# Whale wars



## cuttlefish (7 January 2010)

So what are people's views? I'm not a fan of whaling  - I'd like to see it stop - but I don't like the actions of the protesters either in terms of launching projectiles at whaling crew members and attempting to sabotage the whaling ships. 

 I guess it depends on whether the view is that the whaling itself is legal or not - my understanding is that, regardless of the ethics of it, from a legal standpoint under international law the whalers are entitled to be there - thus I would assume that launching projectiles and attempting to sabotage boats is illegal activity by the protesters.  

The way its going someone will get hurt, it is also creating diplomatic problems, and the aggressiveness by the protesters could easily backfire on them imo.   Whales are important but human life is important as well and the protesters appear to be acting with wreckless disgregard for both their own lives and the well being of members of the whaling crews.


----------



## condog (7 January 2010)

Im not raqcist and I think the japanese are in general a lovely well manered bunch of people....

But wouldnt you like to walk up to a japanese whaler or politician who defends it and punch them in the face......then tell them you where just doing research   lol


----------



## IFocus (7 January 2010)

condog said:


> Im not raqcist and I think the japanese are in general a lovely well manered bunch of people....
> 
> But wouldnt you like to walk up to a japanese whaler or politician who defends it and  *harpoon them*......then tell them you where just doing research





Minor correction Condog


----------



## IFocus (7 January 2010)

cuttlefish said:


> So what are people's views? I'm not a fan of whaling  - I'd like to see it stop - but I don't like the actions of the protesters either in terms of launching projectiles at whaling crew members and attempting to sabotage the whaling ships.
> 
> I guess it depends on whether the view is that the whaling itself is legal or not - my understanding is that, regardless of the ethics of it, from a legal standpoint under international law the whalers are entitled to be there - thus I would assume that launching projectiles and attempting to sabotage boats is illegal activity by the protesters.
> 
> The way its going someone will get hurt, it is also creating diplomatic problems, and the aggressiveness by the protesters could easily backfire on them imo.   Whales are important but human life is important as well and the protesters appear to be acting with wreckless disgregard for both their own lives and the well being of members of the whaling crews.





Cuttlefish the world has too many humans and not enough whales..........


----------



## nioka (7 January 2010)

IFocus said:


> Cuttlefish the world has too many humans and not enough whales..........




So what do you suggest, start eating one another and not eat other meat. Whales are a food resource in a world running out of food. As an ex whaler I see no reason not to resume whaling now that the numbers of some species of whales have recovered. Should we stop eating cuddly lanmbs, chicken, pork and beef. Should we stop slaughtering cows because they are sacred to some races. Should we stop feeding our pet dogs horse and kangaroo meat. 

If we tell others what they must do then do we accept that they have the right to tell us what we can and can not do?.

Live and let live. ( unless you need it for food)


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 January 2010)

From an animal perspective it is natural to eat other living organisms. From a human perspective I think we could 'choose' domesticated animal meat.

Oh and that skipper on the Sea Shepherd is certainly putting lives at risk. His own peoples lives.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 January 2010)

cuttlefish said:


> So what are people's views? I'm not a fan of whaling  - I'd like to see it stop - but I don't like the actions of the protesters either in terms of launching projectiles at whaling crew members and attempting to sabotage the whaling ships.
> 
> I guess it depends on whether the view is that the whaling itself is legal or not - my understanding is that, regardless of the ethics of it, from a legal standpoint under international law the whalers are entitled to be there - thus I would assume that launching projectiles and attempting to sabotage boats is illegal activity by the protesters.
> 
> The way its going someone will get hurt, it is also creating diplomatic problems, and the aggressiveness by the protesters could easily backfire on them imo.   Whales are important but human life is important as well and the protesters appear to be acting with wreckless disgregard for both their own lives and the well being of members of the whaling crews.




Your thoughts mirror mine.

The behaviour of the protestors has that fascist green tinge to it that accompanies protests of this type, self righteous violence and aggravation for its own sake. This extends from the Antarctic to protests at Copenhagen, through to Davros and so called climate change. 

I've never been a great fan of the Japs, they should have apologised for atrocities in WW2 and never did. I don't mind if they eat whales, I'd just like them to harvest them efficiently as we do cattle and sheep, and not cull them to extinction.

Its the unlikeable fighting the unforgiven, as far as it goes for me. Beating the crap out of each other to exhaustion might be a good result.

gg


----------



## skc (7 January 2010)

nioka said:


> If we tell others what they must do then do we accept that they have the right to tell us what we can and can not do?.
> 
> Live and let live. ( unless you need it for food)




So true. The common focus seems to be what's right... and that's a debate that will never reach consensus. Instead the government should focus on what would work... how many to kill safely, what species to kill, and how to hunt humanely. And I am sure the inventive Japs will come up with how to "domesticate" the whales soon enough.


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 January 2010)

It reflects the imbalance in nature that has resulted from the evolution of a single intelligent species. A species that is not hunted for their skin, meat nor pleasure.


----------



## Who Dares Wins (7 January 2010)

I've said it before and I'll say it again

Whales are fish too!

I'm joking of course but you get the point - I'd hate for them to feel left out.

I have been to the Antarctic 4 times. Back in march 2005 at the end of the 3rd visit we were in the eastern Ross Sea and woke up one morning to several hundred if not a thousand minke whales around the boat. Honestly, they were as far as the eye could see in every direction.

They aren't endangered at all.


----------



## Calliope (7 January 2010)

Rich, spoilt, well funded brats behaving badly. Their aim is to harass the Japanese in the hope of getting them to retaliate so that they can cry foul. There is no way that the whaleboat could collide with the high speed , highly manoeuvrable, trimaran, unless it was the trimaran's fault.



> Former US television game show host Bob Barker donated five million US US dollars to help Sea Shepherd buy and fit out a former harpoon ship for its 2010 pursuit of Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean.
> 
> Hollywood businessman Ady Gil bankrolled a second vessel for the 2010 season -- a two-million dollar trimaran superboat originally known as Earthrace which claimed the world record for circumnavigating the globe.




http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...militant-antiwhaling-group-20100107-lwog.html


----------



## Ato (7 January 2010)

I support the Japanese in this case.


----------



## noco (7 January 2010)

Having worked on the Whaling Station at Tangalooma on Morten Island in the early 50's, I observed the slaughter of 660 Hump Back Whales in 11 weeks.

This was the quota allowed by the presiding Government of the day. After 10 or 11 years, the whaling company could only manage to bring in some 300.
They were literally killing them to extinction and it took decades for the whales to bred back to their oringinal numbers. Fortunately, the business of whaling  became unviable and the whaling station closed in 1961 or 1962.

It is inconceivable, that some people cannot differentiate between the killing of whales and the domesticated animals of cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry; the breeding if the latter for human consumption can be controlled where as the whales are in an open environment and must fend for themselves. 

To personally see a dead whale with its eyes still open, bought tears to my own eyes. Something I never want to see again. 

SAVE THE WHALES!!!!!!!!


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 January 2010)

If they're in international waters then they should adhere to international law. I'd support the protesters if such laws are being broken.

Likewise Australian waters = Australian law and I'd support the protesters if the law is being broken.

But if the Japanese aren't actually breaking any laws *on the basis that what they are doing is commercial hunting rather than "research"* then I would not support the protesters. Argue for change by all means, but if it's legal then they have a right to get on with it.

I may be wrong here, but I thought there was an international agreement that precludes the commercial hunting of whales? If that's the case then I'm on the protesters' side absolutely. 

If the Japanese won't take action in a graceful manner then perhaps trade sanctions would do the job? Worth considering boycotting anything Japanese to make the point - it's a very export driven economy and that would quickly bring them to their knees. It needs to be a global boycott, not just lcoal, for it to work however.

Must say though that regardless of views on the issue, the Ady Gil sure is an odd looking boat to see up close.


----------



## akkopower (7 January 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Your thoughts mirror mine.
> 
> 
> I've never been a great fan of the Japs, they should have apologised for atrocities in WW2 and never did. I don't mind if they eat whales, I'd just like them to harvest them efficiently as we do cattle and sheep, and not cull them to extinction.
> ...





Wow a townsvillian thinks a country which had two nuclear bombs dropped on it should, "apologised for atrocities in WW2".


----------



## Fishbulb (7 January 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Your thoughts mirror mine.
> 
> The behaviour of the protestors has that fascist green tinge to it that accompanies protests of this type, self righteous violence and aggravation for its own sake. This extends from the Antarctic to protests at Copenhagen, through to Davros and so called climate change.
> 
> ...





No point in any rebuttals here, the above post is best left to speak for itself.


----------



## BlingBling (7 January 2010)

I have mixed feelings about this issue and agree with arguments on both sides. Japanese eat the whole thing, where as back in the day the westerners just raped them for their blubber 

I think the sea shepherd and the idiot captain are just a bunch of attention seekers trying piss the Japanese off to do something bad.

What the people outside of Japan don't realise is that none of this is on Japanese TV. In the last 12 years I lived there, the only time we saw something about it was when a crew member died and they made it look like it was the sea shepherds fault.

Taiji is also another example where the general population does not know about the slaughter of dolphins. Rasta.. comes in all peace and love with a bunch of crying girls and thinks he has actually done something, in fact when all it did was set back the progress that had been made by other scientists & environmentalists in Japan.  And when they took dolphin & whale off school lunches they (Rasta & gang) claimed it!

Whale species are increasing in numbers. I thousands of them with my own eyes as they pass by us for 5 months of the year up here on the Nth coast of NSW & I love sharing the waves with the dolphins.

Surely there must be a species such as Minkies that might be able to be fished sustainably?

Finally 99% of Japanese people are in awe of whales and dolphins and don't want them to be killed and have no intention of eating them. Just a shame they can't find out about this so that they could lobby their govt to take action on these issues.


----------



## nioka (7 January 2010)

noco said:


> They were literally killing them to extinction !




Not exactly true. The whale Quotas were established to maintain the herd and were at a sustainable level. It was the greek shipping tycoon Onassis that put together a fleet of ex wartime shipping,ignored quotas and killed whales continuously until the decimation was to a point where whaling ceased because of the lack of whales. At that time we, (I was a factory manager of a station at that time) could not understand the disappearance of the whales and expected it was just a bad year. It was not until the Peruvian navy caught and impounded the Onassis fleet that the magnitude of the problem became evident.

For the whale herd to increase to near pre modern whaling numbers means that they are not now endangered and anti whaling is now based on the cuddly sentiment. 

Quotas properly supervised are reasonable now and they are an important food source.Each humpback seen on the east coast is 8 to 10 tonnes of edible oil and about the same in meat swimming along waiting to be harvested.

I've seen a lot of whales shot. The end is usually very quick. Greenpeace likes to keep showing the film of the odd one where the bomb didnt do the job but it is not often like that. Their interference with the whale chasers is causing shots to be fired without the chaser being in the ideal position and the result is not as good as the harpooner would like.


----------



## nioka (7 January 2010)

BlingBling said:


> where as back in the day the westerners just raped them for their blubber



In early sailing boat days the whales were only harvested for their blubber and at the same time cattle in Australia wre mainly produced for their fat. In the post war whaling nothing was wasted. There was the oil,used in margarine. That oil was not just from the blubber but from the whole whale. Meat was also packed for export. The rest was turned into high quality stock food, even the "soup'" was concentrated into a top quality stock food. The only waste was the balleen which had been used in early days as a stiffener in ladies corsets.

Remember that whales feed on krill which is itself a LIVING shrimp.

Save the shrimp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Calliope (7 January 2010)

noco said:


> .
> 
> It is inconceivable, that some people cannot differentiate between the killing of whales and the domesticated animals of cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry; the breeding if the latter for human consumption can be controlled where as the whales are in an open environment and must fend for themselves.




I take it then that you are opposed to commercial fishing. Perhaps there is some spiritual quality about whales (or is it just their size) that  makes us so passionate about them. Or is it because we enjoy catching and eating fish that we fool ourselves into believing that fish feel no pain when they are hooked and suffocated?

Or are we just hypocrites?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (7 January 2010)

nioka said:


> Remember that whales feed on krill which is itself a LIVING shrimp.
> 
> Save the shrimp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Nioka you have brought up a good point here. The whales are eating the food of fish which will see fish stocks decline if whales continue to breed unhindered. Expect more whales to hunted if fish decline.


----------



## jancha (7 January 2010)

nioka said:


> In early sailing boat days the whales were only harvested for their blubber and at the same time cattle in Australia wre mainly produced for their fat. In the post war whaling nothing was wasted. There was the oil,used in margarine. That oil was not just from the blubber but from the whole whale. Meat was also packed for export. The rest was turned into high quality stock food, even the "soup'" was concentrated into a top quality stock food. The only waste was the balleen which had been used in early days as a stiffener in ladies corsets.
> 
> Remember that whales feed on krill which is itself a LIVING shrimp.
> 
> Save the shrimp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




I want to go back to the early days & be a balleen so i can be a stiffener in the ladies corsets.


----------



## gordon2007 (7 January 2010)

I must say I'm quite surprised nobody has picked up on the fact he's not even australian. It cracks me up that paul watson constantly refers to kevin rudd to intervene. He also likes to spout off about australian law. In fact, barely anyone on the crew are australian.

Aside from that, I think he's borderline insane and will put anyone in harms way except for himself.


----------



## jancha (7 January 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> I must say I'm quite surprised nobody has picked up on the fact he's not even australian. It cracks me up that paul watson constantly refers to kevin rudd to intervene. He also likes to spout off about australian law. In fact, barely anyone on the crew are australian.
> 
> Aside from that, I think he's borderline insane and will put anyone in harms way except for himself.




Forget my previous post just being silly.
I fully agree with you Gordon2007. 
Even if the Japs were out of their waters Paul Watson should not have put the cat in front of a vessel that size. 
Completely & utterly reckless endangerment of innocent crew members.
He in my oppinion he should be charged.


----------



## Who Dares Wins (8 January 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> I must say I'm quite surprised nobody has picked up on the fact he's not even australian. It cracks me up that paul watson constantly refers to kevin rudd to intervene. He also likes to spout off about australian law. In fact, barely anyone on the crew are australian.....




Yes true, but i wonder if he's calling on the Australians because where the incident occurred is right in the middle of the Australian controlled sector of Antarctica? Apart from a very slim sector which the French control, Australia controls from the western Ross Sea all the way west to beyond Prydz Bay.

I notice Australia has asserted itself enough in recent years to have the 200 nautical mile limit around this coastal area of the Antarctic continent printed on Admiralty navigation charts as part of the Australian national EEZ (exclusive economic zone) which no other country has done for their respective sectors, so maybe now somebody is saying well if you are going to go against convention and say to the world its yours then start doing something to prove it by upholding law?

PS: I am anti Sea Shepard.


----------



## Who Dares Wins (8 January 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> .....If the Japanese won't take action in a graceful manner then perhaps trade sanctions would do the job? Worth considering boycotting anything Japanese to make the point - it's a very export driven economy and that would quickly bring them to their knees. It needs to be a global boycott, not just lcoal, for it to work however....




You're not serious, surely?

A trade boycott on Japan? Have you any idea how many other countries around the world would be brought to their knees? 75-80% of the vehicles on the road in New Zealand come from Japan. The 2nd highest consumer of seafood in the world per capita is Japan and they import most of it....I could go on.

Nice idea but lets be pragmatic aye?


----------



## condog (8 January 2010)

Wow great to see such a diverse range of opinions, Its interesting that the media protrays the anti-whaling agenda so strongly when in fact it may not be as well supported I thought it was....

I myself hate the thought of whales being slaughtered....but i respect that its just a judgement and there are others out there that think Im hypocritical as I digest my Fillet-Mignon....

Carl Barron the comedian put it well in his DVD......
"How do you think thiose tuna feel?.....ibet there not to happy its dolphin free?.......in fact i bet they want the f........... whole lot to be dolphin......."
Its true we as humans are so judgmental about food choices........

Theres logic in conservation of species and in protecting ecologies, but to cast judgements that one non-endangered animal is more worthy of living then others is crazy when you stop and think about it..........the true argument should be about the way they are killed and the ecology / species conservation if necesary.......not a judgement of what one race should eat.....as compared to another

Interesting debate, and possibly one that should be had on a much bigger stage then ASF


----------



## Calliope (8 January 2010)

Perhaps, if instead of harassing Japanese whalers engaged in earning their living like other commercial fishermen, the Sea Shepherd playboys should divert their attention to the big game fishermen operating out of Cairns. But maybe the playboys who love to torture the magnificent giant black marlin, are of the same ilk as those who fund Sea Shepherd. 



> Welcome to Cairns, Australia, the black marlin big game fishing capital of the world, the perfect destination to realise your expedition. The beauty and splendour of the World Heritage listed Tropical North Queensland and the Great Barrier Reef, once experienced is never forgotten.
> Game fishing for giant black marlin aboard modern sportsfishing boats, relaxing on a luxury mother ship and dining on freshly caught Coral Trout whilst sipping your favourite cocktail.


----------



## Mofra (8 January 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> I must say I'm quite surprised nobody has picked up on the fact he's not even australian. It cracks me up that paul watson constantly refers to kevin rudd to intervene. He also likes to spout off about australian law. In fact, barely anyone on the crew are australian.



He's asking for Australian assistance because the Japanese whalers are whaling in Australian territorial waters, in violation of international law.

It's a shame that our government is so pissweak they'll let other nations treat us with such blatent disregard. If the Japanese army started shooting kangaroos in the top end I doubt they'd intervene.


----------



## Mofra (8 January 2010)

Calliope said:


> the Sea Shepherd playboys should divert their attention to the big game fishermen operating out of Cairns.



Why? They're not doing anything wrong - legitimate fishing in Australian waters.


----------



## Dowdy (8 January 2010)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Nioka you have brought up a good point here. The whales are eating the food of fish which will see fish stocks decline if whales continue to breed unhindered. Expect more whales to hunted if fish decline.




That's flawed logic. There has been a natural balance for millions of years


----------



## awg (8 January 2010)

I think both Captains clearly guilty of "dangerous navigation", given the location.

I am not an expert in International Maritime law, however, someone could easily have died, which would have required formal investigation


----------



## Fishbulb (8 January 2010)

Dowdy said:


> That's flawed logic. There has been a natural balance for millions of years




True. And using your logic, some species die out. Evolution works right?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 January 2010)

condog said:


> Wow great to see such a diverse range of opinions, Its interesting that the media protrays the anti-whaling agenda so strongly when in fact it may not be as well supported I thought it was....
> 
> I myself hate the thought of whales being slaughtered....but i respect that its just a judgement and there are others out there that think Im hypocritical as I digest my Fillet-Mignon....
> 
> ...




Wise words, condog.

It is very difficult to argue against the emotive utterings around whales. 

An example closer to home is the hysteria accompanying the beaching of whales. Every person withing 10k of the beaching turns up to try and "rescue" the whale. 

The rescued whale with dodgy sonar inevitably contaminates the radar of more whales, causing a larger beaching a few days later.

Whales are sacrosanct. Roadkill is driven over on the way to the beach. KFC visited on the way home.

A thread on this from asf 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=367590#post367590

gg


----------



## Calliope (8 January 2010)

Mofra said:


> He's asking for Australian assistance because the Japanese whalers are whaling in Australian territorial waters, in violation of international law.




Australia *claims* sovereignty over these waters. A claim not recognised by most other countries, including Japan.




> *In 1994, Australia attempted to stop some of the Japanese whaling program by enforcing a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around the Australian Antarctic Territory. However, antarctic territories are not generally recognized internationally*. In particular, the Antarctic Treaty, to which Australia is a signatory, specifically states that all claims to antarctic territories remain unresolved while the treaty is in force. (The treaty was originally devised to prevent conflict between the USSR and USA during the cold war.) Legal advice obtained by the Australian government indicated that attempts to stop Japanese whaling in the Australian Antarctic Territory by resorting to international courts may, in fact, have led to Australia losing its claim to that territory.




http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Whale-hunting#Fishing


----------



## Timmy (8 January 2010)

Calliope said:


> Australia *claims* sovereignty over these waters. A claim not recognised by most other countries, including Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks for the link Calliope - good info.


----------



## Sdajii (8 January 2010)

Dowdy said:


> That's flawed logic. There has been a natural balance for millions of years




And if we wanted to we could restore that natural balance... which would require you, me and every other human ceasing to eat or breathe, let alone drive cars or use electricity. I tell you what, you go first and I'll go second, then it's just a few more billion people to convince.

The only argument for a ban on whaling is the cuddly one. Whales are a massive resource. They are a top predator, so overfishing will wipe them out more quickly than smaller fish, which means quotas need to be stuck to (we'll get the same problem with the unrestricted or overquotered harvesting of any species of sea creature, and we're seeing it worse now with many fish than we are now with many whales, because they have recovered). The 'don't eat wild animals, only go domestic' argument is absurd. Ever eaten any ocean fish? Squid? Shellfish? Only the tiniest amount of that is farmed, basically all of it at Woolies, Coles or your local fishmonger is wild caught.

It is true that if whales are not killed, they will eat more krill, which leaves less for fish, which means there is less fish for us to eat (or we could go more directly and harvest the krill for ourselves to eat, which would probably upset few people). A whale might be a mammal and more intelligent than your average sardine, but then again, so is a cow and so is a pig. If you don't like the thought of eating whales, fine, don't eat them, but we don't have a leg to stand on if we eat cows, pigs, chickens, squid and fish, yet condemn anyone who _responsibly and sustainably_ farms or hunts a species we don't want them to eat. Of course, the Japanese should be doing it legally (within quotas and within legal spacial boundaries).

Even if they are breaking the law, if protesters attack them, it is vigilante activity, which is illegal. If I see someone torturing a kitten, and I go and bash them up, I am in a lot of legal trouble - the fact that they were torturing a kitten doesn't get me off the hook. Two wrongs don't make a right, and vigilante activity is rarely looked favourably on by the law.

I am against illegal or unsustainable whaling, I am against Sea Shepherd. Regardless of my sentimental feelings, I respect anyone's right to responsibly eat whatever animal they choose, even if I would not do so myself.


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 January 2010)

Dowdy said:


> That's flawed logic. There has been a natural balance for millions of years



You will find Snake Pliskin has many abstract views.


----------



## Calliope (8 January 2010)

Mofra said:


> Why? They're not doing anything wrong - legitimate fishing in Australian waters.




Yes, but don't you think it strange that these rich playboys are legally allowed to torture black marlin just for the thrill of it. If they caught crocodiles on hooks   just for the thrill of it they would be arrested, and yet I have never heard of a marlin attacking a human.


----------



## Mofra (8 January 2010)

Calliope said:


> Australia *claims* sovereignty over these waters. A claim not recognised by most other countries, including Japan.
> 
> http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Whale-hunting#Fishing



Intersting quote, however it raises some big questions:

a.  If the whale hunt is legal, why would Japan continue to do so under the legal protection of "scientific research"? Perhaps a way of circumventing the IWC mandate of 1982:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/catches.htm

b.  The claim by Australia is in addition to the area being declared Whale Sancuary, recognised by the IWC.

b.  basically we are as a nation are making a claim then refusing to take any sort of action to back up the claim. Again, that sounds like political weakness.


----------



## Mofra (8 January 2010)

Calliope said:


> Yes, but don't you think it strange that these rich playboys are legally allowed to torture black marlin just for the thrill of it. If they caught crocodiles on hooks   just for the thrill of it they would be arrested, and yet I have never heard of a marlin attacking a human.



We can argue all sorts of perceived injustices, but legitimate fishing in an area where it is permitted is neither illegal nor could I as a fish-eater condemn it without becoming a hypocrite. 

I'm not sure all the clients are "rich playboys" either, but arguing semantics would derail the thread given I understand the point you are making.

I've eaten Chocodile before as well so I'm not aware of the conditions upon which they are allowed to be caught.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 January 2010)

Hunters and fishermen seem to be fair game for these politically correct times. 

I remember going fox hunting in the UK years ago, now one has to go the the USA if one wishes to hunt.

Folk like their food in a sanitised way, but behind every woolies and coles is a mountain of barborous slaughter to provide cling wrapped morsels for a hungry nation.

We are way too sanitised and have little understanding of how food is obtained. Visit a meatworks and then comment on whales.

Same with the Japanese. They are different and have a different world view. I don't agree with that view, but I'd be called racist if I expressed it less in greater specifics. 

I hope the Japs and the Greens beat the crap out of each other. 

gg


----------



## Sdajii (8 January 2010)

Mofra said:


> We can argue all sorts of perceived injustices, but legitimate fishing in an area where it is permitted is neither illegal nor could I as a fish-eater condemn it without becoming a hypocrite.
> 
> I'm not sure all the clients are "rich playboys" either, but arguing semantics would derail the thread given I understand the point you are making.
> 
> I've eaten Chocodile before as well so I'm not aware of the conditions upon which they are allowed to be caught.




One argument against sport fishing is that it involves impaling a fish's mouth on a barbed hook, dragging it through the water by that barbed hook, as it struggles, sometimes for hours, then holding it out of water (somewhat like us being dragged around with a barbed spike through our lip then held underwater briefly) and then thrown back, just for fun. I think it is silly to complain about fishing for food, but those who say sport fishing is inhumane certainly do have a valid case. If people wanted to do the same type of thing with any other animal, there would be a massive outcry, but the fishing culture is so widespread that it is able to resist the opposing public opinion.

I personally love fishing, but my choice is to only fish for food. If I don't want want it in my belly, I don't want to catch it. That's just a personal choice though.

Crocodile meat in Australia is farmed. It's a by product of the skin farms. It's my second favourite white meat (cat comes first). Yum!


----------



## Dowdy (8 January 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> True. And using your logic, some species die out. Evolution works right?




Yes it does. Before humans were around species died out naturally and others flourished and new species spawned to adapt to a new natural environment. 





Sdajii said:


> The only argument for a ban on whaling is the cuddly one. Whales are a massive resource. *They are a top predator*




Whales aren't considered predators. Don't know where you got that info, unless you just made that up? 



> It is true that if whales are not killed, they will eat more krill, which leaves less for fish, which means there is less fish for us to eat (or we could go more directly and harvest the krill for ourselves to eat, which would probably upset few people).




That's not true. Do you have any source to suggest that krill population is being threatened since whales were considered protected? Besides they also eat plankton aswell, you know...




I'm against what the protesters are doing. Right intentions but wrong approach. Although, ironically, if they died when that cool stealth boat got rammed it would of almost certainly made the governments do something straight away.


----------



## Fishbulb (8 January 2010)

Dowdy said:


> Yes it does. Before humans were around species died out naturally and others flourished and new species spawned to adapt to a new natural environment.




So, according to you and others like you, humans are an unnatural species who are somehow remote and removed not only from nature, but from the entire evolutionary cycle?




I don't thnk so.


----------



## derty (8 January 2010)

Sdajii said:


> It is true that if whales are not killed, they will eat more krill, which leaves less for fish, which means there is less fish for us to eat (or we could go more directly and harvest the krill for ourselves to eat, which would probably upset few people).




Surely the logic here should be; Whale numbers are vastly reduced. Fish stocks are vastly reduced. Hence the krill predators are vastly reduced and therefore krill should be more numerous than ever and be able to support, with surplus, both whale and fish populations.


----------



## Sdajii (8 January 2010)

Oh for Pete's sake. If you want to split hairs, okay.

Whales eat krill. If you want to say that their mode of catching these living animals does not constitute predation, fine, whatever. The fact is, they are massive animals, they have no natural predators, and a biological response to this is not to have rapid reproduction or growth. Thus, they are vulnerable to rapid harvesting, as is any top predator (or animal which is very large with a slow reproductive rate if you want to split hairs, or if you want to use biology jargon, is a k-selected species rather than an r-selected species).

Yes, some whales eat phytoplankton, yes, you can split hairs if you like. Others (Orcas) are undeniably predatory in every sense.

Krill is not being 'threatened' with extinction, but there is plenty of research to show that the whale population affects the krill population, and in any case it's a nobrainer. Increase the numbers of the thing that eats something else, and you generally reduce the population of the thing that gets eaten. Noticed the number of tuna in the sea going down? Yeah, that's because we're eating them. Same thing.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 January 2010)

derty said:


> Surely the logic here should be; Whale numbers are vastly reduced. Fish stocks are vastly reduced. Hence the krill predators are vastly reduced and therefore krill should be more numerous than ever and be able to support, with surplus, both whale and fish populations.




zactly, I'm glad someone else pointed it out.

Supply and demand.

gg


----------



## Sdajii (8 January 2010)

derty said:


> Surely the logic here should be; Whale numbers are vastly reduced. Fish stocks are vastly reduced. Hence the krill predators are vastly reduced and therefore krill should be more numerous than ever and be able to support, with surplus, both whale and fish populations.




In the short term, you could look at it like that, but that's not relevant to the equilibrium we should be aiming for. No point looking at the current situation and basing your ongoing strategy on it. That's what we have traditionally done with wild fish harvesting for example, and look what that has done to the wild fish populations.

Slightly less on topic, pollution and climate changes have been affecting krill numbers negatively, although I question the research because it's difficult to properly account for the affects of fluctuating whale populations, etc, so measuring any particular variable's affect is unreliable.


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 January 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> So, according to you and others like you, *humans are **an unnatural species who are somehow remote and removed* not only *from nature*, but from the entire evolutionary cycle?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm one of those believers.


----------



## Fishbulb (8 January 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> I'm one of those believers.




Oh there's plenty, I know that. But unfortunately, they are deluded, megalomaniacal in a lot of cases, and believe they can control a planet's weather cycles.


----------



## Calliope (8 January 2010)

Dowdy said:


> Whales aren't considered predators. Don't know where you got that info, unless you just made that up?






> Minke Whales are known to eat a wide range of fish species including krill, capeline, herring, sand lance, mackerel, gadoids, cod, saithe and haddock (Haug et al, 1996). Minke Whales are estimated to consume 633,000 tons of Atlantic herring per year in part of Northeast Atlantic (Folkow et al, 1997). In the Barents Sea, it is estimated that a net economic loss of five tons of cod and herring per fishery results from every additional Minke Whale in the population due the fish consumption of the single whale (Schweder, et al, 2000).




If that's not a predator, it will do until one comes along.


----------



## Nyden (8 January 2010)

Sdajii said:


> Crocodile meat in Australia is farmed. It's a by product of the skin farms. It's my second favourite white meat (cat comes first). Yum!




You actually *eat cat*? Where do you get this cat meat from? Do you have a pile of flea-collars in your recycling bin, or is there perhaps an Asian cuisine store that has it? We all know what goes into Chinese take out, after all 

Honestly, I've never seen cat meat, ever, anywhere!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 January 2010)

Nyden said:


> You actually *eat cat*? Where do you get this cat meat from? Do you have a pile of flea-collars in your recycling bin, or is there perhaps an Asian cuisine store that has it? We all know what goes into Chinese take out, after all
> 
> Honestly, I've never seen cat meat, ever, anywhere!




The meat comes from cats, I believe.

Travel to Vietnam, China or E.Timor.

Its as common there as basket eaters in Balmain.

gg


----------



## nioka (8 January 2010)

Calliope said:


> If that's not a predator, it will do until one comes along.




I used to sample the stomach contents of whales for the CSIRO. The story that the whales don't eat during the migration is false. They regularly contain pilchards and herring and at times some sea birds. Probably the seabirds were ingested by being in the wrong place at the time, probably feeding on the same fish as the whales.

I have often seen whales in a feeding frenzy.Particularly Sei whales but plenty of humpbacks also.

The Sperm whale eats mainly the giant squid. (And Moby dick if available!!!)

From a recent story of humpback whales feeding; 

"Astonishing pictures show how a Devon kayaker got up close and personal with a humpback whale feeding frenzy
By David Wilkes
Last updated at 10:40 AM on 05th January 2010
Comments (63) Add to My Stories 
When you’re in a tiny kayak and a 40-ton giant of the deep decides he’s a bit peckish, the sensible option is to scarper as fast as your paddle can carry you.
But wildlife photographer Duncan Murrell does the opposite. To capture images of humpback whales feeding and surging through the surf off Alaska, he often ventures within 15ft of the fearsome creatures.
The humpbacks, which can grow to more than 50ft, spend most of their time under water and can dive for up to 30 minutes, so being in the right place at the right time to see them requires skill and luck. 
Mr Murrell, 56, from Paignton, Devon, anticipates where they will surface by watching out for bubbles – a sign that a group of humpbacks are working together to capture a shoal of herring.
One whale swims in a circle while blowing bubbles under the fish. When the bubbles rise, the herring form into a tight ball in the centre of the circle.
Other whales grunt and scream to scare the herring to the surface, and in a wall of spray they all then rise with their huge mouths open to enjoy their feast. On average, one humpback eats around 5,000lb of plankton, krill and fish a day.
‘When the feeding group explodes into view I have only a split second to decide whether I should either have my camera in my hands or my paddle to take evasive action,’ said Mr Murrell. ‘Their habit of leaping out of the water without warning provides the ultimate adrenaline rush.’ "


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...eding-frenzy---taken-kayak.html#ixzz0bypbCCUw


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...eding-frenzy---taken-kayak.html#ixzz0bypbCCUw


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 January 2010)

Jeez, where is Jonah,

He hasn't posted on ASF for ages now.

Krill out Jonah, pride your swallow and post again.

gg


----------



## nioka (8 January 2010)

nioka said:


> On average, one humpback eats around 5,000lb of plankton, krill and fish a day.




5,000 pounds a day. Now that is some predator.


----------



## Nyden (8 January 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The meat comes from cats, I believe.
> 
> Travel to Vietnam, China or E.Timor.
> 
> ...




Are these domesticated animals that go missing, or do they have cat farms? I still can't envision the 'source' for all of these cats!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 January 2010)

Nyden said:


> Are these domesticated animals that go missing, or do they have cat farms? I still can't envision the 'source' for all of these cats!




Dogs and cats are kept much as goats or other animals are, roaming free until needed.

Then one fine night they are put on a chain or in a cage.

The cat or dog usually knows whats up. Its pitiful to hear their yelps once tied up or caged. 

This is off topic though.

Anyone seen Jonah?

gg


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (8 January 2010)

Dowdy said:


> That's flawed logic. There has been a natural balance for millions of years



The Japanese eat fish like you could not believe. IF the fish decline more whales will be eaten. The natural balance is not a given perfect set of conditions.


----------



## Sdajii (8 January 2010)

Nyden said:


> You actually *eat cat*? Where do you get this cat meat from? Do you have a pile of flea-collars in your recycling bin, or is there perhaps an Asian cuisine store that has it? We all know what goes into Chinese take out, after all
> 
> Honestly, I've never seen cat meat, ever, anywhere!




Not often, but every chance I get (well, not _every_ chance, I mean, I don't typically go galloping towards every cat I see on the street, but within reason...). I've never actually cooked cat myself (well, I vaguely remember helping to cook one, I think I built the fire and might have poured some oil, even shaken the pan a little at one point). I'm sure you've seen cat meat plenty of times, usually wandering around, sometimes squashed on the road (and typically wasted, left to rot! What a shame!).

If I was going to go for domestic cats, I think the collars would go into the regular garbage rather than the recycling 

BBQ cat is the most delicious meat I have ever eaten. As I said, I don't go chasing the cats on the street, but if I'm hungry the thought does sometimes cross my mind! My Asian friends think I must secretly be part Asian :lol:

Back on topic, as I said, the only reason to oppose sustainable whaling is the cuddly factor (unless you want us all to be vegans, in which case I will send you a straight jacket). Strangely, some claim otherwise, so, it would be interesting to pose the question: If whaling was done in a completely sustainable way, with quotas strictly kept to, and it was done as humanely as possible, would you still oppose it?

Those massive predators (I hope I'm now allowed to use the term!) consume a correspondingly massive amount of food, which could otherwise be eaten by a starving human population, not to mention the whales themselves. It seems strange to eat cows, pigs, tuna and oysters, yet say "Oh no, you can't eat a whale". Similarly, it seems strange that people have such an aversion to eating animals such as horses, yet gobble down steak, chops and sausages made from other animals of the same paddock. Similarly, it is amazing that people will tuck into their prawns and oysters, yet all but vomit at the thought of eating beetles or grasshoppers (both of which are also delicious!).

In a world full of starvation, it seems odd to have a "Steak and three vegetables is as adventurous as my diet gets" attitude. There is a whole world of cullinary adventure if you want to take off your blindfold.


----------



## Timmy (8 January 2010)

Sdajii said:


> In a world full of starvation, it seems odd to have a "Steak and three vegetables is as adventurous as my diet gets" attitude. There is a whole world of cullinary adventure if you want to take off your blindfold.




Bit off topic, but I think solving, or even understanding, the issues of "a world full of starvation" are only tenuously, if at all, related to an unadventurous attitude to diet.


----------



## Logique (8 January 2010)

Side with Nioka on this. 

The protesters actions are tantamount to eco-terrorism. Patiently we wait for the Rudd government to denounce them, but the denunciation doesn't come. So now the question must be - is this state-sponsored eco-terrorism?

Now if they were Chinese whaling ships - it might be different. And the harrassment of the Japanese over whaling probably plays pretty well in Beijing.


----------



## Happy (8 January 2010)

If we cannot beat them why don’t we join them, catch all the whales in our territorial waters and sell them to Japanese ( of course for scientific purposes ).

If we can sell education to Indians we surely can sell some whales.
With no/hardly any whales left in our waters they can go somewhere else and others can talk and talk and talk on UN meetings regarding whaling.
(With this little issue fixed, our politicians can do some real work and fix few things at home)

There were few comments that unchecked population of anything will lead to overpopulation (looks that we are not immune to this disease either), so in my opinion some whaling is OK as well as culling wombats, kangaroos, crocodiles, camels, brumbies and few other things like flying foxes, many parrots and list goes on…


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 January 2010)

Happy said:


> There were few comments that unchecked population of anything will lead to overpopulation (looks that we are not immune to this disease either), so in my opinion some whaling is OK as well as culling wombats, kangaroos, crocodiles, camels, brumbies and few other things like flying foxes, many parrots and list goes on…




What a terrible fate having a human being decide whether another animal lives or dies. Cover my face as the animals die.


----------



## Happy (8 January 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> What a terrible fate having a human being decide whether another animal lives or dies. Cover my face as the animals die.





Well, we don't have to, but over-population of anything means slow hunger death, so all we do is try to help.

I may add that not all our decisions time proved correct, but we try our best, at least we say we do


----------



## drsmith (8 January 2010)

Sdajii said:


> BBQ cat is the most delicious meat I have ever eaten. As I said, I don't go chasing the cats on the street, but if I'm hungry the thought does sometimes cross my mind!



If you catch one that way it would be worth giving the olympic track and field selection panel a call.


----------



## nunthewiser (8 January 2010)

Anyone tried Dolphin ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 January 2010)

Who Dares Wins said:


> You're not serious, surely?
> 
> A trade boycott on Japan? Have you any idea how many other countries around the world would be brought to their knees? 75-80% of the vehicles on the road in New Zealand come from Japan. The 2nd highest consumer of seafood in the world per capita is Japan and they import most of it....I could go on.
> 
> Nice idea but lets be pragmatic aye?



Indeed it would impact other countries. But the impact on Japan would be absolutely greater than on anyone else - Japan is _very_ dependent on trade and is essentially stuffed without it. Give it a week or two and we'll see the Japanese at the negotiating table and that's the end of whale wars.

I doubt that too many cars in NZ couldn't be made to last another week or two. And most things destined for Japan could be held in storage then shipped when the boycott ends. We're talking about something that would almost certainly be finished in a matter of a few weeks at most - I just can't believe the Japanese would be prepared to wreck their entire country for the sake of a few whales that most don't eat anyway.

The point of any such action however isn't about saving the whales. *It's about enforcing international law if Japan is in fact breaking such laws*.

Boycotting Iran, Iraq or any other ME oil producer is arguably somewhat more serious for the world than boycotting Japan. Plenty of non-Japanese car manufacturers and consumers but there aren't too many sources of crude oil. That hasn't stopped action against Iran in the past, and nor did it stop a war in Iraq.


----------



## IFocus (8 January 2010)

The discussion about whaling is usually an emotional one and so it should be.

Seems the kill every thing for food mob are alive and ignorant. Sorry but you were born a century or two to late.

The hunting of whales by the Japanese is largely symbolic as is the protest against whaling.

Both sides have their own agenda little of which has been discussed here already.

As for those who want to kiss Japanese butt and pontificate the food aspect I envy that you must be blissfully unaware of their record on the destruction of any number of wild fish stocks in many fishery's around the globe. 

This often with the complicit approval of the Japanese government.

Humor me and google "fish stocks depletion" or collapse fish or what ever then find some thing that says every thing about our oceans, eco systems, etc is just fine.

The general trend for wild fish depletion is down horribly down and this couples with the eventual break down of marine eco systems  as the global human population and technology to catch fish expands at an ever increasing rate.

The end game for the human species is deeply connected with the earths oceans.

There is a heavy debate within the green movements as to the value of whale protests that try to connect to the general issue of the global oceans health. 

The continued expansion of human populations and increase impact on the natural resources around us will eventually choke the environment that sustains our existence. This is coming sooner rather than later.

Whats the answer? I don't know, but I do know the numbers are very depressing.  

Will the protests in the southern ocean fix / solve the problem?

I think its unlikely but I fully endorse and support those with the courage and balls to have a go and be the sight ray of hope for the future generations.


----------



## Dowdy (8 January 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> So, according to you and others like you, humans are an unnatural species who are somehow remote and removed not only from nature, but from the entire evolutionary cycle?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I don't think so either because now you're just putting word in my mouth to suit your weak argument


----------



## CanOz (8 January 2010)

:iagree: with iFocus

Your a good man Focus!

The Japanese are not my favorite at the moment.

CanOz


----------



## Calliope (9 January 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> The point of any such action however isn't about saving the whales. *It's about enforcing international law if Japan is in fact breaking such laws*




I suggest you get this point right before you start talking about boycotts. If Japan (or Norway or Iceland) are breaking any International Laws, it is strange that the countries that object to people eating whale meat haven't taken them to the International Court, instead of threatening to. Maybe it's because they haven't got a case.

A trade boycott of Japan is just nonsense. An embargo on the export of our raw materials to Japan would harm us far more than it would harm them. And what would it achieve? You say it is not about saving the whales. Is it then because they are operating in waters over which we have a dubious claim?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 January 2010)

Most countries only obey international laws when it suits them.

the EU is having problems with member nations like Ireland and France who flout decisions made in Brussels.

The Chinese and Japanese just use international laws when it suits them.

The US and Australia are no different.

International Laws are a crock of **** and matter little in the course of events.

If international laws cannot prevent war in Darfur or the exploitation of Pakistani workers in the emirates, how on earth can they protect whales in the Antarctic. 

I can see where the Greens and Sea Shepherds are coming from. direct action is the only option.

gg


----------



## Calliope (9 January 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I can see where the Greens and Sea Shepherds are coming from. direct action is the only option.




A belief that whales are sacred creatures, or a hatred of the Japanese does not justify hooliganism on the high seas.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 January 2010)

Keep going and by 2050 it will have sorted itself out. Nothing left to catch, and not many humans left to do any catching.


----------



## Calliope (9 January 2010)

In Queensland the fruit bat is revered as a cute cuddly protected critter by some and reviled by others as a pest.

In New Caledonia it is loved by everybody and is featured on the menus of restaurants in Noumea. I believe it is good tucker.

It just goes to show that what is sacred to some is just a meal to others.


----------



## GumbyLearner (9 January 2010)

Same message should go to the Japanese paper companies and the foreign pines planted in Australia that have exterminated Koala habitats in th e past. Emphasize peace as much as you want in Japan and get David Suzuki (the state supported Canadian apologist know-it-all) to make as many docos as he wants about nature. But in the end you have killed too many Koalas. What a smokescreen! Japanese people buy Whale burgers at Fast food joints in Japan and that has not changed! PEACE where??? In Japan??? What about the rest of the world? Self-centered *dork* consumers.


----------



## gav (9 January 2010)

_"Japan is Australia's largest export market, accounting for $52.6 billion in 2008–09"_

http://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/AboutDIISR/FactSheets/Pages/Australia'sExportsFactSheet.aspx

And the basket weavers wonder why our govt does nothing...


----------



## GumbyLearner (9 January 2010)

akkopower said:


> Wow a townsvillian thinks a country which had two nuclear bombs dropped on it should, "apologised for atrocities in WW2".




I agree GG.

The Japanese government should have apologised by now for past atrocities.
Hirihito and his vassals should have been held to account for what happened. 
It's also important to remember that Japan only surrendered after the 2nd Atomic Weapon was dropped. Which is quite mad in itself if you take a minute to think about it. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

_The Japanese military during the 1930s and 1940s is often compared to the military of Nazi Germany during 1933–45 because of the sheer scale of suffering. Much of the controversy regarding Japan's role in World War II revolves around the death rates of prisoners of war and civilians under Japanese occupation. The historian Chalmers Johnson has written that:

    It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians [i.e. Soviet citizens]; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers—and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%.[18]

According to the findings of the Tokyo Tribunal, the death rate among POWs from Asian countries, held by Japan was 27.1%.[19] The death rate of Chinese POWs was much higher because—under a directive ratified on August 5, 1937 by Emperor Hirohito—the constraints of international law on treatment of those prisoners was removed.[20] Only 56 Chinese POWs were released after the surrender of Japan.[21]_

There is also the issue of "Comfort Women" many of whom were Korean and were raped. A formal apology and offer of compensation has not eventuated and many of these terrorized victims have now passed away.


There is also the Rape of Nanking to consider.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

_The Nanking Massacre or Nanjing Massacre, also known as the Rape of Nanking, refers to a six-week period following the Japanese capture of the city of Nanjing (Nanking), the former capital of the Republic of China, on December 9, 1937. During this period, hundreds of thousands of civilians were murdered and 20,000–80,000 women were raped [1] by soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army.[2][3] The massacre remains a contentious political issue, as various aspects of it have been disputed by some historical revisionists and Japanese nationalists,[3] who have claimed that the massacre has been either exaggerated or wholly fabricated for propaganda purposes. As a result of the nationalist efforts to deny or rationalize the war crimes, the controversy created surrounding the massacre remains a stumbling block in Sino-Japanese relations, as well as Japanese relations with other Asia-Pacific nations such as South Korea and the Philippines._

The prayer and worship of war criminals recently by former PM Koizumi at Yakusuni shrine has also opened many old wounds and bad memories for many who suffered under a nationalistic expansionist regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junichiro_Koizumi 

Recently the Japanese government has tried to lay claim to the Dokdo Islets and its surrounds in the East Sea. Through dodgy historiography revisionism they claim the islands as Takeshima as their own sovereign territory. The photo of the Islets appears on many Japanese Public School History textbooks with the title Takeshima. Even though there are numerous primary evidence historical sources centuries old authored by Japanese historians that the islands are Korean territory.

IMO the Australian government should make it very clear what are the territorial waters of Australia. And prevent the plunder of our territorial waters by Japanese whaling boats.

Anyway back to the basket-weaving.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 January 2010)

gav said:


> _"Japan is Australia's largest export market, accounting for $52.6 billion in 2008–09"_
> 
> http://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/AboutDIISR/FactSheets/Pages/Australia'sExportsFactSheet.aspx
> 
> And the basket weavers wonder why our govt does nothing...



Money does, unfortunately, determine the outcome of just about everything.

It wouldn't actually cost us $52.6 billion though, unless you expect the Japanese to have their entire economy run aground for a full 12 months for the sake of eating a few whales. Possible but unlikely.


----------



## nioka (9 January 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> the foreign pines planted in Australia that have exterminated Koala habitats in th e past. Emphasize peace as much as you want in Japan and get David Suzuki (the state supported Canadian apologist know-it-all) to make as many docos as he wants about nature. But in the end you have killed too many Koalas.




In part you can blame the greenies for the pine forrests and the loss of many koala fodder. By the continual theft from the foresty department of native forrests for national parks they have forced the forestry industry towards,clear felling, monoculture and pine trees. If sustainable harvesting of native forrests had been promoted then there would still be more native forests. Same could apply to whaling. The whale watch industry creates no value apart from entertainment. You cant be entertained if you are starving. only food can do that. I whalc consumes 5000lbs food a day. One whale equals 20 tonnes of food.

At one stage in my early career I was hired by the royal family in Tonga to design a whaling station for Tonga with the main aim to supply food for the Tongans. I also did the same for the Cook Islands. The jobs fell through because of the demise of the whales.

P.S. The Tongans never paid their bill.


----------



## Ato (9 January 2010)

As has been pointed out, the waters are not Australian territory.


----------



## MRC & Co (10 January 2010)

Completely support them, infact, had the missus help financially back them.


----------



## prawn_86 (10 January 2010)

Ato said:


> As has been pointed out, the waters are not Australian territory.




What? 

Can you elaborate on this further? As far as i was aware they are hunting in Australian controlled waters...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 January 2010)

As far as I know Australia has juristiction in those waters.

gg


----------



## kincella (10 January 2010)

Piers Akerman states there is no jurisdiction...it is just all another furphy....
maybe someone more knowledgeable on the subject should spell it out...
otherwise it will be seen as just another meaningless promise and waste of taxpayers money by the current govt....
extract.....the full article is quite interesting...

Before the Rudd government wastes more taxpayers' money pandering to the Greens and the extreme Left, it should consider some facts about Japanese whaling and the aggressive strategy pursued by the Sea Shepherd organisation and its leading light, Paul Watson.

*****Australia's jurisdiction over the area of the Southern Ocean it claims as territorial waters is not recognised by the Japanese, nor by most other nations. It was a handy construct to ease the minds of the population last century when colonial land-grabs were still all the rage.

Australia's claim is meaningless.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...es-a-little-late/story-e6frezz0-1225817636187

ps I thought that little 2 million dollar boat was cute....and smart....pity greenpeace can afford to waste 2 million bucks ...just like that


----------



## Calliope (10 January 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> As far as I know Australia has juristiction in those waters.
> 
> gg




I assume you mean jurisdiction. Australia *claims * jurisdiction of the zone extending 200 nautical miles north of the coastline of Australia's *claimed* Antarctic Territories.

Our *claim* incidentally is recognised by only four other countries (UK, New Zealand, Norway and France*, and certainly not Japan.



> The Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT) is the part of Antarctica claimed by Australia and is the largest territory of Antarctica claimed by any nation. The claim is formally recognised by only four States,* each of which also has a claim over part of the Antarctic*



 (Wikipedia)(my emphasis)

* Thieves stick together.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 January 2010)

Calliope said:


> I assume you mean jurisdiction. Australia *claims * jurisdiction of the zone extending 200 nautical miles north of the coastline of Australia's *claimed* Antarctic Territories.
> 
> Our *claim* incidentally is recognised by only four other countries (UK, New Zealand, Norway and France*, and certainly not Japan.
> 
> ...




My apologiies, jurisdiction, 

gg


----------



## Logique (11 January 2010)

It's about time someone stood up to the Headmistress from St Trinians.  
If I wasn't on Japan's side before I certainly would be now.

*Japan pins whale row on Gillard *
from Peter Alford, Tokyo correspondent, The Australian January 11, 2010,  link:  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e-row-on-gillard/story-e6frg6nf-1225817884055



> JAPAN has risked an open breach with the Rudd government by hitting back hard at Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard's handling of last week's whaling confrontation in the Southern Ocean.
> Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials have accused Ms Gillard of aggravating the whaling controversy between Tokyo and Canberra, and called for Australian action to prevent further illegal activities by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.
> 
> The officials warned a senior Australian diplomat on Friday that Ms Gillard's statements immediately before and after the collision between Sea Shepherd's speedboat and a Japanese whaling ship were inflaming public opinion in Japan and making diplomatic resolution of the underlying dispute harder to realise
> ...


----------



## Mofra (11 January 2010)

Calliope said:


> *A belief that whales are sacred creatures*, or a hatred of the Japanese does not justify hooliganism on the high seas.



Generalisations are rarely correct


----------



## Ageo (12 January 2010)

Any *sustainable* hunting is the right approach. 

A good example is with Elephants.

In Kenya elephant hunting has been banned for 30 yrs and numbers are dangerously low due to poaching and mismanagement.
Zimbabwe on the other hand has had hunting quotas for elephants for yrs and numbers are very healthy.

When something is a resource and a valuable 1 you would want that resource to last forever and with the right management it can only be a good thing.

Greenies have nothing better else to do than stop everyone doing anything.


----------



## Duckman#72 (12 January 2010)

The anti-whaling protesters need to be aware that they don't have unlimited goodwill from the general public. 

Every statement/comment/media release that they come up with that isn't 100% correct, erodes the positive sentiments many people have for the Sea Shepherd.

Everyone knows that they taunt/harrass/irritate and provoke the Japanese on the open sea. We know it, they know it, the Japanese know it......why don't they admit and openly acknowledge their tactics. I would think a lot more of them if they didn't trot out the standard lines ..... "We are only there to observe. We are a peaceful organisation. We have no idea why we were attacked." I'm surprised that there hasn't already been a few harpoons rocketed into the Captains wheelhouse. 

Now it seems that despite The Sea Shepherd saying the Batmobile Boat has sunk, the Japanese are showing pictures of it still floating and leaking an oil/fuel like substance. The Japanese even say they have picked up some of the floating debris.

The problem with the Sea Shepherd has been their past liberal use of honesty and the truth. Their media advisers need to make them aware that it is almost impossible to run with the hare and chase with the hounds.

Duckman


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2010)

Two things are high on the agenda of the extreme greens. One is to stop whaling and the other is to stop the export of coal.



> Criticising Japan for killing a relatively small number of whales allows the green extreme to attack Asia's first successful capitalist economy and a major customer for Australia's energy exports.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...rstandably-upset/story-e6frg71x-1225818207987


----------



## Sdajii (13 January 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> The anti-whaling protesters need to be aware that they don't have unlimited goodwill from the general public.
> 
> Every statement/comment/media release that they come up with that isn't 100% correct, erodes the positive sentiments many people have for the Sea Shepherd.




I think that boat has pretty much sailed. People with a brain know that most tree huggers will say whatever sounds good, regardless of the truth. You then have a few decent biologists who tell it as it is, but they aren't usually listened to because they don't take up physically spectacular methods like attacking ships on open waters, or even marching in the street with a banner. Their words are also factual rather than sensationalistic, so the media isn't as interested.

On the other hand, the other side (economists, government, whale consumers (researchers?  ) etc tell an equally untrue story according to their own bias. Ultimately, the media becomes polarised between stories on either side of the truth, and unless you are in the relevant field you don't usually have much understanding of what is going on.

When it comes to whaling, you have one side saying whales are critically endangered and can not be harvested (a false story to achieve their goal of stopping people from killing a creature that apparently has more right to live than a fish, cow or pig) and on the other side there are people who will just catch whales because they want to eat them. It is very rare to hear anything rational about whaling.


----------



## Mr J (13 January 2010)

Good summary of any issue really.


----------



## gooner (13 January 2010)

From a taste perspective, it is actually quite chewy, so not a big fan. Tuna, Salmon and eel sashimi/sushi is much nicer.


----------



## nioka (13 January 2010)

Sdajii said:


> It is very rare to hear anything rational about whaling.




Could you please point out any statement that I have made on this topic that is not rational, or factual. 

As an ex whaler I accepted the need for conservation at the time that whaling ceased. I state that whale numbers have recovered to a point where whaling could be carried out on a sustainable basis. I stated that it was the cuddly factor that was behind a lot of sentiment. I stated that whales are a large food reserve. I stated the amount of food that the whales themselves consume.

All actual facts that can not be disputed. All rational statements from someone that has "been there and done that".


----------



## Mofra (13 January 2010)

Sdajii said:


> When it comes to whaling, you have one side saying whales are critically endangered and can not be harvested (a false story to achieve their goal of stopping people from killing a creature that apparently has more right to live than a fish, cow or pig) and on the other side there are people who will just catch whales because they want to eat them.



True, although I believe for many people the location of the whaling (a declared reserve under the guidelines of Whaling's own international body) is more of an issue. I suspect people would be far more accepting of coastal whaling operations that are carried out in a nation's own EEZ, especially in countries like Japan and Norway which have some traditional basis for consumption of whale blubber.

Now, if anyone could point me in the direction of the results all this "Scientific Research" the Japanese are doing, that would be great...


----------



## Sdajii (13 January 2010)

nioka said:


> Could you please point out any statement that I have made on this topic that is not rational, or factual.
> 
> As an ex whaler I accepted the need for conservation at the time that whaling ceased. I state that whale numbers have recovered to a point where whaling could be carried out on a sustainable basis. I stated that it was the cuddly factor that was behind a lot of sentiment. I stated that whales are a large food reserve. I stated the amount of food that the whales themselves consume.
> 
> All actual facts that can not be disputed. All rational statements from someone that has "been there and done that".




To facetiously respond to your question: Could you please point out where I said "Everything everyone has ever said is crap"?

I said that you rarely hear anything rational, I pointed out that most of what you hear comes from tree huggers or economists, and that people in the know do exist, but are relatively rare and are even more rarely publicised by the media. Obviously as an ex whaler you are an exception and more informed than the vast majority of people - you are the exception I was talking about, to the generalisation I was making. It looks like you know what you're talking about, and I agree entirely that sustainable whaling is (rationally) an unquestionable possibility which would allow more food to be produced without risk of extinctions. The two problems are the 'cuddly factor' as you put it, and the greed of whalers (who usually don't want to stick to reasonable quotas, as is the case with many fisheries). The exact same issues exist with seals, and many other 'cuddly factor' animals, and the reason we stand by in relative silence while fish species are taken beyond sustainable levels is that they aren't as cuddly.


----------



## DocK (13 January 2010)

I eat steak, bacon, lamb chops, fish etc and have no problem with killing animals for food.  I also buy free range eggs and would boycott any meat product if I was aware that the animal had been killed inhumanely, or kept in cruel circumstances.  Perhaps that makes me a hypocrite, but I feel I'm among many who see no problem with eating animals that have been farmed for that purpose, kept in agreeable circumstances and then killed as humanely (read painlessly/quickly) as possible.

My issues with whaling are:

1.  Yes they are "cuddly", but so are lambs, and I eat those.  Perhaps the issue is that they are not "farmed" but are spectacular giants of the ocean credited with having greater intelligence than fish.  Dunno, but if it were possible to domesticate and breed them in a farmed fashion, like cows, pigs, chickens etc - I wouldn't have such a problem seeing them as "food".

2.  They are being hunted in waters far from the territorial waters of the country of the whalers.  Whether Australia has a legal claim to the waters or not, they are international waters, not Japan's, and are supposed to be protected waters - regardless of ownership.

3.  I'm not an expert, I will freely admit, but it seems to me that the method of harpooning whales to kill them leads to a slow, painful death, and would not be classed as "humane" to most people.  Footage shown by media (and I'll admit there would be a bias in what footage is seen) often shows baby whales next to the mother whale just harpooned - would they survive or perish?  At least farmed animal's offspring are weaned prior to the slaughter of the parent.

4.  While I support the protestors purpose, I don't agree with their methods, and agree that the truth is being used quite selectively by them.  Reports of them trying to foul the propellors of the whaling ships do them no credit at all.  However, the whalers would earn a little less scorn from people if they dropped the "scientific purposes" bull#### and just came right out and said they intend to hunt whales for consumption regardless of any other nation's opinions on the subject.  I have nothing but disdain for the way they are attempting to put a scientific "face" on what is clearly (to the rest of the world) a financially motivated business.


----------



## Sdajii (13 January 2010)

Dock:

1) So, despite the fact that if wild caught foods (for example, the vast majority of the fish humans eat) millions, maybe billions of people would starve, you don't like wild caught foods... or maybe you are just happy to only fuss about it when you don't like what's happening, while not complaining at other times? I don't particularly think it makes much difference to the whale, or sardine, or duck, whether it was farmed or wild. When it is killed for food, it is killed. You may not personally like it, but if I said I personally don't want you to eat apples or chicken any more, just because, oh, I can't really put my finger on it, but, oh, I just don't like it... you would probably call me a moron, and you would be entirely correct! Personal preference is fine, and for personal preference I do and don't do many things, but I don't try to enforce that on others. Whales would quite likely prefer to swim the open ocean for a few years rather than in a net cage before being eaten. My personal preference is for wild rather than farmed meat, but hey, I'm not going to tell someone else what they can or can't do because of some vague personal preference. Every Hindu believes that when you eat beef it is as bad as killing a human. Do you expect the Japanese to take you seriously if you don't take the Hindus seriously?

2) If they're illegally being harvested due to location, sure, it's illegal. But if a massive renewable food resource sits around unused, sooner or later someone is going to start using it, because sooner or later most people are going to be finding it difficult to get their hands on food. If there is no legal system for utilising a food resource at the moment, there should be. I agree, it is 'wrong' for some people to exploiting a resource which they don't own, but the situation is ridiculous. If I put out a platter of food each night, and my very hungry neighbour knew they could come and take it, and they knew I would not take any action against them for the theft, I would be very stupid. If a massive food resource exists and someone knows that if they illegally take it and no one will do anything, of course they are going to keep taking it. Duh. If you think it's valuable you either need to protect it or use it yourself. If you are stupid enough to think a resource will sit there untouched, just because you want it to be, stop locking your car and house, send all the police home and if you're stupid enough to keep thinking that the criminals are to blame rather than yourself, you're treating things in the same way we're currently treating the whaling issue.

3) I think you are rather naive if you think all domesticated animals are weaned before their mothers are killed. Ever heard of veal? I have not seen what most harpooned whales go through, but if you saw the very worst of what domestic food animals (fowl, swine, etc) go through and were told that it was the norm, you would be utterly horrified. If you think you can eat meat and not cause any animal suffering you are probably quite the sheltered city boy and have probably never slaughtered your own mammalian meat. This probably describes most Australians, who are very naive when it comes to the origins of what they buy from the local butcher or supermarket.

4) Yes, the protesters and the whalers are both quite dishonest. However, similar to point two, if someone is telling a blatant lie and everyone is believing it, who is the stupid one and do you expect the lies to stop? Neither side has any credibility, and because both sides are going too far, neither side is willing to be the first to compromise. The whalers will keep saying "scientific" for as long as the rest of the world says "You are not allowed to use this resource for food". I am sure the whalers think it is as ridiculous to say "Don't eat that massive piece of food" as we (and they!) think it is to say "Yeah, it's for science". I am sure they are laughing at the stupidity of the western world.

Incidentally, what are you a doctor of?


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 January 2010)

DocK said:


> I eat steak, bacon, lamb chops, fish etc and have no problem with killing animals for food.  I also buy free range eggs and would boycott any meat product if I was aware that the animal had been killed inhumanely, or kept in cruel circumstances.  *Perhaps that makes me a **hypocrite*, but I feel I'm among many who see no problem with eating animals that have been farmed for that purpose, kept in agreeable circumstances and then killed as humanely (read painlessly/quickly) as possible.



Hearing human beings scream as they are being "harvested" does do something to our thinking.


----------



## IFocus (13 January 2010)

Sdajii said:


> I said that you rarely hear anything rational, I pointed out that most of what you hear comes from tree huggers or economists, and that people in the know do exist, but are relatively rare and are even more rarely publicised by the media.




Reason is simple talk about facts to do with our oceans health, condition of just about any fishery world wide and you will find bad news, the media hate bad news.





> Obviously as an ex whaler you are an exception and more informed than the vast majority of people




Couldn't disagree more when Nioka was whaling maybe, all these years later I suspect its just bias from bygone era. I wonder if Nioka stopped because he though that the whaling was over done or because the law said stop.



> and I agree entirely that sustainable whaling is (rationally) an unquestionable possibility which would allow more food to be produced without risk of extinctions.




Excellent idea what the hell why don't you include mountain gorillas as well as already said the eat every thing for food mob are alive and ignorant IMHO.




> The two problems are the 'cuddly factor' as you put it, and the greed of whalers (who usually don't want to stick to reasonable quotas, as is the case with many fisheries).




Ah the simple problem of the Japanese screwing our oceans to death.........too many here want to kiss their butts.



> The exact same issues exist with seals, and many other 'cuddly factor' animals, and the reason we stand by in relative silence while fish species are taken beyond sustainable levels is that they aren't as cuddly.




Sad, the problem with the oceans and their environments is they are simply not visible hence the damage, threats not in everyone's faces.


----------



## nioka (13 January 2010)

IFocus said:


> Couldn't disagree more when Nioka was whaling maybe, all these years later I suspect its just bias from bygone era. I wonder if Nioka stopped because he though that the whaling was over done or because the law said stop.
> [/QUOTE.
> 
> The law never said "stop". Whaling ceased because it became unprofitable. I was out 2 years before whaling ceased. (I was employed as a consultant, after whaling ceased, by three different companies still interested in catching whales.)
> ...


----------



## Sdajii (14 January 2010)

IFocus: The media love bad news. Our fisheries are in a mess, obviously, but while we happily overfish finned species, we avoid some populations (particularly anything which is a sea mammal) even if they are breeding like flies.

I'm fairly sure nioka hasn't stepped inside a box and stayed there since he stopped working in the whaling industry. No doubt he still takes an interest and stays up to date. He certainly sounds like he does. The information is out there if you care to look further than the mainstream media or the biased publicity sites. However, if it isn't sensationalist, most people don't want to bother looking.

Mountain gorillas are not stable enough to be harvested sustainably. They are suffering from habitat loss, are already being over hunted and are endangered (actually endagered, not like the pretend endangered status of many whales). If you're going to use an extreme example to make a point, it might work better if you choose one that makes sense. Primates are hunted for food in many areas, the locals see no problem, and when it is sustainable no one kicks up a fuss. Even in the case of primates the cuddle factor doesn't generally stand in the way (probably because primates other than humans aren't common in western countries, and when food is scarce, even you or I wouldn't be too squeamish about tucking into monkey stew). Have you ever gone a few days without eating? I have, and I tell you what, you will be willing to expand your menu in that situation. That's a common reality for many people outside the western world, and in the not too distant future, it will be for us too, or if not, our children.

You complain about people wanting to kiss Japanese butt. No one is doing that. We aren't helping them, we just aren't stopping them. If a resource is there and there is no reason for them not to utilise it, someone is going to. If someone else wants to claim to own the whales, they can use them. If everyone who owns the whales want to vote on it and they choose to leave them alone due to the cuddly factor, they need to actively protect them. Ever seen what happens when a law goes unenforced for too long? I am not kissing Japanese butt, I think we need to wake up and use the whales ourselves. What will end up happening is we will run out of food and at some point probably end up wiping out the whales in desperation.

You say that fisheries are in danger but we are all oblivious. This is true of many species of fish, but while we exterminate some in the face of indifference, others proliferate because we refuse to eat them. I would rather eat a few whales and a few fish rather than a lot of fish and no whales, with the result of the fish being wiped out and the whales then being turned to out of necessity, and then wiped out because there is nothing else left. If you ignore the cuddly factor, it is plainly obvious that we're silly to leave something massive in the ocean to swim around eating what we could eat, rather than eating that, and the big thing itself. If you genuinely care about the collapse of fisheries, why aren't you complaining about the overfishing of finned fish, and advocating a switch to seals and whales to make up the gap? In time, this would result in an increase of the amount of food we could pull out of the ocean for ourselves, and protect biodiversity.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 January 2010)

Sdajii, I can understand your beliefs based on any species not endangered being fair game. Trouble is, we left the caves tens of thousands of years ago. Modern man is focused on farming food for human consumption and food that has been farmed for thousands of years. Doing this better is the way forward. 

You talk of upcoming food shortage problems. Have a look in the "out of date" food bins at coles and woolworths and tell me there is going to be a food shortage. Modern societies waste massive amounts of food every day!  

With the evolution of intelligent beings; the balance within nature is sadly up to us. Leave the wildlife be.


----------



## Sdajii (14 January 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Sdajii, I can understand your beliefs based on any species not endangered being fair game. Trouble is, we left the caves tens of thousands of years ago. Modern man is focused on farming food for human consumption and food that has been farmed for thousands of years. Doing this better is the way forward.
> 
> You talk of upcoming food shortage problems. Have a look in the "out of date" food bins at coles and woolworths and tell me there is going to be a food shortage. Modern societies waste massive amounts of food every day!
> 
> With the evolution of intelligent beings; the balance within nature is sadly up to us. Leave the wildlife be.




So are you suggesting that we completely ignore the entire ocean as a food source? That is utterly ridiculous! The ocean covers two thirds of the surface of the planet, is extremely productive, and 99% of it can not be used for aquaculture. Are you saying that we should stop eating seafood? Do you know how many people would die if we did that?

You may believe that farming food is ethical and wild harvest is not, but... um... actually, if that's what you think I doubt there is any point in discussing it with you. Yeah, no worries, in some magical way it is somehow more ethical to wipe out an ecosystem and turn a stable, biodiverse area into an unstable monoculture. Ever visited a pig farm? A chicken farm? I dare you to do so and tell me that farming animals is more ethical than wild harvest. Goodness! Human ignorance is staggering. What's it like having a firmly held opinion based on absolutely nothing but imagination? Are you simply living in fantasy land in order to try to convince yourself that you're not actually having an impact on the planet or something?

So, because we're wasting food now we're never going to run out of food? This is even more absurd than saying we should only eat farmed food. People used to waste oil, it was cheap, it was abundant, they seemed to think it would never run out. People used to say 512k of RAM would always be enough for any computer. People used to think that water was always going to be super abundant. Yeast in a bottle of sugary water gobbles it up like it will never run out... up until the point where it actually does. History tells us that we are about as stupid as yeast, and you are confirming that many have not learned. The fact that something is abundant today does not mean it always will be.

If you don't want humans to stop changing the balance of 'nature', stop eating, stop using electricity, stop breathing. You know the building you're in right now? It wasn't always in a city, it was once wilderness, with wild animals running around. You know that land your food grows on? It was once wilderness, with wild animals running around. You know that rubbish you put into the bin at home? It ends up in a rubbish dump which was once wilderness. Know what happens when you go to the toilet? You know that computer you're using right now? It comes from a factory, which itself uses water from dams, minerals from mines... You know that electricity you're using, it comes from... maybe you get the point. When we're up against the wall, at least there will be the comfort that people like you finally get it.


----------



## Sean K (14 January 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> With the evolution of intelligent beings; the balance within nature is sadly up to us. Leave the wildlife be.



I think we've tipped the scales over already and we can not help but effect nature. I think I read somewhere that 3 billion was a sustainable number of humans coexisting on the planet. Might have been a pluck, but we might need a good culling one day unless we start drastically changing the way we live.


----------



## Mofra (14 January 2010)

kennas said:


> I think we've tipped the scales over already and we can not help but effect nature. I think I read somewhere that 3 billion was a sustainable number of humans coexisting on the planet. Might have been a pluck, but we might need a good culling one day unless we start drastically changing the way we live.



Less than a billion was quoted as the maximum number of people we can support in the 17th century. Fact is there is enough food to feed current & existing numbers of people, however the distribution of resources is the major problem.


----------



## Ageo (14 January 2010)

kennas said:


> unless we start drastically changing the way we live.




There are many thousands of animals each yr that we cull and leave to rot which are perfectly good for human consumption. Perhaps consuming them would be a start.


----------



## Agentm (14 January 2010)

nioka said:


> In part you can blame the greenies for the pine forrests and the loss of many koala fodder. By the continual theft from the foresty department of native forrests for national parks they have forced the forestry industry towards,clear felling, monoculture and pine trees. If sustainable harvesting of native forrests had been promoted then there would still be more native forests. Same could apply to whaling. The whale watch industry creates no value apart from entertainment. You cant be entertained if you are starving. only food can do that. I whalc consumes 5000lbs food a day. One whale equals 20 tonnes of food.
> 
> At one stage in my early career I was hired by the royal family in Tonga to design a whaling station for Tonga with the main aim to supply food for the Tongans. I also did the same for the Cook Islands. The jobs fell through because of the demise of the whales.
> 
> P.S. The Tongans never paid their bill.





nioka

i understand whales consume vast quantities of food, but is it daily?

a whale will feed only in certain zones and from what i understand will stop feeding and live almost entirely on the vast reserves stored in its bulk,

its fair to say whales dont consume daily, but have periods when they are feeding and storing up reserves?  is that correct?


----------



## Sdajii (14 January 2010)

Ageo said:


> There are many thousands of animals each yr that we cull and leave to rot which are perfectly good for human consumption. Perhaps consuming them would be a start.




An obvious suggestion. It is an insane waste at the moment. The resources we squander are huge.

Agentm: One way or another, massive animals like whales don't grow up and continue living without eating massive amounts of food, whether they eat every day or once a month. Different whales have different strategies. Some eat seals, some plankton, some eat massive giant squid, some eat basically anything. Some more often, some less often, some are highly seasonal, some not so. All massive animals eat massive amounts of food though, and regardless of ecological strategy, no whale is an exception.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 January 2010)

Sdajii said:


> So are you suggesting that we completely ignore the entire ocean as a food source? That is utterly ridiculous! The ocean covers two thirds of the surface of the planet, is extremely productive, and 99% of it can not be used for aquaculture. Are you saying that we should stop eating seafood? Do you know how many people would die if we did that?



No. I love seafood BUT I only take what I will eat. The problem exists when too many of me do the same thing. As was pointed out in another post it is the numbers of people and more precisely the area of land or sea that is needed to sustain those numbers. Reading your logic here it is about taking more and more. A cure rather than a prevention.   



> You may believe that farming food is ethical and wild harvest is not, but... um... actually, if that's what you think I doubt there is any point in discussing it with you.



Yes I am conservation minded so no need to discuss this.


> Yeah, no worries, in some magical way it is somehow more ethical to wipe out an ecosystem and turn a stable, biodiverse area into an unstable monoculture. Ever visited a pig farm? A chicken farm? I dare you to do so and tell me that farming animals is more ethical than wild harvest.



Yes I (still) do think it is right to farm animals and plants for human consumption. The conditions in which they are grown is an ongoing battle in some parts of the world but dignity and decency, although silly human traits as you may perceive, will ensure the inhumane treatment of farmed animals is discouraged and/or punished. As a boy I fed our wild pigs in a pen, fed our chooks and inevitably watched them killed, scraped, plucked, strung up, cut open, gutted and carved up.







> So, because we're wasting food now we're never going to run out of food?



 The wasted food would first become less to non-existent before any food shortage situation arises. If you see this start to happen let me know, otherwise keep your abstract thoughts in check. 







> This is even more absurd than saying we should only eat farmed food. People used to waste oil, it was cheap, it was abundant, they seemed to think it would never run out. People used to say 512k of RAM would always be enough for any computer. People used to think that water was always going to be super abundant. Yeast in a bottle of sugary water gobbles it up like it will never run out... up until the point where it actually does. History tells us that we are about as stupid as yeast, and you are confirming that many have not learned. The fact that something is abundant today does not mean it always will be.



 Again abstract to support the initial comment of which you have no evidence. You could save yourself some time by supporting your claim of food shortage in our or next of kin's life with some evidence instead of abstract comparisons that camouflage your lack of knowledge.   



> If you don't want humans to stop changing the balance of 'nature', stop eating, stop using electricity, stop breathing. You know the building you're in right now? It wasn't always in a city, it was once wilderness, with wild animals running around. You know that land your food grows on? It was once wilderness, with wild animals running around. You know that rubbish you put into the bin at home? It ends up in a rubbish dump which was once wilderness. Know what happens when you go to the toilet? You know that computer you're using right now? It comes from a factory, which itself uses water from dams, minerals from mines... You know that electricity you're using, it comes from... maybe you get the point. When we're up against the wall, at least there will be the comfort that people like you finally get it.



Oh I get it alright. Human being (mind) is the most wantonly destructive organism on the planet.


----------



## nioka (14 January 2010)

Agentm said:


> nioka
> 
> i understand whales consume vast quantities of food, but is it daily?
> 
> ...




Certainly not daily but the "fuel" their body uses daily is supplemented from fat stored from days of heavy feeding. On the treck north a humpback whale will yeild an average of 10 tonnes of oil. On the return voyage the yield is around 7 tonnes. The feeding they do on the migration doesn't replace all the blubber. They do not stop feeding if there is feed around.


----------



## nioka (14 January 2010)

Ageo said:


> There are many thousands of animals each yr that we cull and leave to rot which are perfectly good for human consumption. Perhaps consuming them would be a start.




You start on the road kill. I'll stick to my quality beef,chicken,fish and lamb.


----------



## Sdajii (14 January 2010)

Wysiwyg:  You win, there is no food shortage coming, there's no point worrying about that until we go to the supermarket and there's nothing to buy. Until then, you're right, if I don't give you evidence, there is no problem! Hooray! 

We can all eat only the seafood we catch ourselves which makes it okay because it is wrong to harvest wild food (??????? care to explain that one? I will accept "I was smoking dope while I posted it" as an answer).

Apparently, the fact that I want to sustainably harvest food from the sea rather than knock down rainforest and farm cattle on the land until it is desert, then knock down some more, etc, means that I am interested in destroying the planet. While you would rather leave resources sitting around unused, while we force the land to produce more food than it already is, despite the fact that it is already producing food at a completely unsustainable level, forcing more land clearing (ie, the extermination of ecosystems and the extinction of species) and that makes you a conservationist. Okay, again, you win.

You want to mock me for pointing out that people are short sighted, and also say that we needn't worry about a food shortage until the point where we actually see a shortage of food on the shelf at the supermarket. Wow, point taken, again, you win.

You ask ME for evidence that a food shortage is coming? I suppose if I said something crazy like "Without air and water we would all die" you would want evidence for that too. I find it very difficult to believe that you are genuinely that ignorant.

Yes, humans are the most destructive species on the planet, although only because we have the power to be. Our methods are basically the same as any species, the majority of us lack the foresight to manage our situation until after the problem has started smacking us in the face, and if someone points out a coming problem (a human capability) the majority act like animals and figure that if it isn't already hurting us, we have no reason to think about it. Enjoy your sugar while it lasts.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 January 2010)

Sdajii said:


> Wysiwyg:



Sdajii:  You use comparative language which unfortunately doesn't make you a clever human being nor does it provide any pertinent information. You jump to conclusions, assume people believe certain things and assume people are ignorant of worldly events. For example .... 


> You ask ME for evidence that a food shortage is coming? I suppose if I said something crazy like "Without air and water we would all die" you would want evidence for that too. I find it very difficult to believe that you are genuinely that ignorant.



 See how you use an abstract comparison to present your case? It doesn't make you the smart human you think you are.
and this ....


> You want to mock me for pointing out that people are short sighted, and also say that we needn't worry about a food shortage until the point where we actually see a shortage of food on the shelf at the supermarket. Wow, point taken, again, you win.



 Yes, I win. Your visionary talents have come to the fore, expanding on the boundless knowledge of human affairs including dietary preferences, food supply/demand data and sustainable culling of wild animals. 


> *Yes, humans are the most destructive species on the planet, although only because we **have the power to be.*



 Insightful. 







> *Our methods are basically the same as any species,*



 Wrong! Humans take more food than they need (to the point of and to extinction), use more habitat than they need, use resources wastefully and pollute the environment.







> the majority of us lack the foresight to manage our situation until after the problem has started smacking us in the face, and if someone points out a coming problem (a human capability) the majority act like animals and figure that if it isn't already hurting us, we have no reason to think about it.



 Yes that I do believe. The Industrial Revolution has a cost though [_hint_] the real problem is exponential population growth. The multiplication factor.

p.s. ... I have led this thread way off topic so I am required to track back to "Whale wars"


----------



## IFocus (14 January 2010)

Sdajii said:


> An obvious suggestion. It is an insane waste at the moment. The resources we squander are huge.
> 
> Agentm: One way or another, massive animals like whales don't grow up and continue living without eating massive amounts of food, whether they eat every day or once a month. Different whales have different strategies. Some eat seals, some plankton, some eat massive giant squid, some eat basically anything. Some more often, some less often, some are highly seasonal, some not so. All massive animals eat massive amounts of food though, and regardless of ecological strategy, no whale is an exception.





Sdajii the most efficient way of food production is through agriculture that is in terms of energy efficiency and sustainability.

This has been the very basis for rapid expansion of populations across the ages not hunting.

The Japanese are not going to starve if they don't hunt whales and those that will starve certainly wont be getting any whale meat to sustain them.

I am sure few here have actually been very close to whales in the wild, their size and grandeur is some thing way beyond the so called cuddly factor IMHO.


----------



## IFocus (14 January 2010)

kennas said:


> I think we've tipped the scales over already and we can not help but effect nature. I think I read somewhere that 3 billion was a sustainable number of humans coexisting on the planet. Might have been a pluck, but we might need a good culling one day unless we start drastically changing the way we live.




Unfortunately this is the real problem


----------



## Ageo (15 January 2010)

nioka said:


> You start on the road kill. I'll stick to my quality beef,chicken,fish and lamb.




Hehe Noika all im saying is when they do commercial culling of say thousands of roos etc... its a real waste as most of the meat can be consumed and is very very healthy for you.

On my roo cull permits its states you are in no way not allowed to remove the carcass from where it is (basically leave it to rot). 

There is plenty of food to go around if people just open there eyes.


----------



## Sdajii (15 January 2010)

This is absurd. Apparently the problem is exponential human population growth, but apparently that does not indicate we are heading for a global food crisis. Again, I will take "Sorry, I was smoking pot at the time I posted that" as an acceptable explanation for what you are saying. I'll also accept it for you telling me that I am silly for not providing evidence for something which you question, while you provide the evidence yourself, for a point you apparently don't believe. Apparently I am not smart because I do not want to bother spoon feeding you utterly obvious evidence which you yourself are dishing out to me anyway!

If you think animals don't waste resources, you don't know much about animals! It is very common for animals to spoil 10 times more than they consume, and exclude other species or conspecifics from territories which go unutilised. Animals do not plan ahead, they consume at full pace, and if the resource runs out they go extinct. In natural situations, things tend to stabilise. If an animal gains the ability to deplete a resource and wipe itself out, it does so. Whatever remains is stable, so you can come along and say "Oooh, nature is stable, it sits in balance, isn't it lovely?" but when you get a bit of change (say, climate change or a freak weather event introducing new species to an area) some rapid changes take place, very often involving extinctions which could be avoided if animals were smart enough to manage and ration their resources, which they aren't, and after that brief period a new stable situation exists... for a while. This has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. 

Yes, absolutely, monoculture farming is the most efficient way to get food off *land* (at least in the short term... but hey, who cares about the long term, we'll all die of old age before that problem bites us, so it's not important, right?). However, you can not make an economically viable business out of putting up fences in the middle of the ocean and ranching fish - it's just stupid. This is why most of the *land* animals you buy at your local supermarket are farmed, and why most of the *sea* animals you buy are wild caught. Yes, if we stop harvesting any one particular ocean species we will not starve to death, but why are you choosing whales if not for cuddly factor? We could stop farming cows or pigs or chickens and not starve to death, heck, we could same about apples, oranges, etc. Why do you focus on whales if not for cuddly factor? I bet you all love your tuna and salmon, along with your prawns, etc etc. I know I do. If you feel so strongly about not eating wild caught foods, does this not make you a hypocrite?

Anyway, I can't see this going anywhere productive. The emotion people feel for things such as whales has the ability to make them honestly believe in completely ridiculous arguments which back up what the emotion wants them to believe. You can't have a rational, logical discussion with someone basing their beliefs on emotion, so, I will step out of this thread now before I waste any more of my time on you.


----------



## IFocus (15 January 2010)

Sdajii not looking to offend and enviably everyone stands to defend their opinion regardless.

Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## IFocus (15 January 2010)

Ageo said:


> Hehe Noika all im saying is when they do commercial culling of say thousands of roos etc... its a real waste as most of the meat can be consumed and is very very healthy for you.
> 
> On my roo cull permits its states you are in no way not allowed to remove the carcass from where it is (basically leave it to rot).
> 
> There is plenty of food to go around if people just open there eyes.




Ageo what state are you in here in WA on my brothers place I don't remember the rules being so strict other than you could not sell for human consumption.


----------



## lukeaye (15 January 2010)

nioka said:


> Should we stop eating cuddly lanmbs, chicken, pork and beef. Should we stop slaughtering cows because they are sacred to some races. Should we stop feeding our pet dogs horse and kangaroo meat.




Extremely ignorant statemant, have heard it many times before. The bottom line here is very simple.

nioka, are cows, lambs, kangaroos etc close to extinction? No, so yes we will continue to eat them.

Whales on the other hand are endagered. So choose something else to eat. How Would the Japanese like it if we started hunting some their animals that are endagered?


----------



## nioka (15 January 2010)

lukeaye said:


> Extremely ignorant statemant
> 
> Whales on the other hand are endagered. QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 January 2010)

lukeaye said:


> Whales on the other hand are endagered. So choose something else to eat. How Would the Japanese like it if we started hunting some their animals that are endagered?



 You don't know. Only some whale types are endangered. Suggest googling for the facts. No one owns the animals. Responsible is more accurate.


----------



## lukeaye (15 January 2010)

nioka said:


> lukeaye said:
> 
> 
> > Extremely ignorant statemant
> ...


----------



## nioka (15 January 2010)

lukeaye said:


> nioka said:
> 
> 
> > Ok so lets list some of the whales they kill.
> ...


----------



## BlingBling (15 January 2010)

nioka said:


> lukeaye said:
> 
> 
> > Your post adds to the fact that you do not know what you are talking about.
> ...


----------



## IFocus (15 January 2010)

nioka said:


> lukeaye said:
> 
> 
> > When was the last Fin whale killed?
> ...


----------



## IFocus (15 January 2010)

Ronny Reagan god bless him.....

Given the lack of any evidence that Japan is bringing its whaling activities into conformance with the recommendations of the IWC, I am directing the Secretary of State under the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to withhold 100 percent of the fishing privileges that would otherwise be available to Japan in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Japan has requested the opportunity to fish for 3,000 metric tons of sea snails and 5,000 metric tons of Pacific whiting. These requests will be denied. In addition, Japan will be barred from any future allocations of fishing privileges for any other species, including Pacific cod, until the Secretary of Commerce determines that the situation has been corrected. [46]

U.S. President Ronald Reagan, 1988


----------



## lukeaye (16 January 2010)

nioka said:


> lukeaye said:
> 
> 
> > When was the last Fin whale killed?
> ...


----------



## Logique (16 January 2010)

By all means if there is hard evidence that the Japanese fleet is killing endangered species then let's see it, and the fleet should be held accountable for it.  But their target Minkes are not to my knowledge endangered, nor for that matter are Humpbacks. Humpback numbers have rebounded, they are not declining. Ask any whale cruise operator or sailor along the east coast.  

I say let's show some respect for a sovereign nation that has always looked to the sea for food resources. There are people in this debate who just don't like the idea of killing even a single whale, but more important considerations at stake. The lessons of history, especially the factors behind Japan's entry into WWII, mandate diplomatic caution and a factual basis to all deliberations.

The Fed Govt's confrontational attitude to Japan is immature and counter-productive, with not a little domestic political expediency in it, and in my view is contrary our national interest.


----------



## Macquack (16 January 2010)

The last time Japanese ships came *uninvited into Australian waters *was *World War 2*. 

I believe many Australians still resent the Japanese for their attacks on Australia. Irrespective of the whaling issue, the Japanese whalers show the same arrogant behaviour that their forefathers displayed during WW2. 

The fact that Japan does not recognise our territorial claims is *not an excuse to yield *to the Japanese whalers and allow them to fish in our waters. 

I say "f*ck off" to the Japanese whalers and good on the protestors for standing up to these superior, aggrogant bastards.


----------



## nioka (16 January 2010)

lukeaye said:


> Well im sure we will take an unbias, educated opinion from an ex-whaler, nioka




Never said I wasn't biased. However my bias towards whaling is based on facts. I was against whaling while there was a danger of extintion. That danger has passed for some species. I believe that Australia, itself, should make use of the now abundant resource and allow some whaling with sustainable quotas.  I hope I do have an educated opinion.

All the facts show that it is only the cuddly factor, presented mainly by whale watch companies with a vested interest, that is preventing it happening.


----------



## gordon2007 (16 January 2010)

Macquack said:


> The fact that Japan does not recognise our territorial claims




What does WWII have to do with any of this? 

Also, are you aware that there are only 6 countries in the world that do recognise these waters as australian? My point is, it's not just Japan that doesn't recognise the national issues of these waters. These waters do not even touch australian land.


----------



## Ato (16 January 2010)

You know Nazi Germany had a territorial claim on Antarctic waters too. No one owns those waters, and the 'territorial claims' are a joke. They are not Australian waters...seriously...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 January 2010)

Whats happening now with the Sea Lambchop and Captain America in the Southern Ocean.

If the Japs had fought clean like this is WW2 they might have won.

gg


----------



## Macquack (16 January 2010)

Ato said:


> You know Nazi Germany had a territorial claim on Antarctic waters too. No one owns those waters, and the 'territorial claims' are a joke. They are *not Australian waters*...seriously...




Seriously, the Australian Government disagrees with your view Ato. 

Your country of residence says a lot about your position on whaling.

Ato 
Ato is credit to team



Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: *Japan*
Posts: 110


----------



## IFocus (17 January 2010)

Ato said:


> You know Nazi Germany had a territorial claim on Antarctic waters too. No one owns those waters, and the 'territorial claims' are a joke. They are not Australian waters...seriously...




Ato current Japanese whaling is not research ......seriously........


----------



## Mr J (17 January 2010)

Macquack said:


> the Australian Government disagrees with your view Ato.




It doesn't really matter what the Australian Government thinks. The fact is the territory is just a claim.



			
				lukeaye said:
			
		

> Whales on the other hand are endagered. So choose something else to eat.




Why should they?



> Well im sure we will take an unbias, educated opinion from an ex-whaler, nioka




And your opinion is informed and unbiased? I haven't paid much attention to this thread, but your posts here certainly don't come off that way at a glance. You seem to be arguing purely by emotion.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 January 2010)

What does whale taste like to eat?

There must be many different ways of preparing it and it would probably depend on where on the whale one was eating from.

I'd imagine its somewhere between a pork and fish taste. 

gg


----------



## spooly74 (17 January 2010)

IFocus said:


> Ato current Japanese whaling is not research ......seriously........




I must say, the hypocrisy from the Japanese and their hunting whales for 'scientific research' annoys me, but based on basically zero evidence from this thread and getting the good oil from Nioka on the situation, it would appear that this hypocrisy only exists because of unreasonable condemnation imo.


----------



## nioka (17 January 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> What does whale taste like to eat?gg




Like beef if prepared in a way to mask the whale oil aspect. Savoury mince and you would think beef. It is a red meat, nothing like fish or chicken.


----------



## gordon2007 (17 January 2010)

Whale tacos anyone?


----------



## Ato (17 January 2010)

Thanks to Macquack & IFocus for providing me with two stunning examples of logical fallacies for usage. Cheers guys!


----------



## Macquack (17 January 2010)

*NZ, Australia research whales to challenge Japan*
http://www.animalsaustralia.org/media/in_the_news.php?article=779



> Japan says there are *genuine scientific reasons why it kills hundreds of whales* each year in Antarctic waters, where its fleet is currently operating.
> 
> Critics, including the Australian and New Zealand governments, insist that such arguments are simply *a cover for the sale and consumption of whale meat*, which is banned under an international moratorium on commercial hunting.




Ato, enjoy your "Special Promotion Scientific" whale burgers while they last.


----------



## bassmanpete (17 January 2010)

> and getting the good oil from Nioka on the situation




Just like you got the good oil (and nicotine, tar, etc.) from the tobacco companies?


----------



## Rakarth (18 January 2010)

My understanding of the situation is this:

At the end of WW2 the Americans encouraged and gave a boost to large scale Japanese whaling to feed the starving population they were now responsible for.
As a result, modern Japanese don't particularly want to eat whale meat.  It's the "povo" food their grandparents had to eat after losing a war.
The commercial whaling in Japan is ongoing due to a small vocal minority lobbying for their own industry.
The vast majority of Japanese are unaware that the world feels so strongly about their whaling activities because the subject doesn't get any air/discussion time.
What does get airtime are "terrorist" activities in international waters towards ships bearing their national flag.

This turns their opinion in to one of national pride and the preservation of whales no longer factors in.  
This perspective came secondhand from a Japanese person I was talking to.

If an Indian flagged vessel took these same actions towards an Australian flagged ship carrying cows because they don't believe we should be eating beef, I know I would rile up along national lines and disregard the actual discussion.


The Australian Antarctic Territory is not internationally recognised. 
Wikipedia
Only the UK, NZ, France, and Norway recognise it.  They also have claimed territory in Anarctica.  The Southern Whale Sanctuary which extends from this unrecognised territory is also not internationally recognised which means all these shenanigans are (to the international community at large) occuring in 
international waters.

The Japanese believe that whales can be consumed just like any other renewable resource and that our objections are purely idealogical.

Wikipedia
"Japan carries out its whaling in two areas: the North-West Pacific Ocean (JARPN II) and the Antarctic Ocean (JARPA) Southern Hemisphere catch. The 2007/08 JARPA mission had a quota of 900 minke whales and 50 fin whales."

American Cetacean Society
"It is thought that minke populations have increased as they started to eat the food that was previously eaten by the now-depleted large whale species. The present population worldwide is believed to be over a millions animals."

American Cetacean Society
"Precise estimates are unavailable today, but it is thought that present populations are about 40,000 in the northern hemisphere and 15,000-20,000 in the southern hemisphere, a small percentage of the original population levels."

Their argument isn't completely without merit and they are largely correct in saying that we are against whaling because we love them as beautiful creatures.  Even if it were proven that their hunting is sustainable the same people against it now would most likely still be against whaling.  Maybe the argument should be that they have to kill whales in a humane way.  I'm sure finding a humane way to kill a 15tonne "fish" will take the economic viability out of it.

In 2007 Japan suspended their hunting of Humpback whales due to political pressure from the IWC and, I like to believe, the Australian government and public.
BBC

In light of that, I get p'd off when these "terrorists" (my opinion) use these polarising methods to protect whales which galvanises the Japanese public to support their operations more than if it were just political and grass roots pressure.

The Ady Gil cost $2.5 million dollars to construct.
Wikipedia
That's not including the costs (fuel, food, equipment, maintenance) with getting the Ady Gil and the mothership all the way down to Antarctica.
How much time on Japanese TV could that have bought to run messages outlining why the rest of the world is against whaling?
Maybe full page ads in newspapers.  Maybe pay for lobbyists within the Japanese political system to increase pressure on the government.
What's the end goal of the SSCS?  Sure they can say they save 100ish whales from the Japanese total quota but does this mean they plan on doing this every year forever?  At no point have their actions made the Japanese think about stopping whaling.  If anything it just seems to makes them more
determined to do it.

To me the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society have admirable goals but arrogant and self-serving methods. In my mind, they don't just want to save whales.  They want to be the knight in shining armour going off to fight evil.  Grassroot and educational programs just aren't as cool.
They even have their own reality show.  Whale Wars!
Whale Wars
To me that just sounds like the usual quest for glory that anything has when suffixed by the word "War".  It says to me that they view the Japanese as an enemy and any notion of negotiation and compromise has ended.  Your enemy's opinion no longer counts and only by vanquishing them can "right"
prevail.

I am vehemently against whaling.  I think that there are enough animals on the planet that are more sustainably eaten that we can afford to leave the whales there for our conscience and aesthetic pleasure.  Whales are incredibly intelligent and majestically beautiful and I think deserve to share
the world with us (I do feel that most other animals are here for my dining pleasure).

I would prefer to see the massive amounts of money used by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society every year to "terrorise" Japanese whaling vessels put to less polarising methods.  Methods that have proven to have more effect as in the case with humpback whales.

- Tony


----------



## gordon2007 (18 January 2010)

Perhaps the best response yet.


----------



## DocK (18 January 2010)

Top post Tony!


----------



## Buckfont (18 January 2010)

Bring on Sammy Kekovitch to do a sequel to his lamb ads.

Can you imagine him espousing whalemeat. It might go down well in Japan, but you can bet there would many very hot under the collar people here.


----------



## jklucas (19 January 2010)

SAVE THE WHALES!!!


----------



## nioka (20 January 2010)

jklucas said:


> SAVE THE WHALES!!!




Save the whaling!


----------



## IFocus (20 January 2010)

Save the planet..........hang on expanding population means we are screwed........whaling matters little...........


----------



## gordon2007 (6 February 2010)

This is getting to be entertaining now. Yet another boating crash.
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...anese-harpooners/story-e6frfku0-1225827440005

"The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society said the harpoon ship Yushin Maru No. 3 collided with the Bob Barker during a clash off Cape Denley in Australian Antarctic waters, tearing a one metre deep gash above the waterline."


----------



## gordon2007 (6 February 2010)

from the same link as above

""Because the whalers got away basically scot-free with the outrageous sinking of the Ady Gil, they now apparently think they can do whatever they want and they appear to have no qualms about endangering Sea Shepherd crew," he said."

So why is it ok for this guy to endanger the japs but he then gets upset when his guys are endangered?


----------



## IFocus (7 February 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> from the same link as above
> 
> ""Because the whalers got away basically scot-free with the outrageous sinking of the Ady Gil, they now apparently think they can do whatever they want and they appear to have no qualms about endangering Sea Shepherd crew," he said."
> 
> So why is it ok for this guy to endanger the japs but he then gets upset when his guys are endangered?




Gordon the Japanese whalers wear black hats (bad guys) and the whaling protesters wear white hats (good guys) 

That means the guys with white hats can do what ever they frigging well like and its OK.

You seem to have not noticed the bit at the bottom of the article that points out the *Japanese government* whaling corporation who are low life knuckle dragging scum bags (read populist polys who would sell their Grandmothers to the glue factory)are quote



> Japan hunts whales using a loophole in a 1986 international ban which allowed "lethal research" of the animals.




Research? really.....................lower the battering rams white hats.........


----------



## gordon2007 (7 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> You seem to have not noticed the bit at the bottom of the article that points out the *Japanese government* whaling corporation who are low life knuckle dragging scum bags are quote




The actual whaling is almost secondary in this story. One can interpretate legalities into many different ways. That's why laws are rewritten many times over.

In almost any other case, if a foreigner or anyone else came to australia and started telling us how we should act towards a certain subject we'd most likey as a whole tell them to piss off. The hollywood antics of this guy creates sensationalism. The press picks it up, we read it, he finds out he's attaining near stardom status and then pushes the buttons even further to stoke his ego.


----------



## Ato (7 February 2010)

> "What we really need is for the *governments of Australia and New Zealand to step up and start enforcing maritime laws in these waters* or who knows what the whalers will do next."




My bolding.

Funny that in these waters, neither government mentioned above have any legal jurisdiction whatsoever; ergo they cannot possibly _enforce_ any maritime laws without causing legal issues themselves.

Of course, the sensationalist that the Pirate Captain Paul Watson is, knows this and uses it simply to stir up emotional & irrational argument from those who dont know it.


----------



## IFocus (7 February 2010)

Ato said:


> My bolding.
> 
> Funny that in these waters, neither government mentioned above have any legal jurisdiction whatsoever; ergo they cannot possibly _enforce_ any maritime laws without causing legal issues themselves.
> 
> Of course, the sensationalist that the Pirate Captain Paul Watson is, knows this and uses it simply to stir up emotional & irrational argument from those who dont know it.




Ato  there is nothing irrational arguing that Japanese Government whaling is not research. Their propaganda that it is makes that argument irrational. 

The Japanese Government signed up to an international agreement that they flaunt directly. That is irrational.


----------



## gordon2007 (7 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> Ato  there is nothing irrational arguing that Japanese Government whaling is not research. Their propaganda that it is makes that argument irrational.
> The Japanese Government signed up to an international agreement that they flaunt directly. That is irrational.




Focus, I think you're missing the point. That the japanese are using a loophole to do their whaling  has never been in question.

What is in question though is australia's claim to these waters. 98% of the world does not recognise these claims. Indeed there are many australian legal scholars that debate our own claims and state we have no legal case. That is one of the main reasons we have not brought anything up in a legal case. 

Also what is in question is just how close these animals are to extinction. The majority of the whales that are hunted and killed for consumption are no where near extinction. Mink whales are the rabbits of the sea.

This guy is an attention seeking ***** who has no problem setting up misquided people and putting them in harms way, yet never have we heard a headline where he was the one sitting on a ships bow in front of a japanese vessel coming their way. Why...because he's a coward.

I have all the respect in the world for a person who believes in a cause. But only when the do it in a legal and harmless way. And there are many ways he can move his cause forward without acting like a coward. Violence is not the solution here.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 February 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> Focus, I think you're missing the point. That the japanese are using a loophole to do their whaling  has never been in question.
> 
> What is in question though is australia's claim to these waters. 98% of the world does not recognise these claims. Indeed there are many australian legal scholars that debate our own claims and state we have no legal case. That is one of the main reasons we have not brought anything up in a legal case.
> 
> ...




Good on you Gordon.

Exactly my sentiments.

gg


----------



## IFocus (7 February 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> Focus, I think you're missing the point. That the japanese are using a loophole to do their whaling  has never been in question.




OK



> What is in question though is australia's claim to these waters. 98% of the world does not recognise these claims. Indeed there are many australian legal scholars that debate our own claims and state we have no legal case. That is one of the main reasons we have not brought anything up in a legal case.




Agree, legal claim to this type territory only works if you are prepared to start shooting like UK over Falklands personally don't see the point. 



> Also what is in question is just how close these animals are to extinction. The majority of the whales that are hunted and killed for consumption are no where near extinction. Mink whales are the rabbits of the sea.




Two arguments, 

1st emotional argument

Killing of a species such as whales is immoral full stop that's one I support.
 Before anyone thinks I am soft I am from a farming back ground and from and era where we would wander down the front paddock select a killer (sheep for eating) take it up to the shed cut the throat, break the neck, hang up skin, gut, dress hang over for the night cut down next day and enjoy every morsel. Same when we had cattle etc. 

I was raised a hunter to kill efficiency, for a reason and often to eat. Never for the blood lust as you see city folks do. 

Killing of a whale goes no where even close to the efficiency I described above, its a long drawn out process of killing by brutalization of a highly intelligent mammal. To me gut retching same as if I failed to put an animal down quickly, its horrible. 

2nd argument is give the Japanese a inch they take a light year. On this the Japanese have plenty of form just research Japans destruction of fishery's world wide. They just don't give a fat rats.  

Interesting that most pro whalers just turn a blind eye.

Whales are in recovery world wide but not for hunting.



> This guy is an attention seeking ***** who has no problem setting up misquided people and putting them in harms way, yet never have we heard a headline where he was the one sitting on a ships bow in front of a japanese vessel coming their way. Why...because he's a coward.




Friends family member is currently  on board Sea Sheppard heading south as we speak and he is not misguided by any means. A university degree etc, from a wealthy family and has his head screwed on.

Paul Watson is no coward he seriously has balls.



> I have all the respect in the world for a person who believes in a cause. But only when the do it in a legal and harmless way. And there are many ways he can move his cause forward without acting like a coward. Violence is not the solution here.





The Sea Sheppard is about direct action basically doing all the things you hate unfortunately that's the business they are in. 

You will find that those being targeted by environment groups just don't play fair as they are screwing the place hence environment groups bending the law to take them on. 

Personal view is I don't think the world is going to be saved by whaling protests but really there are few others that are actually doing any thing except record the rapid demise of our environment world wide.

I think history ( a couple of generations from now) when its all completely stuffed thanks to our collect inaction, exploding population and rapid increase in use of resources will record the Sea Sheppard and its crews as heroes, David and Goliath stuff, and the rest of us will be consigned to being described as a selfish bunch of dickheads with all the facts information and did............nothing


----------



## nioka (7 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> Killing of a whale goes no where even close to the efficiency I described above, its a long drawn out process of killing by brutalization of a highly intelligent mammal. To me gut retching same as if I failed to put an animal down quickly,




???????????????????????? Dont think you really know what you are talking about. You have been watching too many selected pictures. I could put togrther just as many "bad" results on farm kills. Have you actually been there?


----------



## gordon2007 (7 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> of a highly intelligent mammal.



yeah sorry, but still just a glorified fish. When they learn to multi-task, invent things and make my world easier and more fun to live in, then I may be impressed.


IFocus said:


> give the Japanese a inch they take a light year.




Too general of a statement. To me it just sounds as though you're anti japanese full stop.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 February 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> yeah sorry, but still just a glorified fish. When they learn to multi-task, invent things and make my world easier and more fun to live in, then I may be impressed.




You make considerable sense Gordon.

The Egyptians used worship cats I believe, and most Australians consider the damn things a pest and sneaky killers of our own beautiful wildlife.

It is all a fad this whale bothering.

gg


----------



## gordon2007 (7 February 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You make considerable sense Gordon./QUOTE]
> Yes, this is what happens when I don't drink for a month. This phenomenon is caused by febfast.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 February 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> Garpal Gumnut said:
> 
> 
> > You make considerable sense Gordon./QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Macquack (7 February 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It is all a fad this whale bothering.
> 
> gg




Let's hope it is a fad and the Japanese give up on bothering the whales.


----------



## IFocus (8 February 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> yeah sorry, but still just a glorified fish. When they learn to multi-task, invent things and make my world easier and more fun to live in, then I may be impressed.




This makes our discuss pointless................thanks for the trivialization I thought you had something serious to say..............




> Too general of a statement.




Your joking see above comments




> To me it just sounds as though you're anti japanese full stop.





By no means anti Japanese.


----------



## IFocus (8 February 2010)

nioka said:


> ???????????????????????? Dont think you really know what you are talking about. You have been watching too many selected pictures. I could put togrther just as many "bad" results on farm kills. Have you actually been there?




I am sure you could nioka but stick to the facts on how a whale dies when shot with the explosive harpoon.


----------



## nioka (8 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> I am sure you could nioka but stick to the facts on how a whale dies when shot with the explosive harpoon.




The bomb  on the end of the harpoon explodes on a time fuse set to ge off as the harpoon is lodged within the whale. This, in almost all cases, causes instant death. As with most things killed there are "death throes" (chop off a chickens head and it is dead but it will still thrash around).

If by any chance the whale is not instantly killed then another bomb is fired immediately. The second one is on a wooden dummy harpoon but the bomb is no dummy. They contain more explosive than half a dozen grenades.


----------



## gordon2007 (8 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> This makes our discuss pointless................thanks for the trivialization I thought you had something serious to say..............
> QUOTE]
> 
> So given that rationalisation, I should not have taken any of your points serious after writing that the anti whalers can do anything they want because they wear a white hat, as opposed to a black hat that the japanese wear?
> ...


----------



## IFocus (9 February 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> IFocus said:
> 
> 
> > This makes our discuss pointless................thanks for the trivialization I thought you had something serious to say..............
> ...


----------



## IFocus (9 February 2010)

nioka said:


> The bomb  on the end of the harpoon explodes on a time fuse set to ge off as the harpoon is lodged within the whale. This, in almost all cases, causes instant death. As with most things killed there are "death throes" (chop off a chickens head and it is dead but it will still thrash around).
> 
> If by any chance the whale is not instantly killed then another bomb is fired immediately. The second one is on a wooden dummy harpoon but the bomb is no dummy. They contain more explosive than half a dozen grenades.





Reminds me of an old Playboy mag cartoon where a crayfish is dropping humans into a boiling pot of water. 

Caption read "Its OK the loud shrieks are just air escaping from the lungs.”


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 February 2010)

> Mountain gorillas are not stable enough to be harvested sustainably.




This bloke must feel equally at home ripping a lettuce out of the ground as putting a bullet in a gorillas head. Some sort of thought extremist maybe.


----------



## gordon2007 (9 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> Reminds me of an old Playboy mag cartoon where a crayfish is dropping humans into a boiling pot of water.
> 
> Caption read "Its OK the loud shrieks are just air escaping from the lungs.”




haha...now that's funny!


----------



## Agentm (9 February 2010)

Report from Barrow: 4th grader harpoons whale

Posted by thevillage

Posted: October 7, 2009 - 3:36 pm

Comments (0) |

Photo and caption courtesy of Bridget Edwardsen This is Paul Patkotak of Barrow. He is a young harpooner for Panigeo crew. Paul harpooned this whale and once he harpooned it, it officially died. The whale was 32'7". Paul is the son of Maria &amp; Ellis Patkotak and he is only in 4th grade!Photo and caption courtesy of Bridget Edwardsen
This is Paul Patkotak of Barrow. He is a young harpooner for Panigeo crew. Paul harpooned this whale and once he harpooned it, it officially died. The whale was 32'7". Paul is the son of Maria & Ellis Patkotak and he is only in 4th grade!







By BRIDGET EDWARDSEN, of Barrow:

On Tuesday around noon, Panigeo crew struck a whale. Pauyuuraq Brower of Barrow shot the whale with the darting gun. Then Paul Patkotak, 9-year-old son of Maria & Ellis Patkotak, harpooned the bowhead whale and officially killed the whale.

Paul is a 4th grader at Ipalook Elementary School & is very into his culture. He loves to go whaling with his uncle Qulliuq Pebley, who is the Captian of Panigeo Crew, he loves to go subsistence hunting and camping. The family was overjoyed in tears when they heard that their 9-year-old Paul harpooned the 32' 7" whale.

This is big news for Barrow, usually kids are not allowed on the boat until they are a certain age. I think Paul is the youngest kid to actually harpoon & kill a bowhead whale.

Once they arrived & beached the whale, the family was overjoyed. His mother could not believe that her son actually caught the whale.


----------



## Agentm (9 February 2010)

nioka

they tend to go for vital organs, so internal explosions into the living organs which detonate and the pain and agony of a 20 minute death cycle is beyond words..

you can see on some vessels they will just grab the tail and drown the gravely injured whale by pulling the tail onto deck and leave the head submerged and drown the mammal as it organs and insides are shattered and it looses consciousness and drowns from being unable to get its blowhole above the water line

all class really,, brutal beyond words hey!

Whale killing methods and associated welfare issues in Greenland1
(Submitted by the hunter’s organisation and the Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture, Greenland Home Rule Government)
Introduction: The hunt of marine mammals has always been an important part of the culture of Greenland. In earlier days, whaling was essential for survival. In modern Greenland, hunting still has considerable socioeconomic importance, and whale products are necessary food items.
At the moment, all the large whales of Greenland are protected, except for fin and minke whales. Management advice for the hunt of large whales is given by the International Whaling Commission. The Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture decides how many animals may be caught in each municipality. The municipal authorities divide the quotas among the full-time hunters that fulfil the requirements demanded by the law and have applied for licences to catch whales.
Hunting methods: There are three types of whaling of large whales in Greenland: hunting of fin whales with harpoon, hunting of minke whales with harpoon and collective hunt for minke whales. Regardless of the type of whaling, at the first high tide after a hunt, whale carcasses are dragged into shallow waters, where they are flensed during low tide.
Fin whale: Fin whales are caught in West Greenland, south from Uummannaq. They are caught either by two boats of a minimum length of 30 ft working together, or by one boat of a minimum length of 36 ft. Each boat should be equipped with one certified harpoon cannon.
The primary weapon is a harpoon with the Norwegian penthrite grenade “Whale Grenade 99”. This grenade was originally produced for hunting minke whales, and it has been modified for the hunt of fin whales by extending the triggering cord to a length of 60 cm.
The secondary weapon is the same as the primary weapon.
Gunners shoot in the heart and lungs region by aiming at an area in front of the pectoral fins.
Minke whale with harpoon: Minke whales are caught with harpoon in West Greenland, south from Uummannaq. The minimum boat length is 30 ft. As with the fin whale hunt, the harpoon cannons used to hunt minke whales should be certified and checked every other year. The majority of the minke whales are taken by this method.
The primary weapon is a harpoon with a “Whale Grenade 99”. The length of the triggering cord is 50 cm. As with fin whales, gunners aim at the region in front of the pectoral flippers, in order to damage the heart and surrounding areas.
The secondary weapon is either a harpoon with the “Whale grenade 99”, or riffles of a minimum calibre of 7.62 mm (30.06) and full mantled bullets. Some hunters use round-nosed bullets together with riffles with higher calibre (.375), due to their better penetration. Shots are aimed at the head, in front of the animal’s neck.
Collective minke whale hunt: The collective minke whale hunt takes place in settlements where boats with harpoon cannons cannot satisfy the demand for fresh whale meat. The collective minke whale hunt is the only hunt of large whales in areas where there are no boats with harpoon cannons, such as East Greenland and West Greenland north of Disko Bay. In 2005, only 27 % of the minke whales taken in Greenland were taken by the collective hunt.
A minimum of 5 skiffs have to participate in the hunt. Boats of larger size without harpoon cannon can also take part. These are usually small fishing boats. Each boat has to be equipped with at least one hand harpoon with line and buoys. This harpoon is attached to the whale at the first opportunity, to prevent the animal from sinking.
The only weapons of the collective minke whale hunt are riffles of calibre of 7.62 mm (30.06) or larger and full mantled bullets. As a rule, the whales are first wounded and then secured with the hand harpoons. When possible, the hand harpoon is used before wounding the animal. Once a whale has been secured, it is killed by shoots aimed at the head. Round-nosed bullets together with riffles with higher calibre (.375) are often used to kill the whale.


----------



## gordon2007 (9 February 2010)

Agentm said:


> Report from Barrow: 4th grader harpoons whale




I don't understand the what the purpose of this post is?

Are you saying it's shocking that a father took his son out whaling? Are you saying it's shocking that a 4th grader killed an animal? 

If so, many parents have taken their sons out hunting, killing deer, bears, roos, possums, ducks, dolphin, tuna, swordfish and many other species.


----------



## nioka (9 February 2010)

Agent, That sort of whaling is part of the dark ages and is nothing like modern whaling. I have seen hundreds of whales cut up and have seen the way the larger harpoon bombs kill. They are designed for a quick kill. 

The cattle slaughter in some middle eastern countries where they put animals through all sorts of pain before slaughter could be compared to the slaughtering in Australian abattoirs in the same way as the whale killing methods you describe with the modern catching by the Japanese.  If we eat meat,fish and poultry that was a living animal then ,unless we want to chew at it alive,we must kill it first.  The same with whales.

I do not say that the method of killing should not be under scrutiny. I say they are a resource that should be sustainably harvested.


----------



## Julia (9 February 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> haha...now that's funny!



Is it?   I don't think so at all.  I realise I will be laughed at for being soppy or something, but studies have shown that fish do feel pain.
It's one thing to kill animals if necessary to provide food for people, but to do it for sport makes me feel sick.



gordon2007 said:


> I don't understand the what the purpose of this post is?
> 
> Are you saying it's shocking that a father took his son out whaling? Are you saying it's shocking that a 4th grader killed an animal?
> 
> If so, many parents have taken their sons out hunting, killing deer, bears, roos, possums, ducks, dolphin, tuna, swordfish and many other species.



And what are they teaching their sons by doing this?

All I can think is that the essential message is that if man can dominate another species, just for the fun of it, then he will do this.
Why would anyone need to do this?  Is it OK by you if some superior species were to evolve on earth which found it fun to hunt and injure you?  Would that be just okey dokey for you?


----------



## Macquack (19 February 2010)

*Australia sets November deadline for Japan to cease whaling*
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...pped-by-november/story-e6frgczf-1225832062248

Lets hope Rudd sticks to his promise and takes action against the Japanese in the International Court of Justice and if that failures, takes some direct action by the Navy.

And for ATO (credit to Japanese whalers), not everyone here at ASF kisses Japanese a*se.


----------



## Ageo (20 February 2010)

Julia said:


> ing, but studies have shown that fish do feel pain.
> It's one thing to kill animals if necessary to provide food for people, but to do it for sport makes me feel sick.




Julia did you know many predators actually kill for pleasure?

I have seen a fox kill many chickens etc... and just to see them walk off without sucking any blood or taking anything from the animal. The theory of animals only kill what they eat is rubbish as in the animal kingdom they are fighting for supremacy all the time. Bears, lions etc.... have all killed for territory and control.

You see anything in life you look at can be disgusting such as

* gluttony (eating yourself to death)
* laziness (people being fat ****s)
* Fighting (street fighting is wrong but Boxing is ok?)
* Fishing (for food its ok but for sport its wrong)
* Hunting (same as above)
* High powered cars (Why should people have them as you dont need to drive that fast)
* Smoking 
* Alcohol

etc...............................

And remember hunting for food and *sport * has been going on since mankind (cavemen were known to keep their well deserved trophies).

So whats been happening for 1000's of yrs all of a sudden its wrong to do??


----------



## IFocus (20 February 2010)

And remember hunting for food and [B said:
			
		

> sport [/B] has been going on since mankind (cavemen were known to keep their well deserved trophies).
> 
> So whats been happening for 1000's of yrs all of a sudden its wrong to do??




Ageo 1000's years ago population fraction of today, then there were bows arrows and spears, today spot the difference


----------



## gordon2007 (20 February 2010)

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...tandoff-solution/story-e6frfku0-1225832556847

" during an anti-whaling protest in front of the Japanese Embassy in Canberra.
He joined about 30 protesters who held signs demanding for an end to the slaughter of whales"

So I think, there is supposedly so many passionate people  about whaling, yet only 30 people showed up for this so called protest. To me, just confirms, it's much easier to right click your mouse and say you are anti whaling then to actually do anything about it. To use an american term, seems there are many arm chair quarterback but not so many that really give a hoot to actually do anything about it.


----------



## Julia (20 February 2010)

Ageo said:


> Julia did you know many predators actually kill for pleasure?



That's not relevant to human beings, as more evolved intellectually than animals, killing for sport or pleasure.



> I have seen a fox kill many chickens etc... and just to see them walk off without sucking any blood or taking anything from the animal. The theory of animals only kill what they eat is rubbish as in the animal kingdom they are fighting for supremacy all the time. Bears, lions etc.... have all killed for territory and control.



We, however, do not have to kill defenceless creatures for territory or control.
Irrelevant to compare our actions with primitive instincts of animals.



> You see anything in life you look at can be disgusting such as
> 
> * gluttony (eating yourself to death)
> * laziness (people being fat ****s)
> ...



That's another whole topic and doesn't have a bearing on my belief that we should not kill for pleasure.




> And remember hunting for food and *sport * has been going on since mankind (cavemen were known to keep their well deserved trophies).
> 
> So whats been happening for 1000's of yrs all of a sudden its wrong to do??



You may roll your eyes as much as you like, Ageo.  My disgust at people causing pain and/or killing animals for their own sport is not "all of a sudden".
I have always been disgusted by it and always will.

Imo it's pretty pathetic when supposedly evolved and intelligent creatures such as human beings are so lacking in personal integrity and confidence that they feel obliged to exert dominance over a lesser species to make themselves feel OK.


----------



## IFocus (21 February 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...tandoff-solution/story-e6frfku0-1225832556847
> 
> " during an anti-whaling protest in front of the Japanese Embassy in Canberra.
> He joined about 30 protesters who held signs demanding for an end to the slaughter of whales"
> ...




Actually more the other way I would say, the pro whaling mob seem to pop up clicking screens Japanese whaling has one sponsor Jap Gov the whaling protest ships (requires $millions) totally supported by donations from a lot of ordinary normal people.

According to this Wiki article Whale watching worth $1 bil recon they would just love the Japanese blown whales away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_watching

A lot of those business's operate out of Australia from which we derive income from over seas, I believe after studying markets for years that's a good thing for all Australians.

Japanese whaling on the other hand which many Japanese Ar#e kissers here support here brings SFA to the Oz economy. 

Pro whaling is IMHO anti the environment and anti Australian

So in answer I think the turn out more in line with a bullsh#t promise in a election year.


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2010)

Apparently these two gentlemen have decided that ASF members who don't support their views should be subjected to abusive name calling.   



Macquack said:


> And for ATO (credit to Japanese whalers), not everyone here at ASF kisses Japanese a*se.






IFocus said:


> Japanese whaling on the other hand which many Japanese Ar#e kissers here support here brings SFA to the Oz economy.


----------



## Macquack (21 February 2010)

The Japanese are whaling illegally in our waters. 

If you dont recognise OUR claims to the Southern Ocean then I suggest you go support the Japanese as does ATO who now lives in Japan.

You are either WITH US OR AGAINST US on this territorial claim.


----------



## nioka (21 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> Japanese whaling on the other hand which many Japanese Ar#e kissers here support here brings SFA to the Oz economy.
> 
> Pro whaling is IMHO anti the environment and anti Australian
> .




Whale watching in the 1950s.

Thousands of people watched the whales being caught from coastal vantage points daily. At any time of the day or night there was a crowd watching the flensing at Byron Bay. On Sundays a train used to go from Casino to Byron Bay and another from Murwillumbah. Cars parked opposite the whaling station would number in the hundreds ( I have photos to prove that).

The whaling was an important local employer. The businesses in the town did a roaring trade.

Byron Bay was the smallest station in Australia.

I'm pro whaling. I dont kiss a### for anyone. Are you one who thinks everyone acts like you? Are you kissing the a/// of the skipper of the protest ship ?

Nor does pro whaling make me anti Aussie. I'd like to see Aussie whaling and its benefits to the Aussie economy.I'd like to see it happen while there are still some of us around that know the ropes.

As for the Japanese, live and let live. (One reason why the Japanese entered the last war was because they were denied raw materials from the western world.) Do you want them to send the Japanese navy with thier whaling fleet and do you want Rudd to send ours?.:samurai:


----------



## nioka (21 February 2010)

Macquack said:


> The Japanese are whaling illegally in our waters.
> 
> If you dont recognise OUR claims to the Southern Ocean then I suggest you go support the Japanese as does ATO who now lives in Japan.
> 
> You are either WITH US OR AGAINST US on this territorial claim.




I never claim to own something I do not have the right to own.  If I lodge a claim for the Pacific Ocean will it give me a right to charge all who surf in it. Even Captian Cook couldnt  manage to "claim" Australia successfully or so it seems. Maybe the Southern Ocean is a multicultural affair in line with our government policy.

Please define "US"  so I can decide if I am for or against. I'm certainly against your line of thinking but while this is still a free country you can think whatever you like.


----------



## Macquack (21 February 2010)

nioka said:


> Whale watching in the 1950s.
> 
> Thousands of people watched the whales being caught from coastal vantage points daily. At any time of the day or night there was a *crowd watching the flensing *at Byron Bay. On Sundays a train used to go from Casino to Byron Bay and another from Murwillumbah. Cars parked opposite the whaling station would number in the hundreds ( I have photos to prove that).




Coulds such a spectacle be akin to people who slow down at fatal car accidents to unwittingly have a look out of curiousity?


----------



## gordon2007 (21 February 2010)

Macquack said:


> The Japanese are whaling illegally in our waters.
> 
> If you dont recognise OUR claims to the Southern Ocean then I suggest you go support the Japanese as does ATO who now lives in Japan.
> 
> You are either WITH US OR AGAINST US on this territorial claim.




What a completely arrogant ignorant narrowminded statement. But according to your standards, I am against. Shall we meet next week for an old fashioned gun duel?


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2010)

Macquack said:


> The Japanese are whaling illegally in our waters.
> 
> If you dont recognise OUR claims to the Southern Ocean then I suggest you go support the Japanese as does ATO who now lives in Japan.
> 
> You are either WITH US OR AGAINST US on this territorial claim.




Nobody recognises  our Antarctic territorial claims except the few countries that have similar claims. I guess in your quaint terminology that makes most of the world Japanese ar*e  kissers. While Rudd may make threats he will never take the Japanese on in the International courts. It would be another Copenhagen.


----------



## Macquack (21 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> Nobody recognises  our Antarctic territorial claims except the few countries that have similar claims. I guess in your quaint terminology that makes most of the world Japanese ar*e  kissers.





WE (Australia) recognise OUR (Australian) claim to these waters.

It is specifically the Japanese who are thumbing their nose at our claim.


----------



## gordon2007 (21 February 2010)

Macquack said:


> WE (Australia) recognise OUR (Australian) claim to these waters.
> 
> It is specifically the Japanese who are thumbing their nose at our claim.




Just because WE (australia) claim these waters to be ours does NOT mean we are correct. This has been stated many times in this thread, 99% of the world does not recognise our claim, NOT just japan. It is why we have not bothered with any international legal cases against anyone regarding these same waters. 

If american went and stated a claim to these waters, with the rest of the world not recognising same claim, I'm quite certain they would be branded arrogant and many other things. So why are WE (australia) being just as arrogant?

WE (australia) have no justifyable claim to these waters. Many nations fish in these very same waters, yet we never hear about it because they are not whaling. If WE (australia) think these are our waters, why are we NOT protecting them the same as we do when countries fish in our border waters?


----------



## IFocus (21 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> Apparently these two gentlemen have decided that ASF members who don't support their views should be subjected to abusive name calling.




Certainly gets a response, but the point is that supporting Japanese whaling is against the interests of a significant number of Australian tourist operations.


----------



## IFocus (21 February 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> Just because WE (australia) claim these waters to be ours does NOT mean we are correct. This has been stated many times in this thread, 99% of the world does not recognise our claim, NOT just japan. It is why we have not bothered with any international legal cases against anyone regarding these same waters.
> 
> If american went and stated a claim to these waters, with the rest of the world not recognising same claim, I'm quite certain they would be branded arrogant and many other things. So why are WE (australia) being just as arrogant?
> 
> WE (australia) have no justifyable claim to these waters. Many nations fish in these very same waters, yet we never hear about it because they are not whaling. If WE (australia) think these are our waters, why are we NOT protecting them the same as we do when countries fish in our border waters?




Yep remember this one

Australian Customs vessels have pursued illegal toothfishing ships, the chase in the Viarsa incident went on for 7200 kilometers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viarsa_1


----------



## IFocus (21 February 2010)

nioka said:


> Whale watching in the 1950s.
> 
> Thousands of people watched the whales being caught from coastal vantage points daily. At any time of the day or night there was a crowd watching the flensing at Byron Bay. On Sundays a train used to go from Casino to Byron Bay and another from Murwillumbah. Cars parked opposite the whaling station would number in the hundreds ( I have photos to prove that).
> 
> ...




It was a different era and Australia has moved on, blood sports tend to only exist in the mainstream in 3rd world countries although bull fighting comes to mind.



> I'm pro whaling. I dont kiss a### for anyone. Are you one who thinks everyone acts like you? Are you kissing the a/// of the skipper of the protest ship ?




Then why would you support the Japanese? 



> Nor does pro whaling make me anti Aussie.




If its against Australian interests?




> I'd like to see Aussie whaling and its benefits to the Aussie economy.I'd like to see it happen while there are still some of us around that know the ropes.




Why would Australia take up whaling again? Even the Liberals wouldn't support that.



> As for the Japanese, live and let live. (One reason why the Japanese entered the last war was because they were denied raw materials from the western world.) Do you want them to send the Japanese navy with thier whaling fleet and do you want Rudd to send ours?




At least we agree on some thing


----------



## Macquack (21 February 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> So why are WE (australia) being just as arrogant?




It is the Japanese who are being arrogant on this issue.

There are two basic issues here. One is Japan's illegal  whaling activities conducted under the bull sh*t presumption of "scientific research". The second issue is the Japanese are conducting their illegal whaling in our territorial waters. To make a stand on either issue is a matter of principle.


----------



## Macquack (21 February 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> What a completely arrogant ignorant narrowminded statement. But according to your standards, I am against. Shall we meet next week for an old fashioned gun duel?




Support of a government policy position is considered by gordon2007 to be "a completely arrogant ignorant narrowminded statement"?

To keep on topic and be authentic, lets make it an old fashioned harpoon duel.


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2010)

Macquack said:


> The second issue is the Japanese are conducting their illegal whaling in our territorial waters. To make a stand on either issue is a matter of principle.




The only principal involved is that you and your ilk think whales are sacred.  The Japanese think they are just fish to be caught and eaten like any other fish. All this talk about territorial waters is nonsense.


----------



## Macquack (21 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> The only principal involved is that you and your ilk think whales are sacred.  The Japanese think they are just fish to be caught and eaten like any other fish. All this talk about territorial waters is nonsense.




Whales are mammals, not fish. What the Japanese do to another mammal of the sea, the dolphin is another "bloodly" disgrace. 

My "ilk" just happens to be the majority of the International Whaling Commission.


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2010)

Macquack said:


> My "ilk" just happens to be the majority of the International Whaling Commission.




The IWC is a joke. Whales can be harvested at a sustainable level and they know this. Whales are not a sacred animal, except in the minds of eco-terrorists.


----------



## c-unit (21 February 2010)

There is no way Kevin will take Japan to an international court. The man is all talk. The election will be before his deadline, and it will be yet another broken promise by the most dispicable leader this country has ever had.


----------



## IFocus (21 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> The IWC is a joke. Whales can be harvested at a sustainable level and they know this. Whales are not a sacred animal, except in the minds of eco-terrorists.





Whales can be harvested at a sustainable level only in the minds of pro whaling terrorists.


----------



## gordon2007 (21 February 2010)

Macquack said:


> The second issue is the Japanese are conducting their illegal whaling in our territorial waters.




You still have not addressed the issue that it is australia and  only 4-6 other countries that recognise these waters as australian. You seem to be more annoyed that japan is in 'our' waters than anything else. When the very question is....are these actually 'our waters?  Again, if 99% of the world says "NO" then surely we must rethink what is ours and what is not.


----------



## IFocus (21 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> Whales are not a sacred animal, except in the minds of eco-terrorists.




Just further to this my in-laws run a Eco tourism business out of Exmouth and the whale sharks (a little of track) attract a lot of attention world wide along with the other gems Ningaloo etc. 

They would be and rightly so highly offended by your remarks to them the environment is sacred and not a farm.

The Eco business Australia wide is big dollars and is great for those communities not located in the suburbs people don't come here from over seas just to visit concrete jungles. 

So your term Eco terrorists would likely apply not just to people like myself but to a great number of hard working Australians (like the in-laws) trying to run a business around one of the few assets that actually is sustainable if some one doesn't kill the golden goose literally.


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> So your term Eco terrorists would likely apply not just to people like myself but to a great number of hard working Australians (like the in-laws) trying to run a business around one of the few assets that actually is sustainable if some one doesn't kill the golden goose literally.




If you think the cap fits... wear it. I was referring to animal rights nuts and the Sea Shepherd terrorists.

Much as you can try to claim the moral high ground, I'm afraid your unreal fascination with whales and your hatred of those you term Japanese ar*e kissers have clouded your judgement.


----------



## IFocus (21 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> Much as you can try to claim the moral high ground, I'm afraid your unreal fascination with whales and your hatred of those you term Japanese ar*e kissers have clouded your judgement.




The high moral ground is to end whaling...........

Not a fascination, concerned about where the future is headed and the real disaster we hand onto future generations yes. 

Definitely no hatred of anyone, really pointless emotion ........least of all any posters here and my judgment is just fine.


----------



## Julia (21 February 2010)

c-unit said:


> There is no way Kevin will take Japan to an international court. The man is all talk.



Agree.  Just add it to the list of Kev's "gunna's".
Sounds good at the time, as did his vow to protect Australians against rising grocery prices with Grocery Watch, and against petrol price rises with "Fuel Watch".
Nothing wrong with "Whale Watch".


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> The high moral ground is to end whaling...........
> 
> Not a fascination, concerned about where the future is headed and the real disaster we hand onto future generations yes.
> 
> Definitely no hatred of anyone, really pointless emotion ........least of all any posters here and my judgment is just fine.




You have already assumed the moral high ground. You are too good to be true. I hope your halo doesn't slip off.


----------



## nioka (21 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> The high moral ground is to end whaling...........
> 
> .




My mistake. I thought the moral high ground was to use a food resource in a sustainable manner. Or is it not my mistake but yours after all. Is it moral to deny another alternative food source in a world where many are starving?.


----------



## Calliope (22 February 2010)

nioka said:


> My mistake. I thought the moral high ground was to use a food resource in a sustainable manner. Or is it not my mistake but yours after all. Is it moral to deny another alternative food source in a world where many are starving?.




Mr Garrett has provided a timely example of what happens when environmentalists assume they what they set as the moral high ground can work in the real world. While he was giving priority to whales and reptiles, he completely forgot that he had been given a real job which he neglected with disastrous results.


----------



## gordon2007 (22 February 2010)

And just to stoke these flames a bit higher 
Courtesy of our lovely news.com.au

"Australia, along with New Zealand, opposes Japan's killing of hundreds of whales each year and allows ships of the militant environmental group the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society to use its ports."

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ot-a-legal-issue/story-e6frfku9-1225833147394

oh I do like that term 'militant'. Aren't the taliban and other iraqi groups called militants too?


----------



## Calliope (22 February 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> oh I do like that term 'militant'. Aren't the taliban and other iraqi groups called militants too?




Apparently if they are anti-whaling, Australia and NZ will not only condone any terrorist activities by the eco-terrorists, but will provide port facilities. In my opinion Japan has a good case to take to the International Court regarding these two countries aiding and abetting terrorists.


----------



## IFocus (22 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> *You are too good to be true. .*




If only my wife thought that


----------



## IFocus (22 February 2010)

nioka said:


> My mistake. I thought the moral high ground was to use a food resource in a sustainable manner. Or is it not my mistake but yours after all. Is it moral to deny another alternative food source in a world where many are starving?.





What feeds the masses is agriculture, it builds civilizations, not hunting, BTW people stave because of corrupt / selfish / tribalism  and dysfunctional governments and war.  

Africa is a very good case study

What sustains agriculture is good environment practices that produces fertile soils, clean air and potable water.


----------



## GumbyLearner (22 February 2010)

I'm all for whale safe beer. Go Singo!


----------



## IFocus (22 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> Mr Garrett has provided a timely example of what happens when environmentalists assume they what they set as the moral high ground can work in the real world. While he was giving priority to whales and reptiles, he completely forgot that he had been given a real job which he neglected with disastrous results.




Completely disagree with this "While he was giving priority to whales and reptiles"

Garret is a complete waste of space and should be sacked after being drawn and quartered. The insulation fiasco is an insight to how stupid and incompetent a minister he is.

He has achieved nothing for the environment while a minister and never will.

Ironically under Howard Robert Hill (liberal) was the last real environmental minister Australia  had.


----------



## Calliope (23 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> Completely disagree with this "While he was giving priority to whales and reptiles"




Yes, I forgot to mention that he was also giving priority to knocking back Traveston Dam on grounds of "national environmental significance', one of which was a bum-breathing turtle. He thus ensured that S.E Queensland , in times of water shortage, would be dependent on desalination plants, which are an environmental disgrace.


----------



## Sdajii (23 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> Yes, I forgot to mention that he was also giving priority to knocking back Traveston Dam on grounds of "national environmental significance', one of which was a bum-breathing turtle. He thus ensured that S.E Queensland , in times of water shortage, would be dependent on desalination plants, which are an environmental disgrace.




The Traveston dam would have been an environmental disgrace. Even as an herpetologist the turtle didn't excite me much, but pointing out one of the least important things in the dam doesn't seem objective if you're ignoring the lung fish, one of the most biologically unique and medically important species in the world. It's like saying it wasn't a big tragedy that those building were knocked down because not much was destroyed, I mean, some of the coffee cups in the tea rooms needed replacing soon anyway, so who cares if they were destroyed? Even aside from the environmental issues, the dam wasn't going to be very effective anyway.

Knocking back the Traveston dam was one of only two good things of much significance I can think of him having done though, among a whole mess of stuff ups. I grew up listening to Midnight Oil, as a teenager I went to a concert and was chosen from the crowd by Peter Garrett to come up on stage, it was pretty exciting at the time, but now it's pretty disappointing to see him having become one of the politicians he used to complain so much about.

Whaling... let's just accept that it comes down to one side thinking it's okay to kill whales to provide food for people, another side thinking they're too cute/special/fluffy/intelligent for it to be ethical to kill them, and we're not going to agree. 

None of us would want to see them hunted to the point of endangering any particular whale species, and if you want to consider Japan to the invading into Australia waters, just hope that it goes to court so that we can get a ruling. Of course, you're going to be disappointed when it becomes official that Australia has no claim to those waters, and the 1% of the world who currently recognises those claims will join the 99% who currently don't.


----------



## Calliope (23 February 2010)

Sdajii said:


> Even as an herpetologist the turtle didn't excite me much, but pointing out one of the least important things in the dam doesn't seem objective if you're ignoring the lung fish, one of the most biologically unique and medically important species in the world.




Right. Except that they do quite nicely in reservoirs.



> Of course, you're going to be disappointed when it becomes official that Australia has no claim to those waters, and the 1% of the world who currently recognises those claims will join the 99% who currently don't.




I won't be disappointed. That's my viewpoint exactly.


----------



## Sdajii (23 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> Right. Except that they do quite nicely in reservoirs.
> 
> 
> 
> I won't be disappointed. That's my viewpoint exactly.




They do quite nicely in reservoirs? Only if by "nicely" you mean "rapid vanishing act".

The whale bit wasn't directed at you, more the entire futile to and fro of the thread thing. Both sides would probably like to see the issue go to court. The fuzzy lovers will probably be deluded into thinking that it will go well for them, and the pro whalers will know that it will probably kill Australia's claim to territory. However, it's possible that if the 'scientific' aspect was examined in court they may have to come up with a new story. I suppose all they would need to do would be to actually run a few token science experiments or collect some data and publish it in some shonky journal.


----------



## Ageo (23 February 2010)

How come no1 is protesting about the killing of cockroaches? or ants? is it because the numbers are much higher? or is it because they show zero emotion unlike large creatures? whats makes whales more important than say flys?

If hunting whales in a "sustainable (meaning they will live forever) way" then whats the problem??

Is it the killing method? 1 would think an explosive harpoon is much more humane then a poison spray which kills little creatures slowly and perhaps painfully.

Is it the gore? i know much people can stand a squashed fly but cant stand the site of blood pouring out of a whale?

You see this is the problem with animal libbers and all other greenies, when they become "emotionally" attached all hell breaks as they focus purely on their emotional agenda and dont care what goes on around them.

Murderers walk free all the time, our rights of individuals are being stripped day by day and you guys are worried about fkn whales?

I wonder why we are going backwards...............


----------



## Macquack (23 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> Apparently if they are anti-whaling, Australia and NZ will not only condone any terrorist activities by the eco-terrorists, but will provide port facilities. In my opinion *Japan has a good case to take to the International Court regarding these two countries aiding and abetting terrorists*.




Dream on Calliope. You would not be saying such utter tripe if the Liberal Party were in power.

I haven't seen any Japanese whalers get slaughter yet by the Sea Sherpard crew. So far, the Japanese whalers have sunk one Sea Sherpard craft, while the Japanese whaling fleet are intact.


----------



## Macquack (23 February 2010)

Ageo said:


> How come no1 is protesting about the killing of cockroaches? or ants?




You can not be serious?


Ageo said:


> You see this is the problem with animal libbers and all other greenies, when they become "emotionally" attached all hell breaks as they focus purely on their emotional agenda and dont care what goes on around them.




You obviously do not own any pets?


----------



## IFocus (23 February 2010)

One for the Japanese fan club here

Japans policy is to.........screw every one nothing new. 

"Japan says it might ignore a ban on commercial bluefin tuna fishing if it is passed at an international convention next month."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/23/2827820.htm?section=world

Here is some history

Bluefin tuna plundering catches up with Japan

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1765413.htm

People you can trust

"The article reports that Japan has stolen $2 billion worth of southern bluefin tuna"

"Australian Fisheries Management Authority managing director, Richard McLoughlin. McLoughlin adds that an investigation into the fishery found Japanese fishers and suppliers from other countries caught up to three times tile Japanese quota each year for the past 20 years and hid it."

http://www.britannica.com/bps/addit...n-steals-southern-bluefin-tuna-worth-billions


----------



## Calliope (23 February 2010)

Macquack said:


> I haven't seen any Japanese whalers get slaughter yet by the Sea Sherpard crew. So far, the Japanese whalers have sunk one Sea Sherpard craft, while the Japanese whaling fleet are intact.




That just shows, like all hoons, how stupid these juvenile Sea Shepherd clowns whom you admire, are to play chicken with  Japanese.


----------



## Ageo (23 February 2010)

Macquack said:


> You can not be serious?
> 
> 
> You obviously do not own any pets?




I cant be serious? um please explain how whales have more importance than insects? id like to hear your side.

And yes i have owned many pets including goats, dogs etc....

Macquack you sure your not the lead skipper of the sea shepperd?


----------



## Sdajii (24 February 2010)

Macquack said:


> So far, the Japanese whalers have sunk one Sea Sherpard craft, while the Japanese whaling fleet are intact.




If someone threw themselves under my car as I was driving in protest of me driving a car, it would be a little misleading to imply that I had wanted to kill that person. The whalers do not follow Sea Shepherd around, the whalers do not try to put themselves into the path of other vessels. The whalers would much prefer to be left alone out there, they are not the ones causing conflict. If you believe someone is doing something illegal, the ethical way to take action is to take legal action or passive protest, not cause violent conflict.


----------



## Macquack (24 February 2010)

Sdajii said:


> If you believe someone is doing something illegal, the ethical way to take action is to take legal action or passive protest, not cause violent conflict.




Harden up Sdajii, the Sea Shepherd's actions are hardly what I would call "violent". The Sea Shepherd stategically tries to maximise its "inconvenience" of the Japanese whalers and provides a visible presence against illegal Japanese whaling.

Going the passive path has proven fruitless and the Sea Shepherd crew are venturing to the coal face to take some tangible action instead of just "taking the talk".


----------



## gordon2007 (24 February 2010)

Macquack said:


> the Sea Shepherd's actions are hardly what I would call "violent". The Sea Shepherd stategically tries to maximise its "inconvenience" of the Japanese whalers and provides a visible presence against illegal Japanese whaling.




What a ridiculous lie Mac. Why don't you ask the japanese sailors who's skin has been burned and required medical treatment just how "non violent" the people from the sea shepard have been. 

I believe that is where you and the rest of the anti whaling fleet are losing public support. Lies, lies and more lies. A lie by omission is still very much a lie.


----------



## IFocus (24 February 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> What a ridiculous lie Mac. Why don't you ask the japanese sailors who's skin has been burned and required medical treatment just how "non violent" the people from the sea shepard have been.
> 
> I believe that is where you and the rest of the anti whaling fleet are losing public support. Lies, lies and more lies. A lie by omission is still very much a lie.




Your completely missing the point Mac makes

If you look at the thread poll it's contrary to your view.

If fact the position of both side's of politics confirms that. The Liberals in fact have previously defended the anti Whaling stance quite strongly.

As for the lies I take it you haven't read about Japans history concerning the worlds fishery's.


----------



## Calliope (24 February 2010)

Macquack said:


> Harden up Sdajii, the Sea Shepherd's actions are hardly what I would call "violent". The Sea Shepherd stategically tries to maximise its "inconvenience" of the Japanese whalers and provides a visible presence against illegal Japanese whaling.
> 
> Going the passive path has proven fruitless and the Sea Shepherd crew are venturing to the coal face to take some tangible action instead of just "taking the talk".




Dream on Macquack. What a load of tripe. These rich, well funded sea hoons are  harassing the Japanese just because they get a kick out of it. They dont give a stuff about the whales. I see racist overtones in their actions.


----------



## Sdajii (24 February 2010)

Macquack said:


> Harden up Sdajii, the Sea Shepherd's actions are hardly what I would call "violent". The Sea Shepherd stategically tries to maximise its "inconvenience" of the Japanese whalers and provides a visible presence against illegal Japanese whaling.
> 
> Going the passive path has proven fruitless and the Sea Shepherd crew are venturing to the coal face to take some tangible action instead of just "taking the talk".




Harden up? If they want to take illegal and offensive action, they are the ones who need to harden up rather than complain about one of their vessels sinking. If they were merely being an inconvenience rather than being dangerous, they would not have sunk one of their vessels.

If I was going out hunting pigs and you decided you would try to drive your car in front of mine on my way there, or stand between me and the pig while I took aim, do you think it might be a little more irresponsible and idiotic than simply being an inconvenience? Would you have any reason to complain if your car was destroyed by mine or you were shot? No, but sadly the law would still likely take your side. This sort of thing would be especially stupid if I was acting within the law.

Vigilantism is illegal with good reason, and when Sea Shepherd steps over the line and goes too far, they ligitimise what the other side is doing to some extent. One side carries very little credibility when crying foul of the other, when that side has equal reason to cry foul in return.


----------



## IFocus (26 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> Dream on Macquack. What a load of tripe. These rich, well funded sea hoons are  harassing the Japanese just because they get a kick out of it. They dont give a stuff about the whales. I see racist overtones in their actions.




I take it from your continued aggressive posture that you hate the Shepard crew and Captain based on extensive research of.............

Exactly what is your position on Whaling and its effects on Australian business's involved with the tourist industry?


----------



## Calliope (26 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> I take it from your continued aggressive posture that you hate the Shepard crew and Captain based on extensive research of.............




Based on their obnoxious behaviour.



> Exactly what is your position on Whaling and its effects on Australian business's involved with the tourist industry?




Like most people in the world of my generation my main interest is my own survival. I have no desire to take on extra emotional baggage worrying about whales, eco-tourism or your silly questions.:shake:


----------



## Macquack (26 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> Like most people in the world of my generation my main interest is my own survival. I have no desire to take on extra emotional baggage worrying about whales, eco-tourism or your silly questions.:shake:




If your not interested in this topic, I suggest you butt out as you don't need to have an opinion on f*cking everything.


----------



## Calliope (27 February 2010)

Macquack said:


> If your not interested in this topic, I suggest you butt out as you don't need to have an opinion on f*cking everything.




The topic is "Whale Wars". I am interested in why you and you mate IFocus are so upset;

. because I don't share your obsessional belief that whales are sacred. 

. because I don't consider Watson and his gang of hoons to be heroes.

. that your need to stoop to abuse and gutter language to get your point across.


----------



## All a load of .. (27 February 2010)

Sdajii said:


> ... The only argument for a ban on whaling is the cuddly one. Whales are a massive resource. They are a top predator, so overfishing will wipe them out more quickly than smaller fish...




I am only just working my way through this thread, and so maybe someone else has already said this, yet a "top predator". You have got to be kidding me, or making it up, either way its good to see that the emotive language is not just for the fools on the catamaran.


----------



## Calliope (27 February 2010)

All a load of .. said:


> I am only just working my way through this thread, and so maybe someone else has already said this, yet a "top predator". You have got to be kidding me, or making it up, either way its good to see that the emotive language is not just for the fools on the catamaran.




I refer you to my post #52




> Minke Whales are known to eat a wide range of fish species including krill, capeline, herring, sand lance, mackerel, gadoids, cod, saithe and haddock (Haug et al, 1996). Minke Whales are estimated to consume 633,000 tons of Atlantic herring per year in part of Northeast Atlantic (Folkow et al, 1997). In the Barents Sea, it is estimated that a net economic loss of five tons of cod and herring per fishery results from every additional Minke Whale in the population due the fish consumption of the single whale (Schweder, et al, 2000).






> If that's not a predator, it will do until one comes along.




The most efficient sea predator is the Killer Whale (orca). It feeds on fish, seals and larger whales.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 February 2010)

Watson has just given up, gone home.

What an absolute muppet. Greens, Seashepherds etc. have no bottle imho.

If we had done this with the Japs during WW2, we would be eating Whaleburger Meals in the Sushihut now.

gg


----------



## Ato (27 February 2010)

We can thank the Yanks for saving our butts in WW2. The British packed their collective tails between their legs and said, "Well, good luck Aussies, you're on your own!'. If the Yanks hadnt come through, well yeah, SushiHut it would be!


----------



## nioka (27 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> The topic is "Whale Wars". I am interested in why you and you mate IFocus are so upset;
> 
> . because I don't share your obsessional belief that whales are sacred.
> 
> ...




I find it hard to have a rational debate with most greenies. Maybe it is because there is not much between the ears. Usually if they cant win a debate they resort to abuse and illegal or terror tactics. (sabotage logging machinery, spike trees, block public highways, etc.). Democracy is only OK for them if they get what they want. 

In this area they are passionate about flying foxes, our biggest pest. Flying foxes are pretty dumb. Did you know that if they get caught in a fruit net that the bang their head against a hammer until they stop kicking?.

Start a new thread "Flying fox wars"  The whaling season has finished.


----------



## IFocus (27 February 2010)

nioka said:


> I find it hard to have a rational debate with most greenies. Maybe it is because there is not much between the ears.




I think its unfortunate you feel that way towards me 



> Usually if they cant win a debate they resort to abuse and illegal or terror tactics. (sabotage logging machinery, spike trees, block public highways, etc.). Democracy is only OK for them if they get what they want.




Unlike those that continually break international agreements that they signed up to and plunder accordingly.



> In this area they are passionate about flying foxes, our biggest pest. Flying foxes are pretty dumb. Did you know that if they get caught in a fruit net that the bang their head against a hammer until they stop kicking?.




From experience,  only inexperienced use hammers unfortunately its a pretty slow way to put an animal down but what ever turns you on ..............


----------



## IFocus (27 February 2010)

Calliope said:


> The topic is "Whale Wars". I am interested in why you and you mate IFocus are so upset;




Not so much upset more the case that we have a pulse.


----------



## nioka (28 February 2010)

IFocus said:


> From experience,  only inexperienced use hammers unfortunately its a pretty slow way to put an animal down but what ever turns you on ..............




Only the inexperienced need to use more than one blow.


----------



## Bloveld (2 March 2010)

nioka said:


> I find it hard to have a rational debate with most greenies. Maybe it is because there is not much between the ears. Usually if they cant win a debate they resort to abuse and illegal or terror tactics. (sabotage logging machinery, spike trees, block public highways, etc.). Democracy is only OK for them if they get what they want.
> 
> In this area they are passionate about flying foxes, our biggest pest. Flying foxes are pretty dumb. Did you know that if they get caught in a fruit net that the bang their head against a hammer until they stop kicking?.
> 
> Start a new thread "Flying fox wars"  The whaling season has finished.





You have any evidence that greenies are stupid?
Well if you dont I guess thats an irrational statement you made.
Where I am from, saying someone doesnt have much between their ears is pretty much abuse.
Looks like you showed yourself to be a hypocrite in your first paragraph. Not the sort of mistake an intelligent person would make.

I guess you have a few rational debates with your mates, when you are out torturing bats.

I bet London to a brick that the sheep round your way have stomach ulcers.


----------



## nioka (2 March 2010)

Bloveld said:


> You have any evidence that greenies are stupid?




Yes.

Example 1. Forrestry. By the persistant opposition to forestry in general they have forced the forestry industry away from sustainable native forest harvesting into monoculture. This means clear felling and the growing of sterile enviroments. Ask anyone who actually WORKS in the industry.

Example 2. Who but a complete idiot would place others at risk by having them act so dangerously in antartic waters as they have done with the anti whale crusade.

Example 3. Who in their right mind would want to place flying foxes above all other residents when they make themselves such a pest. Flying foxes are in plague numbers right now and it is illegal to even make a noise to disturb them.

Example 4. Have you seen some of their feeble efforts at "living with nature".

 Sorry that is all I have time for now.

P.S. There are no sheep in this area so I can't comment there but I'm sure some of the hippies in the hills have some.


----------



## Ageo (2 March 2010)

Bloveld said:


> You have any evidence that greenies are stupid?
> Well if you dont I guess thats an irrational statement you made.
> Where I am from, saying someone doesnt have much between their ears is pretty much abuse.
> Looks like you showed yourself to be a hypocrite in your first paragraph. Not the sort of mistake an intelligent person would make.
> ...




Interesting your defending greenies when you have a fishing picture in your avatar? care to explain?


----------



## IFocus (2 March 2010)

Ageo said:


> Interesting your defending greenies when you have a fishing picture in your avatar? care to explain?





Tag and release


----------



## Bloveld (3 March 2010)

Empirical evidence. Not just a bunch of half assed opinions.

A person can want to protect whales without being a vegan, pushbike riding hippie.


----------



## gordon2007 (3 March 2010)

Bloveld said:


> pushbike riding hippie.




awww...don't bludge me pushbike now


----------



## nioka (3 March 2010)

Bloveld said:


> Empirical evidence. Not just a bunch of half assed opinions..




None so blind as those that will not see.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Mr J (3 March 2010)

Ato said:


> We can thank the Yanks for saving our butts in WW2. The British packed their collective tails between their legs and said, "Well, good luck Aussies, you're on your own!'. If the Yanks hadnt come through, well yeah, SushiHut it would be!




Might be true if it weren't for the fact that the Japanese did not have the logistical capability to invade and occupy Australia. There would be some sort of peace arrangement, which I doubt would include whaling rights or including it on our menus.


----------



## Ageo (3 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> Tag and release




So ripping the fish's throat to reel him in is more humane than killing a whale humanely?

lolol P.S i love fishing but im trying to understand the (whale protesters point of view). Is it the killing? what is it that frustrates people about whaling?


----------



## Macquack (3 March 2010)

Ageo said:


> *what is it that frustrates people about whaling?*




Hello????. Commercial whaling is BANNED.

Even those Japanese f*ckers half play along with the International Whaling Commissions moratorium on commercial whaling by "claiming" that their whale slaughter is purely for "scientific research".

Ageo, do you see why some people are "frustrated" at the Japanese. It is because the Japanese are not playing 'fair and square' by the rules.


----------



## gordon2007 (4 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> 'fair and square' by the rules.




Mac, the very same emotion you have, this very same view, is the same emotion and same view people share about captain quackhead. Can you honestly say these anti whalers are playing fair and by the rules? 

This is, my friend, the whole point of this thread. Why is it OK for this anti whaling group to break laws but not OK for the japanese to break laws?


----------



## Calliope (4 March 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> Mac, the very same emotion you have, this very same view, is the same emotion and same view people share about captain quackhead. Can you honestly say these anti whalers are playing fair and by the rules?
> 
> This is, my friend, the whole point of this thread. Why is it OK for this anti whaling group to break laws but not OK for the japanese to break laws?




These are questions that Macquack cannot answer except on ideologist grounds.

Activist groups like the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society claim that Japan's whaling practices violate international law. Japan claims the direct-action tactics of Sea Shepherd are illegal, in essence a form of eco-terrorism.

Notwithstanding a 2008 Australian Federal Court ruling that Japan’s actions were illegal under Australian law, the Japanese have defied the court orders insisting that as they do not recognize Australia’s Antarctic claim, they are not bound to respect Australian law. The Rudd government, not wanting to risk a challenge to Australian sovereignty over Antarctica, has not actively pursued enforcement of these court orders.


----------



## Ageo (4 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> Hello????. Commercial whaling is BANNED.




So basically your getting so hysterical because a foreign country is breaking the law??????? 

Ill say it again *what is it that frustrates people about whaling?*


----------



## nioka (4 March 2010)

Ageo said:


> Ill say it again *what is it that frustrates people about whaling?*






I get frustrated with the fact that I can't start up a whaling station again in Australia although I'm working on starting for one in a Pacific Island.


----------



## gordon2007 (4 March 2010)

nioka said:


> I'm working on starting for one in a Pacific Island.




That sounds really interesting! I'm quite intrigued to know how one goes about starting up a whaling station. In fact, I'm not even sure what a whaling station is, but sure does sound interesting.


----------



## nioka (4 March 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> That sounds really interesting! I'm quite intrigued to know how one goes about starting up a whaling station. In fact, I'm not even sure what a whaling station is, but sure does sound interesting.




In the 50's I was engaged by the Tongans to design a shore based station. The station was designed to catch approximately 50 whales per year with the idea being a a supply of whale meat for around 4 to 5 months each year. Also to give employment for six months each year to around 20 people.

I also had a job advising W.R. Carpenter in FIJI regards starting up there and also one advising the administration of the Cook Islands on the whaling potential.

These 3 jobs fell through when Onassis disregarded the whaling agreement and the whale numbers were drastically reduced.

Whaling would not be illegal. Actually whaling nations agreed on a moratorium in order that the whale numbers were allowed to recover. The numbers of some species have recovered.

 The engineering details and the technical know is still in my head ( a lot still on paper) so I have a start on anyone else.


----------



## Macquack (4 March 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> Mac, the very same emotion you have, this very same view, is the same emotion and same view people share about captain quackhead. Can you honestly say these anti whalers are playing fair and by the rules?
> 
> This is, my friend, the whole point of this thread. Why is it OK for this anti whaling group to break laws but not OK for the japanese to break laws?




You don't have to be pro the "Sea Shepherd" to be anti Japanese whaling.

I can understand the anti "Sea Shepherd" position but I can't understand the pro Japanese whaling stance.


----------



## Macquack (4 March 2010)

Ageo said:


> So basically your getting so hysterical because a foreign country is breaking the law???????
> 
> Ill say it again *what is it that frustrates people about whaling?*




Mate, you say you "love fishing". I assume your catches comply with the relevant 'bag and size' LIMITS of your particular state fisheries authority.

Well, guess what? If you are Japanese, those 'bag and size' limits mean 'f*ck all' and only apply to those fools who bother to comply with the rules. 

Ageo, are you getting the picture why I may be getting "frustrated" but not "hysterical".


----------



## IFocus (4 March 2010)

Ageo said:


> So ripping the fish's throat to reel him in is more humane than killing a whale humanely?
> 
> lolol P.S i love fishing but im trying to understand the (whale protesters point of view). Is it the killing? what is it that frustrates people about whaling?





Read the thread from the start, there are a whole range of reasons not least the disconnected people who just don't get the fact that the environment generally is going down the tubes.


----------



## Calliope (4 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> Mate...
> Well, guess what? If you are Japanese, those 'bag and size' limits mean 'f*ck all' and only apply to those fools who bother to comply with the rules.
> 
> Ageo, are you getting the picture why I may be getting "frustrated" but not "hysterical".




Do you blame your gutter language on on being "frustrated' or "hysterical"?

And y'know something?  You are starting to talk like Mr Rudd.


----------



## Macquack (5 March 2010)

Calliope, have a look at this "bloody" video.



Scientific research of whales, my ar*e. 

Here is a novel suggestion for the Japanese - *How about coming up with a non-lethal method of "scientific research".*


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> You don't have to be pro the "Sea Shepherd" to be anti Japanese whaling.
> 
> I can understand the anti "Sea Shepherd" position but I can't understand the pro Japanese whaling stance.




I find both CgradeShepherds and the Jap whalers equally objectionable and seeing them both beating the beejasus out of each other warms my Machiavellian heart.



IFocus said:


> Read the thread from the start, there are a whole range of reasons not least the disconnected people who just don't get the fact that the environment generally is going down the tubes.




I doubt if anyone on this forum doubts that the environment is important and deserving of protection. The main difference lies between maudling basket weaving greens and people like me who demand rigid science and reasonably economic solutions.

gg


----------



## Calliope (5 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> Calliope, have a look at this "bloody" video.
> 
> Scientific research of whales, my ar*e.




I'm afraid I don't share you warm fuzzy feelings about whales or fruit bats. 

As for "scientific research"; who gives a damn?  It's certainly none of your  business or mine.



> Well, guess what? If you are Japanese, those 'bag and size' limits mean 'f*ck all' and only apply to those fools who bother to comply with the rules.




Seeing you are a stickler for rules, I draw your attention to the ASF Code of Conduct para 3;

"Obscene language... is strictly forbidden and will not be tolerated".


----------



## Macquack (5 March 2010)

Calliope said:


> Seeing you are a stickler for rules, I draw your attention to the ASF Code of Conduct para 3;
> 
> "Obscene language... is strictly forbidden and will not be tolerated".




I am adopting the Japanese culture of ignoring any rules that don't suit me and to hell with anyone who questions my actions.


----------



## Calliope (5 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> I am adopting the Japanese culture of ignoring any rules that don't suit me and to hell with anyone who questions my actions.




Now that's the real Macquack. Spoken like a true Greenie and eco-terrorist. Watson would be proud of you.


----------



## Macquack (6 March 2010)

I think you mean the captain of the "Yashin Maru" would be proud. 

Just remember Calliope, when the Sea Shepherd crew disengages from pursuing the Japanese whaling fleet,* the Japanese whalers are still in contravention of the commercial whaling ban.*


----------



## IFocus (6 March 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I doubt if anyone on this forum doubts that the environment is important and deserving of protection. The main difference lies between maudling basket weaving greens and people like me who demand rigid science and reasonably economic solutions.
> 
> gg




Demand what from who.............populist governments your are surely joking.......maybe the business world will look after it hilarious,  no more like Nero fiddling around making up excuses while Rome burns I think.


----------



## gordon2007 (9 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> the Japanese whalers are still in contravention of the commercial whaling ban.[/B]




You're wrong. What they are doing is legal. Morally right, that depends on ones own beliefs. But legally, they are within their rights, hence the term 'legal loophole'.


----------



## Macquack (9 March 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> You're wrong. What they are doing is legal. Morally right, that depends on ones own beliefs. But legally, they are within their rights, hence the term 'legal loophole'.




Have a look at the video I posted above. What's "ones own beliefs" got to do with it, it is blatantly obvious this is not "scientific research".


----------



## gordon2007 (9 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> Have a look at the video I posted above. /QUOTE]
> 
> I looked at it before I posted a response to your original post. Quite honestly, nothing in that video upsets me. It's no different than the pork, chicken, lamb and other meats and fish I eat.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macquack (9 March 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> Apparently a cow is dumb so it's OK to eat it? A roo is a pest, so it's OK to kill them? It's OK to shoot a duck with a shotgun? *I just cannot see how killing a whale for consumption is any different. *



The difference is it is *illegal to kill a whale strictly for consumption *(unless it is thoroughly "researched" first to make sure it is dead and up to Japanese "sashimi" standards).





gordon2007 said:


> I don't understand how you cannot understand the repeated points about the legal claims we have to these waters. You seem to just constantly ignore these very valid claims. As if they don't mean anything?




I am against Japanese whaling *in any waters *where they conduct their "scientific research". If it happens to be in Australian waters (which our Government claims), I expect the Government to do something about it as promised.


----------



## Ageo (10 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> The difference is it is *illegal to kill a whale strictly for consumption *(unless it is thoroughly "researched" first to make sure it is dead and up to Japanese "sashimi" standards).




Macquack so if they passed the law that allowed the japs to harvest whales for consumption would your anger and frustration be over? 

or would it then lead to the ethical & humane methods of killing?

then if they satisfied your humane killing methods would you be fine with it? 

or would it lead to the gender and age of whales being harvested?

etc...............


The point being no matter what they do you will never be happy because your only thinking about what you care/want which is "*Save the Whales*".


How come cockroaches dont have the anti brigade by their side? poor bastards.


----------



## gooner (10 March 2010)

Ageo said:


> Macquack so if they passed the law that allowed the japs to harvest whales for consumption would your anger and frustration be over?
> 
> or would it then lead to the ethical & humane methods of killing?
> 
> ...




Ageo

Don't forget the flies. These are totally victimised in our house. Particularly at the moment when there seem to be lots of them settling on the screen of my iMac.

But they are not as cute as whales. Or as tasty..........


----------



## nioka (11 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> The difference is it is *illegal to kill a whale strictly for consumption .*



*

There is NO law that makes killing a whale illegal. There are laws that make it illegal to kill whales in some individual countries territorial waters. (The same as it is illegal to kill a snake in your own back yard in Australia, catch fish in marine parks etc)

 There was a moratorium on the killing of whales to let the numbers recover. Then the tree huggers took over or think they have.

So Japan breaks no laws, nor would we or any other country if we or they decide to recommence whaling or catch whales in international waters.*


----------



## Bloveld (11 March 2010)

Well the government is going to try legal action to stop the whaling. 
You know, our democatically elected government. 
Must hurt to know you are in the minority.
Must hurt more, to know your tax dollars are being used to fight whaling.


----------



## IFocus (11 March 2010)

Ageo said:


> Macquack so if they passed the law that allowed the japs to harvest whales for consumption would your anger and frustration be over?
> 
> or would it then lead to the ethical & humane methods of killing?
> 
> ...




Hope you don't apply this logic to the markets


----------



## Macquack (11 March 2010)

nioka said:


> There is NO law that makes killing a whale illegal.




The International Whaling Commission (84 member states including Japan) has in place a ban on commercial whaling as per the 1986 moratorium.

The international ban may not be a law as such, but there are consequences if a country does not conform to the convention.


----------



## Macquack (11 March 2010)

Ageo said:


> The point being no matter what they do *you will never be happy *because your only thinking about what you care/want which is "*Save the Whales*".




Ageo, when are you going to get the concept that it is the international community being 84 member countries of the International Whaling Commission that are "saving the whales". It is not just IFocus, the Sea Sherpherd and myself "flying the flag".


----------



## Ato (11 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> The international ban may not be a law as such, but *there are consequences if a country does not conform to the convention*.




Would you mind providing evidence of the bolded statement, please, Macquack? As far as I am aware (and I'll admit I dont know much of the specifics), the IWC has no ability to penalise members. Therefore there would be no consequences.


----------



## gooner (11 March 2010)

Ato said:


> Would you mind providing evidence of the bolded statement, please, Macquack? As far as I am aware (and I'll admit I dont know much of the specifics), the IWC has no ability to penalise members. Therefore there would be no consequences.




Japan could pull out of the IWC, continue whaling and no legal issues. It is a bit like the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. India, Pakistan, Israel are not members and create nukes, no legal issue. For Iran that is a member, there are sanctions, inspections etc


----------



## Macquack (11 March 2010)

Ato said:


> Would you mind providing evidence of the bolded statement, please, Macquack? As far as I am aware (and I'll admit I dont know much of the specifics), the IWC has no ability to penalise members. *Therefore there would be no consequences*.




IWC member nations can take action against non-complying nations, such as the adoption of trade sanctions.

For example, after the commencement of the 1986 Moratorium on whaling, the Japanese (showing no respect for the world governing body) continued full commercial whaling until the United States pressured the "Land of the Rising Sun" into withdrawing their objection to the Moratorium and finally ceasing full commercial whaling in 1988 ( whaling for "scientific research" continues).


----------



## gordon2007 (12 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> Ageo, when are you going to get the concept that it is the international community being 84 member countries of the International Whaling Commission that are "saving the whales". It is not just IFocus, the Sea Sherpherd and myself "flying the flag".




Using that same thought process macquack (a majority rules), why is it then that you cannot accept or fail to realise that australia claiming these waters as our own is a ridiculous arrogant claim when 99% of the rest of the world does not recognise this claim.  

It does not seem fair dinkum that you use this very same logic to advance your thoughts but dismiss it when it does not suite you.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 March 2010)

Macquack said:


> The difference is it is *illegal to kill a whale strictly for consumption *(unless it is thoroughly "researched" first to make sure it is dead and up to Japanese "sashimi" standards).
> 
> 
> I am against Japanese whaling *in any waters *where they conduct their "scientific research". If it happens to be in Australian waters (which our Government claims), I expect the Government to do something about it as promised.




Mate if the Australian guvment cannot even control the Torres Strait how in hells name can you expect them to control Antarctica.

And this mob can't even put batts in attics, so protecting a drongo for them would be difficult at the moment never mind bloody whales.

Get real mate.

gg

gg


----------



## Macquack (12 March 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> Using that same thought process macquack (a majority rules), why is it then that you cannot accept or fail to realise that australia claiming these waters as our own is a ridiculous arrogant claim when *99% of the rest of the world does not recognise this claim*.
> 
> It does not seem fair dinkum that you use this very same logic to advance your thoughts but dismiss it when it does not suite you.




Gordon, if you are going to throw around numbers (%) then at least get them right.

Using your ill founded logic that "if a country does not have a claim, it must by nature oppose". 
[189/196 X100 = 96%]. 96% is not 99%.

The facts are there are only 46 member nations of the Antartic Treaty.
28 Consultative members.
18 Acceding status members.
Only the Consultative members (including the 7 nations that make territorial claims) have voting rights.
[21/28 x 100 = 75%]. 75% is not 99%.

Furthermore,
"The 21 non-claimant nations either do not recognize the claims of others, or *have not stated their positions*."

So Gordon, please explain how you come up with your magic "99% of the rest of the world does not recognise this claim"?


----------



## Ato (12 March 2010)

Fair enough. I wonder why Japan simply doesnt pull out of the treaty then. That way they could just do their whaling without the pretence of doing it for science. I guess they must have some agenda for staying in IWC. Wonder if the US pressures them to stay in the IWC so that the Japanese are given continued access to US waters for fishing (and the US hopes to stop them whaling that way)?

The skipper(?) of the Andy Gil has been arrested here today.


----------



## IFocus (12 March 2010)

Ato said:


> Fair enough. I wonder why Japan simply doesnt pull out of the treaty then. That way they could just do their whaling without the pretence of doing it for science. I guess they must have some agenda for staying in IWC. Wonder if the US pressures them to stay in the IWC so that the Japanese are given continued access to US waters for fishing (and the US hopes to stop them whaling that way)?
> 
> The skipper(?) of the Andy Gil has been arrested here today.




I think this would be close to the situation as for Peter Bethune it will keep the issue in the headlines.



The US stance on Whaling is clear, if this guy is found guilty will be interesting to see what he gets the US wildlife and customs generally don't mess around



> US sushi chef charged with serving whale




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/12/2843784.htm?section=world


----------



## Ageo (13 March 2010)

IFocus said:


> Hope you don't apply this logic to the markets




Logic? in this thread there is no logic, just emotional responses to how they feel about something.

It reminds me of when the greenies protest about duck hunting and i remember seeing a sign on 1 that said "*shoot me not the ducks*" 

lolol i think that summed up how they were.


----------



## IFocus (13 March 2010)

Ageo said:


> Logic? in this thread there is no logic, just emotional responses to how they feel about something.




This is IMHO true and its true for both sides both for the hunter (the need for the emotional feed back of killing some thing) and the conversationalist (emotional feed back for preservation) 

With out experiencing  emotion and all the colors it has to offer life would be dull. 

Emotional choice is another thing, chose the right emotions and you can grow / gain wisdom, choose the neg / dark emotions and you become just another drop kick.


----------



## IFocus (13 March 2010)

This article is probably bias but interesting insight to Japanese government fishery behavior and I wonder is it the type of thinking that has placed Japan into the economy black hole they are currently facing "the bug looking for a windscreen economy"

*The disappearing bluefin stirs calls for urgent action *

Last paragraph



> In a sushi-train restaurant in Tokyo this week, Osamu Morita, 38, a banker, seemed bemused by the fuss. ''When the tuna is all gone we can find something else to eat. There are plenty of delicious creatures in the sea.''




http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-dis...rs-calls-for-urgent-action-20100312-q477.html


----------



## IFocus (14 March 2010)

Sea warrior Paul Watson 



> "The Galapagos is our line in the sand. If we can't save something as beautiful; as profoundly unique, as pristine as the Galapagos, we can't save anything," Watson says.




http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/sea-warrior-20100313-q5cp.html


----------



## nioka (22 March 2010)

Todays news on nine,

"New Zealand Prime Minister John Key says killing whales is akin to murder but he's supportive of reaching an agreement to allow some whaling if it reduces the numbers taken.

International Whaling Commission nations met recently to talk about a proposal to allow Japan, Norway and Iceland to openly hunt whales despite a 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling, but with the aim of reducing the total catch over the next 10 years. Japan currently uses a loophole to kill whales saying it is for scientific research while the other countries are not bound by the moratorium as they did not agree to it.

Australia has ruled out backing the compromise saying all whaling in the Southern Ocean should be phased out within five years, but New Zealand is open to it.

The status quo was not working, Key said on Monday.

"The first port of call has to be to try find a diplomatic solution that works both in the short term, and hopefully, over the long terms sees the elimination of whaling," he told Radio Live.

"No one wants to see whales killed. I mean there's the horrible sight of what equates to murder really when you see a mammal the size of a whale being killed."

However, phasing out over time may be the only way forward.

"If we can't get a blanket complete stop, then a phasing out so there's an eventual end to whaling is important."

Australia had campaigned domestically on the issue so was taking a strong position.

"But we are all keen to see progress. It's just a matter of how. I might add that the Americans who feel very passionately about this issue as well are very much in lockstep with New Zealand."

Key said he agreed with Whaling Commissioner Sir Geoffrey Palmer who on Sunday told TVNZ that taking a case to the International Court of Justice could take years and would be counter-productive if anti-whaling countries lost.

Australia has threatened to go the ICJ if by the end of the year diplomatic measures fail to stop Japan whaling in the Southern Ocean fail.

The next IWC meeting is in Morocco in June.

Japan, Norway and Iceland issue permits allowing them to catch about 3000 whales a year and about 1600 are killed commercially. However, Sir Geoffrey said the yearly kill figure was 13,500 before the moratorium.

Sir Geoffrey said the IWC was dysfunctional and if no agreement could be reached it would collapse.

If the proposal was agreed to, it would not lift the moratorium but would qualify it to allow a set number of whales to be killed.

"What I am saying is that we want fewer whales, many fewer whales killed than are being killed at the moment. Let's look at the facts, let's be realistic, let's not be emotional"

HE CALLS IT MURDER THEN SAYS "LETS NOT BE EMOTIONAL"


----------



## nioka (1 April 2010)

Australia has criticised New Zealand for backing a compromise pact to lift the ban on whaling.

Australia has expressed its alarm as support grows internationally for a pact to legalise whaling.

New Zealand has backed the compromise pact, which would lift the current ban on commercial whaling while reducing the number of whales killed by Japan under the guise of "research".

NZ had been one of Australia's staunchest allies in the fight against Antarctic whaling.

But now the country's whaling commissioner, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, says he'll support the compromise proposal at the next meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in June, the ABC reports.

Currently, commercial whaling is banned but countries can hunt whales in the name of science. Up to 1900 are killed each year.

Australia wants Japan to stop whaling, but Japan insists that it has the right to hunt whales.

The issue has been stuck in diplomatic limbo and there is an increasing push to find a compromise, alarming conservation groups.

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett spoke out against NZ's support for the compromise proposal.

"I am alarmed and very concerned that NZ would support a proposal that is flawed and represents a huge compromise to pro-whaling nations," he said.

"Australia cannot support the compromise package now being discussed in the IWC."

That package was loaded in favour of the whalers, Mr Garrett said.

Australia has vowed to take Japan to court if it does not agree, by November 2010, to phase out whaling in the Southern Ocean.

If the compromise proposal succeeds, then whaling will become legal and Australia would have no case.


----------



## Julia (1 April 2010)

Sir Geoffrey Palmer, the architect of the above proposal, would have to be one of New Zealand's most ineffectual Prime Ministers, having become Prime Minister by default because he was Deputy when David Lange resigned, as I recall it.
His tenure leading the country was mercifully brief.

He seems to have done an about face from when he was NZ's Environment Minister.

Yet another example of why retired politicians should be put out to pasture and never revived imo.


----------



## Macquack (2 April 2010)

*Sea Shepherd captain Peter Bethune faces a 15 year prison sentence *
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/bre...-prison-sentence/story-e6frg12u-1225848943450

The Jap's would not be that stupid (would they?) to dish out such an extreme sentence.


----------



## gordon2007 (3 April 2010)

Macquack said:


> The Jap's would not be that stupid (would they?) to dish out such an extreme sentence.




I don't think the japanese will be any more 'extreme' than these people jumping aboard someone else's property.


----------



## IFocus (3 April 2010)

Macquack said:


> *Sea Shepherd captain Peter Bethune faces a 15 year prison sentence *
> http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/bre...-prison-sentence/story-e6frg12u-1225848943450
> 
> The Jap's would not be that stupid (would they?) to dish out such an extreme sentence.




I think there is a good chance they will be (that stupid / ignorant), the whaling fleet is really the Japanese Government Whaling fleet so I guess it maybe seen as an act against the Government.

The Japanese have no feelings of guilt what so ever destroying the worlds fishery's, Bethune will do time.


----------



## Ato (3 April 2010)

Hmm I doubt that he'll do any time. The Japanese will just make it look like he will, and stretch it out and make a really big fuss, and in the end let him off. That's my   I certainly might be wrong though.

Let's make a little bet, IFocus. If I'm wrong I will change my Avatar header message to "IFocus is credit to team", if I'm right you change yours to "Ato is credit to team". Whaddya say thar, matey?  (We can keep changes for a month)


----------



## Calliope (3 April 2010)

Ato said:


> Hmm I doubt that he'll do any time. The Japanese will just make it look like he will, and stretch it out and make a really big fuss, and in the end let him off.




Macquack and IFocus will be disappointed if he doesn't get a stiff sentence. They would love to have a martyr for the cause. The Japanese actually played into their hands when they arrested this guy.

Eco-nuts are masters of the dirty tricks game.


----------



## IFocus (3 April 2010)

Ato said:


> Hmm I doubt that he'll do any time. The Japanese will just make it look like he will, and stretch it out and make a really big fuss, and in the end let him off. That's my   I certainly might be wrong though.
> 
> Let's make a little bet, IFocus. If I'm wrong I will change my Avatar header message to "IFocus is credit to team", if I'm right you change yours to "Ato is credit to team". Whaddya say thar, matey?  (We can keep changes for a month)




LOL I'll take you up in the spirit its offered but some how I think I am betting against probability given your Japanese connection  good luck


----------



## Macquack (3 April 2010)

What is the situation with Peter Bethune being dragged all the way back to Japan if the incident happened in "international waters" as claimed by the Japs?

I think "international waters" translates in Japanese to "Japanese waters".

For Gordon, if these are not Australian waters, they sure as hell are not Japanese waters.


----------



## Julia (3 April 2010)

Macquack said:


> What is the situation with Peter Bethune being dragged all the way back to Japan if the incident happened in "international waters" as claimed by the Japs?
> 
> I think "international waters" translates in Japanese to "Japanese waters".
> 
> For Gordon, if these are not Australian waters, they sure as hell are not Japanese waters.



I imagine it has less to do with what waters the incident occurred in and more to do with his boarding a Japanese ship without invitation or permission.


----------



## Ato (3 April 2010)

IFocus said:


> LOL I'll take you up in the spirit its offered but some how I think I am betting against probability given your Japanese connection  good luck




Hehe, well I dont really have any inside info. Might take a while to play out, as the Japanese justice system is notoriously slow.


----------



## Calliope (22 May 2010)

Rudd and Garrett are no longer going to take Japan to the International Court over whaling. Apparently it was only a symbolic gesture.


----------



## Julia (22 May 2010)

Calliope said:


> Rudd and Garrett are no longer going to take Japan to the International Court over whaling. Apparently it was only a symbolic gesture.



Only a symbolic gesture?   Well, fancy that.  Would never have thought it possible.


----------



## IFocus (22 May 2010)

Julia said:


> Only a symbolic gesture?   Well, fancy that.  Would never have thought it possible.




Garrett is a massive fail should have stuck at singing with the Oils Greg Hunt shows much more promise petty he is in the wrong party.


----------



## Macquack (27 May 2010)

*Anti-whaling activist pleads guilty but denies assault*
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/27/2910900.htm?section=world



> On Thursday, a group of ultra-nationalist supporters gathered outside the court to make it clear they want Bethune punished.
> 
> *One carried a placard calling for the Sea Shepherd activist to be hung*




Scum Japanese "rent a crowd" paid for by  Japanese whaling interests.

The guy with the "Hang Peter Bethune" placard better not come visit 'down under' unless he wants to eat his whale sushi through a wired jaw.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 May 2010)

Macquack said:


> *Anti-whaling activist pleads guilty but denies assault*
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/27/2910900.htm?section=world
> 
> 
> ...




I have never had much time for the Japanese.

Anyone who bombed Townsville, will need more than a few generations to cleanse their sins. And they never said sorry for their war crimes.

However , I must ask, in all this whale business, what did whales ever do for us?,  never lifting a flipper to help us in the Pacific War. 

I wonder whether the whale protectors were badly breastfed, or had some tragic event occur to them in childhood that they could be so attached to these plankton guzzling gits. 

And what about the poor bloody plankton, nobody ever goes in to bat for them.

gg


----------



## Julia (27 May 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> And what about the poor bloody plankton, nobody ever goes in to bat for them.
> 
> gg




Good to have you back, gg.  We are much in need of your humour.


----------



## Macquack (29 May 2010)

Calliope said:


> Rudd and Garrett are no longer going to take Japan to the International Court over whaling. Apparently it was only a symbolic gesture.




Apparently you are wrong, Calliope.

*Australia takes Japan to court on whaling *
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...court-on-whaling/story-e6frgczf-1225872445926


----------



## Calliope (29 May 2010)

Rudd is desperately searching for promises that he can appear to be seen keeping.



> It is impossible to see the Rudd government's decision to finally take the Japanese government to the International Court of Justice over "scientific" whaling as anything but a cynical, pre-election ploy.
> 
> The timing, the substance, the risks and polling imperatives all point to a long-delayed decision being rushed out with no real prospect of stopping whaling, merely to cover for a painfully broken promise before the election.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...re-election-ploy/story-e6frgczf-1225872739354


----------



## Ato (31 May 2010)

Re: Bethune. My prediction: there will continue to be a big bruhaha with the Japanese authorities making sure they thoroughly scold him and make him feel like a right naughty man. They will bring all possible charges against him, and tell him that he could be sent up the river for a very long time. He will then be let go. (Of course, I already said that earlier in the bet with IFocus!)

@MacQuack. The crowd you mentioned isnt a rent-a-crowd paid for by anyone. They are a right wing nutjob crew who seize on any opportunity to lambast foreigners, and generally show off just how racist they can be. When I say this group is right wing and racist, I mean they are really on the far raggedy edge of even hardcore right wingers. These guys truly have no screws left to be loose. Thankfully they are small (although disturbingly active for their size) and lack any real power. They usually harass Koreans and Chinese, but given the opportunity to harass a whitey round eye, they're only too eager. They gave Bethune a similar welcome when he first arrived in Japan. No, no body had to pay these guys to show up...they do it because they love it


----------



## kgee (31 May 2010)

I never killed a whale
 my grandadad did ,I've photo's of him with a chainsaw hip deep in whale....and that was the **** job.. the boy's got to throw the harpoon

I worked as a fisherman off and on the  last 10 years....I've had whales wake me up in the morning frolicking about the boat....they are a beautiful creature
I have no arguement

But ok I'm going to sing a song of  righteous igdiignation,....

I don't give a F###k abouty whales

Australia WTF are you doing about the Aboriginnes?????

F'n Shame, Shame on everyone that wrote on this forum

What happens 100 yaers from here?


If you don't fix it

Well at least stop talking about whales to me

middle class white politics F"U"


----------



## IFocus (31 May 2010)

> Re: Bethune. My prediction: there will continue to be a big bruhaha with the Japanese authorities making sure they thoroughly scold him and make him feel like a right naughty man. They will bring all possible charges against him, and tell him that he could be sent up the river for a very long time. He will then be let go. (Of course, I already said that earlier in the bet with IFocus!)





Will really be interesting either way, sounds like I had better start polishing up my Avatar header message 



> @MacQuack. The crowd you mentioned isnt a rent-a-crowd paid for by anyone. They are a right wing nutjob crew who seize on any opportunity to lambast foreigners, and generally show off just how racist they can be. When I say this group is right wing and racist, I mean they are really on the far raggedy edge of even hardcore right wingers. These guys truly have no screws left to be loose. Thankfully they are small (although disturbingly active for their size) and lack any real power. They usually harass Koreans and Chinese, but given the opportunity to harass a whitey round eye, they're only too eager. They gave Bethune a similar welcome when he first arrived in Japan. No, no body had to pay these guys to show up...they do it because they love it




Sounds just like the Liberal front bench.........sorry couldn't help myself


----------



## Ato (8 June 2010)

Watch this space Thursday!


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 June 2010)

Watch it now. But in the spirit of Jimmy Barnes and Port Adelaide GM Factory people everyone should wait till there is clarification on this. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/08/2921092.htm?

Australia's bid to take Japan to the International Court of Justice over its so-called scientific whaling program may be about to get a boost.

Two former Japanese whalers have told the ABC's Foreign Correspondent program of systemic embezzlement by crewmen onboard the country's whaling ships.

Speaking for the first time, they say that crew members are taking what amounts to hundreds of kilograms of prime cuts of whale meat, either for personal consumption or to sell on to restaurants.

One whistleblower, who asks to be called Kujira San - Japanese for "Mr Whale" - says this practice even extends to the body in charge of the scientific whaling program.

Kujira San, a former crewman on Japan's whaling fleet flagship the Nisshin Maru, says what he is revealing could get him killed because his former shipmates do not tolerate those who break the code of silence.

"First, when the ship returns to Japan and arrives in the port, a transport truck is waiting. The crewmen will then pack the whale meat they stole into a cardboard box. One person carried off 500 to 600 kilograms," he said.

He claimed some crewmen made a fortune from reselling the meat.


----------



## Ato (10 June 2010)

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20100610-OYT1T00676.htm

For those who cant read Japanese: Basically it says the prosecutors are pushing for 2 years in prison, and Bethune's lawyers are asking for a suspended sentence. The final decision will be handed down July 7th.


----------



## Macquack (28 June 2010)

*Sea Shepherd's Watson on Interpol's wanted list*
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/26/2937694.htm



> Interpol has placed the head of anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson, on its international wanted list.
> 
> The request to place him on the list was *issued by Japan*.









This man is wanted by Interpol for saving whales.


----------



## gordon2007 (28 June 2010)

Macquack said:


> This man is wanted by Interpol for saving whales.



 Nice try at spin. He is wanted by interpool for harming people and breaking international laws.


----------



## gordon2007 (28 June 2010)

Macquack said:


> This man is wanted by Interpol for saving whales.




I'm all for anyone being passionate about a whale or any given subject. But really, you lose all credibility when you let your passion distort facts. 

I'd rather lose a fight and maintain my honour and dignity than make an outright light to win a battle. 

Really mac, how can you think people will believe you in future posts with a comment like that, whether in this thread or others.


----------



## IFocus (29 June 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> I'd rather lose a fight and maintain my honour and dignity than make an outright light to win a battle.
> 
> .




Honor and dignity like killing whales in the Southern Ocean for science?

Actually throw spin in there as well...........science 

Lets get back to honor........charge and lock up any one who tells the truth about Japanese whaling and the corruption rife among the whalers.


----------



## IFocus (29 June 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> I'm all for anyone being passionate about a whale or any given subject. But really, you lose all credibility when you let your passion distort facts.
> 
> I'd rather lose a fight and maintain my honour and dignity than make an outright light to win a battle.
> 
> Really mac, how can you think people will believe you in future posts with a comment like that, whether in this thread or others.





Mac is absolutely correct "wanted by Interpol for saving whales" falls into place with the other corruption taking place around Japanese whaling.


----------



## Calliope (29 June 2010)

The Deceptive Paul Watson - Proof He is a Liar.


----------



## Macquack (29 June 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> Nice try at spin. He is wanted by interpool for harming people and breaking international laws.




Gordon, read the full story. Watson is actually not "wanted" at all by Interpol.



> Interpol has issued a so-called blue notice (at the request of Japan), asking national police forces to pass on information about Mr Watson's whereabouts and activities.
> 
> But it has not issued a notice requesting his arrest.




This is a politically motivated "beat up" charge brought against Watson by the Japanese aimed at disrupting the Sea Shepherd's highly successful interruption of the Japanese whaling fleet's illegal commercial whaling activities in the Southern Ocean.

Watson is not that easily scared off. Watch out for some fireworks next time those Japanese scum head down to the Southern Ocean.

In retrospect, the Japanese are lucky that the rest of the world adhered to the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling otherwise those little f***ers would have no whales to hunt at all. The hide of the Japanese is unbelievable.


----------



## nioka (30 June 2010)

Macquack said:


> Watson is not that easily scared off. Watch out for some fireworks next time those Japanese scum head down to the Southern Ocean.In retrospect, the Japanese are lucky that the rest of the world adhered to the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling otherwise those little f***ers would have no whales to hunt at all. The hide of the Japanese is unbelievable.




Watson will be lucky if he doesn't end up with a harpoon up his.........      no he will send one of his supporters int the front line and keep safe himself.

Another point.. It was the whalers themselves that called a moratorium to allow the stocks to recover. It is the annimal liberators that took over. The stocks have recovered for some species. I was out fishing at daylight this morning and there were humpbacks everywhere you looked. Enough to give me an itchy trigger finger.


----------



## Macquack (30 June 2010)

nioka said:


> Watson will be lucky if he doesn't end up with a harpoon up his.........




Bring it on.



nioka said:


> Another point.. It was the whalers themselves that called a moratorium to allow the stocks to recover. It is the annimal liberators that took over. *The stocks have recovered for some species*.




Recovery of whale stocks, no thanks to Japan.


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2010)

Macquack said:


> Bring it on.




Yes indeed. This gutless thug, Paul Watson should be behind bars. It is surprising that you are so enamoured of this ratbag that you can't see what a phony he is.

Try watching "Whale *****s" for the lowdown on this idiot.

http://www.xepisodes.com/southpark/episodes/1311/Whale-*****s.html


----------



## GumbyLearner (30 June 2010)

Calliope said:


> Yes indeed. This gutless thug, Paul Watson should be behind bars. It is surprising that you are so enamoured of this ratbag that you can't see what a phony he is.
> 
> Try watching "Whale *****s" for the lowdown on this idiot.
> 
> http://www.xepisodes.com/southpark/episodes/1311/Whale-*****s.html




They're ocean rapers and have had successive nationalistic expansionist governments in the past. Don't confine your views to the whale-hunt alone.

http://www.theolivepress.es/2010/06/30/last-battle-for-the-red-tuna/


----------



## Calliope (30 June 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> They're ocean rapers and have had successive nationalistic expansionist governments in the past. Don't confine your views to the whale-hunt alone.




What are you talking about? My comments were about that ratbag Paul Watson.


----------



## gordon2007 (7 July 2010)

Hmm...just to stir this thread up a bit;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e-in-japan-court/story-e6frg6so-1225889019682

'SEA Shepherd activist Peter Bethune has been given a two-year suspended sentence by a Tokyo court over a clash on a Japanese whaling ship. '


----------



## gordon2007 (7 July 2010)

Same new article but a littler further down...


...'However, the US-based group dumped Mr Bethune last month after revelations in the New Zealand press that a bow and some arrows were found aboard the Ady Gil, although the group said it would continue to fund his defence'...


----------



## subasurf (7 July 2010)

Suspended sentence? What a crock of ****.

The guy broke the law...lock his hippy douche ass up.


----------



## Ato (7 July 2010)

Ato said:


> Hmm I doubt that he'll do any time. The Japanese will just make it look like he will, and stretch it out and make a really big fuss, and in the end let him off. That's my   I certainly might be wrong though.
> 
> Let's make a little bet, IFocus. If I'm wrong I will change my Avatar header message to "IFocus is credit to team", if I'm right you change yours to "Ato is credit to team". Whaddya say thar, matey?  (We can keep changes for a month)






IFocus said:


> LOL I'll take you up in the spirit its offered but some how I think I am betting against probability given your Japanese connection  good luck




I do believe I am now credit to your team, IFocus.

Ato is credit to team - till August 7th, good sir!


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2010)

It turns out that Watson's martyr for the cause was just a big sook. Perhaps the Japanese fed him too much blubber.



> I did not have the intention of hurting crew members. I took action because I wanted to stop Japan's illegal whaling," Bethune said in his final statement last month, which he *tearfully* delivered in Japanese



.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...t-gets-suspended-sentence-20100707-1005b.html


----------



## gordon2007 (21 August 2010)

Who knew...there actually is a reality show called 'whale wars' in america. 

http://player.video.news.com.au/adelaidenow/#1569625461

Still...just a big fish to me. Kill'm and eat them I say!


----------



## IFocus (21 August 2010)

Ato said:


> I do believe I am now credit to your team, IFocus.
> 
> Ato is credit to team - till August 7th, good sir!




Ato sincere apology's I seemed to have missed this (I was in Bali) your knowledge and reading of the Japanese is right on the money and you are right you are a credit to the team will put this up.


----------



## bobert (22 August 2010)

show is great and agree, too many humans.


----------



## Ato (23 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> Ato sincere apology's I seemed to have missed this (I was in Bali) your knowledge and reading of the Japanese is right on the money and you are right you are a credit to the team will put this up.




Haha, no worries mate. You can remove it if you like. It's passed the date as decided by one month, and I'm honestly not fussed


----------



## gordon2007 (5 September 2010)

'Japanese schools serving whale meat 

WHALE meat is on the menu at about a sixth of Japan's state-run primary and junior high schools, a survey released today showed. '

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...rving-whale-meat/story-e6frfku0-1225914449307

I wouldn't mind trying whale meat. I'm always up for masticating something different.


----------



## IFocus (5 September 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> 'Japanese schools serving whale meat
> 
> WHALE meat is on the menu at about a sixth of Japan's state-run primary and junior high schools, a survey released today showed. '
> 
> ...




If you are really keen there is / was a dead whale at Albany


----------



## gordon2007 (5 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> If you are really keen there is / was a dead whale at Albany




I appreciate the offer but I'm not a fan of road kill.


----------



## nioka (5 September 2010)

IFocus said:


> If you are really keen there is / was a dead whale at Albany




Last time I saw a dead whale on a beach the national parks rangers wouldnt let me take even a sliver of blubber to use as a fish burley. Threatened me with a heavy fine if I persisted.


----------



## Julia (5 September 2010)

Nioka, have you ever eaten fresh raw whale meat?
Is it like, e.g. tuna?
I like good, fresh fish much better raw than cooked.


----------



## nioka (6 September 2010)

Julia said:


> Nioka, have you ever eaten fresh raw whale meat?
> Is it like, e.g. tuna?
> I like good, fresh fish much better raw than cooked.




No and no. Only cooked and cooked in such a way that those served with it couldnt tell it from beef. Actually I'm not real keen on whale as whale. There is absolutely no simalarity to fish. The meat is a red meat exactly like beef but with a stronger odour. Cook it with plenty of onions. I don't like the blubber which the Japanese treat as a delicacy.


----------



## gordon2007 (6 September 2010)

A rather interesting twist on this subject.

'Levy could help end whaling - researcher 

WHALE watchers in Australia could be charged a levy to compensate whaling nations for ending their hunts, a researcher says. 
Queensland University of Technology Associate Professor Clevo Wilson says whaling nations will face job and financial losses if they stop their hunts.

Any push to end whaling must address those issues, and a levy on the whale-watching public and industry is one possible solution, he says.

"Traditional communities in whaling countries fear that their livelihoods and their way of life would disappear if they were to stop killing whales," says Professor Wilson, from the university's School of Economics and Finance.

"Hence, the pressure on whaling governments to continue the practice. But the opposite is true for countries that oppose whaling and run whale-watching industries where live whales are the valuable resource."

He says whale watching is an increasingly popular and profitable ecotourism industry worldwide.

"Whale watching generates more than $US2 billion ($2.2 billion) in expenditure annually," he says.

"In Australia, whale-watcher numbers have more than doubled from 0.73 million to more than 1.6 million between 1998 and 2008."

He says threatening to take the Japanese to the World Court is a weak plan and is doomed to fail, given whales are a mobile resource that don't belong to any one country.

" ... if the countries for whom whales are worth more alive than dead charged a small levy of say $5 per whale-watching tourist, whale-watching countries could compensate those for whom a dead whale is worth more than a live one."

"If we were to compensate those who would lose their livelihoods from an end to whaling, we might have a better chance of putting an end to all forms of whaling."


Sourced from http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...aling-researcher/story-e6frfku0-1225914664576


----------



## noie (6 September 2010)

It annoys me that this is on sale in a lot of shops here, 
I have tried it once, and i liken it to the fatty part of a pork belly.
never again.
(I was very surprised when I read about how many perfumes still use the whale oil.......)


----------



## IFocus (6 September 2010)

nioka said:


> Last time I saw a dead whale on a beach the national parks rangers wouldnt let me take even a sliver of blubber to use as a fish burley. Threatened me with a heavy fine if I persisted.




Unusual you would think any help to remove the carcass would be welcome.

They try to remove the whale carcass here in WA to stop attracting in the white pointers


----------



## Agentm (7 September 2010)

nioka said:


> No and no. Only cooked and cooked in such a way that those served with it couldnt tell it from beef. Actually I'm not real keen on whale as whale. There is absolutely no simalarity to fish. The meat is a red meat exactly like beef but with a stronger odour. Cook it with plenty of onions. I don't like the blubber which the Japanese treat as a delicacy.




i recommend that all pro whaling people should stand by their cause and contribute to the agonising kill by investing their cash into the purchasing of the whale meat and eating it.. why blabber on about the blubber unless your pro eating it and imho you should have your cake and eat it too

believe me its perfectly safe


----------



## nioka (8 October 2010)

Whale rider let off with a warning17:57 AEST

A teenager who climbed onto a southern right whale off Western Australia's coast has been let off with a warning.

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) wildlife officers investigated reports from witnesses who saw the boy climb onto the whale 20m off Albany's Middleton Beach, about 390km southeast of Perth.

Officers have tracked down and interviewed the teenager and his family and issued him with an official warning.


----------



## gordon2007 (8 October 2010)

Speaking of this thread...did anyone see where the capt of the ship that was sank this year said it was done so to get public support. Give me a day and I'll find that link and post it here. Think it was in todays advertiser.


----------



## gordon2007 (12 October 2010)

'NEW Zealand anti-whaling activist Pete Bethune has resigned from the Sea Shepherd environmental group, accusing it of deliberately sinking one of its own protest ships as a publicity stunt. '

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...er-peter-bethune/story-e6frea73-1225935575639

Quite an interesting take on this.


----------



## gordon2007 (2 December 2010)

Woo Hoo....it's getting to be that time of the year again. 

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...ew-secret-weapon/story-e6frea8l-1225964167361


----------



## IFocus (2 December 2010)

gordon2007 said:


> Woo Hoo....it's getting to be that time of the year again.
> 
> http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...ew-secret-weapon/story-e6frea8l-1225964167361





The Japanese fleet is still in dock hope it stays there.


----------



## IFocus (29 December 2010)

Shock horror



> Japan admits whale meat scam
> 
> Japan's Fisheries Agency has admitted its officials accepted gifts of whale meat from the body that runs the country's so-called scientific whaling program.




Basket weavers quote



> Greenpeace Australia's Stephen Campbell says the agency's admission shows there is no such thing as scientific whaling.
> 
> "We know in fact that the Japanese whalers toss whale meat overboard as well," he told ABC News 24.
> 
> "All of this activity in the Southern Ocean is really largely for show and to keep the Japanese Fisheries Agency alive and to feather the nests of the few officials."




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/29/3102974.htm


----------



## Vicki (1 January 2011)

It's astonishing, just how financially black-mailed or whipped we must be in relation to Japan.
To let this absolute out-right bullsh!t lie, to go unchecked, often in our teritorial waters!

Don't think the Japanese would be so accomodating, if we did something so outragiously offensive in their corner.

Maybe we should get some D-9 bulldozers, write "RESEARCH" on their sides, then proceed to 'doze some of the forests on the Japanese home Islands, that they think of as 'sacred'....Then sit 'round & count the rings inside the tree-trunks, to determine for our 'research' how old the trees might have been?...Then sell the lumber for a modest profit!

Good on you sea-sheppards!!! [can't wait for the next series of whale-wars]..

Sink the murdering bastards, before they make another species extinct.

Vicki


----------



## IFocus (1 January 2011)

Yep that time of the year again, go Captain Paul Watson and your crew



> Sea Shepherd catches up with whaling fleet
> 
> Anti-whaling activists say they have intercepted the Japanese whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean before it has had a chance to kill any whales.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/01/3104710.htm


----------



## IFocus (16 February 2011)

Has been quite in the whaling thread surely we haven't exhausted all the arguments yet.

Having said that I will be wheeling out my finest cask of Merlot and drinking a toast to the courageous, daring and good Captain of the Sea Shepherd Paul Watson and his crew.

For it appears to been a highly successful campaign in the southern ocean as the Japanese run for home 

"Japanese whalers suspend Antarctic hunt"



> Japanese whalers have suspended their Antarctic hunt, citing harassment by environmentalists, and are considering ending their annual mission early, a fisheries agency official says.




Paul Watson remains cautious



> Mr Watson was reluctant to claim a victory over the whalers, but said: "Every whale saved is a victory to us, so we've gotten a lot of victories down here this year."




Economics maybe starting to bite



> Junichi Sato, an anti-whaling campaigner at Greenpeace, said the group had information that the fleet would indeed return home early because Japan was already burdened with excess stocks of whale meat.
> 
> "Whistle-blowers have told us that they would come home early," Mr Sato said.
> 
> ...




Hopefully the Shepard will pull into Fremantle for a very warm welcome.


----------



## tothemax6 (16 February 2011)

In case anyone hasn't seen it, watch Season 13 - Episode 11 (Whale *****s) of South Park. Absolutely hilarious take on the Japanese whaling situation. 
The bit where the japanese prime minister says 'f!*ck you whallle!' had me on the floor.


----------



## Calliope (9 January 2012)

I love the whale wars. The Japanese should feed this obnoxious scruffy trio on whale meat. I heard Paul Watson trying to defend them on ABC this morning. What a ratbag. He admits it was done to try to force the Government to do something to stop the Japanese tailing him for a change.


----------



## ColB (9 January 2012)

Calliope said:


> I love the whale wars. The Japanese should feed this obnoxious scruffy trio on whale meat. I heard Paul Watson trying to defend them on ABC this morning. What a ratbag. He admits it was done to try to force the Government to do something to stop the Japanese tailing him for a change.




Calliope, are you trying to rock the boat or bait the whale lovers? 

I don't think storming the Jap boat is a very good idea and the activists may well get more than they bargained for.  The government has been threatening the Japanese with international court action for over three years to appease the whale lovers but we all know that will never happen.  Wouldn't want to upset any of our trading partners would we.


----------



## Calliope (9 January 2012)

ColB said:


> Calliope, are you trying to rock the boat or bait the whale lovers?
> 
> I don't think storming the Jap boat is a very good idea and the activists may well get more than they bargained for.  The government has been threatening the Japanese with international court action for over three years to appease the whale lovers but we all know that will never happen.  Wouldn't want to upset any of our trading partners would we.




I don't think anyone should lose any sleep over this riff raff. I doubt if these tree huggers give a stuff about whales. I suppose being a paid activist beats working for a living.


----------



## JTLP (9 January 2012)

Calliope said:


> I don't think anyone should lose any sleep over this riff raff. I doubt if these tree huggers give a stuff about whales. I suppose being a paid activist beats working for a living.




Bwahaha too true. I can't stand these losers. Stop mooching off my taxpayer dollars.


----------



## Macquack (9 January 2012)

Calliope said:


> I love the whale wars. The Japanese should feed this *obnoxious scruffy trio* on whale meat.




The difference between these activists any you Calliope, is they have balls.


----------



## Logique (10 January 2012)

For people with supposed 'balls', they seem to act in fairly cowardly ways. Ganging up to harass and intimidate honest workers, in an industry which does not threaten long term whale species numbers.  And then spreading propaganda and half truths through the media, trying to win public sympathy.

Here on the east coast there are more migrating humpbacks with every passing year.

Activists is a kind description for them. They're little better than high seas pirates, breaking international laws. Be careful they don't  decide that your industry is offensive and turn up to harass you, while filming themselves for the nightly news.


----------



## Calliope (10 January 2012)

Macquack said:


> The difference between these activists any you Calliope, is they have balls.




I doubt they would have one set between them, but obviously you know their anatomical details better than me.


----------



## pilots (10 January 2012)

Will they still get centre link payments while they are on the Jap boat, THEY DID NOT HAVE TO GET ON THAT BOAT, they made the bed, now they have to sleep in it, I hope the Japs take them back to japan and lock them up.
I DON'T AGREE WITH ANY WHALING.


----------



## pixel (10 January 2012)

pilots said:


> Will they still get centre link payments while they are on the Jap boat, THEY DID NOT HAVE TO GET ON THAT BOAT, they made the bed, now they have to sleep in it, I hope the Japs take them back to japan and lock them up.
> I DON'T AGREE WITH ANY WHALING.



 There's only a very fine line between "Activists", "Freedom Fighters", and "Terrorists".
All three labels may even apply to the same group of people, depending on who judges.
IMHO, the bottom line is that Laws must be respected. Breaking the law simply to make a point and then expecting "The Government" to act is akin to blackmail. It's also stupid.

As far as Centrelink goes, I hope they never got any at all. As they're obviously not unable to work hard and dangerously, let them find an "employer" who volunteers to fund their silly antics. But not force the taxpayer to cover their R's so they can chase their dream. That's simply more blackmail.

And *I DON'T AGREE WITH ANY WHALING* either. That's why I don't buy whale meat. Nor any other products where the manufacturer is linked to something I find objectionable.


----------



## ColB (10 January 2012)

pixel said:


> *There's only a very fine line between "Activists", "Freedom Fighters", and "Terrorists".*
> All three labels may even apply to the same group of people, depending on who judges.
> IMHO, the bottom line is that Laws must be respected. Breaking the law simply to make a point and then expecting "The Government" to act is akin to blackmail. It's also stupid.
> 
> ...




Come on Pixel, you can't seriously compare 'activists' with 'terrorists'.  The vast majority of activists don't go around blowing up people, buildings or planes as terrorists do.  

Most activists are law abiding but feel compelled at times to demonstrate to get their message across.  Most are peaceful and would resent the terrorist tag quite strongly.

There are exceptions where the radical element will cause damage or disruption to business or property but you could hardly put them into the terrorist basket.  IE G20 riots etc

The activities of Sea Shepherd whilst not peaceful are hardly terrorists.

I do agree with the rest of your post though


----------



## ColB (10 January 2012)

Macquack said:


> The difference between these activists any you Calliope, is they have balls.




Hope you're reaching into your pockets to support these idiots Macquack whilst we now have to pay several hundred thousand dollars to rescue them from the Southern Ocean.

Why couldn't the Japanese simply drop them overboard and say they tried to escape


----------



## Julia (10 January 2012)

ColB said:


> Why couldn't the Japanese simply drop them overboard and say they tried to escape



What a thoroughly sensible suggestion.
I'm completely opposed to the whaling but am equally opposed to a bunch of self indulgent idjits who will jump at any excuse to "protest" about anything at all.

I'm disappointed the Japanese have been so lenient with them.  They have already said they will do it all again.


----------



## bellenuit (10 January 2012)

ColB said:


> Hope you're reaching into your pockets to support these idiots Macquack whilst we now have to pay several hundred thousand dollars to rescue them from the Southern Ocean.




Based on the reaction of the skipper of the Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson, on being asked to contribute to the cost of getting the activists back, the government should leave them on board and let the Japanese take care of them as it is their jurisdiction.

Also, surely Watson has lost all credibility when he described the incident (I don't have his exact words) as an armed Japanese ship kidnapping 3 Australians.


----------



## Glen48 (10 January 2012)

Why is it we accept the story about research if their scientific research is so bad they need to go out each year why not find people who can do the job, what are they researching why whales are dying from whaling???

 I think the whaling business is just about over the novelty has worn off and they are more worried about glowing in the dark.


----------



## Monario (11 January 2012)

nioka said:


> So what do you suggest, start eating one another and not eat other meat. Whales are a food resource in a world running out of food. As an ex whaler I see no reason not to resume whaling now that the numbers of some species of whales have recovered. Should we stop eating cuddly lanmbs, chicken, pork and beef. Should we stop slaughtering cows because they are sacred to some races. Should we stop feeding our pet dogs horse and kangaroo meat.
> 
> If we tell others what they must do then do we accept that they have the right to tell us what we can and can not do?.
> 
> Live and let live. ( unless you need it for food)




Umm, we dont farm whales, however we farm all other animals you mentioned, thus meaning we cant control weather they will become extinct or not. 

Any living being that would slaughter another species to extinction in my opinion is not human. To be human is to be humane....


----------



## Monario (11 January 2012)

Calliope said:


> I take it then that you are opposed to commercial fishing. Perhaps there is some spiritual quality about whales (or is it just their size) that  makes us so passionate about them. Or is it because we enjoy catching and eating fish that we fool ourselves into believing that fish feel no pain when they are hooked and suffocated?
> 
> Or are we just hypocrites?




The comercial fishign of SCHOOL fish is greatly different to that of mammal fish..... do some reading.... And a lot of school fish are farmed.


----------



## pixel (11 January 2012)

Julia said:


> What a thoroughly sensible suggestion.
> I'm completely opposed to the whaling but am equally opposed to a bunch of self indulgent idjits who will jump at any excuse to "protest" about anything at all.
> 
> I'm disappointed the Japanese have been so lenient with them.  They have already said they will do it all again.



 +1 Julia

I had quietly been hoping that the Japanese would "employ" them as deck hands or "research assistants" to earn their food and shelter for the six months before they could run into some port. And if they refused to work: no work, no pay, no food, no warm cabin.

Sadly, our gov'mint got blackmailed into picking them up at *our* expense and won't even try to recoup the $$$ it costs. And to rub salt into our wounds, that Uber-Moron from Tassie demands the rescue vessel stay with the Japanese ships for as long as they move about in International waters. So, we're also supposed to shout those leeches a six-month holiday, free feed, fare, and lodging, while they're watching Japs watching whales.

The mind boggles 

PS to put ColB's mind at ease: I said 







> All three labels *may even* apply to the same group of people,* depending on who judges*.



As Logique said before me, the Japanese went about their legal business, legal by Japanese law, which is the only benchmark on a Japanese vessel in International waters. They could well be forgiven for tarring these trespassers with the terrorist brush.


----------



## nioka (11 January 2012)

Monario said:


> Any living being that would slaughter another species to extinction in my opinion is not human. To be human is to be humane....




I suggst you research the whaling operations that were in place in the 50s. You will find that there were reasonable sustainable quotas and bans on the taking of "scarce" varieties. These quotas would have kept the taking of whales as a normal business. The quota system was abused by Aristotle Onasis and in less than two years he decimated the herd. The Peruvian Government confiscated the whaling fleet belonging to Onassis.
Whaling was stopped on a voluntary basis by the whaling companies and nations to allow the numbers to return to a point where commercial whaling could again be resumed. That point has now been reached. However we see that animal liberationists and some vested interests like whale watching cruises have campaigned against that resumption.
:horse:
 I suggest that I am "human and humane". I am also a meat eater and intend to stay one. ( Meat eaters make better lovers).


----------



## Logique (12 January 2012)

Paul Sheehan sums it up.

Eco pirates deserve a long haul, not a free trip home. January 12, 2012
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...e-trip-home-20120111-1pv7h.html#ixzz1jC6248vA

"..So the Gillard government is doing what it does best: wasting taxpayers' dollars while managing to achieve the worst of both worlds - not sending a strong message to Japan and not sending a strong message to law-breaking, grandstanding, moral blackmailers.."


----------



## todster (12 January 2012)

The poll shows the protesters in front the ASF lib brigade can't win  nothin


----------



## pixel (12 January 2012)

todster said:


> The poll shows the protesters in front the ASF lib brigade can't win  nothin



 Isn't that a somewhat unconventional interpretation of "in front"?
When I studied Maths, 33 out of 76 did not constitute a majority - unless of course you were a Bolshevik. They redefined "majority" not in terms of votes, but decibels. Look where that's got them


----------



## todster (12 January 2012)

pixel said:


> Isn't that a somewhat unconventional interpretation of "in front"?
> When I studied Maths, 33 out of 76 did not constitute a majority - unless of course you were a Bolshevik. They redefined "majority" not in terms of votes, but decibels. Look where that's got them




Ones red ones blue


----------



## todster (12 January 2012)

Unless the Nationals are yellow


----------



## ColB (12 January 2012)

todster said:


> The poll shows the protesters in front the ASF lib brigade can't win  nothin




That's because the left wing moderator closed the poll after they stacked the numbers!

No-one would seriously admit to voting Labor......would they??


----------



## todster (12 January 2012)

ColB said:


> That's because the left wing moderator closed the poll after they stacked the numbers!
> 
> No-one would seriously admit to voting Labor......would they??




Labor stacking? Unheard of.
Speaking of whales anyone seen Joe Hockey


----------



## Logique (12 January 2012)

todster said:


> The poll shows the protesters in front the ASF lib brigade can't win  nothin



The protestors are used to winning aren't they. And just what is the Occupy movement about, do they even know. 

Give the Coalition some credit, cool reason arrested global warming.


----------



## IFocus (13 January 2012)

todster said:


> Labor stacking? Unheard of.
> Speaking of whales anyone seen Joe Hockey





Great white whales are safe apparently...........BTW nice to see the Shepherd back in action go Captain Paul and crew give it to the Japanese whalers......I mean whaling scientists.


See the usual blue blooded Australians on thread lining up to support a former enemy in its endeavor to gain access to plunder another natural resource.


----------



## Calliope (13 January 2012)

IFocus said:


> Great white whales are safe apparently...........BTW nice to see the Shepherd back in action go Captain Paul and crew give it to the Japanese whalers......I mean whaling scientists.




According to that ratbag Watson the tsunami that killed hundreds of Japanese was divine wrath. The ravings of a hate filled lunatic.



> Captain Paul Watson
> _Tsunami_
> 
> Neptune’s voice rolled like thunder thru the sky
> ...




http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/03/1...d-hundreds-of-japanese-was-divine-punishment/



No doubt he considers that harassing the Japanese is doing God's work. Incidentally, Focus,  Watson is a Canadian. The Canadians did not participate in the Pacific war.


----------



## noco (13 January 2012)

nioka said:


> I suggst you research the whaling operations that were in place in the 50s. You will find that there were reasonable sustainable quotas and bans on the taking of "scarce" varieties. These quotas would have kept the taking of whales as a normal business. The quota system was abused by Aristotle Onasis and in less than two years he decimated the herd. The Peruvian Government confiscated the whaling fleet belonging to Onassis.
> Whaling was stopped on a voluntary basis by the whaling companies and nations to allow the numbers to return to a point where commercial whaling could again be resumed. That point has now been reached. However we see that animal liberationists and some vested interests like whale watching cruises have campaigned against that resumption.
> :horse:
> I suggest that I am "human and humane". I am also a meat eater and intend to stay one. ( Meat eaters make better lovers).




Nioka, I worked on the the construction of the Tangalooma Whaling station in 1950 and witnessed those poor harmless creatures being dragged up the flensing deck with big chunks of their bodies missing from shark attacks as they were being brought in by the chasers. There were no mother ships. Whale oil was the main attraction although nothing was wasted.

In the early 50's there were more whales passing Cape Moreton than the allocation of 660 which were allotted during the 11 weeks catch. The minimum length was 38 feet and any size under that length imposed a heavy penalty. As you probably know whales only give birth to one calf per year so the replenishing of the herd could not keep up with the killing. After 11 years of whaling outside Cape Moreton the catch dimished to less than 300 in the 11 weeks. Whaling then not only became unviable but other synthetic products started to come onto the market.

I am against whaling FULL STOP.The Japanese should be condemned for lieing about killing whales for research. They are using whales for food.

Whilst I am not in favour of those three who boarded the Japanese Government ship, they are no doubt doing it for publiscity hoping to attract world attention.
This weak Labor Government of ours could have shown some ticka and bought a bit more pressure on the Japanese IMHO.


----------



## nioka (13 January 2012)

noco said:


> As you probably know whales only give birth to one calf per year so the replenishing of the herd could not keep up with the killing. After 11 years of whaling outside Cape Moreton the catch dimished to less than 300 in the 11 weeks. Whaling then not only became unviable but other synthetic products started to come onto the market..




1. I've worked on whaling stations (plural) and was Production manager of one. I can talk from experience and not emotion. The catch at Tangalooma, along with the catch of other whalers was controlled and based on whale counts and allowed for the slow reproduction rate which is almost the same as that of cattle. Onassis ended SUSTAINABLE whaling.

2. Synthetic meat ???????. Synthetic edible oil ???????. Synthetic stock food ???????.

The only part of the whale that was replaced with synthetics was the balleen that was used to stiffen womens corsets.


----------



## JTLP (13 January 2012)

Calliope said:


> According to that ratbag Watson the tsunami that killed hundreds of Japanese was divine wrath. The ravings of a hate filled lunatic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Calliope you always get the thumbs up from me.

I seriously believe people who have a Green agenda are chemically imbalanced. Not a joke. They are seriously twisted souls.


----------



## noco (13 January 2012)

nioka said:


> 1. I've worked on whaling stations (plural) and was Production manager of one. I can talk from experience and not emotion. The catch at Tangalooma, along with the catch of other whalers was controlled and based on whale counts and allowed for the slow reproduction rate which is almost the same as that of cattle. Onassis ended SUSTAINABLE whaling.
> 
> 2. Synthetic meat ???????. Synthetic edible oil ???????. Synthetic stock food ???????.
> 
> The only part of the whale that was replaced with synthetics was the balleen that was used to stiffen womens corsets.




nioka, I can assure you whaling was not sustainable on Moreton Island of the Queensland Coast. The numbers of whales had diminished dreamatically in those 11 years.I think they were 'HUMP BACK' whales.

To the best of my knowledge, whale oil was used in the manufacture of sulphurnated oils for tanning hides. A company named Richard Hogson in Brisbane used whale oil with sulphuric acid, neocine and napthalene + other ingredients (not sure of the correct spelling, but you will know what I mean).

I believe whale oil was also used in the manufacture of some soaps.

You say you worked on several stations. What type of whale were you involved with?


----------



## Calliope (14 January 2012)

JTLP said:


> Calliope you always get the thumbs up from me.
> 
> I seriously believe people who have a Green agenda are chemically imbalanced. Not a joke. They are seriously twisted souls.




Thanks JTLP. Brendan O'Neill has some advice for these twsted souls.



> But there is something unsettling about people who make it their mission to curry international disgust for foreign cultural practices they either don't understand or don't like.
> 
> You don't like whale-hunting? Then don't do it. You don't like the idea of whale meat? Then don't eat it. But please stop branding as cruel, perverse, heartless and foul those people who have been doing such things for generations, and who think it is perfectly normal behaviour.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n-war-on-whalers/story-e6frgd0x-1226243925289


----------



## nioka (14 January 2012)

noco said:


> nioka, You say you worked on several stations. What type of whale were you involved with?




Not several. TWO. Most of the oil that was produced at Tangalooma was used in the manufacture of margarine with the exception of a small amount of second grade that did not reach the edible standard. The same applied to Byron Bay, Carnavon, Albany, Norfolk Is and the two new Zealand factories. I was involved also in designing plants for the handling of whales for both the Cook Is and Tonga where they wanted to take only small numbers for meat. I also designed a plant for A Fiji company but it was at tha time the population of whales had been decimated and it never progressed past the planning stage.  Tangalooma only ran out of whales AFTER the herd had been decimated by Onassis in antartic waters. I did not work at Tangalooma but am familiar with the factory there.

I was involved with only humbback,fin and sei whales.

After my active whaling days and while whaling was still going on at Tangalooma I was working for a company that manufactured margarine from whale oil that came from Tangalooma.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 January 2012)

The Japanese are simply ahead of the times on this one.

With the rising price of electricity due to deregulation and the impending carbon tax, electric lights will become unaffordable for the masses. And with peak oil just around the corner, using hurricane lamps running on kero isn't an option either.

Here comes the return of the whale oil lamp as the affordable means of lighting in the 21st Century... :

Seriously, just leave the whales alone. Does man have to hunt, chop down, dam, farm or dig up literally every single resource on the planet? Leave the whales alone, they don't seem to be doing any harm as it is.


----------



## pixel (14 January 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Does man have to hunt, chop down, dam, farm or dig up literally every single resource on the planet?



 Good and valid question, smurf;

but I'm afraid, the answer is Yes. Unless "man" voluntarily stops breeding ever increasing numbers, who need to be housed, clothed, fed... space for all other organisms will continue to be encroached upon, reduced, and the organisms themselves served up to feed the starving, the hungry, the comfortable, and most importantly the affluent obese.

At some stage, when all food sources have been exhausted, cannibalism may evolve to the point that an equilibrium is reached. I sincerely hope I'll be gone by then.


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Seriously, just leave the whales alone. Does man have to hunt, chop down, dam, farm or dig up literally every single resource on the planet? Leave the whales alone, they don't seem to be doing any harm as it is.




Yeah, but why pick on the Japanese. Harvesting whales is a cultural thing for the Japanese. We are happy to ignore the "cultural" harvesting of the seriously endangered  dugong *here in Australia.*



> *Cultural connections*
> Dugongs are an essential element of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's living maritime culture along the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The use of marine food resources such as the dugong greatly strengthens Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and demonstrates connection with traditional sea country.
> The activities associated with the hunting of dugong and preparing and sharing the meat has great significance and is an expression of the continuance of long cultural traditions. In remote coast areas, dugongs have a high social and economic value because they provide subsistence food to communities where a nourishing diet is essential but often expensive to attain.




http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/animals/dugong


----------



## Macquack (15 January 2012)

Calliope said:


> Yeah, but *why pick on the Japanese*. Harvesting whales is a cultural thing for the Japanese. We are happy to ignore the "cultural" harvesting of the seriously endangered  dugong *here in Australia.*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/animals/dugong




Calliopes, your argument is irrelevant as the International Whaling Commission actually *allows whaling *for "*aboriginal subsistence*" purposes.

The issue in contention is the IWC *does not allow whaling *for "*commercial purposes*".

Keep trying to promote the Japanese whalers cause.

Maybe your job was a whaler and you are in fact Japanese?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2012)

Macquack said:


> Calliopes, your argument is irrelevant as the International Whaling Commission actually *allows whaling *for "*aboriginal subsistence*" purposes.




I see you are a whale lover, but the poor ugly dugong is not lovable, so the dugong is fair game for "aboriginal subsistence"  But the lovable whale is forbidden for Japansese subsistence. Watson and his thugs wouldn't have the guts to harass the islanders in Torres Strait. They prefer to do their act on the world stage.

Your views are obviously based on racial hatred of the Japanese. We don't tolerate other peoples cultures very well. The Japanese were whalers when your ancestors lived in caves. The International Whaling Commission is a waste of space.



> Whaling has been an important part of Japanese society for over 1,000 years. Recently, however, it has come under fire from countries and organizations who strongly oppose this practice. It is important to be familiar with the history of whaling in Japan if one wants to fully understand the issue.




http://www.facts-about-japan.com/whaling-history.html

Dugongs have no charisma.


----------



## Macquack (15 January 2012)

Calliope said:


> Your views are obviously based on racial hatred of the Japanese. We don't tolerate other peoples cultures very well. The Japanese were whalers when your ancestors lived in caves. *The International Whaling Commission is a waste of space.*




If it were not for the majority of the members of the International Whaling Commission "*honouring"* the 1986 ban on commercial whaling these *Japanese whaling scum would have no whales to harvest*.

The Japanese are slow learners when it comes to democracy , it took two atomic bombs before they surrendered their world supremacy plans.



Calliope said:


> when your ancestors lived in caves




Calliope, what were your ancestors living in - Castles???


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 January 2012)

I would argue that culture / tradition is irrelevant in the context of natural resource management.

It could be argued that "fibro" (asbestos) housing is part of Aussie culture from the 1950's and 60's. That doesn't justify exposing people to asbestos now.

Cigarette smoking inside office buildings, shops, cinemas and everywhere else was very much an entrenched part of the culture in this country that only started to change in the 70's. Even in the early 1990's, nobody would have looked twice if you lit one up in the main area of just about any shopping centre. But clearly we wouldn't accept it today.

And what about things like logging and dam building? It could certainly be argued that dam construction was culturally / socially very significant as an activity in Tasmania through much of the 20th Century or that numerous communities across Australia have similar associations with the timber industry. That didn't stop World Herritage listing of practically every undammed river in Tas or the protection of forests all over the place.


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2012)

Macquack said:


> The Japanese are slow learners when it comes to democracy , it took two atomic bombs before they surrendered their world supremacy plans.




No doubt you would like to repeat the dose. You show all the symptoms of xenophobia.

"One of the key driving forces behind much international animal rights activism is not so much love for animals as disgust and disdain for wicked human beings especially human beings with dark or "yellow" skin." Brendan O'Neill.

Smurf says  "I would argue that culture / tradition is irrelevant in the context of natural resource management."

The way we handle our own "cultures " is our own business. It doesn't give us the right to dictate that other people of other races change their cultures to accommodate our selfish whims. If the Japanese had our unlimited natural resources they might switch their diets to one we agree with. Like eating more beef, which costs huge natural resources to produce.


----------



## pixel (15 January 2012)

Macquack said:


> The Japanese are slow learners when it comes to democracy , it took two atomic bombs before they surrendered their world supremacy plans.



 hmm - that is an "interesting" statement.
I've never looked at democracy that way. But now you mentioned it, yes: the Japanese civilians that lost lives and loved ones in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would most definitely have learned to appreciate the moral and ethical supremacy of a humane democratic system. As would the civilians caught in the fire storms in Hamburg and Dresden. 

... but hang on: Hadn't Commodore Perry already proved to the Japanese that the US version of democracy and trading on its terms ruled supreme? They surely would have seen reason and accepted that the military supremacy that backed up his demands made any resistance futile - as long as their own lack of military force left them no means to realise their own democratic right of self-determination. 

And in case that sounds too anti-democratic from a USA perspective - after all, they're "The Land of the Free" - read up on the Opium Wars, which secured the democratic right of British free traders to supply Chinese addicts with recreational drugs.
That set a fine precedent for the democratic rights now claimed by Tobacco Multi-Nationals.

Sorry, I know it's unfair to argue with facts from History. Especially when so few "defenders of democracy" bother studying history, or even if the do, refuse to learn from it.

Calliope, ours crossed. 







> The way we handle our own "cultures " is our own business. It doesn't  give us the right to dictate that other people of other races change  their cultures to accommodate our selfish whims. If the Japanese had our  unlimited natural resources they might switch their diets to one we  agree with. Like eating more beef, which costs huge natural resources to  produce.



+1


----------



## Julia (15 January 2012)

Calliope said:


> Your views are obviously based on racial hatred of the Japanese. We don't tolerate other peoples cultures very well. The Japanese were whalers when your ancestors lived in caves.



I abhor the cruelty with which the Japanese treat the whales.  I have the same level of abhorrence for any cruelty by any person of any race toward any animal, including the aboriginal sport of hunting dugong.

Does that make me someone who is nursing a racial hatred of pretty much every race?



Calliope said:


> No doubt you would like to repeat the dose. You show all the symptoms of xenophobia.



I'm sure McQuack can defend himself.  But I find this statement unreasonable and quite offensive.   As above, I'm also opposed to whaling but don't consider that makes me xenophobic.

I enjoy many of your observations, Calliope, but sometimes wonder why you seem to be unnecessarily nasty.


----------



## noco (15 January 2012)

calliopi, your reference to whaling when our ancestors were living in caves and even maybe as recent as 80 years ago, whalers were brave men who were in rowing boats with harpons. It gave the whale a sporting chance to get away whereas today with fast boats and mechancal means, the whale does not have a chance. In those days they were not killing thousands of whale each year as they are today and consequently the numbers were not diminished to any great degree.

I was involved with a bow hunting club for some years and it was the skill of the bow hunter to get within close range of an animal to get a one shot kill. It is the ethics of all club to make sure the animal did not suffer. Goats had very sensitive sight, hearing and smell, where as with a rifle and telescopic sites the animal does not have a sporting chance. On some sheep and cattle properties goats were out of proportion to the number of sheep and cattle and consuming fodder needed for the sheep and cattle. Some property owners would only allow bow hunters as the use of rifles were too dangerous for the other stock. 

So when I compare whaling today to 80 + years ago. the whale also does not have sporting chance whatsoever.

I am against whaling fullstop.


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2012)

Julia said:


> I abhor the cruelty with which the Japanese treat the whales.  I have the same level of abhorrence for any cruelty by any person of any race toward any animal, including the aboriginal sport of hunting dugong.




Good for you.



> Does that make me someone who is nursing a racial hatred of pretty much every race?




I've no idea. Incidentally the islanders do no hunt the dugong for "sport." They eat them.



> I'm sure McQuack can defend himself.  But I find this statement unreasonable and quite offensive.   As above, I'm also opposed to whaling but don't consider that makes me xenophobic.




Xenophobe; "A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples."  This definition does not include all people opposed to whaling, just the nasty ones The present Japanese generations are far removed from the generation that we atom bombed into democracy, but xenophobia is alive and well with the whaling crowd.



> I enjoy many of your observations, Calliope, but sometimes wonder why you seem to be unnecessarily nasty.




"Unnecessarily nasty"? That is your perception? *It is the anti-whalers who are nasty and xenophobic*



> So Australia's anti-whalers have successfully rehabilitated what many of us considered to be long-dead prejudices against the Japanese.
> 
> Echoing World War II propaganda that tended to depict the Japanese as uniquely wicked - far more weirdly sadistic than the Germans, say - the Sea Shepherd website informs us that the whaling carried out in the Southern Ocean is "cruel and barbaric, a gross sadistic perversion".
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n-war-on-whalers/story-e6frgd0x-1226243925289


----------



## todster (15 January 2012)

Is this your obsession Calliope because apparently you cant debate with an obsessive


----------



## Julia (15 January 2012)

Calliope said:


> I've no idea. Incidentally the islanders do no hunt the dugong for "sport." They eat them.



Unless someone is hunting for food because they have no alternative food source, it's sport as far as I'm concerned.  
Are you suggesting that if they didn't hunt the dugong they would starve?



> Xenophobe; "A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples."



I'm sure we're all aware of the definition of xenophobic.
The issue is nothing to do with foreign cultures and everything to do with unnecessary cruelty.


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2012)

Julia said:


> Unless someone is hunting for food because they have no alternative food source, it's sport as far as I'm concerned.
> Are you suggesting that if they didn't hunt the dugong they would starve?[




Not at all. You have a weird idea of sport.



> Dugongs are an essential element of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's living maritime culture along the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The use of marine food resources such as the dugong greatly strengthens Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and demonstrates connection with traditional sea country.
> The activities associated with the hunting of dugong and preparing and sharing the meat has great significance and is an expression of the continuance of long cultural traditions. In remote coast areas, dugongs have a high social and economic value because they provide subsistence food to communities where a nourishing diet is essential but often expensive to attain.




http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/animals/dugong



> I'm sure we're all aware of the definition of xenophobic.
> The issue is nothing to do with foreign cultures and everything to do with unnecessary cruelty.




The xenophobia practised by anti-Japanese activists and their supporters on these pages has has *everything to do with xenophobia and nothing to do with animal cruelty.* You accuse me of being nasty, because I cannot condone xenophobia. If that is being nasty, I plead guilty.


----------



## pixel (15 January 2012)

Julia said:


> The issue is nothing to do with foreign cultures and everything to do with unnecessary cruelty.



 The Japanese would beg to differ, Julia. And *on their behalf,* so would I.
We, who have been brought up under Western values, may cringe at what seems quite "normal" to Non-Westerners. And vice versa. I too would politely decline an invitation to a meal of Chow-Chow Cantonese. However, I wouldn't even try to explain to my hosts why Mongolian Lamb is OK, while Dog in plum sauce is not.
Still, like you, I'm quite happy to know that cats and dogs are off the menu in Australia. 

I would also reject as presumptuous any attempts to deny Indigenous peoples the right to continue hunting whichever animals they have been hunting for generations. *For their tribal subsistence* that is, and only in the confines of their tribal life;* not for sport, tourism, or commercial gain.*


----------



## todster (16 January 2012)

Is the way some religions treat women "part of there culture"acceptable then?


----------



## sptrawler (17 January 2012)

pixel said:


> I would also reject as presumptuous any attempts to deny Indigenous peoples the right to continue hunting whichever animals they have been hunting for generations. *For their tribal subsistence* that is, and only in the confines of their tribal life;* not for sport, tourism, or commercial gain.*




Therefore on that basis is it o.k for indigenous Chinese to hunt and kill pandas, as they have done for generations, in the confines of their village life, not for sport or commercial gain?
Where do you draw the line on what animal is o.k to kill for food?
Is it one that we breed to harvest and if so why is it o.k to kill that one as opposed to any other creature?
Because we breed it, do we have the right to kill it, any more than people who kill animals we don't breed to harvest?


----------



## pixel (17 January 2012)

todster said:


> Is the way some religions treat women "part of there culture"acceptable then?



 I have long been waiting for an argument like that.
Also the one that sptrawler raised, where do I draw the line.

Answer: I am abhorred by all kinds of cruelty. Whether it's directed against winged, feathered, furred, two-legged, eight-legged, or anything in between. And since some "animals" have invented religions to exert mental pain in addition to physical pain, both those kinds come under the same banner where human animals are concerned.

However, I would neither persecute a lion *in Africa* for feeding on a zebra, nor a cat *on a farm in Europe* for hunting and killing mice. However, I will protect Australian wildlife from being hunted and killed by a cat - or a fox, or any "introduced" species.

By extension, I accept that there are groups of people, who have survived in their natural habitat by hunting and gathering food sources that Westernised city dwellers can neither comprehend nor stomach. 

By all means, talk to such groups, explain if it is *objectively* unsustainable. I cases like pandas, orangutans, tigers... give them a *viable alternative* and work with local governments to protect those animals from extinction or even pain for entertainment. 

But *don't tell anybody your own view is better because you're a civilised Westerner and they're barbarians.* They might prove you right by judging you by their own standard.


----------



## doctorj (17 January 2012)

Calliope said:


> The xenophobia practised by anti-Japanese activists and their supporters on these pages has has *everything to do with xenophobia and nothing to do with animal cruelty.* You accuse me of being nasty, because I cannot condone xenophobia. If that is being nasty, I plead guilty.



My problem with whaling is all the crap around it. It's either a cultural thing or it isn't, but don't feed us some bollocks about it being 'science' (see http://www.whaling.jp). There really is very little that can be learned by killing the 20,516th whale that wasn't learned whilst killing the 20,515th (aside from perhaps how to get better at killing whales whilst avoiding protesters).
 
It seems to me that it's a matter of pride rather than culture. They don't like being prevented from doing something by the international community and they're using the carve out concerning science to get around the IWC rules.  It's now to the point where they've been put in a corner and can't be seen backing down.


----------



## Logique (17 January 2012)

doctorj said:


> .. It seems to me that it's a matter of pride rather than culture. They don't like being prevented from doing something by the international community and they're using the carve out concerning science to get around the IWC rules.  It's now to the point where they've been put in a corner and can't be seen backing down.



Finally someone who gets it. There's a way to deal with Japanese people and governments, and it includes respect for their culture and traditions. NGO's and activists needed to entertain the possibility that with a modicum of finesse, more may have been, and still could be achieved.

I suspect that green groups still have it in for the Japanese as buyers of the evil woodchips.


----------



## Calliope (17 January 2012)

Logique said:


> Finally someone who gets it. There's a way to deal with Japanese people and governments, and it includes respect for their culture and traditions. NGO's and activists needed to entertain the possibility that with a modicum of finesse, more may have been, and still could be achieved.
> 
> I suspect that green groups still have it in for the Japanese as buyers of the evil woodchips.




Yes you woild think by now that our diplomats (not Roxon or Gillard] would have that "modicum of finesse" in dealings with the Japanese. The Japanese are a proud race and loss of face is taken very seriously. In the Pacific war it took the destruction of Tokyo by fire-bombing and two atomic bombs plus the threat of more, to bring them to their knees.

The raid on Tokyo March 9/10 1945 which killed 100 thousand people was the most destructive raid in history.







It is naive to pretend that the organised thuggery and hooliganism on the high seas perpetrated by the Sea Shepherd gang will cause the Japanese to retreat. If the Australian government kicked Watson and his thugs out of Australian waters it might open the door to a little diplomacy.


----------



## IFocus (17 January 2012)

Logique said:


> Finally someone who gets it. There's a way to deal with Japanese people and governments, and it includes respect for their culture and traditions. NGO's and activists needed to entertain the possibility that with a modicum of finesse, more may have been, and still could be achieved.
> 
> I suspect that green groups still have it in for the Japanese as buyers of the evil woodchips.




I believe the path you talk about was used for Japanese blue fin tuna fishing which resulted in the destruction of various fishery's.

As for whaling the Yanks started it off to help feed the population after WWII.

They cannot sell the meat they currently have in storage, whaling will stop when the Japanese can no longer afford the arrogance of its fishery department which wields real power within the political structure.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 January 2012)

IFocus said:


> As for whaling the Yanks started it off to help feed the population after WWII.



My understanding is that whaling was largely finished well before WWII came along. 

A quick google search reveals that the US' involvement peaked 100 years earlier and was pretty much over by that stage. Why did it decline? Peak whales! As the whales became scarcer, the cost of finding them increased to the point where whale oil became uneconomic compared to petroleum oil, hence the demise of the whale oil industry.


----------



## sptrawler (18 January 2012)

IFocus said:


> I believe the path you talk about was used for Japanese blue fin tuna fishing which resulted in the destruction of various fishery's.
> 
> As for whaling the Yanks started it off to help feed the population after WWII.
> 
> They cannot sell the meat they currently have in storage, whaling will stop when the Japanese can no longer afford the arrogance of its fishery department which wields real power within the political structure.




Whaling will stop when people stop buying the meat.
Try selling pork in Israel.
I don't think cow meat is that popular in India.
But I don't see Jews picketing our piggeries, or people hijacking our abattoirs.
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with whaling, but I do agree with he who has not sinned should throw the first stone and I am not religious.


----------



## pixel (18 January 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Whaling will stop when people stop buying the meat.
> Try selling pork in Israel.
> I don't think cow meat is that popular in India.
> But I don't see Jews picketing our piggeries, or people hijacking our abattoirs.
> Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with whaling, but I do agree with he who has not sinned should throw the first stone and I am not religious.



 +1

Well put; we may even go one step further and ask those whale-savers, how they would feel if Muslim activists lobbied for THEIR moral values to be upheld everywhere. How about some Malaysian temperance group demands *all pubs in Australia be closed* and everybody caught having a glass of beer be given six lashes like the Law demands in Malaysia:
http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/br...-models-caning-to-go-ahead-20090929-g9fy.html


----------



## Julia (18 January 2012)

pixel said:


> +1
> 
> Well put; we may even go one step further and ask those whale-savers, how they would feel if Muslim activists lobbied for THEIR moral values to be upheld everywhere. How about some Malaysian temperance group demands *all pubs in Australia be closed* and everybody caught having a glass of beer be given six lashes like the Law demands in Malaysia:
> http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/br...-models-caning-to-go-ahead-20090929-g9fy.html




As far as my own stand is concerned, you're rather missing the point.
I don't care if the Japanese want to eat whale meat.
As long as the species is not endangered and they are operating in international waters I have no objection to them killing the animals if they do it quickly and cleanly.

What I do strongly object to is the prolonged and horrible death they inflict on the creatures.  
I'm just implacably opposed to any cruelty to any animals.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (18 January 2012)

Julia said:


> As far as my own stand is concerned, you're rather missing the point.
> I don't care if the Japanese want to eat whale meat.
> As long as the species is not endangered and they are operating in international waters I have no objection to them killing the animals if they do it quickly and cleanly.
> 
> ...




It is slow.  And whales have bigger brains than humans which implies that they may even suffer more than a human dragged backwards through the water for [edit] half an hour with harpoons in it.

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch?v=lmZWvKri6us


----------



## Calliope (18 January 2012)

Julia said:


> What I do strongly object to is the prolonged and horrible death they inflict on the creatures.
> I'm just implacably opposed to any cruelty to any animals.




People who are deliberately cruel to animals are usually psychopaths. However the reality is that the meat from any animal that appears on our plate, or in our dog's bowl, is there as a result of some animal's untimely and violent death. From the prawn boiled alive to the poleaxed steer they all died a cruel death. Not deliberate - but unavoidable.


----------



## Julia (18 January 2012)

Calliope said:


> People who are deliberately cruel to animals are usually psychopaths. However the reality is that the meat from any animal that appears on our plate, or in our dog's bowl, is there as a result of some animal's untimely and violent death. From the prawn boiled alive to the poleaxed steer they all died a cruel death. Not deliberate - but unavoidable.



 Disagree.  Shellfish can be numbed/rendered unconscious in a freezer rather than tossed into boiling water and cattle can be efficiently stunned prior to killing.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (18 January 2012)

I think you've lost the plot of the thread Julia.

Shellfish don't count.  They're unlikely to suffer much at all.  Big brained animals do.  Apes, whales, dolphins etc.  There's a huge difference.


----------



## Calliope (18 January 2012)

Julia said:


> Disagree.  Shellfish can be numbed/rendered unconscious in a freezer rather than tossed into boiling water and cattle can be efficiently stunned prior to killing.




I have visited a knackery and I must admit I came away truly saddened. I love horses having been brought up with them. Oh yes the horses are efficiently stunned. but while they are going up the race to their death, it is a different matter. Horses are very sensitive to the smell of blood and they become very nervous and agitated. Their fear is palpable. It is as though they know the end is near. Most of the horses have been transported long distances under conditions far from ideal.

I know this is done under strict conditions, but the cruelty is obvious...and unavoidable.


----------



## IFocus (18 January 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> My understanding is that whaling was largely finished well before WWII came along.
> 
> A quick google search reveals that the US' involvement peaked 100 years earlier and was pretty much over by that stage. Why did it decline? Peak whales! As the whales became scarcer, the cost of finding them increased to the point where whale oil became uneconomic compared to petroleum oil, hence the demise of the whale oil industry.




Smurf I meant the Yanks got the Japanese into serious whaling for food after WWII cheers


----------



## Macquack (18 January 2012)

Julia said:


> I don't care if the Japanese want to eat whale meat.
> As long as the *species is not endangered *and they are operating in *international waters* I have no objection to them *killing the animals *if they do it *quickly and cleanly*.




Totally Agree.

1.Species is endangered (according to the International Whaling Commission) JAPAN -FAIL.
2. International waters (may be debatable by some) but according to the Australian Goverment JAPAN - FAIL
3. Killing quickly and cleanly ( just have a look at any video of whaling) JAPAN - FAIL.

Japan is a total failure on this issue.


----------



## doctorj (18 January 2012)

Whaling's an emotional topic, but as we're unlikely to solve the world's problems in this thread, please keep it polite.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 February 2012)

doctorj said:


> Whaling's an emotional topic, but as we're unlikely to solve the world's problems in this thread, please keep it polite.




May I ask if the war between the Sea Alsatians and the Japs is over.

I have heard nought about it for weeks.

gg


----------



## pixel (10 February 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> May I ask if the war between the Sea Alsatians and the Japs is over.
> 
> I have heard nought about it for weeks.
> 
> gg



 Be glad they're giving us a rest.
The tree huggers have now taken a position on terra firma and make a nuisance of themselves wherever a council worker is carrying a chainsaw around.


----------



## Macquack (5 July 2012)

*"South Korea under pressure to scrap whaling plan"*

The Japs started the rot of the International Whaling Commission, now South Korea is in on the act trying to destroy the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling.

To some extent I understand South Korea's plan as they see Japan has got away with using the fraud of "scientific whaling" for years. However, I believe Japan needs to be brought to justice for their actions so that loop hole is closed for any other rogue nation.

http://news.yahoo.com/tensions-japan-pushes-whaling-180147185.html


----------



## Calliope (6 July 2012)

Paul Watson will sort out those nasty Koreans like he did with the Japanese.

[video]http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/254170/are-we-bad-asses[/video]


----------



## Sdajii (6 July 2012)

I still can't understand why everyone sooks about common species of whales being harvested while no one is jumping up and down about endangered fish species being harvested. People go to prison for smacking their pet dog while impaling a fish on a barbed hook and dragging it by the mouth for an hour or two then either leaving it to slowly die out of water or throwing it back in because you just wanted to have fun torturing it is all considered a publicly condoned sport.

It's like those people who abuse hunters or those who wear fur then drive home in their leather-seated car to a meal of lamb chops and the next day drive their car somewhere, run into me and tell me off for owning oil shares.

The average Joe out there is so stupid.


----------



## Julia (6 July 2012)

Sdajii said:


> no one is jumping up and down about endangered fish species being harvested. People go to prison for smacking their pet dog while impaling a fish on a barbed hook and dragging it by the mouth for an hour or two then either leaving it to slowly die out of water or throwing it back in because you just wanted to have fun torturing it is all considered a publicly condoned sport.



+1.


----------



## IFocus (6 July 2012)

Macquack said:


> *"South Korea under pressure to scrap whaling plan"*
> 
> The Japs started the rot of the International Whaling Commission, now South Korea is in on the act trying to destroy the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling.
> 
> ...




Disappointing Mac that the South Koreans are going whaling they are far more cashed up than the Japanese and quite resilient hope the Sea Shepard continues to punch above its weight in the Southern Ocean.


----------



## IFocus (6 July 2012)

Sdajii said:


> I still can't understand why everyone sooks about common species of whales being harvested while no one is jumping up and down about endangered fish species being harvested. People go to prison for smacking their pet dog while impaling a fish on a barbed hook and dragging it by the mouth for an hour or two then either leaving it to slowly die out of water or throwing it back in because you just wanted to have fun torturing it is all considered a publicly condoned sport.
> 
> It's like those people who abuse hunters or those who wear fur then drive home in their leather-seated car to a meal of lamb chops and the next day drive their car somewhere, run into me and tell me off for owning oil shares.
> 
> The average Joe out there is so stupid.




Its unfortunate you feel the average person is stupid................I would give them far more credit one of the great joys I get when I travel is how insightful the "average Joe" can be when listening to their story whether its a rice farmer standing in his paddy in Asia or a native speaker of Quechua in South America or simply another Australian.


----------



## Sdajii (6 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Its unfortunate you feel the average person is stupid................I would give them far more credit one of the great joys I get when I travel is how insightful the "average Joe" can be when listening to their story whether its a rice farmer standing in his paddy in Asia or a native speaker of Quechua in South America or simply another Australian.




I've seen your posts before. I'm not surprised you admire the average person. In a way I envy you.


----------



## IFocus (21 February 2013)

Breaking out my finest cask of red tonight to toast Captain Paul Watson and his courageous crew for their work in the deep Southern Ocean battling the Japanese whaling pirate law breakers cutting short the pirate whaling fleets illegal activities killing and butchering one of the finer species that inhabit our fragile planet.

Hopefully they will dock in Fremantle so we can give a warm welcome.


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2013)

IFocus said:


> Breaking out my finest cask of red tonight to toast Captain Paul Watson and his courageous crew for their work in the deep Southern Ocean battling the Japanese whaling pirate law breakers cutting short the pirate whaling fleets illegal activities killing and butchering one of the finer species that inhabit our fragile planet.
> 
> Hopefully they will dock in Fremantle so we can give a warm welcome.




You are obviously trolling.


----------



## McLovin (22 February 2013)

The IWC is a complete farce. Why is it that the US and UK, for example, which allow all sorts of hunting, object to Japanese hunting of whales? The moratorium is not binding international law, Norway kills more whales than Japan does. The species Japan hunts is not endangered. The Sea Shepherd claim that Japan is whaling in Australian waters. Bob Brown wanted the Navy sent down there. Australia will never do that because they can't risk having their already flimsy territorial claim (only four countries recognise our claim) taken to the ICJ shot down. Essentially, what you have is a bunch of idealistic pirates operating on the high seas with the tacit approval of the Australian government.


----------



## Calliope (22 February 2013)

McLovin said:


> The IWC is a complete farce. Why is it that the US and UK, for example, which allow all sorts of hunting, object to Japanese hunting of whales? The moratorium is not binding international law, Norway kills more whales than Japan does. The species Japan hunts is not endangered. The Sea Shepherd claim that Japan is whaling in Australian waters. Bob Brown wanted the Navy sent down there. Australia will never do that because they can't risk having their already flimsy territorial claim (only four countries recognise our claim) taken to the ICJ shot down. Essentially, what you have is a bunch of idealistic pirates operating on the high seas with the tacit approval of the Australian government.




+1. Spot on.


----------



## McLovin (27 February 2013)

Bam!



> A United States court has published a severely critical opinion of tactics used by Sea Shepherd against the Japanese whaling fleet, describing the group as the embodiment of piracy.
> 
> The group's founder, Paul Watson, is called "eccentric" in the judgment led by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals chief judge Alex Kozinski.
> 
> ...




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/w...-court-says-20130227-2f5ic.html#ixzz2M4pUfc1o


----------



## Caveman (27 February 2013)

IMO They should only allow whaling with Indigenous methods.
AKA Viking Longships and hand held Harpoons!


----------



## Macquack (28 February 2013)

IFocus said:


> Breaking out my finest cask of red tonight to toast Captain Paul Watson and his courageous crew for their work in the deep Southern Ocean battling the Japanese whaling pirate law breakers cutting short the pirate whaling fleets illegal activities killing and butchering one of the finer species that inhabit our fragile planet.
> 
> Hopefully they will dock in Fremantle so we can give a warm welcome.




I'm with you, IFocus.


----------



## Macquack (28 February 2013)

*“Japan 'will never stop whaling', Japanese fisheries minister says”*



> "I don't think there will be any kind of an end for whaling by Japan," Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi told AFP in an exclusive interview.
> Mr Hayashi, who took the ministerial post overseeing the country's whaling programs in December, said the criticism of the practice is "a cultural attack, a kind of prejudice against Japanese culture.



http://www.news.com.au/world-news/j...ys/story-fndir2ev-1226586407886#ixzz2MBKvbJaT

The dopey Japanese Fisheries minister needs to get his f*cking story right. Repeat after me “*we kill whales purely for scientific purposes”.*


----------



## Macquack (28 February 2013)

McLovin said:


> The IWC is a complete farce. Why is it that the US and UK, for example, which allow all sorts of hunting, object to Japanese hunting of whales? The moratorium is not binding international law, Norway kills more whales than Japan does. The species Japan hunts is not endangered. The Sea Shepherd claim that Japan is whaling in Australian waters. Bob Brown wanted the Navy sent down there. Australia will never do that because they can't risk having their already flimsy territorial claim (only four countries recognise our claim) taken to the ICJ shot down. Essentially, what you have is a bunch of idealistic pirates operating on the high seas with the tacit approval of the Australian government.




McLovin, you are always well researched and I usually agree with your conclusions, however on this topic I totally oppose your view.


“The IWC is a complete farce.”
The IWC is not a farce.
The International Whaling Commission is the global intergovernmental body charged with the conservation of whales and the management of whaling. It is set up under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling signed in 1946. The Commission has a current membership of 89 Governments from countries around the World.


“Why is it that the US and UK, for example, which allow all sorts of hunting, object to Japanese hunting of whales?” 
Because of the IWC charter, as in,  protection of whale stocks.

“The moratorium is not binding international law”
It was never intended to be but maybe it should.

 “Norway kills more whales than Japan does.”
The Comancheros sell more drugs than the Bandidos, what’s your point?

“ The species Japan hunts is not endangered.”
No thanks to the Japanese for that, and the moratorium still remains.

 “The Sea Shepherd claim that Japan is whaling in Australian waters.”
The Australian government also claim the Japanese are whaling in Australian waters.

 “Bob Brown wanted the Navy sent down there.”
Good idea.

 “Essentially, what you have is a bunch of *idealistic pirates *operating on the high seas with the tacit approval of the Australian government.”

Essentially, what we have is a bunch of *decent people with balls* that are prepared to take tangible action on a principle while authorities drag their heels.


----------



## Macquack (1 April 2014)

Japanese "scientific whaling" declared to be nothing but a fraud by the International Court of Justice. 

*Australia wins whaling case against Japan in The Hague *
http://www.news.com.au/national/aus...pan-in-the-hague/story-fncynjr2-1226870210553


----------



## dutchie (1 April 2014)

Macquack said:


> Japanese "scientific whaling" declared to be nothing but a fraud by the International Court of Justice.
> 
> *Australia wins whaling case against Japan in The Hague *
> http://www.news.com.au/national/aus...pan-in-the-hague/story-fncynjr2-1226870210553




Peter Garrett finally has a positive. Kudos to him for insisting on the Court action.


----------



## Julia (1 April 2014)

dutchie said:


> Peter Garrett finally has a positive. Kudos to him for insisting on the Court action.



+1.
That's a fantastic result.


----------



## McLovin (1 April 2014)

Macquack said:


> “The IWC is a complete farce.”
> The IWC is not a farce.
> The International Whaling Commission is the global intergovernmental body charged with the conservation of whales and the management of whaling. It is set up under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling signed in 1946. The Commission has a current membership of 89 Governments from countries around the World.




And on the ground that means very little. It is a voluntary organisation whose decisions are completely unenforceable. If a country doesn't like an IWC decision they just leave the IWC. The IWC has been hijacked by countries that have a moral opposition to whaling. The original mission of the 1986 moratorium was to determine current whale stocks so that they would not be hunted to extinction. During the moratorium period, "save the whales" became fashionable in the west and the moratorium's purpose changed from sustainable whaling to using the moratorium as a way to enforce our own morals on other countries.



			
				Macquack said:
			
		

> “Why is it that the US and UK, for example, which allow all sorts of hunting, object to Japanese hunting of whales?”
> Because of the IWC charter, as in,  protection of whale stocks.




Right, the protection of whale stocks, not the protection of whales from hunting. The Japanese are not hunting endangered species. It's quite duplicitous of Australia to take Japan to the ICJ over whalilng while still permitting the use of sow crates and live animal exports.




			
				Macquack said:
			
		

> “The Sea Shepherd claim that Japan is whaling in Australian waters.”
> The Australian government also claim the Japanese are whaling in Australian waters.




The Australian government might like to think that is Australian waters but Japan, and nearly every other country on Earth (the exception being UK, NZ, France and Norway) does not recognise Australia's Antarctic claim.



Macquack said:


> Essentially, what we have is a bunch of *decent people with balls* that are prepared to take tangible action on a principle while authorities drag their heels.




Japan is not breaking any law. If a bunch of Hindus picketed a cattle abbatoir based on religious principle, would you support it?

FWIW, I have zero interest in eating whale meat, and the process of killing them seems rather barbaric to me.


----------



## orr (1 April 2014)

McLovin said:


> . The IWC has been hijacked by countries that have a moral opposition to whaling. .
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Ahh Actually It 's Japan Who has hijacked the IWC

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article316610.ece

If you ever care to read 'Moby Dick' You'll have an insight as to what whale stocks were prior to their Industrialised killing. 

I personally have every interest in eating whale meat, On the proviso that I can go out and hunt it, in a flimsy boat with a sharp stick and some rope. ' Behold the tail of the Southern right whale, they call it the hand of God... Because it's the last thing you'll see before you meet him'.


----------



## IFocus (1 April 2014)

Celebrations tonight, will break out a new cask of the finest red. 

Hopefully a win for whales and a step in the right direction for protecting a wild species quite a rare event these days still the PM of Japan is a nationalist so anything is possible.


----------



## CanOz (1 April 2014)

Yeah, if Japan does the right things and stops whaling, there can't be a bad thing come from it for a long while...I don't see why they need to keep harvesting these beautiful creatures. Its not comparable to Wagyu beef, or even Tuna. These are truly magnificent creatures.


----------



## McLovin (1 April 2014)

CanOz said:


> Yeah, if Japan does the right things and stops whaling, there can't be a bad thing come from it for a long while...I don't see why they need to keep harvesting these beautiful creatures. Its not comparable to Wagyu beef, or even Tuna. These are truly magnificent creatures.




Isn't this what the Japanese were calling "cultural imperialism"? You fish and hunt don't you, Can? Switzerland and Germany have banned catch and release because they consider it inhumane and cruel. They've also instituted things like no barbed hooks and no live bait. Should Australia follow suit? After all, if we're going around telling other countries not to be cruel to animals we probably shouldn't be allowing fishing for sport.


----------



## IFocus (1 April 2014)

McLovin said:


> Isn't this what the Japanese were calling "cultural imperialism"? You fish and hunt don't you, Can? Switzerland and Germany have banned catch and release because they consider it inhumane and cruel. They've also instituted things like no barbed hooks and no live bait. Should Australia follow suit? After all, if we're going around telling other countries not to be cruel to animals we probably shouldn't be allowing fishing for sport.





Moral issue of cruelty and or sustainability of species. 

Helps for your survival but no guarantee  if you are cute and cuddly having gills doesn't cut it.

Australia culturally isn't ready for a fishing ban based on cruelty I would think, it wasn't ready for banning whaling in the 60's but changed dramatically in the 70's (must have been all that dope smoking).

How do you change 2 million years of genes that say go forward and hunt?


----------



## Calliope (1 April 2014)

CanOz said:


> Yeah, if Japan does the right things and stops whaling, there can't be a bad thing come from it for a long while...I don't see why they need to keep harvesting these beautiful creatures. Its not comparable to Wagyu beef, or even Tuna. These are truly magnificent creatures.




Killer Whales (orcas) ane the most beautiful and probably the most intelligent animals in the ocean. To see what we are doing to them watch the documentary Blackfish.


----------



## Julia (1 April 2014)

McLovin said:


> After all, if we're going around telling other countries not to be cruel to animals we probably shouldn't be allowing fishing for sport.



+1.



IFocus said:


> How do you change 2 million years of genes that say go forward and hunt?



What nonsense.   Our genes adapt to our environmental conditions.  We are no longer back in the days of hunters and gatherers.  
Fishing and hunting is nothing more in this country than a sport for bored human beings.  Nothing at all to with need for food.  
Just another example of how inadequate human beings boost their attempt to feel superior over another species.


----------

