to some homosexuals, and probably certain women, certain aspects of humans perhaps do taste good. But does this make it ok to kill and eat humans?
> 
> P.s. - i'm a bit tipsty if you havcen't already giuessed.




Hahaha, yeah you are a bit drunk huh! I'm glad I didn't let you borrow my car then : (Just kidding  )


----------



## numbercruncher (21 December 2007)

gimme some said:


> What is it about whales?



They are beautiful majestic Animals even smarter than you, just unfortunate they cant defend themselves.



> What about all the other poor little animals that are being slaughtered every day?



They where bred by People to feed people and cant compare to a whale.



> What about all the starving people?



There are to many people, its inevitable and natural that some must starve.



> Who out there, so worried about the poor whales actually give a stuff about what is going on in Zimbabwe?



Not me, cant be too bad or they would revolt ? ...



> Or even just up north with our own Aboriginals?



Whats up with them ? they have a belly full of tucker and a wallet full of cash, and no one is hunting them down for scientific research ..



> Anyhow, now that I've got that of my chest,I'm off to drop another live crayfish into a boiling hot pot of water.
> Mmmmmmmmm delicious.




Yum !


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

IFocus said:


> in any case:
> 
> B killing whales in this day and age to me is insanity no matter what the method.




why?



> As for whales recovering in numbers that is also way off the mark. I get the feeling the pro whalers think that they will soon recover to some where near previous numbers.




humpback whale populations ARE recovering. do you have evidence to the contrary?



> In the days when Nokia was eating his whale meat the food source for whales was exponentially bigger than current stocks world wide which we will never see the like off again this is not scare mongering its fact. Whales will never recover to previous stock levels ever.




lol. what do u base this outrageous claim on? 



> Practices of past centuries simply do not translate though I guess the question is why kill whales I am yet to hear a valid argument all the products taken from whales were produced by other means well before the 60’s?




the japanese like to eat whale. simple.


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

bearmarket said:


> I would estimate that they would feel much better knowing that the Japanese would be facing the Australian Navy rather than some of the waffle that is thrown about in discussions on whaling.
> 
> bearmarket




hilarious. do you really think Kev is going to send out an armed naval vessel?

will never happen.

kev is the master of tricking his cheer squad and once again it seems he has you and other hook line and sinker.


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Thaty's like saying, "human tastes good so it is ok to kill and eat them." And yes, to some homosexuals, and probably certain women, certain aspects of humans perhaps do taste good. But does this make it ok to kill and eat humans?
> 
> P.s. - i'm a bit tipsty if you havcen't already giuessed.




lol. perhaps one of your worst arguments ever chops.


----------



## Ageo (21 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> There are to many people, its inevitable and natural that some must starve.




Mate sorry to say but that is insanity, typical greeny that gives more of a sh*t about animals then his own.

How many whales get killed compared to say poor africans today? 

Sometimes I just dont understand where people have their priorities.


----------



## numbercruncher (21 December 2007)

Ageo said:


> mate sorry to say but that is insanity, typical greeny that gives more of a sh*t about animals then his own.
> 
> How many whales get killed compared to say poor africans today?
> 
> sometimes i just dont understand where people have their priorities




Come on spare us the sentimental stuff - the world has a ceiling on how many people it can sustain, records droughts/climate change and some of the worlds most fertile farmlands being forced into biofuels is going to prove this more than ever - the underlying reason Africans run around killing each other is because of shortage of resources and narrow minded idiots like Bob Geldof have done nothing but help create more misery, unless you plan on flying in some rivers and fertile farmland nature must take it coarse.

Alternatively let people loose to pollute the last river, catch the last fish, cut down the last tree then perhaps we can all dig in and share a bowl of money huh?


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Come on spare us the sentimental stuff -




ahh. the mindset of the greeny...

caring for humans = sentimental stuff, caring for plants and animals = the most serious priority presumably?



> the world has a ceiling on how many people it can sustain, records droughts/climate change and some of the worlds most fertile farmlands being forced into biofuels is going to prove this more than ever - the underlying reason Africans run around killing each other is because of shortage of resources and narrow minded idiots like Bob Geldof have done nothing but help create more misery, unless you plan on flying in some rivers and fertile farmland nature must take it coarse.




technology and access to cheap energy is what the african nations need. ironically the very things greeny nutters like yourself seek to deny them.

it is absolutely astounding that one one hand you bleat about a whale being harpooned yet have no such qualms about human beings starving to death. 
greenism at its finest.



> Alternatively let people loose to pollute the last river, catch the last fish, cut down the last tree then perhaps we can all dig in and share a bowl of money huh?




lol. there goes the propagation of fear again. right on time as usual.


----------



## numbercruncher (21 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> technology and access to cheap energy is what the african nations need. ironically the very things greeny nutters like yourself seek to deny them.
> 
> it is absolutely astounding that one one hand you bleat about a whale being harpooned yet have no such qualms about human beings starving to death.
> greenism at its finest.





How do you come to the conclusion that Enviromentalists would seek to deny Africa Tech and energy ? wouldnt that be self defeating, ahh I get it, your trying to paint Enviromentalists as extremists, nice try.

By the way there is no cheap energy left, the only cheap energy as will be shown by the benefit of hindsight will be renewable energy.

Your opinion amuses me though, in one breath you support Dubbya and his mideast adventures that result in Hundreds of thousands of Deaths, and on the other your all caring about Africans, are you shifting your natural right wing leanings to support a discussion or are you all of a sudden getting caring ? Do you donate to African aid programmes ?


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> How do you come to the conclusion that Enviromentalists would seek to deny Africa Tech and energy ? wouldnt that be self defeating, ahh I get it, your trying to paint Enviromentalists as extremists, nice try.




no because greenies like yourself would love to see the end of cheap coal powered energy.



> By the way there is no cheap energy left, the only cheap energy as will be shown by the benefit of hindsight will be renewable energy.




coal fired power stations provide cheap energy but green groups seek to deny them this energy based on their blind dedication to the AGW myth.



> Your opinion amuses me though, in one breath you support Dubbya and his mideast adventures that result in Hundreds of thousands of Deaths,




really? can you provide me a quote of me saying this?



> and on the other your all caring about Africans, are you shifting your natural right wing leanings to support a discussion or are you all of a sudden getting caring ? Do you donate to African aid programmes ?




i was pointing out your obvious preference of caring for whales over starving africans. you haven not denied this. its there for all to see.


----------



## numbercruncher (21 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> really? can you provide me a quote of me saying this?




Again sorry, seems i mixed you up with another poster


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Again sorry, seems i mixed you up with another poster




lol. ok no worries.


----------



## numbercruncher (21 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> no because greenies like yourself would love to see the end of cheap coal powered energy.




No, most people who accept climate change and respect the planet want Clean Coal technolgy - its in the pipeline btw.

And coal isnt Cheap to Africans anyway, China snaps it all up , renewable with minimal ongoing input costs is the only long term solution.

And arguing cheap energy is a solution for africa doesnt quite wash with me, Zimbabwe point in case, prosperous then along comes their Hero Mugab consficating White folks farms and now they are unproductive weed infested wasteland .... maybe some folks are natural hunter gatherings and some are natural farmers eh ?

Anyway guess we are getting well off subject .....


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> No, most people who accept climate change and respect the planet want Clean Coal technolgy - its in the pipeline btw.




coal fired power stations are the cheapest and you have now confirmed you are against these.



> And coal isnt Cheap to Africans anyway, China snaps it all up , renewable with minimal ongoing input costs is the only long term solution.




lol. so theres no coal available because china snaps it all up?



> And arguing cheap energy is a solution for africa doesnt quite wash with me, Zimbabwe point in case, prosperous then along comes their Hero Mugab consficating White folks farms and now they are unproductive weed infested wasteland .... maybe some folks are natural hunter gatherings and some are natural farmers eh ?




of course it doesnt wash with you. as ive suggested, you and others of your ilk dont care about humans as much as you care about trees and animals. you seek to deny developing nations access to cheap energy based on unproven AGW which you blindly believe.



> Anyway guess we are getting well off subject .....




lol. very true however i thought the comment re: "starving people" realy did need further discussions...


----------



## numbercruncher (21 December 2007)

Seriously solely because of "cheap" energy the worlds population has gone from 1b to 6b in 100 years, its impossible for it to continue. Cheap energy has finished, growing demand diminishing crop harvests are here, dont need to read between the lines for too long to see what the consequence is likely to be.


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Seriously solely because of "cheap" energy the worlds population has gone from 1b to 6b in 100 years, its impossible for it to continue. Cheap energy has finished, growing demand diminishing crop harvests are here, dont need to read between the lines for too long to see what the consequence is likely to be.




and cheap energy has been the vehicle which has delivered much of the technological, medical, scientific advancements we enjoy.

i assume you are also opposed to such technology advancements as GM crops and pesticides?

in any case, as you correctly stated this has gone way off topic from the original discussion of whaling.


----------



## IFocus (21 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> ahh. the mindset of the greeny...
> 
> caring for humans = sentimental stuff, caring for plants and animals = the most serious priority presumably?




B    no plants and animals = no Humans

Focus


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

IFocus said:


> B    no plants and animals = no Humans
> 
> Focus




i dont dispute that focus.


----------



## Ageo (21 December 2007)

IFocus said:


> B    no plants and animals = no Humans
> 
> Focus




Who said anything about eliminating plants and animals?


----------



## Timmy (21 December 2007)

How much does whale meat cost?


----------



## IFocus (21 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> Quote:
> In the days when Nokia was eating his whale meat the food source for whales was exponentially bigger than current stocks world wide which we will never see the like off again this is not scare mongering its fact. Whales will never recover to previous stock levels ever.






> lol. what do u base this outrageous claim on?





B unfortunately the facts are outrageous Google around but try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing 

cut some out for you



> A major international scientific study released in November 2006 in the journal Science found that about one-third of all fishing stocks worldwide have collapsed (with a collapse being defined as a decline to less than 10% of their maximum observed abundance), and that if current trends continue all fish stocks worldwide will collapse within fifty years.[2]




Or try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_krill




> There are concerns that the overall biomass of Antarctic krill has been declining rapidly over the last few decades. Some scientists have speculated this value being as high as 80%.




Apologies for using wikipedia time is limited to find more credible sources but you get the idea

Focus


----------



## IFocus (21 December 2007)

nioka said:


> I think the white one would be safe. Even a red neck like myself would draw the line at something as rare as that. By the way another white calf was supposed to have been spotted off the coast here this year. Migaloo is said to be a daddy.




Nioka don't get sentiment about just one whale they are all just as special do you know that whales used to be able to hear each other on the other side of the world?

Focus


----------



## IFocus (21 December 2007)

In the Australian today

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22958968-601,00.html



> Humpback whales are considered to be facing a high risk of extinction.
> 
> According to the latest “Red List” of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the extinction risk of humpback whales is defined as “Vulnerable (VU), and that for minke whale as “Lower Risk” or “Nearly Threatened.”


----------



## IFocus (21 December 2007)

The Australian again  so much for culture Grrrrrrrrrr

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22959881-601,00.html




> WHALE meat has been sold as dog food in Japan and there is a push now to encourage children to consume it to help reduce stockpiles.


----------



## chops_a_must (21 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> lol. perhaps one of your worst arguments ever chops.




Given the circumstances, and our jousting, I'm surprised you didn't claim that as one of my better ones.


----------



## murbella (7 January 2008)

Lets be honest ladies and gents - the whalers harpoon these gentle giants, irrespective of those with calves in tow or not, then submerge them to drown before butchering them, only to have the meat fail to sell on the open market and instead be fed to school children, in the name of "scientific research". Here's where the "honesty" word comes in again. How can a culture so advanced, proud and civilised in so many ways, be so small in others.


----------



## disarray (7 January 2008)

murbella said:


> How can a culture so advanced, proud and civilised in so many ways, be so small in others.




corporate interest. it screws with our civilisation as well.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 January 2008)

http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/staff_oceans/2005/12/22/eye_to_eye_with_a_dying_whale

Eye to eye with a dying whale


----------



## noirua (13 January 2008)

The world has to see things from a more caring point of view. However, they must see it from my point of view?


----------



## skint (13 January 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Fish simply dont even come close to these Mammals (but it is essential to have carefully controlled and monitored sustainable fishing), whats next let the Japanese start turning Dolphins into Sushi? Barbequed Gorilla burgers? Lion roast? Pygmy pie perhaps?
> 
> Save the Whales!




Many still fail to appreciate that fundamental differences exist between a whale and a fish. Similar to other higher order mammals such as dolphins, gorillas, the other two species of chimpanzee (humans being the third), and elephants, whales experience both pain and emotion (eg.joy sadness, grieving) in not dissimilar ways to humans. Similar neurotransmitters and peptides functioning in the brain in strikingly similar fashion to humans, not to mention the behavioural observations that reinforce the point. 
Whilst the jury is still out on whether fish experience pain at all, there is a country mile between whatever they do experience and what a whale (or other higher order mammal) experiences.
Talk of "sustainable harvesting" is nothing more than a euphamism for inhumane wholesale slaughter. The slaughter is not necessary for the survival of the Japanese, however a ban on whaling is vital for the survival of the whales. A post earlier from someone who lived in Japan suggested that the prevailing policies are not broadly endorsed by the Japanese generally, and are largely being promoted by some of older politicians in power. Lets hope its true and change occurs sooner rather than later.


----------



## Whiskers (15 January 2008)

This could be interesting! 

I wonder if our navy is prepared to help enforce the ruling?



> DJ *Australian Judge Grants Anti-Whaling Ban Against Japanese Co *15/01/2008 02:44PM AEST
> 
> SYDNEY (AP)--An Australian judge Tuesday granted an activist group's request to ban a Japanese company from whaling in an Australian-declared animal sanctuary off Antarctica.
> 
> ...


----------



## Buddy (15 January 2008)

Well I'm not going to get into the debate on the pros and cons that are being put in this thread. But for the record, I'm against killing of these beautiful creatures.  And also, surely sustainable tourism (whale watching) will be more profitable for everyone (not to mention the whales) in the long term than killing whales.

But my great fear is.... Do any of you remember the Star Trek episode where the great whale in the sky threatened to eliminate earth in revenge for the earth people killing off the whales? Yeah, well, what if there is a great whale in the sky? Are you willing to risk that for a few whale hamburgers?


----------



## mime (15 January 2008)

**** someone has got to stand up in the ALP and beat Japan over the head with a large stick. Come on Kevin! I didn't vote for you but I will have much more respect for you if you can stop the pricks from plundering OUR oceans. Where was the Greens comments? Bob Brown in MIA.


----------



## Julia (15 January 2008)

I'm completely opposed to what the Japanese are doing, but the government is between a rock and a hard place in view of our dependence on trade with Japan.
It will be interesting to see how they manage this court ruling.
Certainly they have backed down from their strong stand during the election campaign.


----------



## numbercruncher (15 January 2008)

Japanese cant pump out many Cars and gadgets without our resources, I rekon they need us more than we need them !


----------



## coolcricket (15 January 2008)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/activists-held-hostage/2008/01/15/1200159450223.html


Activists taken "hostage" by Japanese Whalers.


----------



## numbercruncher (16 January 2008)

Best they send in the SAS, rescue our good people, arrest the Japanese criminals and scuttle the ship.


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Best they send in the SAS, rescue our good people, arrest the Japanese criminals and scuttle the ship.



...or could take the US approach and bomb Tokyo. :


----------



## barnz2k (16 January 2008)

Im a vegan, I also lived in japan.
Fully against whaling and all other meat industries. Whales really are big and spectacular, and they are in less numbers. But people are getting so anti-whaling and don't see the stuff that goes on in their own country too.
I blogged about whaling recently with a summary of points etc..

http://www.barnz2k.com/blog/index.php/2008/01/13/211

Some green groups are about media etc, because sometimes its the only way to get the message across. But the greenpeace ship found and was following one of the Japanese boats well before the AUS naval/gov ship was even close to it.

Politically things could actually happen, Kevin will take us towards china and away from Japan, this does scare them.


----------



## barnz2k (16 January 2008)

this could get interesting.
2 protesters boarded a japanese ship to deliver a letter, then werent allowed to leave.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/activists-held-hostage/2008/01/15/1200159450223.html


----------



## numbercruncher (16 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> ...or could take the US approach and bomb Tokyo. :





and the Mayor of Hiroshima said HOLY what da f^^^^ was dat !


- Kevin Bludy Wilson 

(He must be due for a revival by now ?)


----------



## ScottyOfAus (16 January 2008)

This has been a pretty interesting thread so far. Personally I am against whaling. I think some of the comparisons on the first page were a little ridiculous. It would be interesting to see how many people in Japan were actually pro whaling, I would be surprised if it wasn't a minority - Does anyone know what percentage of the people over there actually eat whale.
Another point I would like to see politicians and activists raise is - where exactly is the research published that has been conducted and what benefits have been taken so far? Why aren't these points used in a more constructive manner when debating the pro's and con's of this practice - I think the whole world would be a bit more accepting if they cured cancer or heart disease as a result of this so called research. To date I think hunger is the only thing that has been cured


----------



## IFocus (16 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> ...or could take the US approach and bomb Tokyo. :




Wayne this is way over the top and dumb you know we don't have a "bomb" 

Using the Collins Class for some thing useful and torpedoing the whaling fleet more appropriate I think.......


Focus


----------



## ScottyOfAus (16 January 2008)

*Piracy?*

Boarding another ship without invitation can be seen as an act of piracy and no doubt this is how the japanese sailors would have viewed their new guests. This is nothing but a cunning strategic move on part of the crew of Steve Irwin to send two of their sailors onto yushin maru no2. I would put money on it they both put on a fresh pair of underpants before they left knowing they wouldn't be coming back anytime soon. The captain and crew on board the japanese vessels would be very nervous with the Steve Irwin hanging around. http://www.seashepherd.org/whales/  have a checkers of that website, I am not exactly what they mean by scuttling ships on that webpage. The Sea shepherd organisation have been pretty ruthless in the protests of the past.
Perhaps this more aggressive approach is exactly what the anti-whaling movement needs. I myself wont be falling for the story of the 2 sailors involved simply being message bearers.
I reckon they will be on board until the ship returns to land, which will be a couple of days before the tele-series is aired on channel 9. 
best of luck to the crew of Steve Irwin and hopefully you wont be chasing whalers next season due to lack of whaling activity


----------



## skint (16 January 2008)

ScottyOfAus said:


> This has been a pretty interesting thread so far. Personally I am against whaling. I think some of the comparisons on the first page were a little ridiculous. It would be interesting to see how many people in Japan were actually pro whaling, I would be surprised if it wasn't a minority - Does anyone know what percentage of the people over there actually eat whale.
> Another point I would like to see politicians and activists raise is - where exactly is the research published that has been conducted and what benefits have been taken so far? Why aren't these points used in a more constructive manner when debating the pro's and con's of this practice - I think the whole world would be a bit more accepting if they cured cancer or heart disease as a result of this so called research. To date I think hunger is the only thing that has been cured




To date, the Japanese have not published one article in a peer reviewed journal. Their activities have absolutely diddley-squat to do with "research".


----------



## ScottyOfAus (17 January 2008)

And we should be pushing that one home and exploiting that fact. We all know its a farce and if that can be proven then their research excuse would be redundant. Surely that could be used in some international court or presented to whoever the governing body is on this matter


----------



## numbercruncher (17 January 2008)

Theyve pretty much admitted it themselves ....




> Japan has admitted its so-called scientific whaling is a precursor to the resumption of commercial whaling.




http://news.smh.com.au/japan-eyes-resuming-commercial-whaling/20080116-1m6e.html

If I knew what I Know now, 18 months ago I wouldnt of purchased a Mitsibishi !


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 January 2008)

According to this , the 2 hostages will ( arguably) have to be tried under anti-terrorism laws  - i.e. no options in the matter.

(THe captain thinks he has it covered though )


http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2141019.htm


> TOM IGGULDEN: Even if Mr Potts and Mr Lane are safely delivered from the Yushin Maru, that may not end matters.
> 
> *Sydney University International Law lecturer, Tim Stephens, says they may have broken an international law passed after the 1985 terrorist hijack of the Achilli Lauro.*
> 
> ...


----------



## nioka (17 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> According to this , the 2 hostages will ( arguably) have to be tried under anti-terrorism laws  - i.e. no options in the matter.
> 
> (THe captain thinks he has it covered though )
> 
> ...




Sounds as though it would be OK to break into someones home as long as you hand them a "letter of intent". Is that what the hostages say gives them the right to board the Japanese vessel. A letter of intent!!! Captain Bligh would never have accepted it. Have you heard the one about Captain Bligh when an intruder on his ship said "Captain you are standing on my foot." Bligh's reply, "Cut off his foot Mr. Christian."
 Maybe the Japanese Captain will interogate them in Egypt and then send them to Cuba for 5 years.( Pity Hicks wasn't carrying a letter of intent.)


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 January 2008)

nioka said:


> Sounds as though it would be OK to break into someones home as long as you hand them a "letter of intent". Is that what the hostages say gives them the right to board the Japanese vessel. A letter of intent!!! Captain Bligh would never have accepted it. Have you heard the one about Captain Bligh when an intruder on his ship said "Captain you are standing on my foot." Bligh's reply, "Cut off his foot Mr. Christian."
> Maybe the Japanese Captain will interogate them in Egypt and then send them to Cuba for 5 years.( Pity Hicks wasn't carrying a letter of intent.)



lol - 
 must admit it sounded weird to me 
 (but I'm no lawyer) 

IN WHICH CASE.. you'd have to conclude that there is a good chance that the apparently inflexible anti-terror laws may have caught.....  what the .......  a couple of anti-whaling protesters?


----------



## nioka (17 January 2008)

Another thought. Will the prisoners be fed whale meat? If they are will they eat it for Scientific research?.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 January 2008)

whattya reckon nioka - ? London to a brick these blokes side with the whales , rather than either the Japanese or Aussie Govts?  bet they don't cooperate - then again, they may not have any choice in the matter . 

"I've been eye to eye with a dying whale" as they say .. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/17/2141098.htm



> Sea Shepherd will only accept 'unconditional' Govt help
> Posted 1 hour 8 minutes ago
> 
> The anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd says it will accept the Australian Government's offer to help defuse a stand-off over two of its crew members, who are being held on a Japanese whaling ship.
> ...


----------

