They’ve been described as the rabbits of the sea. I’m referring to minke whales.
How much money does Greenpeace spend sending boats to the Antarctic to ‘save’ them?
I’m more concerned about the species that are really threatened with extinction like the freshwater dolphins of Asia.
After posting earlier today on the baniji in China, I was sent a link to the Mekong Dolphin Conservation Project.
[from the Mekong Dolphin Conservation Project website]
This project to save the Mekong River Dolphins appears to have been initiated by one dedicated PhD Student, Isabel Beasley.
I wonder how her budget compares to the Greenpeace budget for minke whales?
Where are our priorities?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Was Greenpeace in the Southern Ocean with the whaling campaign in the 2-3 years prior to the 2005/2006 season? I think you will find the answer is no, and they were spending their money elsewhere. I am sure if you delved, you would find other projects they were involved with, like the dugongs in Japan.
There are OTHER environmental organisations out there apart from Greenpeace, and Greenpeace, like WWF, etc have local groups that help with local projects. It is tiring hearing that Greenpeace should be the environmental group that should save the world, and yet cops all the flak.
Yes, a lot more should be done to save the river dolphins, but gee, I haven’t seen too many posts here on Lord Howe Island stick insects, so maybe GP isn’t the only one who should be questioned for selective saving.
Greenpeace have a huge budget and they claim to be looking after the environment. But as far as I can tell they have their priorities mostly all wrong.
Jennifer,
I can’t open the your link that describes the minkes2 as the rabbits of the sea”.
However, I doubt it is correct…
Mr. Komatsu, a senior Japanese official , described the minkes as ” the cockroaches of the sea” in July 2001.
And Mr. Thorvald Stoltenberg, the Norwegian Foreign Minister?? , the father of the current Prime Minister described the minkes ” as the rats of the sea”.
Jennifer,
The Greenpeace corporate heads clearly don’t see their Antarctic protest activity as an expense. It sees it as an investment. Last summer Greenpeace must have received a lot of donations from New Zealanders and Australians. I’ve little doubt that this is why they’re going to do it again this summer.
This is despite Greenpeace previously saying that they couldn’t spare the ship, because they are trying to save other parts of the world as well.
I guess the good news is that this must mean the world is in pretty good shape?
Unfortunately for the dolphins, they aren’t so “magnificent” and worth “saving” it seems, nor as “innocent” as the whales perhaps.
Travis,
I think Greenpeace cops more flak than say the WWF, because Greenpeace actually sends ships to the Antarctic, rams research vessels, obstructs legal whaling activities, achieving nothing at all.
ZERO whales saved last summer.
ZERO.
Greenpeace achieves NOTHING through it’s protest activities, other than obtaining some great footage for their propaganda campaigns. Even if they did save even a single whale, it would still mean nothing for the environment. Japan is taking minute numbers of whales.
Jennifer is dead right. For a group that is supposedly working to save the environment, they seem to have their priorities completely out of whack. Which leads me to the conclusion that Greenpeace is not actually trying to save the environment.
The WWF policy on whaling is quite ambiguous, but at least they aren’t so damned self-righteous. You saw all the videos of the ramming incident, didn’t you? Has Greenpeace no shame?
Ann,
You are popular in Greenpeace circles. What guarantees can you give that this summer, Greenpeace will refrain from ramming their ship into the research ones, and refrain from sending out inflatables, which has the potential to result in increased Time-To-Death statistics and poorer Instantaneous-Death ratio figures?
Can you get your people to agree to film the whaling activities from a safe distance, rather than directly interfering? We know that direct interference serves no conservation purpose whatsoever. Your organization will keep out of the way of the harpoon gunners if it cares at all about whale welfare, like the rest of us.
Anne,
Paul watson described Greenpeace as “the Avon ladies of the environmental movement” – what has that got to do with the subject at hand?…nothing…. the thoughts of Stoltenbergs father have zero to do with the subject at hand either…
Greenpeace tend to take a lot of flak simply because they tend to prioritise media friendly or media rich causes – over the years, they have become savvy media experts. Thing is though, as ” saviours of the environment” they need to be squeaky clean and be seen to be above reproach…
Many other NGO´s do not have such a high media profile and as a result, take less flak.
When was the last time you heard or read about a WWF action? …. they tend to go ahead and get the job done so to speak and actively support many areas of research and field projects and are generally seen as being a lot less radical as say, GP …
back to packing ….
Dear friends,
I have been involved in pirate fishing issues in the Barents Sea all day, George did you see the Norwegian Coast Guards action against the pirate trawler the Joana/ Lootus that was initiated by Greenpeace?
No, Greenpeace is not saving single individuals, Greenpeace’s aim have always been to save whole species , we can’t save single individuals but we try in first hand to prevent that the dolphins for example will never face extinction through pollution, dams, toxics etc. We work for the bigger picture. Do you know that for example 300 000 cetaceans per year die in nets etc.
WWF and Greenpeace work jointly in many fields…
Following on my post on your baiji thoughts, Jennifer…..
It’s gratifying to read that, “I’m more concerned about the species that are really threatened with extinction like the freshwater dolphins of Asia.”.
It’d be terrific if you could leverage IPA’s ties to some of those in the big end of town to chip in and set up some conservation projects to address your concerns.
Another disclaimer – I was on Isabel’s supervisory committee back when when working at JCU (but I haven’t been there for quite some time now).
Still optimistically
Peter
More propaganda from David at Toyko who has become the advocate for the stockpile of uneaten whale meat. Defender of the same mob who drove these species close to extinction, who are now reformed. Yea sure. We’re all convinced.
If this thread really about concern for the Asian dolphins – I doubt it. It’s simply a diversion for some boutique conservation window dressing and excuse to beat up on Greenpeace some more.
Discussions on Australian dugongs – zero. Concern for Australian biodiversity e.g. extinctions and vulnerability of native maruspials, birds and reptiles – zero. No interest in issues at home as conservation might interfere with farming, fishing or forestry interests.
This isn’t about conservation and doing something positive. This is simply about drop-kicking Greenpeace (again).
And following on the logic about what’s truly globally important (global warming versus other issues) presented in this blog. Why bother about a handful of dolphins down to small numbers and an inadequate level of genetic diversity anyway. Stuff them and the rest of the Asian wildlife – spend the money on human health, nutrition, education and industrialisation in SE Asia. You could make some money by raffling the rights to shoot the last Asian dolphin. Where’s your priorities? David at Toyko can get his mates to catch us a few stupid dolphins from elsewhere for the kids to look at in a proper theme park. You can’t see the Asian ones in all that murky water. Who’s going to pay for that.
Jennifer,
In providing you with information on river dolphins, I am disappointed that you have used it to take another stab at Greenpeace. Comparing Baijis (please note spelling)and Irrawaddys with minkes is futile.
Instead name blaming and having more round circle discussions with David@Tokyo, Ann and George, try sugesting practicle solutions to the problem. I don’t see anyone blaming the Chinese or Cambodians, yet Greenpeace is again to blame somehow. This is very disappointing. The supposedly real issue of the thread, endangered river dolphins, is lost, and we go over the same tired ground again.
Peter makes a valid point, and seems like a better way of helping the Mekong Orcaellas than sticking it up Greenpeace.
Libby, GP are fair game, they “stick it up” others with impunity.
Hi Libby,
Unfortunately, I’m not very familiar with this river dolphin issue.
What is the main reason why they are near extinction? I guess in China dams must be a reason, pollution and habitat loss, and as I understand a dam in China? is also threatening the water supply to lower Mekong. I know people in Cambodia and Laos( fishermen and farmers are worried).
As I see it , the situation is political. We know in China there is no concern for the environment, they discharge huge amounts of toxics straight int rivers,of course this has a huge impact on wildlife, the water is very polluted.
There have been at least two very big toxic discharges from industries in China this year, affecting millions of people and god knows how many animals and fish. I know one accident was about bensen, one of the most carcinogenous substances in the world.
Rog,
“Libby, GP are fair game, they “stick it up” others with impunity.”
Sigh…
Ann,
Habitat loss, fishing practices and pollution are big problems for river and estuarine dolphins. Concerning the baiji: habitat degradation to control and prevent flooding, waste water(including sewage, pesticides, industrial waste) discharged into river systems, dam and water gate construction, reduction of fish stocks due to over fishing and fish stocks being affected by same processes as dolphins, deforestation leading to soil erosion, siltation and more habitat degradation, river traffic, explosives used for construction work, incidental catch and entanglement, genetic consequences associated with a small population size (less genetic variation, being affected more by genetic drift and inbreeding, further reducing genetic variability, lowering fitness and ability to adapt to environmental changes overtime).
Re Irrawaddys in SE Asia: Khmer and Vietnamese fishermen regard them as sacred animals and will often release entangled animals, whereas Khmer-Islam fishermen kill them for food. Individuals are caught for the oceanarium trade. The oil of animals either incidentally or deliberately caught is used for medicinal purposes in some areas. Fishing practices such as using explosives, poisons and electrofishing, as well as entanglement in nets. Habitat degradation associated with timber industry activity, dams, gold mining using mercury abstraction techniques. Increased sedimentation due to deforestation and other changes in river catchment areas. Noise pollution, vessel traffic, general pollution. Decline in fish stocks due to above processes. In Chilka Lagoon in India there is a reduction in the animal’s food supply, silting of areas due to agriculture, entanglement and deliberate killing for oil, bringing this localised population close to extinction. Again, there is the proposal to set up a breeding population in a semi-natural impoundment set within the dolphin’s natural habitat (see baiji discussion).
Irrawaddys also occur in northern Australia, as do the recently recognised Australian snubfin dolphins. For a discussion on these, Dr Corkeron is your man.
Libby,
For a mere $545,000 donation, any NGO would actually be doing something worthwhile for truly endangered dolphins instead of harping on about how terrible it all is.
“sticking it up GP or any other NGO” is only to be expected in view of the lack of the rush of NGO´s to actualy do something to help
Hi Libby,
Sorry to offend you. It was not intentional. And I did appreciate you sending me all the information.
But if I was running Greenpeace I would put some money into the really endangered cetaceans given the organisation has made so much money out of the larger ones.
But I find all the larger mainstream environment groups as misguided as the Catholic Church. I remember writing something about the Catholic Church at this blog, just found it: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000562.html .
I do worry about the river dolphins, as I do the northern hairy nosed wombat.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the suggestion that the IPA raise money to save the river dolphins.
A couple of things to note,
1. As of today (1st July) I’m a senior fellow at the IPA, not Director of the Environment Unit.
2. The IPA is a think tank, not an environment group. The think tank has a full time staff of about 5 and don’t normally get involved in overseas issues/has an Australian focus.
3. I don’t get involved in fund raising at the IPA.
I am involved with new environment group the AEF ( http://www.aefweb.info ) but again they have an Australian focus and seem to be having a bit of trouble getting started.
But I will think some more about your proposal.
Is the solution to relocate the Baiji? And is the main issue funding? Is the group identified in the BBC article the one’s to back?
If the main problem is for example in China you guys got to realise how hard it is for an NGO to be accepted or work in some countries.
Ann,
I don’t buy your argument.
What I see is WWF and Greenpeace increasingly chasing non issues in places like Australia and the Antarctic while real and pressing issues are ignored because China, for example, is hard work?
In fact it can be counter productive with sustaible fisheries closed down on Australia’s Great Barrier REef and sustainable forestry closed down in Tasmania … with the result that there is more pressure on fisheries and forests in Asia.
And if we want to pick on WWF, as well as Greenpeace:
http://www.ipa.org.au/files/wwftext.htm .
Jennifer,
The same old excuse from the industry, for example bottom trawling nations claim the same thing, they claim a ban on bottom trawling on the high seas may pose an additional stress to pelagic species…
One of the main reasons vessels are targeting deep-sea fish is that they have already overfished pelagic species like tuna – there are too many boats fishing for too few fish, so some have now moved onto deep-sea species and are fishing unsustainabbly.
It would not be a moratorium on high seas bottom trawling that would put additional stress to pelagic species – that would be the classic case of passing on the blame.
Jennifer,
Apology accepted. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society support research and conservation on those species that don’t get media attention. They have other campaigns too, like anti-captivity, anthropogenic noise and whaling, but as a purely cetacean-focused organisation, I guess they can have a good hard look at all the different species and how they are coping.
There are certainly many issues that barely see the light of day, or receive little interest from the general public. I wonder how much people really care about facial-tumour disease wiping out Tasmanian devils? There was a donation/PR campaign for northern hairy-nosed wombats a while ago set up by Australian Geographic.
With regards to GP putting money back into other cetacean issues, they do carry out research such as sightings surveys, which has yielded some interesting results, and I can only assume that some of the ocal offices, like with WWF, have their own local issues they campaign on. Looking at Isabel’s work though, it is humbling how much drive an individual can have, working out of their comfort zone probably on the smell of an oil rag.
Greenpeace have also worked jointly with the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, monitoring pair trawling which is believed to be responsible for huge dolphin bycatch.
Greenpeace and WDCS have also conducted sightings surveys in Cardigan bay Wales, to establish poulation numbers in the area …
On the other hand,
Both NGO´s reckon it´s impossible to estimate whale population numbers according to previous statements regarding whaling – but of course, the numbers in Cardigan bay using the same or similar methods are supposed to be correct … go figure…
I cannot say if it is still the case, but WDCS previously would not fund / support any invasive research techniques such as biopsy sampling.. it´s great that they do fund less
” high profile ” projects though..
One personal comment – I do know from personal experience how some private NGO funding does exact a hefty price in terms of how the NGO uses results from projects funded – I know of a number of field researchers who simply will not apply to certain NGO´s due to this …. I know of one example where an NGO is giving a very high profile to their support of one project, whilst at the same time, cutting support to the project radicaly… such are the vagaries of private funding
Libby, quite agree with you that it is humbling how much drive an individual can have, I know a couple of similar people personally and can only admire their consistant drive over the years ..
I have heard it is especially difficult to estimate minke whale numbers.
George,
I think WDCS supports combined sloughed skin and dart biopsy sampling
Anne
” I have heard it is especially difficult to estimate minke whale numbers. ”
From who? and why do you think this is so? and what difference do you think there is between estimating cetacean numbers around cardigan bay and in the north and south atlantic?
“I think WDCS supports combined sloughed skin and dart biopsy sampling ”
If you can provide a link to this it would be great – I know that a few years back they did not support ´any ´ biopsy sampling … sensible of them if they have changed their policy…
George,
Regarding the minkes I just heard it from some bloke from Norway, double-sightings and that the minkes are solitary animals which makes any estimation more difficult.
Hope this link will do:
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/E1B2DB704B8DF84780256BEA004004F5
Friends,
A multinational corporation like Greenpeace with income of ca. US$125 million annually and the equivalent in cash in Swiss accounts knows what it’s doing.
Get real. Is Greenpeace going to get lots of donation$ from people near, or concerned about, the Mekong Delta? No way. Greenpeace gets an annual return of 4- 5 per cent on current assets, which many corporations would envy.
Investing in a Mekong Delta protest would be a total financial loss.
I am constantly amazed at people who think the battle over the environment is ideological or scientific.
Get a clue, people! Environmentalism is a business! Until you understand that, you’ll never understand things like why people do or don’t care about the Mekong dolphins.
Schiller.
It’s going to be a rare event that Jennifer is caught in an inaccuracy.
After questioning what Greenpeace thinks of Mekong dolpins, she asks, “Where are our priorities?” The question pretends that Greenpeace priorities are “our” priorities.
The notion that Greenpeace shares “our” priorities is precisely the illusion that this multinational corporation fosters.
“Our” priorities are *human* priorities and Greenpeace has officially, on the record, without equivocation, announced that it is better that tens of thousands of children go blind each year than that “the environment” be faced with some unknown and ridiculously fanciful genetic catastrophe.
But people in developing countries don’t have money to donate to Greenpeace so the multinational doesn’t have an cash-positive incentive to feel a thing on their behalf.
Jennifer, Greenpeace does *not* represent “our priorities.” It represents *its* priorities. I am hopeful that you mis-spoke, or were intending instead to be provocative.
Schiller.
Are GP credible or incredible?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8281185725210821236
Personally I’m very pleased to hear that Greenpeace have a big Swiss bank account. Gives you trust. I also donate a smaller some of money to Greenpeace every month since I know they will be well spent.
However, I have also bad experience from environmentalism. In a small NGO that I worked for as a wildlife rehabilitator the president embezzled all our money including legacies from old animal loving ladies. Very sad indeed!
Well said Ann – and good on them. We would much the worse off without them holding a mirror up to society, unchecked consumption, and the excesses of the corporate world. There are things of course that money cannot buy – like replacing extinct species. Some of us care about such things.
Ashley,
Where do you get off pretending that people who believe in sustainable use don’t care about species going extinct?
You could at least have the integrity to accept this much.
Hi Ann,
Did you predict your money would be spent bailing Greenpeace protestors out of jail for crimes that they knew they were committing?
Didn’t help the environment much.
Difficulties have been raised about the practicalities of relocating the baiji and of operating in China. China is not exactly open to conservation organistions sauntering in and tackling sensitive issues (= higher operational costs and less likelihood of success) but this issue has still been well publicised and addressed in ways mentioned above.
Jennifer above you rejected Ann’s valid point that it can be difficult for a conservation organisation to operate in a country like China. Unsurprisingly, you didn’t explain why you rejected this point (it doesn’t fit with your GP bashing agenda?)
Environmental degration, particularly pollution and human impacts is a hot issue in China right now, fuelling citizen protests previously unseen in China. In this context, how open do you think China is to outside intervention on environmental issues (given domestic unrest and the potential loss of face from the implication that China can’t manage these issues itself)? Given the context of China’s economic power and influence, how easily do you think conservation groups can influence China against its will?
Seeing all of these issues have been pointed out to you and given that you’re a professional thinktank expert in environmental issues, you must have some suggestion how the baiji cetaceans problem should be approached. (Note that specialising only in Australian issues hasn’t stopped you from criticising international NGO policies so why should it stop you from making a constructive suggestion based on the available facts?)
Peter is right in saying that you’re an influential person in a position to do more than just criticise; you can have a positive influence. It doesn’t matter if the IPA is thinktank only, not an action based organisation, because powerful effective actions begin with a well thought out strategy.
(Keep up the optimism Peter!)
rog iron out your thinking and don’t conflate the NGO with the conservation issue
I think China accepts the problem with the baiji, and has hosted workshops with international experts to discuss the issues on at least two occasions. I may be totally off the correct rails here, but I think China wants help with the baiji, and recognises the environmental problems which affect it, but in a rapidly developing country with so many people, it is now too big a problem to be able to solve quickly and easily.It is like a train with the brakes off speeding past the stations. The problem is, how to stop that speeding train, not necessarily who will. (Hope that makes sense!)
Pixie; any time you want to advise on ironing I have a basketfull for your immediate attention.
Hey Rog, two Neanderthals live in a dumpster down the end of my street. One is called Mog and the other Zog. Are they relatives of yours by any chance?
Hi Libby,
That was good to hear…. but I was thinking about Greenpeace, in some countries they have difficulties to operate, and I think in countries like China and Russia it is especially difficult, there hands are tied.
Hey , in Russia when Greenpeace was trying to save the Lake Baikal ( the Transneft pipeline), GP folks were believed to be CIA agents( seemed like they still lived in the cold war era).
Libby,
I think China accepts international cooperation with conservation groups, as long as it doesn’t involve any hot political stuff, like panda conservation.
But didn’t the police and the army crack down on local farmers and fishermen recently who protested against a chemical plant, that discharged toxics into some river, actually many people died. And what about human rights organisations, isn’t Amnesty International banned in China, anyway their website is closed down there.
Hi Ann,
Greenpeace activists no longer have the ‘freedom’to be as creative with their protests in the US anymore either, after 9/11.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to confuse, but I am only talking baijis. I know there are huge problems with other environmental concerns there, and they are not so open to foreign advice on some of these issues. The human rights issue is another thing altogether, sadly.
Hi Libby,
GP have even problems in Denmark…sorry to be a bit off topic
Now you have the chance to talk with John Frizell, whale expert from Greenpeace International, please pose some questions:
http://ctk.greenpeace.org/discussions/message-view?message%5fid=2232864
Regarding Japanese whaling operations taking Minke whales, these have been condemed by our own leading cetacean reserchers, not just groups such as Greenpeace. The Japanese have also signalled their intention to target threatened and endangered cetaceans still trying to make a recovery from “the good old days” of whaling. wrt Greenpeace -most organisations run flagship programs to generate support to deliver on other less sexy programs – Greenpeace just happen to be very good at bringing media attention to certain issues because they push the envelope. The “wise use” approach advocated by those opposed to the conservation agenda of the broader environment movement, has in most cases failed, not because the concept is flawed (in which case we’re all stuffed), but because it is more of a front to an ideology revolving around rights as opposed to responcibilities, coupled with inadequate legislative and market mechanisms to ensure sustainable use and resource/environmental conservation.
Regarding Japanese whaling operations taking minke whales, the research has been condemned by scientists from various anti-whaling nations and scientists funded by anti-whaling NGOs.
On the other hand, the JARPA programme was reviewed by the IWC Scientific Committee at it’s half-way point in 1997, and one of the basic conclusions was that the programme had the potential to make for improvements to the IWC’s Revised Management Procedure.
A review of the completed JARPA programme is set for early December 2006.
It is always worth considering the full range of facts when drawing conclusions about the validity of scientific research, rather than only what the anti-use NGOs and certain scientists argue.
The research has also been condemned by scientists with no affiliations to anti-whaling NGOs, so stop trying to paint it otherwise to suit your tired argument.
Travis,
Shall I repeat myself?
It is worth considering the *full range of facts* when drawing conclusions.
I’m more than happy to acknowledge that some scientists have “condemned” the JARPA research (as well as Iceland’s research).
What I’m suggesting needs be considered is that other scientists have seen the research favourably, a good example being the IWC Scientific Committee review in 1997. Even today you need only to browse through the latest Scientific Committee report and documents to see JARPA referred to in numerous places. Not bad for such apparently useless research?
Clearly a lot of scientists do value this research, even if others don’t. Do you at least conceed that scientific opinion is (perhaps) divided?
Furthermore, as I mentioned, the IWC Scientific Committee is planning a full review of JARPA in December, this year.
Without having heard the conclusions, I wonder whether you are prepared to accept the outcome of the review, in advance?
Or are you of the variety who will wait and see whether the outcome supports your particular prejudged opinion before doing so?
I personally have no problems in accepting the outcome of the review before it has taken place. Of course, as with the 1997, we can expect the anti-whaling groups will selectively quote what suits them, but I fully expect that review when read in it’s full context will generally show JARPA in a favourable light.
I doubt that you have such confidence in the outcome. Perhaps you’d like to surprise me.
‘Shall I repeat myself?’
No, please don’t. Damn, you already did. It’s bad enough enduring it on the whaling topics, let alone a post dealing with Irrawaddy dolphins. My short response to what you originally wrote was to take issue with the fact you have insinuated that those scientists that are not singing the virtues of JARPA are associated with anti-whaling NGOs. You are the one not presenting the full range of facts by making such claims. I don’t wish to discuss your JARPA sermon, with its lead in questions, as it is off-topic and I have heard it all from you before, which you yourself have admitted here.
Travis,
Do the checking yourself. I have. It’s hard to find a scientist that doesn’t have an anti-use bias and also thinks that JARPA is a sham. That’s all. Get over it.
Why should this be a surprise to anyone, anyway?
As we know, the IWC Scientific Committee has commended the research. It would be strange indeed if a different group of serious scientists turned around and contradicted this. Science isn’t that ambiguous.
At any rate, I again note that I’m looking forward to the results of the next IWC SC review of the JARPA programme, and also note that you don’t seem interested in it at all. Nothing but rhetoric…
‘At any rate, I again note that I’m looking forward to the results of the next IWC SC review of the JARPA programme, and also note that you don’t seem interested in it at all. Nothing but rhetoric…’
David do you actually read what others say, or are you so caught up in your own self-absorbed, opinionated world that it is beyond you? There was nothing that said I WASN’T INTERESTED, but instead, that this thread is NOT on JARPA and Japanese whaling. It is about other cetacean species and the problems they face. And yet you came to the conclusion, because I don’t want to engage with you on your tired topic, that I am not interested. Get your facts straight, and stop jumping to conclusions based on scant evidence, something you take great delight in accusing anti-whaling scientists and green groups of doing. I also noted I had heard it all before, but you keep on repeating yourself regardless. I think you should be the one getting over it.
> There was nothing that said I WASN’T INTERESTED,
It was what you didn’t say that gave the impression that you aren’t interested.
> I don’t want to engage with you on your tired topic
… yet you dived in to the subject earlier: Travis at July 6, 2006 08:53 AM. That Travis was you, wasn’t it? But, silly me, your comment there was just rhetoric, wasn’t it.
> I also noted I had heard it all before
Interesting, seeing as I’ve never asked you what you thought about the upcoming JARPA review before this thread.
You’re tired of this apparently, but I can assure you that I and many others are “tired” of hearing about very dubious “critiques” of such research programmes.
The upcoming review could lay this issue to rest once and for all, if interested people could say upfront “yes, we’re all prepared to gracefully accept the outcome of this review”.
Of course, some groups would rather drag the issue out forever, as it is in their interests to do so. That is life! 😉
‘… yet you dived in to the subject earlier: Travis at July 6, 2006 08:53 AM. That Travis was you, wasn’t it? But, silly me, your comment there was just rhetoric, wasn’t it.’
It was one sentence disputing your misrepresentation of the facts.
‘Interesting, seeing as I’ve never asked you what you thought about the upcoming JARPA review before this thread.’
Your thoughts on JARPA, regardless of the upcoming review, have been expressed countless times on this blog.
‘Of course, some groups would rather drag the issue out forever, as it is in their interests to do so. That is life! ;-)’
Ah, the irony of it all re my comments of your repetitiveness.
Any thoughts on Mekong Irrawaddys?
Yes – I agree with you “a lot more should be done to save the river dolphins”.
I again stress that groups that purport to be “saving the environment” ought to focus on these real issues, rather than completely unrelated ones. Indeed if their efforts were focussed in such a productive way there is much that could otherwise be achieved.
Hi there,
In this world i see people taking animals for granted, they have feelings and suffer just like we humans do,they are important to us,i have gone out my way for animals because of others,i wish i could do more, and be part of any activity in helping animals…
thanking you
anabela