The Japanese whaling fleet set sail yesterday in defiance of international condemnation with plans to land what could be the biggest catch of minke and humpback whales since the 1960s.
As it has for more than two decades, the Japanese Government referred to the expedition as “scientific”. It is a description that infuriates anti-whaling activists. Whale meat harvested on the expeditions is sold on to the Japanese market and the profits used to fund “future research”.
From The Times: ‘Japanese whalers raise stakes by targeting vulnerable humpbacks’
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
What did another whaling nation, Norway, think about Sea Shepherd’s actions against the Japanese whaling fleet back in February?
According to an Internet poll carried out by the a fisheries paper , did 93,8 % reply that the SS ship should be sunken.
6,3 % thought that whaling should end because it was barbaric.
Now Norway has a special relation to Sea Shepherd and especially against Paul Watson as he carried out sabotage against whaling vessels back in the 90’s.
I remember the vivid media reports ( much was focused on Watson’s wife because she was a former Playboy model).
This news is so old. Japan told everyone about it in 2005. The western media got excited, no one did anything, none of the anti-whaling nations tried to engage Japan in realistic compromises. 2.5 years later, the time has come, still nothing has changed, and still no one thinks about realistic compromises. Why? No one with the capacity to actually change anything sees enough reason to do so. It’s all about maintaining the 100% “anti-whaling” stance, no matter how many whales are killed. Next it’s outright commercial whaling of IWC “managed” species. Still nothing will change. The noisy minority kicks up a fuss, nothing happens, rinse and repeat next year.
I saw back on the Greenpeace weblog that David’s friend Isonatori asked how and when the Esperanza would refuel in the Southern Oceans.
The Esperanza is now in international waters off Japan planning to ” hunt down” the Japanese fleet.
I have no answer to the refuelling question, but I know that Shane from GPI told me that if GP should follow the Japanese fleet from the port then they couldn’t stay so long time in the Sanctuary intercepting the Japanese hunt.
Re refuelling , it would really be a bit strange if the Esperanza refuelled in the Antarctica , since this was one of GP’s problems with the Japanese( Something with the Antarctic Treaty and pollution).
The Arctic Sunrise will probably come down and relieve the Esperanza.
I hope they took some Yakuza along for the ride. Or a small group of Japanese Special Forces to protect their nationals from terrorists.
The sanctuary is bull$hit because it is based on a bogus claim of Australian sovereignty over the Antarctic mainland. The Governments of all the IWC nations know that and so do the eco-nazis.
That is why no legal challenge has been mounted by any of the whale wankers. Does anyone seriously think they would be unable to raise the funds for a challenge? Of course not. They have not pursued the matter through the courts because they know perfectly well that it would fail.
And the only reason the Japanese call it scientific whaling is because they were subjected to duress at the time that they could have claimed the right to maintain normal harvesting. And any agreement subject to duress is voidable.
So eat $hit, plodders. “vulnerable Humpbacks”, indeed.
It has already been discussed here that a group is taking the issue to court. It appears more legal challenges from international lawyers are in the pipeline.
>And the only reason the Japanese call it scientific whaling is because they were subjected to duress at the time that they could have claimed the right to maintain normal harvesting. And any agreement subject to duress is voidable.
So how do you account for the fact the Norwegians went their own way and were not under the same ‘duress’? There are international agreements, you have just alluded to this yourself. Japan agreed to be part of it, and they had a choice. Get your facts right. They have won out as their research ‘harvest’ is on the scale of a commercial operation, so I hardly think this affluent nation is being hard done by. They are operating on pride more than anything else, something that a few contributors here seem to do on a regular basis.
>So eat $hit, plodders. “vulnerable Humpbacks”, indeed.
What a typically moronic remark from someone who relies on ignorant and abusive comments time and time again.
>So how do you account for the fact the Norwegians went their own way and were not under the same ‘duress’?
Norway was also under considerable “duress”, mainly US threats to impose economic sanctions.
The Norwegian way consisted of unity. All relevant decision makers agreed that Norway should continue whaling if the numbers were there. Then the main issue was how to proceed, how to do this. First the numbers were established, that is the scientific knowledge that it is possible to harvest the whale surplus. But equally important was how to cope with the duress, it could turn out that the costs with whaling were too high (e.g. trade sanctions, consumer boycotts, political pariah etc.), and that Norway for such reasons would have to cave in. I think the agreement on principle facilitated developing a good political strategy. The fact that both Norwegians and the anti-whalers are Westerners also played a part, I think it was easier for the Norwegians than the Japanese to “read” the “enemies”. After ordinary commercial whaling was resumed in 1993, none of the threats materialised. In 1995 Norway and the US broke a deal, and since then it has not really been a hot political potatoe with respect to other countries, only a lot of work to progress steadily and move towards normalisation.
Here’s a link to a Norwegian piece on this very lucrative whale watching industry that does not have the means to comply with European Union safety regulations at sea: http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nordland/1.4075302 Whale watching and whale hunting have many things in common, one being that it is hard work.
Sorry, typo. Should read: “In 1995 Norway and the US brokered a deal..”
Thanks for your comments Rune. Perhaps other differences between the two are that Japan is hunting far away from ‘home’, in waters other countries and some international organisations have recognised as a sanctuary etc, and killing migratory animals that transit through anti-whaling waters, such as Australia. As a point, the JARPN II hunt receives not mention here. The issues surrounding Antarctic waters
Ann,
A Japanese article on the ICR site has a link to an English news piece detailing how Greenpeace refueled in the Antarctic during the 2005/2006 season. Kind of funny that Greenpeace decided to criticise the Kyodo Senpaku fleet for the same thing. I’ll bet isanatori read the same article as me, which will be why he is asking 🙂
And for you information, Travis, at the time Clinton applied the duress, Japan was running a very large trade surplus with the USA, Norway was not.
There was also very strong domestic pressure within the US to “do something” about that trade surplus. The combination of the two would have been enough to get anti-free trade measures passed. So the Japanese took a softer option and maintained the markets they had won fairly on the merits of their products.
But no matter how you look at it, it was duress, and the Japanese have every right to void any agreement made under such duress.
And those, Travis, are the facts. Provided by me and in stark contrast to the vague assemblage of half baked impressions provided by yourself.
Ah yes, here is the article about GP refueling in the Antarctic:
http://ports.co.za/didyouknow/article_2006_01_16_5018.html
I stick to what I wrote Mott:
>There are international agreements, you have just alluded to this yourself. Japan agreed to be part of it, and they had a choice.
“While recognising Japan’s legal right under the whaling convention to conduct this hunt, blah blah blah”
So says the US rep. Those court cases don’t seem to have a single sovereign state willing to back them.
And a 30 year old vessel that was not designed for that role, no less. Is that a classic green double standard I see? With 90% of the hypocrisy below the water line?
Travis can repeat himself all he wants, he wouldn’t learn anyway, but an agreement accepted under duress remains entirely voidable.
The Japanese need to stop pissing about with this scum. Forget the hide and seek crap. Let them know exactly where they are then just line the Sea Shepherd up and take it out. Then clap the crew under Gitmo style incarceration for “as long as it takes to conduct a thorough investigation of their terrorist activities”, ie 12 to 15 years.
>Travis can repeat himself all he wants, he wouldn’t learn anyway, but an agreement accepted under duress remains entirely voidable.
There you go again Ian, accusing others of your own faults.
Your wish for ‘eco-nazis’ to be blown out of the water is mirrored by the thousands around the world that wish it was the Japanese whalers who were blown to smithereens by basically anyone with the means to do so. Poor Japan, obviously the victims here, but ably backed by Captain Grott and his armchair covered in bodily fluids.
Of course the decent wouldn’t wish harm to come to either side and would recognise that scoring points based on animals dying inhumanely is contemptible – decency being something far removed from show ponies like Ian Mott.
” scoring points based on animals dying inhumanely is contemptible ” – Travis
I fully agree on Travis on this , that’s why I’m vegetarian more or less ( not in Christmas times)
The dilemma for me is this. Many people that oppose whaling are eating animals that have been raised in a cruel way and not many object.
I open my paper today and read : ” 200 cows died of starvation on a farm in Sweden .” Another article stated : ” Animals lived in their own faeces”. And this in one of the world’s most prominent animal welfare countries.
Don’t want to be hard on Aussies here ( as they are pointed out as some of the best countries in animal welfare) but I read as well ” that the sheep exported from Freemantle to the Middle East were marinated in faeces and urine” . And we all in Europe remember the headlines with the Aussie sheep that were transported on a ” death ship” that nobody wanted and they all lived in agony.
Things like that are forgotten in the whale’s debate!
Actually whales sometimes live a better life than farm animals. That’s my opinion. Then we have of course the other issues as ” to whom belongs the whales” and the conservation issue.
So how do you account for the fact the Norwegians went their own way and were not under the same ‘duress’?
Norway was also under considerable “duress”, mainly US threats to impose economic sanctions.
The Norwegian way consisted of unity. All relevant decision makers agreed that Norway should continue whaling if the numbers were there. Then the main issue was how to proceed, how to do this. First the numbers were established, that is the scientific knowledge that it is possible to harvest the whale surplus. But equally important was how to cope with the duress, it could turn out that the costs with whaling were too high (e.g. trade sanctions, consumer boycotts, political pariah etc.), and that Norway for such reasons would have to cave in. I think the agreement on principle facilitated developing a good political strategy. The fact that both Norwegians and the anti-whalers are Westerners also played a part, I think it was easier for the Norwegians than the Japanese to “read” the “enemies”. After ordinary commercial whaling was resumed in 1993, none of the threats materialised. In 1995 Norway and the US broke a deal, and since then it has not really been a hot political potatoe with respect to other countries, only a lot of work to progress steadily and move towards normalisation.
Here’s a link to a Norwegian piece on this very lucrative whale watching industry that does not have the means to comply with European Union safety regulations at sea: http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nordland/1.4075302 Whale watching and whale hunting have many things in common, one being that it is hard work.
What’s this??? Who is Roger that posts Rune’s comments????
Re the whale watching in Norway ( Vesterålen, Andenes , the Lofoten Islands). I’m sorry to hear that their future is bleak. For reader’s information this is the same whale watching operator that has been mentioned on this blog previously, the one with the whaler’s harpooning a whale in front of the tourists and the operator that made some controversial ( according to Travis)statements on seismic activity and whales.
My own ” compromise ” solution for the whaling issue:
1) Allow whaling in the Japanese EEZ
2) Allow a small hunt in the North Pacific
3) No whaling in the Southern Oceans
4) No international trade in whale products
5) Allow Norway to hunt about max 1000 minkes
6) Allow Iceland to hunt about 20 -50 minkes
7) No hunt on other species than minkes
This is based on
8) It’s not so good for the environment with livestock production
9) Fish stocks are as well overfished
10) How good for the environment is farmed fish ?
11) Tuna is overfished
I would also like to ask Rune what the ” normalization ” process really means! I know it ‘s plans for expanded whaling etc. ( I don’t like that and protest against such plans).
“2) Allow a small hunt in the North Pacific”
Once again, please define “small”
“3) No whaling in the Southern Oceans”
Why not? What is your biological/environmental reasoning?
“4) No international trade in whale products”
Why ever not?
Why should one group be entitled to trade unsustainable pork bellies and crops but another not allowed to trade in sustainably hunted whale products?
“5) Allow Norway to hunt about max 1000 minkes”
What are you basing this number on?
“6) Allow Iceland to hunt about 20 -50 minkes”
Apart from the fact that Iceland already “allows” itself, what are you basing this number on?
“7) No hunt on other species than minkes”
Why not?
Why are you once again putting up arbitrary distinctions between whale species?
As long as the quota is sustainable who cares what the species is?
This is based on
“8) It’s not so good for the environment with livestock production”
We have very serious problems all over the world with crop production affecting bio-diversity. Why the concentration simply on fish and mammals?
“9) Fish stocks are as well overfished”
Many are. Not all.
“10) How good for the environment is farmed fish ?”
Depends on the species and production methods.
“11) Tuna is overfished”
… and the connection to contemporary whaling is what exactly?
Ann,
Didn’t you forget “No scientific whaling”?
Normalisation used to be a concept confined to our internal lingo. Then “normalisation” was put on the IWC agenda, where it has a different meaning, and became the focus of a debate that we couldn’t care less about.
Basically normalisation means to us that the same standards that we apply to other living marine resources, animals, foodstuff should also apply to whales and their products. Thus it should not be any surprise to you that this approach, logic, would say no thanks to your “solution”. For instance the numbers of whales to be hunted annually in all future should not be engraved on a stone today, but should reflect the current best scientific knowledge, so sometimes the quota would go down and other times it would increase.
Give me one single good reason to “compromise”? Just to please you is not something we consider a good reasoon. Normalisation does not happen from one day to another, but as long as the overall picture is that there is progress, even with some steps bakwards from time to time, we’re fine.
Hi Rune and IceClass,
Thanks Rune for your honest and straight reply/ clarification. Of course my ” solution” was only a draft that should be annually revised by scientist etc.
I must say that I was a bit surprised that you don’t want to compromise ( on anything??) , like the hardcore anti whaling part. Guess everything on IWC meeting etc then will be status quo????
So this means that the anti whaling NGOs will continue to earn millions of dollars in the save the whales campaigns, people will jump up and down for the whales, prowhalers just laughing , knowing that the US ( the only country that really matters) will never intervene, there will be no sanctions, no tourists boycotts ….
The NGOs are happy , the whalers are happy, only whales will continue to die in increasing numbers…a whales’ circus indeed…
Sniff, sniff, the unambiguous stench of fatuous wanks by nonparticipants in cyberspace.
” Give me one single good reason to “compromise”? ” – Rune
I’ll try to come back to this later. Btw Rune, Frode thinks your’re a ” luring” ( translation for English readers ” a very smart and tricky person).
Frode is the Greenpeace Nordics , Norwegian whales campaigner.
To Motty,
NEVER have I stated that I,m another person than an ordinary person in the street!
To Rune,
My compromise solution was just intended what an ordinary person thinks about the whales issue.
” Give me one single good reason to “compromise”? ” – Rune
First of all I know already that you are ” uncompromise willing” as I have read in a Norwegian paper that you have stated something along the line ” don’t give a damn about NGOs, just increase the whaling quotas, so the NGOs stand in front of an accomplished act” .
Norway has a reputation internationally to be a negotiator in international conflicts etc. so it’s a bit sad you’re against a compromise line in the whaling issue ( as are the NGOs as well).
I know that you have nothing to win with a compromise line as there will be no negative consequences with quota increases . That’s a sad fact. The NGOs and media scream at first but all boycott threats etc will soon disappear.
The reason why there should be a compromise in the whaling issue , as I see it, it should be because to end the stalemate in the IWC. As it’s now, it’s mainly an annual circus.
Environmental issues should be turned to other issues as well, not only making whaling very important.
” ” Give me one single good reason to “compromise”? ” – Rune
Oh Rune, I forgot to mention another thing. People might be tired of fundamentalists and don’t see it as a ” weak ” point to be compromise willing.
Norway is fine anyway, they can do whatever they like, nothing happens. Really it’s the same with Japan, just a little extra noise. Only 4 countries plus the EU have said a word about this JARPA II 3rd cruise, but I guess these anti-whaling nations may be busy organizing some bigger international protest. Why they wait until the whaling fleet has LEFT every year to do so is (not really) beyond me.
To quote one well known Australian comedian…”Whales are just cows of the sea”..
To me that one line summarises much of the debate over a number of environmental issues whether it be whales or sacred “old growth trees”..i.e. mature senescent forest.
Personally i dont like seeing whales internally minced by a speared delivered grenade and will never participate in this activity or eat whale however i will also not deny others the right to do this where the hunt is scientifically proven to be sustainable.
This is just how I would like the environmentalists to be about my right to sustainably produce timber from forests for the community without poo or tampons being put on my car seat by rent a crowd forest activists and lies being told to an ill-informed public.
In relation to the argument about whether the whales are dispatched cruelly, I agree with others comments about why the focus on whales?..Is a cow copping a bolt gun in the head at an abbatoir any better way to go?
The Beeb (Radio 4) ran an interesting piece on whaling on Monday evening – it can be heard for a short time (this week?) by going here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml
and scrolling down to the W section – click on “The War of the Whales”. You need Real Player (or Real Alternative, if you don’t like the stuff that comes with Real Player) to hear it.
One cannot and should not compromise with a parasite. It’s core objective is to maximise its benefit at the expense of the host. So any form of accommodation with such parasites can only hasten one’s own demise.
Whales don’t die a slow or painful death. Like all living creatures, the body gives an impression of still being alive long after the brain is dead. Observe a chook with its head cut off. If not restrained its body will run about for a few minutes while the head lies, clearly lifeless, on the block, oblivious to what the rest of it is bumping into.
And I guess that is an appropriate metaphor for the IWC. It died from the moment the anti-whalers abandoned the principle of sustainable management. It is time for the whaling nations to dispose of the body. It is so putrid it now represents a threat to the health of world democracy.
And it is time the Japanese started whaling subsidiaries in other countries. Every kind of multinational corporation is doing it all the time. Entire factories shift to other countries.
So instead of six ships, all from Japan, why don’t we see one from Korea, one from Vietnam, one from Taiwan, as well as some from Japan, all enjoying the benefits of the export trade in whale meat?
“Whales don’t die a slow or painful death. ” – Ian Mott.
Let’s try the methods out on you and see for ourselves? You will be able to communicate with us in English as to how it feels. It would be a uselful exercise, and not just for the above-stated purpose.
What a dopey bloody comment from Class A Ignoramus. If you are going ot compare all whale deaths to chickens having their heads cut off you really are stupid. The Japanese and Norwegians themselves have admitted not all die instantaneously. Either you are truly stupid or like baiting, but both are a waste of other’s time.
Thanks for the link Peter, it was very enlightening. No doubt you realise that most contributors here can’t be bothered going to links as it may mean they have to use their brains, but for the few of us that do, thanks for the contribution.
It’s interesting that cetacean researchers rarely comment here any more, but sad that certain idiots with zip knowledge continue to dance around like little yappy dogs in tutus desperately trying to get attention and insult the sensibilities of others.
Ann,
Thanks for letting me know that I am a fundamentalist, and also that I am not just “uncompromise willing” but even against a compromise.
I would certainly be ready to negotiate and find a compromise on how many of my fingers, and which ones, you should be allowed to chop off. One premise on my part is however that you let go off your unconditional demand that there shall be decapitation.
As long as you insist that there must be decapitation, I am extremely reluctant to enter your good faith negotiations on what fingers to cut off. By concluding such negotiatons with you I would effectively beheading myself. Does it still surprise you that I prefer the no “compromise” option?
R
Mohammed Afridi,
Lots of animals humans kill don’t die instantaneously. That so many whales do is a credit to their hunters.
“That so many whales do is a credit to their hunters” – David.
You have essentially admitted in your statement that killing whales at sea is difficult.
Ian Mott made a statement that whales DON’T die a slow or painful death. Are you now going to try and diffuse this by saying other animals do? Does this make it acceptable?
Mohammed, I seem to recall reading somewhere that “a Muslim is he from whose tongue and hand people are safe”. But I guess that one must have lost something in translation.
Forgive me, but contrary to green propaganda, it seems entirely reasonable to assume that an animal that has a grenade explode INSIDE its head is either, likely to die very quickly, or likely to be rendered unconscious until it does die.
But before we get too wound up about slow death, lets just take a look at the way Killer Whales hound a whale pod for hours until either the calves or the old and weak drop by the wayside through terror and exhaustion to be torn to shreds over an extended time.
It is how whales die. It is the way of the sea. Ask any of those old surfers hobbling around the coast with one leg and a humungous abdominal scar.
You appear to have an overly inflated capacity for self righteous indignation. And we both know that, unlike the green creed, all the great religions of the world have their primary focus on how each of us can become a better person by striving to rid ourselves of such faults.
Assallahmualleygum.
Mo,
I’m comfortable that humans have put a great deal of energy and resources into developing quick killing methods for whales. I’m a pragmatic sort of guy and tend to go with the thinking that “humane killing”, if it makes sense at all, involves humans making an effort to kill quickly with what they have available to them.
This isn’t the case with various sorts of animal killing, and when people get uppity about whales it comes across as if the uppity are just looking for another excuse.
sheez:
“We have never rammed a Japanese whaler, we have never said we will ram a Japanese whaler and we have never implied that we will ram a Japanese whaler,” – Paul Watson
Ian Mott – leave the pathetic references to religion and attempts at language-you just come across as even stupider.
“Forgive me, but contrary to green propaganda, it seems entirely reasonable to assume that an animal that has a grenade explode INSIDE its head is either, likely to die very quickly, or likely to be rendered unconscious until it does die.” – Ian Mott
This has been discussed on the forum before, with information given to the contrary. You are one of the few who choose to believe otherwise. Also, a good head shot will ruin the scientific earplugs remember. If the whaling organisations can admit not all whales are rendered unconscious immediately, it is beyond me why you can’t.
“But before we get too wound up about slow death, lets just take a look at the way Killer Whales hound a whale pod for hours” – Ian Mott
Human beings are not killer whales, so such an analogy is stupid, but for some unknown reason you seem to persist with it. If you wish to go down this childish path, then rape, pedophilia and incest are largely the way our ancestors behaved and some societies still do. It is our moral code which condemns such practices here. But perhaps you behave differently and revert to the natural world?
“It is how whales die.” – Ian Mott
How whales die is by predation from other whales, we are talking about man-made predation here, but you seem to mixing things up to suit your lame argument.
“You appear to have an overly inflated capacity for self righteous indignation.” – Ian Mott
You seem to be plan stupid and obnoxious. Unfortunately I don’t believe you can be rid of such faults except perhaps by one of the explosive harpoons!
David – My name is Mohammed. I do not know you nor you me, so please refrain from a cutesy shortening of my name.
“when people get uppity about whales it comes across as if the uppity are just looking for another excuse.” – David
You are surely kidding yourself? You are seeking that anti-whalers are using inhumane killing as an excuse. You seem to be the one using the excuse-any excuse-to support whaling. Ignoring cruelty is something that puts you amongst the dead with no feelings. As Ian Mott wrote “all the great religions of the world have their primary focus on how each of us can become a better person” – regardless of religion or none, to be a better person is to treat all with respect and minimise harm to life, person and animal.
Rune,
Vad ni norrmän är hopplösa med era valar ;)!!!!
Mohammed, to quote the immortal line from Robin Williams in “Good Morning Vietnam”, “I have never met anyone more in need of a blow job”. Just read back over your posts, you sad boofhead, and then go and flush your ducts.
Whales and numerous other marine creatures die slow, painful deaths as a rule, rather than an exception. And it follows that any innovation that makes that end quicker for a small few, and with less extended pain and torment is an improvement.
Furthermore, nature generally only kills for its own sustenance. And so are the Japanese, Norwegians, Icelanders and numerous other indigenous peoples who retain cultural links with the sea. The fact that some cultures seem to think the availability of an alternate food source negates their right to maintain their culture is of zero relevance.
For on that argument, the food security of muslim nations could be improved by the forced consumption of pigs, the security of Hindus could be improved by the forced consumption of beef, etc. But it is their call, not ours, and it is not our call to impose our values on whale eating cultures.
And while you may choose to sneer at my loose translation, there is not the slightest doubt that you understood the exact meaning of the statement and the direct implication of your choice in ignoring it.
You wouldn’t make a muslim’s armpit.
Great to read your comments Mohammed. There used to be a variety of people who would comment on the whaling issue, but they appear to have better things to do with their time and perhaps are tired of the rehashed and at times ill-informed arguments.
Don’t worry about Grott revisiting the ‘killer-whales-kill-baby-whales-in-a-really-cruel-way’ line. He also thinks whales = cows. Any old line to suit his way of thinking, and it appears the sillier the better! (Careful though, he also has a nasty little habit of picking on people’s families too, but as he is aready picking on your religion, culture and language, I guess you may have suspected such childish tactics). Of course if we can kill whales cruelly because killer whales kill whales cruelly, then dogs can rip out children’s throats and we can readily disembowl any herbivore that comes our way. I believe there are a number of ailments that kill humans in a slow and painful way but which we are able to be treated for. Perhaps Grott shouldn’t have immunised his kids against polio. Perhaps if they are bashed senseless by a gang of youths their broken limbs shouldn’t be put back in place?
>The fact that some cultures seem to think the availability of an alternate food source negates their right to maintain their culture is of zero relevance.
Yeah, whatever Grott! You pick and choose what is relevant oh mighty one! What a bloody joke. Grott says it’s of no relevance, so it must be right!
>But it is their call, not ours, and it is not our call to impose our values on whale eating cultures.
I’m surprised he didn’t mention genital mutilation and condone its use. Of course if others want whales protected, it is not as valid as those that don’t! Grott’s rules.
As I quoted once before:
‘We are healthy only to the extent that our ideas are humane’. Perhaps some simply don’t have any idea(s)?
Whales = cows, killer whales = cows eating cows.
Ann,
Dere svensker har vel ikke så mange hvaler, så siden vi har veldig mange, får vi heller være veldig håpløse. Hadde diskusjonsnivået vært et hakk bedre, hadde det vært mer interessant å delta aktivt. Men nå blir det for mye fantasier, unøyaktige gjengivelser av meningsinnhold av stoff lest på andre språk, for mye konspirasjon og enkle løsninger. Den banale skittkastingen er det lettere å ignorere fullstendig. mvh R
Hei Rune,
Jag håller fullständigt med att diskussionsnivån är alldeles för låg här och det är synd. Faktiskt så tränar jag mest min engelska:) Vi har haft många intressanta ämnen att tala om, men mest mynnar det ut i nonsense, tyvärr. En välkänd forskare som kommenterar här ibland påpekade det också till mig. Hoppas dock att du kan deltaga aktivt i diskussionerna när du har tillfälle! Tex komma tillbaka med en blog post när dom norska kvoterna har fastställts.
Med vänliga hälsningar,
Ann
Mohammed,
For all I know your name ain’t Mohammed and you figured out I was talking to you anyway, but since you got uppity about it, see above.
> You seem to be the one using the excuse-any excuse-to support whaling.
Eh?
Sustainable whaling is a model example of how humans should seek to live in the 21st century and beyond.
I have a different understanding of “cruelty” to you, apparently.
> to be a better person is to treat all with respect and minimise harm to life, person and animal.
Entirely consistent with my views. I don’t know what you think humane means.
Travis I see Mottsa has been showing his worst on this thread. I mean let’s not muck around he’s totally unpatriotic and un-Australian. Most of these unrepresentative property rights rednecks are.
It’s like this – your average Aussie would like our navy to sink the Jap whaling fleet out of sight. Why leave it to amateurs like Sea Shepherd. Or at least subby it out to the froggies.
I mean our daddies didn’t get go through Kokoda and Changi to put up with crap like this.
And we certainly shouldn’t be insulted by little nippondensos and have to guard their forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean what sort of manners is this?
Don’t mistake the depth of feeling on this. Screw the nips – don’t want to hear any arguments about sustainability. Whaling is un-Australian and that’s that.
And if Vikings want to get involved well they can bugger off as well. Ban Ikea. Don’t care if it’s Swedish – it’s close enough.
Now, now Lukey , methinks it’s better you calm down a little and don’t be mad at the Vikings. As it is now it’s almost only Rune that has posted any high quality comment here on the blog , trying to find solutions for the whaling issue. He stated as well that if the quality of the discussions were better then he would participate more actively , but as it is now it’s meaningsless!
I complained as well , and said that the Norwegians were hopeless with all their whales! I’m actually a very friendly person so I hope that Rune realised that I was only joking:)!
Back to the topic with humpbacks and the Japanese hunt. It seems like the humpback whaling not only isn’t a philosophical issue but on issue for the IWC.
This excerpt from Nature , 12 November 2007:
During the austral summer of 2007/08, hunting of Southern Hemisphere (SH) humpback whales will recommence after almost half a century of protection. The stated rationale for this hunt, by the Government of Japan (GoJ), is to gather important scientific information for use in management. If the scientific need were defensible, and the proponents had accommodated reasonable conservation concerns, then criticisms of the hunt would be limited to philosophical issues. This is not the case. The program’s research objectives are unlikely to be achieved by lethal methods and do not address the principal research needs for SH humpback whales identified by the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
>trying to find solutions for the whaling issue
Ha ha ha….
Isn’t it sweet how a new person crops up with some comments and is totally insulted by the likes of Grott and David? Seems these self-proclaimed agents of truth and virtue have to question new posters on faith, culture, languages spoken and name. It is pretty clear why this debate is so one-sided, due to the continuous bullying school boy tactics to oust anyone not on the team. You’re either down the back shed smoking or your cat is shot with a cross bow (probably one with an exploding head). In fact Grott’s comments to Mohammed border on racist, but hey, the little mutt needs to yap as loud as he can in order to be heard above Pigsy and the other castaways, so pulling the racist card is no surprise. No wonder Luke let loose with a rant. Reading a variety of comments from different sources, seems there is a large contingent out there that share his views, only without being as polite.
OK Travy, from now on I have abandoned the whaling issue as everyone is mad at me, whalers as well as antiwhalers. Not a single more comment on this….I’m only gonna take interest in birds!
The record above clearly shows that Mohammed came out swinging with his first post and now has the gall to complain when when he copped a bucket load in return. We bait boofheads here, mate, get used to it.
And poor old Travis, is still trying to recover from his Grandfathers syphilis, (he insists that the old fella was not unfaithful but do not, under any circumstances, draw the next most obvious conclusion that he must have got it from his Grandmother).
But don’t be fooled, folks. This kind of retreat into insult and invective is the keenest indicator that their fondest whaling prejudices have been exposed as the baseless ramblings of nutters.
Don’t worry Ann, I was not mad at you, simply highly amused that you should suggest we would find solutions to the whaling issue here. You try valiantly, and it is appreciated by some.
I see Grott has decided to further his personal attacks on my family. On another thread he claimed to have have spent too much time on the issue, but poor Grotty just thrives on that attention, so I should be touched by his obsession with me.
Some can get noticed because they are beautiful or smart or have a certain charisma. Maybe they are gentle or gracious, hard working or even quiet achievers. Alas poor Grott dipped out and was born a loser, destined to spend the rest of his days (and our time) hurling insults, sprouting stupidity and accusing others of his affliction. When the old tactics don’t work he has to up the anti and try even harder to get noticed, hence the attacks on other’s families. Tsk tsk what a desperate tactic. The tutu wasn’t enough hey?
Grott does not ‘retreat into insult’ – he is constantly in its limelight, but as the dickhead who started here by suggesting violence, along with providing laughs with his inane ideas about animals, he just can’t make that connection that he is the little boy with the pocket full of rocks.
Wasn’t it bad enough what was said on the potorroo thread without bringing it over here? How many times do people here complain that whales are not endangered and get all the attention, then when Australia’s most endangered mammal does get a mention the comments start off by talking about toilet seats. A relatively innocent remark was then made about someone’s grandfather getting a VD in a war and it then turned into a vendetta against that person’s family by Ian Mott. He then has the gall to bring his revolting diatribe over to another thread because he isn’t progressing with his argument here, which is on whaling. As they say, play the man not the ball and stick to the topic.
“This kind of retreat into insult and invective ”
mmmmm – no hypocirsy here.
Travy,
I have looked at the whaling issue from every possible angle – from a Greenpeace perspective ( as a former activist), from a whaler’s perspective ( with a former Norwegian boyfriend with connections to the whaling industry) , from a compromise perspective.
As this is just a blog, meaning that we post somewhat mean and nasty replies, this ain’t Science or Nature, methinks the gap between the antis and pros is too big to make any meaningsful discussions.
As Rune pinted out, the discussions level was too low( note, my discussions level not yours) with too much fantasy, conspiracy , poor translation and too easy solutions.
That was all from me, but it has anyway been good to have a chat with you guys….
Gosh, Travis, Jenny, Luke and Big Mo all agree. Now there’s a credible consensus for you. But you guys forget that readers can look back over the record of who said what, where and how, and make their own judgement. And no amount of self delusion will alter what you have already said, and more importantly, the way you said it.
Now, now Ian, coz you have just been rightly told off by a number of people you are wondering if they are credible! Because a number of people see differently to you, you doubt their very existence! Delusional or what??
Yes the archives Ian, I reminded you of them on the potoroo thread.
>And no amount of self delusion will alter what you have already said, and more importantly, the way you said it.
LOL!!!! Put the mirror down Grott.
So tell us all, Travis, are you 13 or 14?
ooooooo – the big appeal to the blog authority. ROTFL.
Probably take lots of penthrite grenades to take down Mottsa. No nervous system to destroy.
Anyway Motty is a pretty no nonsense – eye for an eye – it’s my property – bugger off – sort of guy. So where’s your patriotism – instead of being a nip sympathiser – you should be standing up for this country’s traditions which you keep crapping on about. I mean you’re up the Euros for the rent every 5 minutes – what gives here?
The social contract here mate is that these grubby little food fetishists are messing about with our iconic wildlife which a good many of us find far more interesting alive than having their brains blown out.
I have been visiting Japan since 1980, first on a scholarship and since on business. I like Japan, its culture and the people.
However, this is not a cultural issue. It is an ethical issue. No human need is being fulfilled by killing a whale. There is no cure for cancer or a solution to hunger. The meat ends up on the plates of the affluent. And no great scientific knowledge is being gained by the death of any whale.
Whales are wild stock. You cannot compare the death of a whale to the death of a farmed animal. We know so little about whales and we can never be sure of their numbers. There is no argument to justify the whale hunt by Japan’s government.
http://thelastwhale.blogspot.com
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the comment, but careful. As you are anti-whaling, you will be discriminated against, your name, religion, culture, sexual preferences and indeed whether you can speak English or not will be questioned, and in the end Ian Mott and David will doubt you exist!
I have visited the Last Whale blog a few times and enjoyed it a lot. It is great to see something with an Australian point of view.
>So tell us all, Travis, are you 13 or 14?
You are calling me a school boy Grott after I have been callling you same? Bit of a case of election Me-Tooism going on here. I keep tellling you – PUT DOWN THAT MIRROR!
Can someone harpoon that ignorant blowhard Ian Mott?
I’m not affluent.
Travis, as usual you seem to be looking for a fight. No thanks (again)
David, as usual, you are wrong.
Seriously, Travis, I have a slab of beer riding on which side of age 14 you are. My mate “Kipper” thinks you are still only 13, based on your use of such pathetically junior highschool level insults. But I suspect you may actually be a somewhat backward 15 year old. So please, enlighten us, I’m working up a terrible thirst.
Ah Ian… I am touched by the fact I not only get to take up so much of your time here, but you also discuss me with others away from here. And there you were kidding you had better things to do!
As I learnt the art of insult from you, judge the age for yourself. With that slab Ian, perhaps you should join toolie Ben Cousins at Schoolies? Plenty of nubile,vacuous types there for you to ogle and salivate over.
A classic side-step, Travis, will not alter the view of perceptive readers that early adolescent punk oozes from every word you write.
It is a mind-larding tedium to endure the petulant rants of the kind of punk who actually looks forward to the time when pimples will enhance his claim to maturity. Does your mother know you do this?
‘Perceptive readers’ Ian would no longer be bothered reading whaling blogs, except to get a laugh at the tosh you come out with. As for the bile, they are subjected to it from you on every post, as you seem to think you are an expert on everything. I wonder why this would be…!
‘mind-larding tedium to endure the petulant rants’ / ‘adolescent punk oozes from every word you write’
LOL!!! You crack me up! You have this strange habit of doing something and then blaming it on others or accusing them of having same habit. It is a constant source of amusement for me. How sad it is that you can not own your own ugly personality traits. Having seen what you look like, perhaps there is a touch of dementure there too? However, I remain truly flattered that you invest so much of your time and energy into me.
>Does your mother know you do this?
Ah little boy, toying with the rocks again are we?! A true sign of an immature mind Ian, but you just don’t geddit!!!