Japanese whalers are on their way to the Southern Ocean. This JARPA II fleet has attracted more attention than usual because of the inclusion of humpback whales in the annual kill quota.
The mother ship, the Nisshin Maru, has “RESEARCH” emblazoned on her hull, and when questioned on the humpback whale component of this year’s quota, spokesperson Hideki Moronuki said “Japan is conducting truly scientific research activities, we have to decide anything from the viewpoint of science.” However, a recent publication in science journal Nature questioned the science behind Japan’s research program and when the program was reviewed by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in late 2006, the following was found:
“JARPA had the potential to improve management of minke whales in the Southern Ocean, but such an outcome has not been realised, despite nearly two decades of effort by a large and well-funded research laboratory in Tokyo.”
Major JARPA objectives are largely unachieved, notably:
– the data were not accepted under the IWC’s method for managing whale populations and assigning catch limits;
– efforts to estimate natural mortality had produced confidence intervals that ‘spanned such a wide range that the parameter remains effectively unknown’;
– data on trends in abundance were so imprecise that they could be interpreted as consistent with anything from a decline to an increase;
– efforts to elucidate the role of whales in the Antarctic marine ecosystem had led to ‘relatively little progress, even allowing for the complexities of the subject.
“Despite these failings the government of Japan stated at the 2007 International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee meeting that the objectives and methods of the full-scale JARPA II program would remain unchanged and the justification for the numbers of animals killed remains unclear”.
The ‘Plan for the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) – Monitoring of the Antarctic Ecosystem and Development of New Management Objectives for Whale Resources’ says “Changes in the pregnancy rate and age at sexual maturity are very important since they indicate changes in the trend of abundance or shifts in prey conditions.” A sample size of 50 for both fin and humpback whales was chosen, despite the fact that during the 18-year JARPA program no significant trends could be found for these parameters in minke whales regardless of having “an annual sample size that was almost an order of magnitude greater than those planned for humpback and fin whales.”
Will JARPA II tell us more about these species in order to manage them effectively?
The IWC already has a comprehensive assessment process in order to evaluate whale stocks. In 2006 a Comprehensive Assessment of Southern Hemisphere humpback whales was held, and attended by Japan. Research priorities included: “Describe the genetic structure of seven putative southern hemisphere breeding populations; quantify the complex linkages between high-latitude feeding grounds and breeding stocks; and, estimate the abundance of breeding stocks.”
Some of this research is already being conducted by Australian scientists using non-lethal methods. JARPA II’s lethal research will not address any of these objectives, although the non-lethal sightings component will. The researchers write that “Japan’s proposal to kill humpback whales is not scientifically credible, and will potentially disrupt ongoing non-lethal research programs directed at filling knowledge gaps identified for the Comprehensive Assessment.”
The whole question of science’s role in JARPA II is further brought into question by the authors of the Nature article (all members of the IWC Scientific Committee)who have stated, “The promulgation of a lethal research program that targets low-priority science, with a demonstrably low likelihood of achieving its stated objectives, appears unsupportable when viewed solely in a scientific context…the Government of Japan remains impervious to any influence from the broader scientific community. It is time to acknowledge that the debate about research whaling has little or nothing to do with science. Indeed, by insisting that this form of whaling is scientifically valid, Japan forces the Scientific Committee to remain dead-locked, ultimately to the detriment of the IWC’s credibility and function.”
Perhaps Japan’s justification for her research is best summed up by Minoru Morimoto, head of the Institute for Cetacean Research, “Japan’s research makes a valuable contribution to the management of Antarctic whale species to ensure that any future commercial whaling regime is robust and sustainable to provide a reliable food source for generations to come.”
by Annie in Australia
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
One of the many great things to come now that Howard has been consigned to the dustbin is that we will now send gunboats to protect the wales. Who cares if this means war with Japan when the lives of these truly magnificent creatures are at stake.
Oops I meant of course “whales” not the bank
Sadly perhaps not Lawrie…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/26/2101815.htm
So it seems the latest argument from these guys is that JARPA II won’t address CA research objectives.
But hey, JARPA II wasn’t designed to address CA research objectives…
Nonetheless it’s ironic that while JARPA samples from humpback whales in the feeding grounds are available that could be used to further the CA priority research item relating to improving knowledge of the links between feeding and breeding grounds, scientists who own samples from the breeding grounds have refused to use the JARPA feeding ground samples, despite being obtained through non-lethal biopsy sampling, simply because the JARPA programme also involved lethal research on minke whales… Why the criticism of a programme which isn’t designed to address CA objectives when there appears to be a detrimental effect on the CA due to the unwillingness of some scientists not wanting to use available data for such reasons? Indeed, as the results of the CA might eventually be used in a management context – i.e., setting commercial catch limits for humpback whales – I wonder why scientists who have issues with whales being killed are contributing to the process in the first place.
Indeed this is a debate which has little or nothing to do with science.
“So it seems the latest argument from these guys is that JARPA II won’t address CA research objectives. ” – David.
CA objectives and basic research questions into biology of species and predator-predator/predator-prey interactions. The JARPA Review also questioned some of this.
“scientists who own samples from the breeding grounds have refused to use the JARPA feeding ground samples, despite being obtained through non-lethal biopsy sampling, simply because the JARPA programme also involved lethal research on minke whales…” – David
There was a paper published recently with fluke matches from eastern Australia and Antarctica by various authors including from the ICR. More is expected to follow.
“Indeed, as the results of the CA might eventually be used in a management context – i.e., setting commercial catch limits for humpback whales…Indeed this is a debate which has little or nothing to do with science.” – David.
The point made here is that regardless of one’s opinion on whaling, the science behind JARPA II is poor. The results will of course be used for future commercial catch limit targets, and this is no secret. But the Nature article, and many others, have highlighted the poor science behind JARPA II, and question what relevance it has to current studies. This, along with the research design, which did not undergo scientific review via JARPA until almost two years after JARPA II was in place.
As you say, nothing to do with science, so why the charade?
“by insisting that this form of whaling is scientifically valid, Japan forces the Scientific Committee to remain dead-locked, ultimately to the detriment of the IWC’s credibility and function.”
Wrong. By departing from the original objects of the IWC to manage whale for sustainable use, the anti-whaling nations have destroyed the credibility and function of the IWC. And it was the intrusion of ideology into the science that has played the major part in that departure.
The IWC now has the “science” they deserve. The only thing providing any credibility to the IWC is the participation of the pro-whaling nations. It is time they junked the IWC for the crock of the proverbial it has become, leaving the anti-whaling nations to the governmental onanism they so obviously excell at.
Did you know that polar bears can breed with brown bears, Kodiac bears, and grizzly bears?
It seems they are all members of the same species, with just superficial differences analog to racial characteristics. A Grizzolar bear is fully functional and capable of breeding. Likewise the Podiac bear and Pozzly bears (the name is derived from the father-mother race relation hence if the father is a polar bear and the mother is a Kodiac the offspring are Podiac bears. If the father is a Kodiac then the offspring are Kolar bears.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E2%80%93polar_bear_hybrid
Endangered? Not hardly. In fact the Polar bear survived with their racial purity more or less intact through 4 different bouts of global warming that exceeded today’s temp. – [that’s according to Al Gore’s Thompson ice core reconstruction of the last 650,000 years featured in An Inconvenient Truth, so I can’t vow for it’s reliability]
Um Sorry for the interuption. I heard that plankton is instrumental in CO2 absorbtion. Whales eat plankton. The dictates of CO2 sequestering demand we kill off those whales if we want to fight global warming – but I don’t hold with that.
Annie,
I think you’ve presented one of the conflicting viewpoints from within the SC fairly enough, and while you give no treatment to other viewpoints (as you are welcome to do), ultimately the debate does have little to do with science either way.
But since you ask, on your own terms, “why the charade?”, I’m curious as to whether Japan dropping the JARPA programme and granting Kyodo Senpaku some other kind of permit to hunt whales in the Antarctic (primarily for commercial purposes) resolve the issues you have?
Thanks for the link, James. When I made the same suggestion that they were the one species some time ago I was howled down by the usual suspects.
Indeed, when I suggested that if the only real distinction between them was hair colour then the Nordic community would have a case for listing as a distinct species, I was even defamed as a racist.
But what the heck, just another day in blogworld.
“and while you give no treatment to other viewpoints (as you are welcome to do), ultimately the debate does have little to do with science either way.” – David.
Which other viewpoints are you suggesting David, and why do you suggest that science plays little part in the debate when both the JARPA II and JARPN II programs are touted as scientific programs under a scientific permit?
“…some other kind of permit to hunt whales in the Antarctic (primarily for commercial purposes) resolve the issues you have?” – David.
I have attempted to deal with the one issue here – the science. Note I did not get into sustainability, welfare, culture, and so on, the issues you are perhaps alluding to above.
Annie,
I was suggesting the other views that have been publicly expressed by members of the IWC Scientific Committee, which you have not presented here.
> why do you suggest that science plays little part in the debate when both the JARPA II and JARPN II programs are touted as scientific programs under a scientific permit?
I’m confused as to whether your argument is the science is poor or your argument is the programs are not scientific (or maybe you are somehow trying to argue both), but with or without ICRW Article VIII, the controversy over whether whaling should or should not occur at all would remain, largely unchanged.
>I was suggesting the other views that have been publicly expressed by members of the IWC Scientific Committee
You mean the views in ‘support’ of JARPA II David? Don’t be shy.
Annie wrote:-
> The point made here is that regardless of one’s opinion on whaling, the science behind JARPA II is poor.
David wrote:-
> with or without ICRW Article VIII, the controversy over whether whaling should or should not occur at all would remain, largely unchanged.
Surely the fact the science is so bad contributes to the ‘controversy’. Why go down that road at all? Why bother with a scientific program but not bother to have it assessed by the SC (re JARPA vs JARPA II)? If the science was strong, which it obviously is not, then there would be little criticism of this component of the hunt. When the science is so largely criticised by so many, why not just kill for the purpose of commercial whaling, and stop giving science a bad name? If, from this commercial whaling you get some samples and write up your research results in a peer-reviewed journal, then it matters little as to the justification of the whaling.
This whole argument is a joke! I wonder what the poor krill think while we watch with our tongues hanging out at charismatic megafauna swimming by. We stopped harvesting whales because we over did it! Let ’em come back, and we can catch a few more again was the plan I suppose. Not any more. Critically endangered whales eh? BS. Same as the seal industry, few of them around now I can tell you! What else? Bluefin tuna, white pointer shark (very different arguments as to why these two species have come back), one is a well managed fishery (some might argue otherwise), the other is back in record numbers – often with consequences that seem a bit hard to talk about sometimes….
The green argument is always the same. It comes back to why should people profit (evil) from a product that is essentially everyones? I dont even think ‘our’ waters in Antarctica are even intenationally recognised?
Have the humbacks come back since we stopped harvesting? Ask someone who lives in southern australia. Anywhere else? Not sure, but we had one swim into a port in Victoria (I live close by) a year or so ago… it hung out for a week!
Signed
Krill or be krilled
Strange you should mention – We have had two humpback whale incidents in Sacto.
http://www.nbc11.com/news/13342483/detail.html?rss=bay&psp=news
Both times I was talked out of bringing my pole down to the river. I have a fishing licence. Plenty of skill with light tackle. Now I ask you how many times is an angler afforded the opportunity to land a whale, 125 miles inland?
It isn’t fair that the authorities prevented me from taking that shot, however slim it might have been.
The correct answer if you live in Sac is three times. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/21/BAGCUPUPB83.DTL
There I was, under the impression there is an Antarctic krill fishery, southern bluefin tuna are recognised as being severely depleted, and white sharks are listed as vulnerable. It’s interesting that the mother whale in the river was harpooned -with a tracking device to record future movements. Seems like good science to me.
*we will now send gunboats to protect the wales*
Not in International waters we wont, Japan has the law on their side.
Re legal action: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/23/2099375.htm
Re desperate action:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/27/2102845.htm
>As for protests against Japan’s whaling, Ms Yamaguchi said the company just “does not want to waste meat once their lives were deprived of for research”.
“We would feel uncomfortable if we hunted whales by ourselves for the purpose of eating them,” she said.
It’s odd how the meat has to be pushed out there for people to eat. Why haven’t the majority been demanding to eat it the past 20 years? It really does seem to be more about the culture of pride than the culture of whaling. The only ones they are kidding are themselves, but why bother?
For those interested –
BBC Radio 4’s second and final part of their whaling report has some interesting views on Japanese whaling – the program’s available this week at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/warofthewhales/pip/zzz1v/
Only seriously deluded ideologues would describe a companys decision to include whale meat in lunch boxes as “desperate action”. When every other nation gets rid of its food marketing authorities then they can criticise the Japanese for having a whale marketing organisation. What hypocrisy.
And as for the legal action, there is a well established legal test in relation to these sort of issues called “remoteness of damage”. It is one of the strongest principles, established and reinforced over centuries of case law. And it protects people from being assigned liability for acts that have an extremely dubious connection with some ill-defined, unquantifiable loss.
So dream on, plodders, it is just another bull$hit ABC headline masquerading as information.
Travis,
Regarding yours at November 27, 2007 03:33 PM…
Your questions appear to be based on a notion that what you believe is the one true truth.
If, as you suggest, Japan were to conduct commercial whaling instead of scientific whaling (or just quit the IWC and continue JARPA anyway), what would eventuate is the manufacture of yet another sideshow argument to take the place of the old one. I.e., “Japan is breaking the rules / Japan is not playing with the international community”. No big difference.
The whole game is to create arguments that portray the governments of whaling nations in a very negative light, and forever avoid the issue that is at the heart of the IWC’s dysfunction – the fact that some people think whales are a valid source of resources for human consumption, and others disagree.
Regarding your next comment…
A quick search for info about Aussie beef marketing turns this up:
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/2006/s1755435.htm
Dead animal meat doesn’t get up and market itself, and to my mind, thinking that demands the case be different where additional meat supply obtained through the government sponsored whaling programmes is concerned is not logical.
The reasons Ms. Yamaguchi gave for her company’s decision to adopt whale meat was because “it’s healthy with high protein and low fat” and “also rich in iron”.
Culture doesn’t get a mention…
… except from you, so (sorry to say) but you seem to be arguing with yourself again.
> why bother?
If those who are really pushing the issue are anything like me, perceived double-standards and perceived disrespect are likely a big part of the reason.
>Your questions appear to be based on a notion that what you believe is the one true truth.
Piffle David. I have voiced my opinion. You are obviously welcome to post yours. The issue being discussed here is JARPA II’s science. How you choose to interpret what is written is your business.
>No big difference.
The difference would be that the science would not be debated and the whaling would not necessarily be a ‘scientific program’. It’s pretty obvious really. As it stands Japan is still accused of taking advantage of a ‘loop hole’ and still discredited for it.
>Culture doesn’t get a mention…
Perceptive. I mentioned it.
>… except from you, so (sorry to say) but you seem to be arguing with yourself again.
Previously you have stood on your soap box and told me I am looking for a fight. I guess if I retaliate to this stupid remark I will be told so again. I added my views, like you do yours. Grow up.
>If those who are really pushing the issue are anything like me, perceived double-standards and perceived disrespect are likely a big part of the reason.
Get over yourself David. Part of your bias and disrespect is that you are married to a Japanese woman. If you want to go down the disprespect road, why is not wanting whaling any more disrespectful or biased than wanting it? Nowadays being against killing whales and wanting to experience them alive is as cultural as anything else.
> Piffle David. I have voiced my opinion.
Fine, if you say so. I suggest you avoid using phrases like “the fact that blah blah blah” to avoid giving the impression that you are stating facts, as opposed to what is merely an opinion.
> I guess if I retaliate to this stupid remark I will be told so again. I added my views, like you do yours. Grow up.
You’re welcome to add your views, I believe I’m welcome to state mine that you appeared to be putting a certain argument in your villain opponent’s mouth.
> Get over yourself David.
(sigh)
> Part of your bias and disrespect is that you are married to a Japanese woman.
mmmmm, your opinion maybe 🙂
> If you want to go down the disprespect road
As I said in response to your “why bother?” question, some people who are for whaling perceive a disrespect for the long standing concept of killing whales for resources, and perceive double-standards. You are welcome to question whether or not there is disrespect and double-standards but it is a fact that disrespect and double-standards are perceived. This will probably be the case at least as long as oh-gee beef is shipped to the Japanese market.
> why is not wanting whaling any more disrespectful or biased than wanting it?
Nothing at all. The perceived disrespect and double-standards are related to the way in which people who do not want to kill whales try to impose their volition on others, not the volition itself. I’ve asked Hindu and Muslim people about this in the past, and yes, they would prefer that no one eats beef/pork, but maybe you can imagine the response when I asked whether they think it would be appropriate to actively try to impose that volition?
The other thread closed so tell us, Travis, which side of age 14 are you actually on? That slab of beer is still riding on the result.
Travis wrote:
>Surely the fact the science is so bad contributes to the ‘controversy’.
David wrote:
>avoid giving the impression that you are stating facts
I believe there is enough evidence amongst the scientific community that the science is poor, hence the word “fact”. I try to choose such words carefully David, but in this case, I think the evidence is pretty strong so far.
>villain opponent’s mouth
That is a stupid comment – fact.
>This will probably be the case at least as long as oh-gee beef is shipped to the Japanese market.
The domestic animal industry has been discussed time and again re welfare, sustainability, etc. This is currently about whales.
>The perceived disrespect and double-standards are related to the way in which people who do not want to kill whales try to impose their volition on others, not the volition itself.
Same as for not killing whales. How does eating/not eating beef pork compare with wild, migratory animals which are utilized non-lethally by others throughout their range?
Ian Mott, see if you can actually find the other thread in the archives. I couldn’t, but I could be mistaken. If it doesn’t exist anymore it should tell you something about Jennifer’s perception of our comments – not to mention other blog readers. May I suggest you do some growing up yourself. This is an open forum, not simply a Travis and Ian Mott show. Besides, you keep telling me you have no time for this, so one ‘assumes’ you have better things to do.
“I think the evidence is pretty strong so far”
Just believing something strongly in one viewpoint over others still doesn’t make the viewpoint you choose factual.
“This is currently about whales.”
Sure it is for you, what I’m explaining is that people who eat whales don’t see why it’s only about whales and not about cows and bluefin tuna. You ask “why bother?”, you get some reasons why. The reasons are what they are.
“Same as for not killing whales”
Indeed there is the volition of those who want to do something and the volition of those who don’t want to do something, and also don’t want others to do that something as well.
In a generic situation, who’s volition should triumph, and why?
“How does eating/not eating beef pork compare with wild, migratory animals which are utilized non-lethally by others throughout their range?”
This situation is different from the generic situation because the volitions actually conflict to an extent (not entirely I think, but maybe the situation will turn out different, who knows). Nonetheless, Australia and New Zealand didn’t negotiate with this argument at the recent IWC meeting, prefering to “save the (useless) moratorium” rather than try to “save the humpback whales”.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22840843-23109,00.html
This is excellent news for the pro-whaling lobby. Well done Senato Guido Girardi.
I’d like to ask people contributing comments here to keep them to topic and refrain from insults.
“The perceived disrespect and double-standards are related to the way in which people who do not want to kill whales try to impose their volition on others, not the volition itself.” – David.
Let’s turn this back to the science aspect. If researchers have been studying the life history of individual living whales for over 20 years, why should a research project that uses lethal techniques to study potentially the same whales be able to over-ride it?
Hi Annie,
The problem with whaling threads are that they are very emotional and everyone is heated up, including me.
I made a little “concescending”, I’m awfully sorry, remark to Rune in the previous whaling thread, that was actually only meant in a friendly way , as I have perceived the notion that we make somewhat cruel remarks to each other here, a ” lover’s quarrel”.
Anyway , I have posted Rune an excuse and explained. I also wish that Motty shouldn’t make such comments to Libby, when she is such an intelligent, friendly person , with much knowledge about whales but also on other animals.
I’m afraid that we scare away futher contributors with such nasty comments.
For those who didn’t listen to the BBC report, I can summarize that Dr. Peter Corkeron participated as well re the issue of ” whales eating too many fish”. This seems to be a big reason why whalers cull whales in Norway.
The IWC Commissioner, Mr Klepsvik commented that Norway took an holistic approach in the fisheries management issue, meaning if we harvest fish , then we must as well harvest whales.
Finally it was discussed about the Japanese research whaling and social structures in Japan. It was mentiones that a small elite decided what decisions to make, not leaving that to the public.
It was noted that the persons in the Fisheries Agency that are responsible for the research whaling are very unwilling to confess that the term ” research” is incorrect , because then they will loose their face. So indeed it’s much about a culture clash, as I see it, and much about personal and national pride.
Hi Ann,
Good to hear from you. Thanks for your contribution and summary of the BBC report. I think it is useful to have such summaries as often people don’t use links.
Yes, the whaling debate can be very emotional. I wouldn’t worry too much about your exchange with Rune. There was far worse, and I agree, contributers may be scared away with the remarks. Sometimes I think this is the intention, so that people like Dr Peter Corkeron, Libby or yourself don’t want to contribute, which is a shame. Everyone has valid views, it is just a matter of expressing them in a way that doesn’t offend and accepting different opinions.
Annie,
“If researchers have been studying the life history of individual living whales for over 20 years, why should a research project that uses lethal techniques to study potentially the same whales be able to over-ride it?”
This is a good question, and I think it’s something that those researchers should be having firm words with their government representatives about this.
The situation is that (most of) the relevant governments have adhered to the ICRW, which includes a provision which basically says all of the ICRW rules don’t apply to a situation where a signatory government wishes to issue permits for lethal research. Governments that adhered to the ICRW, which includes this provision, and now find themselves unhappy with it are the ones with the problem. It’s in their ball court to approach other signatory nations to try to find a satisfactory solution.
So far I’ve seen no action at the government level that suggests a particular problem with the lethal research provision alone. All the governments that appear to have a problem with it also seem to have very big issues with many other provisions of the ICRW.
Ann,
Thanks from me for the summary also, I don’t watch sound and video much. Who did they have on commenting about the situation in Japan? Anyone from the Japanese side?
David,
As I recall both the Japanese and Norwegian IWC Commissioners were interviewed, Truls Gulowsen from Greenpeace Norway and Peter Corkeron , together with comments from the BBC reporter.
It was also mentioned that there was a growing middle ground group ( especially in Latin America) that wanted compromise solutions. As far as I understood there were discussions on Regional Fisheries Management Organisations ( RFMOs) as a solution? Meaning different solutions for the whaling issue in different parts of the world???
Perhaps the whale researchers should “rock off” and decide who studies living ones and who studies dead ones. Would get better results that way.
“Meaning different solutions for the whaling issue in different parts of the world???”
This, the agree to disagree approach, seems to be the best to me, but I don’t know what the anti-whalers think about it. The prevailing “all or nothing” anti-whaling approach suggests that this may be unacceptable.
The approach of “all or nothing” is also by the whaling countries, and not whaling would be equaly unacceptable. Always portraying the antiwhalers as the villains is boring and inaccurate, but typical of people who make propaganda their air to breathe. Heard it all before. The prejudice is on both sides.
Well look – being nice, reasonable and considerate hasn’t gotten anti-whalers anywhere. So now it’s back to humpbacks. What next? Of course it’s emotional or we wouldn’t be arguing about it.
So let’s not be nice. Let’s be very nasty indeed and not waffle on interminably about the lesser or greater benefits of it all. Sink the bastards ! Boycott them ! And anything else.
(As learnt from right wing bloggers right here on the anti-enviro channel !)
Well Lukey, I’m not going through this rant again, but maybe the whaling issue has different solutions in different countries???
Maybe your navy should interact in the Southern Oceans??? Hey, the Norwegian Coast Guard interacts in disputed waters as well re illegal or pirate fishing.
I doubt very much that Norwegians will cave in for pressure , they have been through it…. but I might boycott my Friday Norwegian salmon if they push through expanded whaling….
Re Iceland, well, they are so small, they might cave in to international pressure…. AS I SEE IT !
Lukey and Travy, don’t want to be hard on you guys , but if you want to make a difference for the whales, you should not be anonymous. It has far greater impact on decisionmakers if people who air a strong opinion write with their real names. Just my point of view….
” Well look – being nice, reasonable and considerate hasn’t gotten anti-whalers anywhere. ” – Luke
Well Lukey, I know at least who David and Rune are , and even if I don’t share the same views as they , they have the ” cojones” to post comments with their real names ( just check the Internet and being vulnerable to hate mails) which earns them more respect than anonymous contributors( as I see it)!
>Lukey and Travy, don’t want to be hard on you guys , but if you want to make a difference for the whales, you should not be anonymous.
Ann, my name is Travis. I can’t answer for Luke. I see no reason to include my middle and surname. Which decision-makers are you thinking will read this pathetic blog? I doubt very much that a difference for anything will be made by how people use their names here, let alone what is actually written. I am sure Ian Mott will grow up and show some respect, just like he has for posters like yourself and Libby! If readers judge one another by their names and not what they write, it says more about the readers.
Travis , thanx for explaing….actually both the whalers and many NGOs read this blog ( IFAW and Greenpeace)…..whaling blogs at least ( been told so)
Travis , I said good bye to the whaling threads, however the best contributor here told me to come back, actually we have sometimes quite fun!
Ann,
It is often hard to imagine anyone reading these posts, but you do make a point worth remembering, and that is that others apart from the regular contributors may read what has been discussed. Also the blog is archived. It would be great if we could get some new contributors, but no doubt they would be scared away!Thanks.
Any cursory glance at the ravings of Luke and Travis will lead one to conclude that they do not use their full name because they would then be identifiable in cases of defamation. That is, by using a pseudonym they are seeking to circumvent the world community’s standards in respect of defamatory material.
And it is for this reason, and the fact that a non-person cannot be defamed because they neither exist nor can be identified, that people who do use their full name, like me, (who can, and are repeatedly defamed) are free to refer to them as gutless lowlife scum.
Perhaps a lesson to you Ian – be nice and you wont be defamed, but I think we have come to expect that you have no sense of responsibility. Being someone who uses their full name here, I have no hesitation regarding anyone else that uses their full name but who has a nasty habit of making obscene remarks for no apparent reason, with your choice of words “gutless, lowlife scum”.
Louis Wu
Gosh Louis, what a keen grasp of the historical record on this blog you display. They’re all just sweetness and light and they use a pseudonym because they always conduct themselves with decorum and wouldn’t dream of using anonymity to avoid the consequences of their bile. So how ARE things on the planet Gonzon?
Do you seriously think you can swan onto the blog after all this time and grace us all with your little attempt at repainting history in a “nice” green shade of beige?
Ian Mott,
You have managed to illustrate my point nicely.
Jue nei ma ge hai.
Again Ian? My what a grasp of languages you have. I certainly don’t need to reinforce what a fool you are when you can do it so well yourself.
Whales have bigger brains than we do, that must make Japanese scientists feel quite stupid so they have to research and eat whale-burgers.