Whale wars

[Smurf1976]

"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]

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]

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

 

[MRC & Co]

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

 

[prawn_86]

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]

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

gg

 

[kincella]

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]

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]

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.

(Wikipedia)(my emphasis)

* Thieves stick together.

My apologiies, jurisdiction,

gg

 

[Logique]

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

......This is the toughest public stance a Japanese government has taken towards Australia on Antarctic whaling -- or any other issue -- in recent times and is also highly unusual in singling out for criticism a senior member of a friendly government

.......The move betrays Japanese frustration with the Australians' political management of the issue, including Kevin Rudd's repeated threats of international legal action against so-called scientific whaling, while not obviously helping to curb hazardous protest activities, including Sea Shepherd's efforts to disable whaling ships.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs senior officials told acting japan ambassador Allan McKinnon it was "not appropriate" for Ms Gillard to urge Japanese whalers and the activists in equal terms to show restraint, "notwithstanding the Sea Shepherd itself was conducting the unlawful rampage"....

 

[Mofra]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Good summary of any issue really.

 

[gooner]

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

 

[nioka]

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]

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]

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.