Greens meet with Japanese over whaling    :)


Greens leader Bob Brown says he has met with Japan's ambassador and told him that whaling is doing his country "great damage".

He says he told Shigekazu Sato that whatever victory Japan thinks it has in killing whales is "a pyrrhic victory".

"I did describe this bloody business of whaling in very direct terms to the ambassador.


"I was able to ask him if he, as a Christmas gesture, might not give me the co-ordinates of the whaling fleet and update them every other day. He declined to be so generous."

Senator Brown also called on the federal government to release the most recent whaling photographs, which he said are being kept hidden "in the minister for the environment's drawer".

"That sort of cowardly approach to Tokyo is not representing what the Australian people think about the cowardly business of whaling," Senator Brown told reporters.   :(

"If they want to go down there and slaughter whales in our oceans or the oceans south of New Zealand, let the rest of the world see what they're doing."

He described Japan's proposal to double the area in which its whalers can operate as a ruse.

Japan has informed the International Whaling Commission that it intends to increase the area in which it will hunt for whales south of Australia and New Zealand.   >:(  

Senator Brown says the move is designed to make it easier to evade Sea Shepherd protest ships in the Southern Ocean.

He described the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society as "unshakeable".   :)

"I think they'll be right onto them and their harpooning. And I think that the Japanese whaling fleet's just going to bring trouble for the Japanese image around the world."

The federal government should send a ship to patrol the Southern Ocean or undertake aerial surveillance of the whaling area.

"But failing that we should have aerial surveillance, which the New Zealanders are contemplating I understand," he said.

"It's really important that the Australian government seriously consider that option - not only for the safety of the whales, but for the safety of the campaigners who are down there."

Yes thank-you for that Mr Bob Brown.  One does wonder how many time must the Japanese be told to stop killing whales.   >:(  .                       Vote 1 Australian Greens, the fair and sensible people.   :)

dream on. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

google "allow whaling"

Interesting FD,

According to the latest IWC proposal, it looks like almost all of the Southern Hemisphere will be a Sanctuary...

Do you agree with my reading of the areas??

"48. South Atlantic Sanctuary. In accordance with Article V(1)(c) of the Convention, whaling, whether by pelagic operations or from land stations, is prohibited in a region designated as the South Atlantic Sanctuary from 1 November 2010 through 31 March 2020. This Sanctuary comprises the waters of the South Atlantic Ocean enclosed by the following line: starting from the Equator, then generally south following the eastern coastline of South America to the coast of Tierra del Fuego and, starting from a point situated at Lat 55°07,3'S Long 066°25,0'W; thence to the point Lat 55°11,0'S Long 066°04,7'W; thence to the point Lat 55°22,9'S Long 065°43,6'W; thence due South to Parallel 56°22,8'S; thence to the point Lat 56°22,8'S Long 067°16,0'W; thence due South, along the Cape Horn Meridian, to 60°S, where it reaches the boundary of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary; thence due east following the boundaries of this Sanctuary to the point where it reaches the boundary of the Indian Ocean Sanctuary at 40°S; thence due north following the boundary of this Sanctuary until it reaches the coast of South Africa; thence it follows the coastline of Africa to the west and north until it reaches the Equator; thence due west to the coast of Brazil, closing the perimeter at the starting point. With the exception of Argentina, Brazil and South Africa, this provision does not apply to waters under the national jurisdiction of coastal States within the area described above, unless those States notify the Secretariat to the contrary and this information is transmitted to the Contracting Governments"

http://iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC62docs/62-7.pdf

wrote on Dec 21^st, 2010 at 5:54pm:

Yes thank-you for that Mr Bob Brown.  One does wonder how many time must the Japanese be told to stop killing whales.   >:(  .                       Vote 1 Australian Greens, the fair and sensible people.   :)

Fair and sensible? Dream on.  Bob Brown is purely grandstanding at the expense of Australia, his "representations" will make absolutely no difference to whaling, this is a publicity stunt.

Hey Japs where are the results of the scientific studies ?? LOL

wrote on Dec 21^st, 2010 at 5:54pm:

Yes thank-you for that Mr Bob Brown.  One does wonder how many time must the Japanese be told to stop killing whales.   >:(  .                       Vote 1 Australian Greens, the fair and sensible people.   :)

and the other useless parties labor and liberal have goit no balls to deal with this issue :(

Can't upset the dirty Japs to much because they might not buy our stinken polluting coal :(

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 8:59am:

wrote on Dec 21st, 2010 at 5:54pm: Yes thank-you for that Mr Bob Brown.  One does wonder how many time must the Japanese be told to stop killing whales.   >:(  .                       Vote 1 Australian Greens, the fair and sensible people.   :) Fair and sensible? Dream on.  Bob Brown is purely grandstanding at the expense of Australia, his "representations" will make absolutely no difference to whaling, this is a publicity stunt.

and the filthy libbos are making a big difference aren't they ;) LOL

Whale is currently one of the most sustainable sources of meat you can get.

freediver wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 8:14pm:

Whale is currently one of the most sustainable sources of meat you can get.

The Greens will have to put a stop to eating them then.  The greens - a pack of unwashed liars.

freediver wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 8:14pm:

Whale is currently one of the most sustainable sources of meat you can get.

Tell that to Sea Shepherd's captain Paul Watson. We wouldn't agree with you.

Paul Watson is a criminal.

freediver wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 9:34pm:

Paul Watson is a criminal.

and the dirty Japs aren't criminals of course ??

I don't believe the whales are killed humanely.
They fire an exposive harpoon into them.
I am sure they suffer terribly before dying.

It should be stopped.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 9:58pm:

I don't believe the whales are killed humanely. They fire an exposive harpoon into them. I am sure they suffer terribly before dying. It should be stopped.

the japs have never had respect for any life. you just have to go back in history and look at the invasion of Nanking :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 10:21pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 22nd, 2010 at 9:58pm: I don't believe the whales are killed humanely. They fire an exposive harpoon into them. I am sure they suffer terribly before dying. It should be stopped. the japs have never had respect for any life. you just have to go back in history and look at the invasion of Nanking :(

That's true Nail but the allies also did some appalling things during wars.
War brings out latent evil in all so called civilisations.

freediver wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 8:14pm:

Whale is currently one of the most sustainable sources of meat you can get.

I would think that is BS, you have been reading too many Japanese science journals or maybe one too many frisbees got big. (I liked that signature - I smiled every time you posted, new one is clever too.)

If the world want back to pre 1930's - unrestricted whaling even the most abundant species would quickly be in trouble.

THat is right restrictions started in the 1930's and that is how long it has taken for a slow breading species to get back to where we are today - around 80 years.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 9:58pm:

I don't believe the whales are killed humanely. They fire an exposive harpoon into them. I am sure they suffer terribly before dying. It should be stopped.

You don`t know that, once again you are on an emotional estrogen trip.  Please research your subject "preferably by first hand experience", and get bact to us when you actually know something.

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 9:54pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 22nd, 2010 at 9:34pm: Paul Watson is a criminal. and the dirty Japs aren't criminals of course ??

Not according to the law, which, if you have genuine concern for the legality, is where you should start.


Quote:

I don't believe the whales are killed humanely. They fire an exposive harpoon into them. I am sure they suffer terribly before dying.

Most animals we eat suffer far more throughout their whole lives. The only difference is you don't see it on the news.


Quote:

the japs have never had respect for any life

So your a racist as well as an animal libber?


Quote:

I would think that is BS, you have been reading too many Japanese science journals or maybe one too many frisbees got big.

What about the IWC scientific committee? Or just plain old common sense?


Quote:

If the world want back to pre 1930's - unrestricted whaling

Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2010 at 3:18pm:

and the dirty Japs aren't criminals of course ??

Quote:

Not according to the law, which, if you have genuine concern for the legality, is where you should start.

KYODO SENPAKU KAISHA LTD
Respondent
JUDGE: ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER: 15 JANUARY 2008
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
1. THE COURT DECLARES that the respondent has killed, injured, taken and
interfered with Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) and fin
whales (Balaenoptera physalus) and injured, taken and interfered with humpback
whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in
contravention of sections 229, 229A, 229B and 229C of the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), (the "Act"), and has
treated and possessed such whales killed or taken in the Australian Whale
Sanctuary in contravention of sections 229D and 230 of the Act, without
permission or authorisation under sections 231, 232 or 238 of the Act.

2. THE COURT ORDERS that the respondent be restrained from killing, injuring,
taking or interfering with any Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis),
fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) or humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
in the Australian Whale Sanctuary, or treating or possessing any such whale killed
or taken in the Australian Whale Sanctuary, unless permitted or authorised under
sections 231, 232 or 238 of the........

They still haven't actually broken any laws DNA. They were in international waters, so international law applies.

This is why it helps to start with the law, rather than placing your prejudice above it and expecting it to fall in line.

freediver wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 8:14pm:

Whale is currently one of the most sustainable sources of meat you can get.

Quote:

DNA - If the world want back to pre 1930's - unrestricted whaling

Quote:

FD -Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

So you originally said that it was the most sustainable meat available.

I talk about unrestricted whaling and you say its a dichotomy - you now seem to have said that it is the most sustainable as long as it is restricted to a small number of nations.

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2010 at 3:38pm:

They still haven't actually broken any laws DNA. They were in international waters, so international law applies. This is why it helps to start with the law, rather than placing your prejudice above it and expecting it to fall in line.

We are in Australia and they have broken Australian Law and been found guilty - if they come to Australia they can be locked up.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2010 at 3:41pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 22nd, 2010 at 8:14pm: Whale is currently one of the most sustainable sources of meat you can get. Quote: DNA - If the world want back to pre 1930's - unrestricted whaling [quote] FD -Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

So you originally said that it was the most sustainable meat available.

I talk about unrestricted whaling and you say its a dichotomy - you now seem to have said that it is the most sustainable as long as it is restricted to a small number of nations.
[/quote]

It is not the number of nations carrying out the harvest that matters, but the magnitude of the harvest.


Quote:

We are in Australia and they have broken Australian Law and been found guilty - if they come to Australia they can be locked up.

So you think they were sentenced to jail time? have a read of your own post on the matter once more. Like I said, the law does not follow your prejudice, which is why there is nothing we can do about it.

Sorry FD, but the 'most' sustainable meats are beef, lamb, pork and chicken....all of which have a far faster 'reproductive' cycle than whales do..

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2010 at 3:47pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23rd, 2010 at 3:41pm: freediver wrote on Dec 22nd, 2010 at 8:14pm: Whale is currently one of the most sustainable sources of meat you can get. Quote: DNA - If the world want back to pre 1930's - unrestricted whaling [quote] FD -Sounds like a false dichotomy to me. So you originally said that it was the most sustainable meat available. I talk about unrestricted whaling and you say its a dichotomy - you now seem to have said that it is the most sustainable as long as it is restricted to a small number of nations.

It is not the number of nations carrying out the harvest that matters, but the magnitude of the harvest.


Quote:

We are in Australia and they have broken Australian Law and been found guilty - if they come to Australia they can be locked up.

So you think they were sentenced to jail time? have a read of your own post on the matter once more. Like I said, the law does not follow your prejudice, which is why there is nothing we can do about it.[/quote]


They have been in contempt of that ruling for a lot of years - What happens to people found to be in contempt of court rulings or found to have charges to answer and are likley to abscond?

Quote:

It is not the number of nations carrying out the harvest that matters, but the magnitude of the harvest

Obviously but I can not see the Japaneese reducing their take so that other nations can take some of their share.

All the current whaling nations wish to increase their take and if this happens I would think some of the others who may want into the market would have a right to expect a quota as well.

Remember the Japaneese do not need to travel 12 to 15 thousand Klm to whale because they are plentifull in their region.

They argue that it is traditional (to travel to antarctica whaling in canoes?) but have few whales in their seas. there is a reason this occured and it relates to the sustainability of their methods.

They have proven that they are not capable of waking up till the resource is gone.

Quote:

Sorry FD, but the 'most' sustainable meats are beef, lamb, pork and chicken....all of which have a far faster 'reproductive' cycle than whales do..

There are many factors that contribute to how sustainable a source of meat is. Obviously if you take such a narrow minded view to measuring sustainability it would appear that those other meats are more sustainable. But you would be wrong.


Quote:

They have been in contempt of that ruling for a lot of years - What happens to people found to be in contempt of court rulings or found to have charges to answer and are likley to abscond?

No they haven't. Read it for yourself. After all, you posted it. The ruling imposes no requirement on the Japanese whalers, for the simple reason that they are not under the jurisdiction of the court in question. Again, you need to put the law before your prejudice if you want to come to grips with the actual legal position.


Quote:

We are in Australia and they have broken Australian Law

So you think that whether they were in Australia is irrelevant?


Quote:

Obviously but I can not see the Japaneese reducing their take so that other nations can take some of their share.

There is not 'share' established yet. The international community will need to acknowledge the reality of commercial whaling before that can happen. It is kind of hard to demand a share of the whale harvest while at the same time pretending it is illegal.


Quote:

They argue that it is traditional

Sure it is. It is also an Australian tradition that was only recently abandoned.


Quote:

there is a reason this occured and it relates to the sustainability of their methods.

Sustainability is not a property of a particular method, only the extent to which it and other methods are implimeted. You need to understand sustainability instead of trying to use it to impose your prejudice on others.


Quote:

They have proven that they are not capable of waking up till the resource is gone.

Quite the opposite. They (along with all other whaling nations) have proven that they are capable in that they took the most drastic measure ever taken, and were successful. They are now quite justifiably moving towards a resumption of commercial whaling. Or perhaps you think they have hunted whales to extinction? It is best not to put your prejudice before the facts.

Quote:

No they haven't. Read it for yourself. After all, you posted it. The ruling imposes no requirement on the Japanese whalers, for the simple reason that they are not under the jurisdiction of the court in question. Again, you need to put the law before your prejudice if you want to come to grips with the actual legal position.

2. The Court orders that the respondent be restrained from killing, injuring, taking or interfering with
any Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) or
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Australian Whale Sanctuary, or treating or
possessing any such whale killed or taken in the Australian Whale Sanctuary, unless permitted or
authorised under sections 231, 232 or 238 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

******************************************

The EPBC Act applies to all persons and all vessels within territorial Australia and the EEZ
including persons who are not Australian citizens and vessels that are not registered
Australian vessels.13
· Australia’s claimed EEZ extends to the waters within 200 nautical miles of the Australian
Antarctic Territory14;

Quote:

The Court orders that the respondent be restrained from killing

So, no jail term, no fine, not even a slap on the wrist. There is nothing at all imposed on the Japs, because they have not broken the law, because they are not subject to our law.


Quote:

The EPBC Act applies to all persons and all vessels within territorial Australia and the EEZ including persons who are not Australian citizens and vessels that are not registered Australian vessels.13 · Australia’s claimed EEZ extends to the waters within 200 nautical miles of the Australian Antarctic Territory14;

We could claim the moon as our territory, just like that Spanish woman. It wouldn't make it reality. You laugh at that Spanish woman. The Japs laugh at us. The act can only be applied to our actual EEZ, not the imaginary, or 'claimed' one, which is why the court could not impose a penalty on the Japs, and why no Australian authority can carry out the court order to restrain them, unless they enter our real EEZ and start shooting whales there.

I have no idea what this court was playing at, making a statement just sufficiently complicated so that all the loonies thought the Japs were actual criminals. It has made us a laughing stock. Maybe it was some kind of experiment to test the limits of mass self delusion.

You need to read what it actually says, not what you want it to say. It is all there, in black and white, right before your eyes.

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2010 at 10:42pm:

Quote: The Court orders that the respondent be restrained from killing So, no jail term, no fine, not even a slap on the wrist. There is nothing at all imposed on the Japs, because they have not broken the law, because they are not subject to our law. [quote]The EPBC Act applies to all persons and all vessels within territorial Australia and the EEZ including persons who are not Australian citizens and vessels that are not registered Australian vessels.13 · Australia’s claimed EEZ extends to the waters within 200 nautical miles of the Australian Antarctic Territory14;

We could claim the moon as our territory, just like that Spanish woman. It wouldn't make it reality. You laugh at that Spanish woman. The Japs laugh at us. The act can only be applied to our actual EEZ, not the imaginary, or 'claimed' one, which is why the court could not impose a penalty on the Japs, and why no Australian authority can carry out the court order to restrain them, unless they enter our real EEZ and start shooting whales there.

I have no idea what this court was playing at, making a statement just sufficiently complicated so that all the loonies thought the Japs were actual criminals. It has made us a laughing stock. Maybe it was some kind of experiment to test the limits of mass self delusion.

You need to read what it actually says, not what you want it to say. It is all there, in black and white, right before your eyes.[/quote]

Why is it an 'imaginary' claim??
The Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is recognised by the IWC, of which Japan is a member...

It is not recognised under international law. Seeing as it is in international waters, that is what matters. Our actions are no less absurd than the Spanish woman claiming ownership of the sun and trying to charge people for it.

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2010 at 6:39am:

It is not recognised under international law. Seeing as it is in international waters, that is what matters. Our actions are no less absurd than the Spanish woman claiming ownership of the sun and trying to charge people for it.

So you think that Treaties and Agreements signed by a country or countries and ratified by the United Nations and similar regulatory bodies aren't binding ON those countries???

I don't think Japan ever agreed to cede those international waters to Australia.

They can leave the IWC at any time they please, and that is just what will happen if the IWC does not go back to its roots.

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2010 at 6:45am:

I don't think Japan ever agreed to cede those international waters to Australia. They can leave the IWC at any time they please, and that is just what will happen if the IWC does not go back to its roots.

Japan is a signatory to the Antarctic Treaty, and it is the Antarctic Treaty that gives Australia a claim to the Antarctic Territorial Waters and the EEZ...


And the IWC was set up to manage and control the whale populations....so it's current behaviour is it's 'roots'...

The IWC is not 'managing and controlling' the whale populations. If it were, it would have initiated a return to commercial whaling a long time ago, rather than forcing Japan and other whaling nations to exploit the various loopholes.

Instead, the IWC has been dominated by the animal libbers and people who consider it immoral to harvest whales, regardless of the sustainability of the harvest. Imposing those hypocritical moral standards on countries like Japan has nothing to do with what the IWC was originally about. The IWC is a symbol for what can go wrong with environmentalism - when animal libbers take over and somehow manage to trick the public into thinking the two agendas are identical.

But even you must admit that not ALL of the whale species have returned to 'huntable' levels, have they??

Quote:

The act can only be applied to our actual EEZ, not the imaginary, or 'claimed' one

So now you are saying that the Australian Antarctic Territory is not real.

I am not so sure that they even respect the Austrailain mainland EEZ.

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2010 at 10:42pm:

Quote: The Court orders that the respondent be restrained from killing So, no jail term, no fine, not even a slap on the wrist. There is nothing at all imposed on the Japs, because they have not broken the law, because they are not subject to our law.

Yes it is a funny order - not sure who is authorised - the complainant, sea sheppherd, Is the Australian navy expected to enforce this order?

Not sure but to Australians this poaching has been ruled to be illegal irrespective of the fact that they are foreigners and do not respect the decision.

THe same as Australia has a long standing claim to the Aust Antarctic territory and its EEZ. (1933).

Yet you NEVER criticise the violent, provocative behavior of Sea Shepherd on the high seas - which direcly contravenes international law??

Quote:

rather than forcing Japan and other whaling nations to exploit the various loopholes.

I think there is a difference between exploiting a loop hole and just being dishonest.

Quote:

Japan is a signatory to the Antarctic Treaty, and it is the Antarctic Treaty that gives Australia a claim to the Antarctic Territorial Waters and the EEZ...

I wish that were the case Gizmo but actually the treaty sits on top of the claim - and has a different definition as to the boundaries.

This is where Japan choose to cherry pick the boundary, the Treaty is about the Antarctic land mass and ice shelf and does not cover the surrounding seas past a defined parallel

Quote:

But even you must admit that not ALL of the whale species have returned to 'huntable' levels, have they??

Sure, just like fish, kangaroos, or whatever. It is a pretty trivial point.


Quote:

So now you are saying that the Australian Antarctic Territory is not real.

Our marine park in international waters is not recognised under international law and cannot be enforced.


Quote:

I am not so sure that they even respect the Austrailain mainland EEZ.

Is this your racist prejudice speaking, or can you back it up?


Quote:

Yes it is a funny order - not sure who is authorised - the complainant, sea sheppherd, Is the Australian navy expected to enforce this order?

No one is exected to enforce it. It is a meaningless declaration.


Quote:

Not sure but to Australians this poaching has been ruled to be illegal

And if they did it in our actual EEZ they could be charged. Otherwise you might as well try to charge the Americans rent for their flag on the moon.


Quote:

irrespective of the fact that they are foreigners and do not respect the decision.

International law has no respect for the decision, that is what matters.


Quote:

I think there is a difference between exploiting a loop hole and just being dishonest.

The Japanese are quite open about the use of the loophole. They are quite open about leaving the IWC if it ceases to be a vehicle for rational management of the whale harvest and gets over-run by hippies. It is a credit to them and their desire for an effective international body to manage the harvest that they have stuck with it for so long despite our childish posturing.

This trailer doesn't show you the actual cruelty inflicted upon the "Children of a Lesser God" - the Animal Kingdom, but I suggest you watch the whole movie of EARTHLINGS.
I for one was quite upset by what I saw and I've seen my fair bit of 'Death' first hand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8e3iZky-co

Such things as so-called Kosher not actually being practiced as Kosher, etc - just shows the hypocrisy and lies fermented by industries that exploit the death of Animals.

We all have to eat ...but its the blatant way we go about it.
Should I pull out a little piglet and cut its throat for a slow death in front of the kiddies upon a birthday party sacrifice? Come on, of course not. So what if the meat tastes a bit better at that age of the pig. why the pig couldn't have lived a full life is beyond me.

Now I work in a Hatchery and I see thousands of unwanted 'Chicks' just hatched, slowly gassed (like Jews) to death and dumped (by me) in a big slush bin. Besides knowing that these chicks have only spent 3 days alive, its a shame that such 'bio' waste is just buried in Tips, rather than used as fertilizer or burley food for the oceans, especially out deep in open ocean where there is stuff all food and nutrients.
At least we don't "macerate" the chicks live anymore.

I think of that Conservationists have to clean up after Chefs like the Medicals have to clean up after Military Wars (for Politics).
Why we have to put up with Chefs endorsing killing animals before their age is due because of 'taste' is beyond me.
Poor animals.
The biggest Chinese Restaurant in the world serves its dishes LIVE.
Nothing more disgusting than seeing some poor fish still wiggling and being cooked alive. Just pathetic to see humanity behave so.

Put everything it 'human' perspective and suddenly everyone has a whine and a whinge. Such things as Genocide and Holocaust. We live in a world where the Human Rights of Criminals is a priority of the Human Rights of innocent people who suffer from such.

The world is bugger-KED.

>>>>>>>>>>For starters - stop calling the Nipponese the Anglo "Japanese" ...I'm sure australians wouldn't want to be called "Nancys". ::) no wonder they don't listen.

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2010 at 6:46pm:

Quote: But even you must admit that not ALL of the whale species have returned to 'huntable' levels, have they?? Sure, just like fish, kangaroos, or whatever. It is a pretty trivial point.

Well no, it's not all that trivial...since the point I was endevouring to make was that the IWC still needs to manage whaling in some measure and can't just say "Ok Commercial Whaling's back on again, go for it guys"....

The IWC idea of allowing commercial hunting on a limited basis, and of only certain species might work......especially considering that a lot of the whale meat that Japan brings back is used for either dog food or is frozen or dumped....

Not sure about Norway, but in Japan it's not anywhere near as popular as it was, and most of the demand is supplied by the indigenous whalers anyway....

Nipponese say in constipated accent "Stop calling us Japanese - you ignorant $#% !"
;)

Quote:

Well no, it's not all that trivial...since the point I was endevouring to make was that the IWC still needs to manage whaling in some measure and can't just say "Ok Commercial Whaling's back on again, go for it guys"....

That particular point is moot rather than trivial. Obviously they won't do that. You are creating a false dichotomy.


Quote:

Should I pull out a little piglet and cut its throat for a slow death in front of the kiddies upon a birthday party sacrifice? Come on, of course not.

That pig would probably usffer far less cruelty than a typical modern farmed pig.


Quote:

why the pig couldn't have lived a full life is beyond me.

If you are interested in sustainability, it actually makes more sense to harvest the young ones. That's the way nature does it.


Quote:

or burley food for the oceans, especially out deep in open ocean where there is stuff all food and nutrients.

Very bad idea, from both a practical and environmental perspective.


Quote:

>>>>>>>>>>For starters - stop calling the Nipponese the Anglo "Japanese" ...I'm sure australians wouldn't want to be called "Nancys". Roll Eyes no wonder they don't listen.

I suspect that rather than semantics, they would prefer we drop our blatant hypocrisy over whale meat.

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2010 at 6:46pm:

Quote: I am not so sure that they even respect the Austrailain mainland EEZ. Is this your racist prejudice speaking, or can you back it up? .

Do you remember all the hundreds of long line fishing incidents?

The Japanese were fishing in our eez for years.

I am fairly sure that one of their reasons for continuing to breach was that they did not recognise our claim.

I would be one of the least racist people here and I rather like the Japanese people just not all of their actions.

.

Japan recently agreed to a cut in its quota of tuna from international waters because some of their companies cheated the system. That hardly sounds like a country that does not recognise international law.