http://ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/why-allow-whaling.html

The continued effort to prevent commercial whaling is a strategic blunder for the environmental movement. It represents a victory of emotional response over practical considerations and of 'cute and cuddly' over sustainability.

One of my first forays into Australian politics was the promotion of marine parks as fisheries management tools. This is something that I am still heavily involved with. One of the common criticisms I heard was that marine parks were a 'foot in the door' for the 'greenies.' This even came from people who claimed to be 'the real environmentalists.' It came across as a rather absurd argument. Sure there are some animal liberationists who want to ban recreational fishing, but to assume they could have any political power over fishermen is just rediculous. Furthermore to base your political strategy around fear of such an unlikely outcome is more likely to make it come true. If you refuse to self regulate then someone else will take the opportunity to do it for you next time there is a crisis.

Well, that's what the commercial whaling industry did. They formed the IWC to manage commercial whaling in a sustainable manner and it was promptly taken over by people who have no interest at all in sustainable harvests. All they will be satisfied with is a complete ban on commercial whaling. Occasionally you will hear lip service given to sustainability, but usually with the insistance that any whaling is inherently unsustainable. Such assertions are never backed up with evidence.

So, how much whaling is sustainable? It's hard to tell, but if the population of a species continues to rise despite whaling (as is currently the case) then you can be sure that it is sustainable. Maybe they could get more whales in the long run if they let the population continue to rise for a few more years, but surely we can leave those decisions to the whaling industry, given that they have shown their ability to self regulate by setting up the IWC.

Whales are not the only example of emotional appeal winning over common sense. For a long time it was nearly impossible to purchase kangaroo meat in the supermarket. This came about through protests a number of years ago when it first hit the shelves. This may not seem as bad as using the law to impose your will, but the outcome was far worse for our environment. Destroying the kangaroo meat industry reinforces the beef industry in Australia, which does enourmous ecological damage. Cattle just aren't suited to our fragile soils. Their hard hooves turn it to dust and they rip grass out by the roots. They destroy fragile riparian ecosystems. They emit methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Fortunately, kangaroo meat is making it's way back onto the shelves, but it is stil illegal to import it into California. Apparently several decades ago a senator's wife heard from a friend that kangaroos are endangered (lol), and insisted that her husband pass a law banning the importation of kangaroo meat. Of course, she had the support of local environmentalists.

If you think that Australia is now more sensible in it's handling of native animals, think again. It is still illegal to kill brushtail possums. Brushtail possums are four times as dense in the urban environment as they are in the wild. They are basically native rats, except that people tolerate and even encourage them through feeding. They carry several nasty diseases, for example they are the principle carriers of Ross River Fever with something like 70% of them testing positive. They damage ceilings. They are carnivourous and eat small animals and bird eggs. Combine this with the introduction of cats and aggressive bird species from overseas (helped along by the urban environment) and it is no wonder that avian biodiversity is so low in the suburbs. Every opportunity to sustainably harvest a wild source of food that we pass up reinforces the role of commercial agriculture (chemicals, hormones, transport, fossil fuels) in our lives.

Anyway, back to the whales. While environmentalists continue to show, through successful political campaigns, that they will not stop at sustainability and that environmentalism is on a continuum with animal rights, the movement will continue to instill fear in average Australians. Even to the extent that they will oppose any environmental agenda on principle regardless of whether it harms themselves. I've seen this with my own eyes. It is irrational and frustrating, just like a complete ban on commercial whaling.

http://ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/why-allow-whaling.html

I have to disagree.  Whales have decreased in numbers over the years and many species would have become extinct if we hadn't had various bans over the years.  They may not be on the verge of extinction but they are threatened.

They have to cope with all sorts of catastrophic events, such as oil spills, the US underwater sonic booms, reduced feeding due to overfishing and many other hazards.

As they are the oldest mammal in existence we need to protect them from whaling - if nothing else because the hunters use such cruel and inhumane methods of killing them.

I am going to put this up as an article. Do you mind if I include your post at the bottom?


Quote:

Whales have decreased in numbers over the years and many species would have become extinct if we hadn't had various bans over the years.

It was the whaling industry itself that introduced those bans. Now many species are starting to go up in numbers very quickly.


Quote:

They have to cope with all sorts of catastrophic events, such as oil spills, the US underwater sonic booms, reduced feeding due to overfishing and many other hazards.

I'd say that whaling is by far the biggest impact on their numbers.


Quote:

if nothing else because the hunters use such cruel and inhumane methods of killing them

I use the same method to catch fish. If it was about cruelty we would be looking at intensive factory farming, not wild caught animals.

Quote:

[I use the same method to catch fish. If it was about cruelty we would be looking at intensive factory farming not wild caught animals].

Does it take you up to an hour to kill a fish Freediver?  Do you stab it once - then 5 minutes later when it's not dead - stab it again - or force little firecrackers inside it - to make it die quicker?  Then for the final kill - a few more slashes of a lampoon.

I'm sure you don't.  It can't be compared.

Quote:

Does it take you up to an hour to kill a fish Freediver?

It depends on the size of the fish. I've never taken that long, but it often takes longer.


Quote:

Do you stab it once - then 5 minutes later when it's not dead - stab it again -

Something like that. They can be rather difficult to kill, and you can never tell when they are actually dead.


Quote:

It can't be compared.

Isn't that what you just did?

Two anti whaling activists in an inflatable boat have gone missing in poor visibility after a confrontation between sea shepherd and a Japanese whaling boat in southern waters. One of the activists is from Perth, the other from the US. They lost radio contact, so no-one is sure whether they are OK, though they are prepared for the conditions. The whaling boat is helping to look for them.

I think they were picked up by the Japanese a couple of days ago, but this shouldn't have happened.

Our gutless government needs to stand up to this illegal whaling in our waters, but they won't because of the new joint military exercises the Japanese will be doing in Australia shortly.

Meanwhile Japan is promoting whale meat to their population - who could care less about it and have shown no previous interest in eating whale meat.  This means that the Japanese intend to continue, and no doubt increase their intake of whales.

You have to wonder with the lack of interest in eating whale meat in Japan, why they are going to such great lengths to encourage the national marketing of it.

I'm with you all the way on this one freediver.
Though whaling should be FORCEFULLY RESTRICTED in the numbers caught per annum.
Perhaps the same kind of system could be adopted for the whaling industry as what is for the nuclear
programs, as WHALING INSPECTORS.
I myself am very concerned about Australian native animals, though i am definately not an environMENTAList.  When certain Species breed far too many i support culling to give the other species a chance. I condone the complete annhilation of introduced feral species and i even take part in this.
Nothing pisses me off more than finding a half eaten native creature should i come across one.
I am also a recreational fisherman, and mantra, the most humane way to kill a fish is to either cut the fish's head off just behind the head real quickly  or  smash its head with a hammer.  may i suggest for whaling, a large guillotine in the back of the ship.
And for those greenie bastards who rammed that ship, which, had a legal right to be there, had i been the captain of the whaling vessel i would have come about,full speed ahead and rammed that greenie pirate ship amidships.
Make a RAINBOW WARRIOR out of it!

Well apparently that's what they did - ram the Sea Shepherd ship, then issue a distress signal. Sea Shepherd responded by threatening them with a 'steel enema.' Why would an enema be their first choice for imagery?

I do condone the actions of the Sea Shepherd.  If the Australian government had any guts they would be overseeing the Japanese whalers and redirecting them to the territories where their whaling was permitted and also arresting them for their illegal activities - in exactly the same way we do with the Indonesians.

Whaling - even though I object to it - obviously is going to continue, but they do need to find a more humane way of doing it.  Personally I hate fishing - I think it's a very cruel sport.  Fair enough if you could scoop them up in a net and give them a direct hit on the head or a beheading, to reduce their suffering - it might be more tolerable.

Meanwhile - we have the Japanese telling the world that culling whales is necessary for "research" - yet at the same time promoting the consumption of whale meat as a culinary delight to their citizens.

It's not the same as with the indonesians. Our claims to our northern waters are recognised under international law. Our claims to the no whaling zone in the southern waters are not recognised under international law and to try to enforce it would essentially be an act of war.

I have to disagree freediver - here's an article from the Sea Shepherd site, but there are other substantive articles indicating that the Japanese are illegally whaling and fishing in our waters:


Quote:

On February 10th, Australian authorities boarded and apprehended three Indonesian fishing vessels near Raine Island, 600 kilometers north of Cairns. The seizure on the Northeast coast of Australia resulted in 27 crewmembers taken into custody and the boats sunk at sea. Raine Island is the world's largest remaining rookery for the vulnerable green turtle and it is a protected, no-go zone. A spokesman for the Federal Fisheries Minister Eric Abetz couldn't say whether turtle meat was found on board the boats. Queensland's Environment Minister Desley Boyle says it's disturbing news, "Only this week, we had declared this to be the year of the turtle. It is one of the few breeding sites left." A search is continuing for other illegal fishing boats believed to be in the area. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is very supportive of Australia’s aggressive policy towards illegal fishing, but the Society remains concerned that Australia is practicing a double standard in regard to Japanese fishing and whaling operations. Japanese tuna vessels are taking tens of millions of dollars worth of tuna from Australian waters and Japanese whalers are illegally killing piked (minke) and fin whales in the Australian Antarctic Territory without any measures being taken to intervene against these illegal practices. The message that Australia is sending is that they will target poor nations while alternatively allowing rich trading partners to plunder Australian resources. Sea Shepherd urges Australia to apply marine conservation laws without prejudice and to treat Japanese poachers in the same manner that they treat Indonesian poachers

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_060213_1.html

Sure, they are breaking Australian law, but they are not Australian and they are not in Australia, or in waters recognised by the international community as falling under our jurisdiction. I suggest you look for a source that has less of an interest in whaling and more of an itnerest in law, or at least neutrality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Antarctic_Territory

As Australia is part of the Antarctic Treaty System, under its provisions it makes no effort to assert true national sovereignty over its claimed Antarctic territory.

I think it has even less rights over the waters involved.

mantra writes "As they are the oldest mammal in existence we need to protect them from whaling".
The oldest mammel eh? I don't think you're on the right website. Whales are the same age as everything else - about 6000 years. Read your bible.

Yeah and jesus walked on water!  [smiley=laugh.gif]

Aussie nat - I think I need to explain. My post was not my own view. I was taking the pxxx. Its your leader on this forum that believes all things were created 6000 years ago. This is a Christianity site. Didn't you know?

Is that a fact..... Then i guess that makes me the anti-christ!
An athiest walks amongst you!

"An athiest walks amongst you!"

You are not alone.

Sense says


Quote:

Read your bible

What's that supposed to mean?  You might just be getting me mixed up with someone else.  This would be the first time I've mentioned "bible" on any forum.

Christianity  to my knowledge, has not been discussed on this forum, unless Freediver has set up some secret board that I don't have access to.

Sense is convinced that this site is some kind of fundamentalist Christian conspriacy to use sound science to argue against the theory of evolution. Of course, he/she now refuses to discuss it in the evolution thread so is trying to sidetrack other threads with it.

Sense perhaps you should try asking beo whether I am a fundamentailst Christian. He might have some interesting things to say about that.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/court-case-against-whaling-firm-proceeds/2007/02/26/1172338547057.html

The Humane Society International (HSI) says its case against a Japanese whaling company can now resume after the animal rights body served legal documents.

HSI Australia director Michael Kennedy said the legal documents were served to the headquarters of whaling company Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd in Tokyo last week in accordance with a Federal Court ruling.

HSI launched legal action against Kyodo Senpaku in 2004, estimating the company had killed well over 850 minke whales within Australia's whale sanctuary near Antarctica since 2000.

Japan, as with most nations, does not recognise the legitimacy of the sanctuary.

Mr Kennedy said HSI was determined to go ahead with the case even though this summer's Southern Ocean whaling program appeared to have ended early because of serious damage to its whaling factory ship, the Nisshin Maru, and the death of a crewman.

If its a sanctuary, whaling should not be done. just like in some places fishing is banned.
So these are Australian waters are they? i dont mind if they hunt whales in the open sea, but a sanctuary declared by australia-  NO. Perhaps a torpedo in the side may help!

It is only a sanctuary under Australian law. It is open sea.

Does australian law say whaling is illegal?

I think it is completely banned under Australian law.

So as a sanctuary under Aus law, the Japs are commiting crime in our jurisdiction?

Our jurisdiction over the territory is not recognised under international law. It would be like if Leichtenstein declared the entire pacific ocean, outside of national waters, to be a no fishing zone. Any vessel falling under Leichtenstein law would be forbidden to fish there, but they couldn't enforce the ban on other vessels.

Ahwell, then the hippies have no case!

We should not allow whaling..its a totally uneccesary and wrong.

x

Wow, Never thought you'd be here arguing for whaling to be allowed freediver?

The issue as far as I am concerned is not about animal rights or whether or not a sustainable catch can be achieved, it is about commercial harvesting of a natural resource, it is by definition, unsustainable. I am a believer that all commercial harvesting (you can't call it 'fishing' I'm afraid) of the wild populations should be banned altogether. I am aware that there are some species that need to be controlled and as with roos and toads, sure keep the numbers balanced. But nobody can deny that commercial harvesting of fish is absolutely destroying the ocean ecosystem, it is not about animal rights, it is about a sustainable future.

I doubt that any harvesting of whales can be done sustainably, and unless we can farm them (not likely) they are a stupid food source to rely upon. I am a recreational fisho myself, and there is nothing that gets to me more than watching the trawlers head out to sea. One of my hobbies is more or less a waste of time thanks to commercial fishing, I have no faith in the idea that any commercial fishing can be sustainable. We have moved away from harvesting wild resources for almost all other food stocks, having learned many centuries ago that we need to use farming to sustain our large populations. Fishing is no different, neither is forestry.

You cannot have a sustainable catch in a non-sustainable industry! No matter how you try to regulate it, you allow a limited catch and you open the flood gates, the issue gets politicised and suddenly data comes out left and right saying this many whales is sustainable from one group, not sustainable from another. Killing and eating whales is like killing and eating wild elephants, a poor choice of food as it is such a large animal that requires vast quantities of energy to grow and decades to mature.

Same for the crocs, let them live. If they get someone well thats tough luck and nature taking its course. We never have lived without the threat of nasty nature getting us, nor will we ever in the future if we are to become a sustainable society.

it is about commercial harvesting of a natural resource, it is by definition, unsustainable

By what definition? "Unsustainable=harvest of natural resources"?

I am a believer that all commercial harvesting (you can't call it 'fishing' I'm afraid) of the wild populations should be banned altogether.

You prefer commercial agriculture? The complete destruction of terrestrial ecosystems?

Fishing is no different, neither is forestry.

Yes it is. For starters, there is the whole 'private ownership difficulty.'

freediver wrote on Mar 25^th, 2007 at 9:59am:

By what definition? "Unsustainable=harvest of natural resources"?

You are correct, saying that all harvesting is unsustainable is wrong, but I believe in this particular case it is not very likely with our less than adequate understanding of ocean ecosystems.

Finding a definition for what is a 'sustainable' harvest is one problem, knowing how much taken away will effect the ecosystem is another. Our understanding of nature is so feeble and we are repeatedly shown to have done damage where we thought we had learned and found a better way to do things.

Sustainability means taking only at a rate that allows natural stocks to continue to grow. How do you account for all factors when harvesting species such as whales? With such a large animal as the whale, how do we account for all the effects they have on the total ecosystem? How do we know how many calves will grow to become mature whales? How do we allow enough time for young to mature? When have we ever been able to harvest from the sea at a sustainable rate, especially species that are so low in numbers? All of this despite billions of dollars and untold hours of painstaking research... we still do not understand well enough.


freediver wrote on Mar 25^th, 2007 at 9:59am:

You prefer commercial agriculture? The complete destruction of terrestrial ecosystems?

Yes, it is not perfect but it is important that we have some areas left undisturbed by human activity and farming at least allows this. It is also a more controlled scenario in which it is easier to rectify our stupid habits when we become aware of them. A sustainable future means we will need a combination of more intensive controlled regions of agriculture, balanced by free wild regions - we have never been able to control the complexity and randomness of nature, I doubt we ever will.

History has shown that where we harvest from nature for food, we degrade the ecosystem, farming has proven a rather successful long term solution to this. A lot of the degradation due to farming has actually come about in very recent history due to the use of chemical fertilisers, machinery, monoculture and such. I agree that destruction of forest to clear land has been terrible for the environment, but this can be balanced out, there are many highly sustainable farming methods out there they are just not put into practice (this is changing though).

Fish farming is more difficult and has caused lots of damage to the environment, but fish farming is in its infancy compared to agriculture, I believe we will gain more insights the more we do it.


freediver wrote on Mar 25^th, 2007 at 9:59am:

Yes it is. For starters, there is the whole 'private ownership difficulty.'

You are absolutely correct. But as a fisho I think you must agree with me that commercial fishing has done untold damage to the ocean ecosystems over the last hundred years or so? Why would whaling be any different?

Technically, hard to say how it can be controlled, but the current methods seem to at least do something? Something needs to be done about commercial fishing, we can't just sit here and say it cannot be stopped until the ocean floors are swept clean now can we? Or can we?

You are correct, saying that all harvesting is unsustainable is wrong

That wasn't actually what I was trying to say. Wild harvest can be done sustainably and is often rpeferable to farming.

Finding a definition for what is a 'sustainable' harvest is one problem, knowing how much taken away will effect the ecosystem is another.

Aren't they the same problem, or at least one a subset of the other?

How do you account for all factors when harvesting species such as whales?

The same way you do for other wild stocks.

When have we ever been able to harvest from the sea at a sustainable rate, especially species that are so low in numbers?

For the majority of recorded history (and beyond) whales have been harvested sustainably.

All of this despite billions of dollars and untold hours of painstaking research... we still do not understand well enough.

Actually, the IWC was initially formed by whaling bodies to ensure sustainability. It was the whalers originally who got the harvest stopped. You don't have to know everything. You just have to apply the precautionary principle.

Yes, it is not perfect but it is important that we have some areas left undisturbed by human activity and farming at least allows this.

If we stop the harvest of wild stocks, we will have to put more pressure on other sources of food. The harvest of wild stocks causes far less damage per unit of food produced than other techniques, provided it is done sustainably. It would be a net change for the worse.

It is also a more controlled scenario in which it is easier to rectify our stupid habits when we become aware of them.

Completely destroying an ecosystem is always going to be more stupid than sustainably harvesting from a more natural ecosystem. The choice between farming and harvesting wild stocks is a choice between completely changing the landscape for food production and making almost no changes.

History has shown that where we harvest from nature for food, we degrade the ecosystem, farming has proven a rather successful long term solution to this.

Destroying the ecosystem is somehow better than slightly degrading it? Do you realise you cannot farm the ocean in a way that does less damage than harvesting wild stocks?

But as a fisho I think you must agree with me that commercial fishing has done untold damage to the ocean ecosystems over the last hundred years or so?

So has farming and everything else we do. Your argument that farming is inherently better but has just recently been done wrong, whereas wild harvest is inherently worse, is founded in ignorance.

Something needs to be done about commercial fishing, we can't just sit here and say it cannot be stopped until the ocean floors are swept clean now can we? Or can we?

Have you read my article on marine parks as fisheries management tools? Obviously this won't help the whales, but they can effectively be managed via TAC's.

Sorry for dredging up old threads but I have just found this forum...so get used to it for a while, coz I prefer to search rather than cover old ground unless I have too.  ;D

I am quite surprised Freediver, to find someone in Australia who thinks outside the box and in depth on this issue rather than tow the warm-fuzzy line when it comes to whaling and sustainable compatibility.

Charismatic megafauna syndrome is alive and well within Australia... it does sell raffle tickets though  ::)

Sorry for dredging up old threads but I have just found this forum

Please do. That's what they're there for.

I prefer to search rather than cover old ground unless I have too.

Same here.

---

Peter Garrett appears to support the current harvest rate:

Govt 'must make stand against whaling'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Govt-must-make-stand-against-whaling/2007/05/18/1178995378294.html

A giant inflatable whale welcomed visitors to the launch of the whale watching season at Sydney's Darling Harbour on Friday.

Mr Garrett used his Sydney Whale Festival opening address to attack the government over "scientific" whaling.

The timing was right just 10 days out from the next International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in Anchorage, Alaska.

"The Australian government must get off the sidelines and start taking some pronounced action to ensure there isn't an increase in the slaughter of whales in and around Australian waters," Mr Garrett told members of the scientific community, tourism operators and reporters.

Since 1998, volunteers organised by the National Parks and Wildlife Service have carried out an annual survey of humpbacks from Cape Solander, south of Sydney's Botany Bay.

In the past nine years, the number of humpbacks spotted has swelled by 440 per cent, although this could partly because of the increase in volunteers.

International Fund for Animal Welfare Asia Pacific director Mick McIntyre said whales were worth more alive than dead.

---

Labor plan to board whalers

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21765743-2702,00.html

THE Howard Government has slammed Labor's tough new policy against Japanese whaling, claiming that boarding vessels on the high seas would risk putting Australia "into the business of piracy" and damage closer diplomatic ties forged with Tokyo.

Kevin Rudd wants Australia to take a leadership role to end the slaughter of whales, which would mean interception of vessels operating illegally in Australian waters and taking Japan to the International Court of Justice.

Labor would move to enforce Australian law banning the slaughter of whales in the Australian Whale Sanctuary, which includes Heard and McDonald Islands in the Southern Ocean.

But Foreign Minister Alexander Downer told The Australian last night that for Australia to confront vessels of other countries on the high seas would be "technically speaking an act of piracy", and would have no legal foundation.

"The waters off the Australian Antarctic Territory that we describe as our exclusive international zone, are not recognised as being Australian waters by most countries in the world, and certainly not recognised by Japan," Mr Turnbull told the Nine network's Sunday program.

He said the ALP's plan to intercept and board Japanese whaling vessels could provoke conflict with Tokyo, which recently agreed to forge closer defence ties with Canberra.

---

Stop whale-kill program, NZ tells Japan

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Stop-whalekill-program-NZ-tells-Japan/2007/05/22/1179601390484.html

Japan should drop plans to kill 50 humpback whales later this year as a gesture of goodwill after New Zealand helped a crippled Japanese whaling ship in Antarctica, the NZ environment minister said.

Conservation Minister Chris Carter said Japan's move to kill 50 humpback whales - an endangered species - as part of its scientific whaling program was a "provocative act" and would generate "enormous hostility" worldwide.

Carter, meanwhile, said anti-whaling countries were expected to regain a majority at the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) annual meeting in Alaska next week.

---

'No threat' to commercial whaling ban

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/No-threat-to-commercial-whaling-ban/2007/05/29/1180205197972.html

Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull is confident anti-whaling nations have the numbers to prevent any Japanese-led attempt to resume commercial whaling.

---

IWC approves whaling quotas for Inuits

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/IWC-approves-whaling-quotas-for-Inuits/2007/05/30/1180205285942.html

The International Whaling Commission has approved extending bowhead whaling quotas for Alaskan Inuits for subsistence hunting.

The 76-nation commission voted by consensus to allow 280 bowhead whales to be taken over a five-year period, ending in 2012. A majority of that, 260 bowheads, is reserved for Alaska natives in 10 villages, with 20 bowheads granted to Russian residents, according to Scott Smullen, a spokesman for the US delegation.

Japan has long sought "community whaling" status, which would give it quotas under provisions similar to those that allow Alaska natives and other indigenous groups to hunt the mammals. It was not immediately clear when the IWC would take up Japan's request.

Harvesting whales is considered a sacred accomplishment by many of an estimated 5,000 Alaskan Inuits who rely heavily on the meat to fill their tables. Ceremonial dances are held to bless the hunts and successful harvests prompt village celebrations where the meat is cut up and distributed.

Turnbull toothless over whaling: Greens

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Turnbull-toothless-over-whaling-Greens/2007/05/30/1180205290288.html

Greens leader Bob Brown says Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull's approach to stop Japan slaughtering humpback whales is weak.

Mr Turnbull called on Japan to drop its planned slaughter of humpbacks, warning it could seriously affect perceptions of Japan in Australia.

He told a news conference in Anchorage that Australia would not support the resumption of commercial whaling in any guise.

Mr Turnbull was responding to a Japanese compromise proposal not to kill humpback whales in return for Australia's support for commercial whaling off Japanese coastal villages.

If you can sit and watch a whale being 'caught' without grimacing, wincing, throwing up or feeling that your heat is breaking then you're qualified to argue why whaling should not be banned. I cannot support the practice and I despise the Norwegians, Icelanders and Japanese for continuing the practice. Call me a bleeding heart environMENTAList and hypocrite, but thats the way it is for me.

CALL TO JAPS.................



HUNT  SCALY

If you can sit and watch a whale being 'caught' without grimacing, wincing, throwing up or feeling that your heat is breaking

Drink some cement and harden up. Cows, pigs and chooks don't give birth to plastic wrap and styrofoam either.

Most people living in cities are so far removed from what is required to exist that they are blinded by dogma. It's unfortunate that the drivers of the bandwagon bus have blacked out the windows so that no one can see.

HUNT  SCALY

I tend to leave a bad taste in peoples mouths  ;D

As they are the oldest mammal in existence we need to protect them from whaling - if nothing else because the hunters use such cruel and inhumane methods of killing them. "
------------------

I dont know much about whaling except that I love whales and would like to see them protected..so I am with Mantra and concur with her sentiments.. :'(

IQSRLOW wrote on May 30^th, 2007 at 4:31pm:

If you can sit and watch a whale being 'caught' without grimacing, wincing, throwing up or feeling that your heat is breaking Drink some cement and harden up. Cows, pigs and chooks don't give birth to plastic wrap and styrofoam either. Most people living in cities are so far removed from what is required to exist that they are blinded by dogma. It's unfortunate that the drivers of the bandwagon bus have blacked out the windows so that no one can see.

I'm curious, have you actually seen a whale being hunted, what styrofoam and plastic does to the insides of animals, have you ever seen a dolphin being turned into pet food, have you seen the way blood drips out of a bird's neck when its caught in plastic drink holders? have you even bothered to look at road-kill? Have you seen anything? And don't you worry, My opinions are not the random opinions of a cotton wool-wrapped urbanite. I've seen these things, for which I have had 'swallow cement and harden up' for and they are experiences I never want to experience again.

You obviously need a quick drying cement seeing as they are still effecting you, although I fail to see the link between harvesting a food source and death of wildlife from pollution

I'm curious, have you actually seen a whale being hunted, what styrofoam and plastic does to the insides of animals, have you ever seen a dolphin being turned into pet food, have you seen the way blood drips out of a bird's neck when its caught in plastic drink holders? have you even bothered to look at road-kill? Have you seen anything? And don't you worry, My opinions are not the random opinions of a cotton wool-wrapped urbanite. I've seen these things, for which I have had 'swallow cement and harden up' for and they are experiences I never want to experience again. "
------------------------

Not many pple have , unfortunately Progs..a little reality can be good for all of us.

Call me a bleeding heart environMENTAList and hypocrite

OK.  :D

If you can sit and watch a whale being 'caught' without grimacing, wincing, throwing up

Have you ever read 'Tommo and Hawk' by Bryce Courtney?

Most people living in cities are so far removed from what is required to exist that they are blinded by dogma.

I so agree with that. That leads to a lot of the hypocrisy in the 'cafe latte' environmental movement.

have you ever seen a dolphin being turned into pet food

I posted a link to a video on that in here recently.

I've seen these things

Seeing them is a bit different to realising all the death that goes into feeding you. It tends to create opposition to only the most visible aspects of our food chain, while hiding the truly cruel aspects of mechanised agriculture that give us eggs, chicken, veal and bacon, as well as beef overseas. Once you start slaughtering your own meat rather than paying someone else to do your dirty work, whaling doesn't seem so bad.

---

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Japan-spat-the-dummy-says-Turnbull/2007/06/03/1180809315594.html

Australia says Japan had a "dummy-spit" when it didn't get its own way at last week's International Whaling Commission in Alaska.

The strong words from Mr Turnbull come after Japan failed to win a single vote at the commission in Anchorage.

"Whaling is essentially a nationalistic issue in Japan, that's its support base so the engagement with Japan has to be as a friend, it has to be candid, it has to be constructive.

But Mr Turnbull rejected the suggestion that accusing Japan of a "dummy-spit" was not constructive.

"It's not accusing them of a dummy-spit, their own mothers would recognise they done (sic) a dummy-spit.

"To stand up at the end of the conference and say: 'That's it, we're threatening to pull out,' that is a dummy-spit on any view."

Off topic replies have been moved to This Thread

I have put this up on the site as a proper article and created a section for the sustainability party:

http://ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/why-allow-whaling.html

---

Weapon from 1800s found in whale

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Weapon-from-1800s-found-in-whale/2007/06/13/1181414344874.html

A fragment of a lance used by commercial whalers in the 1800s was found in a massive bowhead whale caught off Alaska last month, suggesting it may be more than a century old, US officials say.

---

Many whales 'pregnant' when slaughtered

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Many-whales-pregnant-when-slaughtered/2007/07/24/1185043070039.html

More than half the whales killed by Japanese whalers in the Antarctic last summer were pregnant females, the Humane Society International (HSI) said.

The group said that of the 505 Antarctic minke whales killed, 262 of them were pregnant females, while one of the three giant fin whales killed was also pregnant.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/rspca-approves-of-major-sydney-deer-cull/2007/08/03/1185648143013.html

The RSPCA says it approves a major deer cull in Sydney's south - provided it is done as humanely as possible.

RSPCA NSW branch chief inspector David O'Shannessy says there was a proven need to curb the deer population, which is estimated to exceed 1,700.

---

Court may act soon on whaling injunction

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Court-may-act-soon-on-whaling-injunction/2007/09/18/1189881497985.html

After a three-year battle by anti-whaling groups, the Federal Court may hand down a decision soon on a stalled bid to challenge Japan's annual whale hunt in Australian Antarctic waters.

Animal welfare group the Humane Society International has sought an injunction against Japanese whaler Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd, saying it was responsible for the deaths of about 1,260 whales since 2000 in Australia's whale sanctuary near Antarctica.

---

Turnbull uses YouTube for whaling issue

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Turnbull-uses-YouTube-for-whaling-issue/2007/10/09/1191695872827.html

With the Japanese summer whaling season in the Antarctic fast approaching, federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull has launched an internet video message to gather anti-whaling support among children.

Mr Turnbull uses the YouTube vision to tell children what the government is doing to fight commercial whaling and to hear from Australian children who have been active with the anti-whaling message.

He has also launched a Japanese subtitled version of the video on Japanese YouTube.

---

Japan fishermen, anti-whalers tussle

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Japan-fishermen-antiwhalers-tussle/2007/11/01/1193619057074.html

Japanese fishermen tussled with over 30 anti-whaling protesters in waters off the country's eastern coast this week as the activists tried to stop the killing of thousands of pilot whales.

A group of mostly Australian and American activists, some on surfboards, left flowers at sea off Taiji, a historic whaling town some 450km west of Tokyo.

But the ceremony on Monday, shown in a video provided by the activists, was interrupted by a boat of local fishermen, who used a long pole to chase away the protesters. Whales could be seen swimming on the other side of the boat.

Protesters say there is no point to whaling, citing research by Taiji assemblymen this year which showed local whale meat contained levels of mercury 10 to 16 times more than advised by the Health Ministry.

---

Japan asks Australia to protect whalers

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s2087785.htm

TONY EASTLEY: Japan is worried that its whaling fleet is going to be targeted by protesters on the high seas during its annual Southern Ocean hunt and it wants Australia and New Zealand to provide some protection.

Japan says its ships have been subject to terrorist-like action and says it's stepping up its own security for its crews.

But environmentalists say it's Japan that's been provoking confrontation, especially with its plans to kill up to 50 humpback whales this season.

North Asia correspondent Shane McLeod reports.

SHANE MCLEOD: Japanese officials won't say exactly when the ocean-going whaling fleet is due to depart on its annual Southern Ocean hunt. But it's expected to be within days.

And with Japan anticipating more confrontation on the high seas between its ships and environmental group Sea Shepherd, Fisheries Agency spokesman Hideki Moronuki is calling on Australia and New Zealand to ensure the safety of the Japanese fleet.

HIDEKI MORONUKI: Those two countries maintain the same position as Japan does against the violent action of terrorists… terrorism. So everybody can imagine that Sea Shepherd may take very dangerous illegal actions again, so I need the kindest support of those two countries in order to secure the safety of our crews and the (inaudible).

SHANE MCLEOD: Sea Shepherd and the Japanese fleet clashed last summer, before Japan's ships headed home early after an unrelated fire crippled the main whale processing ship, killing one crew member.

Mr Moronuki says Sea Shepherd is engaging in environmental terrorism. He says Japan is stepping up measures to deal with the threat.

HIDEKI MORONUKI: We cannot take illegal actions even though the Sea Shepherd would take illegal, very dangerous illegal actions. So we have to take another legal actions in order to escape from dangerous actions by Sea Shepherd. It's very difficult what we should do, something.

SHANE MCLEOD: Sea Shepherd's captain Paul Watson says his organisation is not responsible for collisions with the Japanese ships last season.

And he says he's not worried by Japan stepping up its security measures.

PAUL WATSON: I don't think it'll have any impact at all. I mean, what we have to understand here is Japanese whaling is illegal. They're targeting endangered species in a whale sanctuary in violation of a global moratorium on whaling.

---

Labor to ramp up anti-whaling campaign

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/labor-to-ramp-up-antiwhaling-campaign/2007/11/15/1194766856574.html

A Labor government would ramp up Australian efforts against Japanese whaling and use the military to monitor ships killing the mammals in the Southern Ocean.

New Australian PM vows to defend whales

http://news.smh.com.au/new-australian-pm-vows-to-defend-whales/20071213-1gz6.html

Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd pledged Thursday to protect whales in a bitter dispute over Japan's hunting of the giant mammals.

Rudd's centre-left Labor party, which won elections last month, had called while in opposition for Australia to send the navy to monitor Japan's whaling fleet.

What an expensive waste of taxpayers money and an exercise in futility...

Maybe they will be able to catch the real criminals like the Sea Shepherds who endanger life on the high seas

Home » World » Breaking News » Article
New Australian PM vows to defend whales
Email Print Normal font Large font December 13, 2007 - 11:41PM

Advertisement
AdvertisementAustralian prime minister Kevin Rudd pledged Thursday to protect whales in a bitter dispute over Japan's hunting of the giant mammals.

Rudd's centre-left Labor party, which won elections last month, had called while in opposition for Australia to send the navy to monitor Japan's whaling fleet.

Japan's ships set sail last month on the country's largest hunt yet which for the first time since the 1960s will kill humpbacks, one of the most popular animals for Australian whale watchers.

"We take seriously Australia's international obligations on the proper protection of whales," Rudd told reporters in Bali, Indonesia, where he was taking part in a UN conference on climate change on his first foreign trip as premier.

"We are therefore actively considering the appropriate measures for the collection of data which could assist in any future legal case which the government may embark upon," he said, as quoted by the Australian Associated Press.

He said he would offer further details next week but that he was not ruling out using "Australian assets" to document Japan's whaling.

Japanese officials earlier scoffed at Labor's suggestions of sending the navy against the whalers, arguing the catch is fully legal.

Rudd's defeated conservative predecessor, John Howard, also rejected involving the military, saying it was best to work through diplomacy.

Japan plans to kill more than 1,000 whales in the Antarctic on its annual hunt using a loophole in a 1986 global moratorium on commercial whaling that allows "lethal research" on the giant mammals.

Japan makes no secret that the meat goes on dinner plates and accuses Western nations, usually among its closest allies, of cultural imperialism.

Only Norway and Iceland defy the whaling moratorium outright.

Rudd, who took office last week, also laid a wreath at the Australian consulate in Bali in memory of victims of 2002 and 2005 bombings that killed a total of 92 Australians on the popular resort island.

Rudd earlier said he discussed stepping up security cooperation when he met this week with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

These people have no concept of sustainability:

http://news.smh.com.au/flannerys-views-on-whales-curious/20071231-1jmg.html

The crew of a protest ship searching for Japanese whaling ships in the Antarctic have described as "curious" claims by prominent scientist Tim Flannery that a sustainable whale cull is possible.

Professor Flannery - a principal research scientist at the Australian Museum in Sydney - said the current Japanese annual target of 935 minke whales was possibly entirely sustainable.

He said there were more important environmental concerns in the Antarctic including fishing pressure on low-end food sources such as krill.

"Given the Japanese government's stated objectives in their science program...is to restart commercial whaling and one of the target species is an endangered species and they have doubled their quota in the last few years... shows they have no interest in sustainability," Mr Walsh told AAP.

Unlike fishing we can do without whaling. It is not an important food source. Alternatives to whale products have been found many years ago. The issue with whaling is not sustainability, but whether we should be killing (and in an inhumane way), such intelligent creatures. From Dr Walter Starck:

MARINE CONSERVATION

II. The Reality of Whaling

A return to commercial whaling is being actively sought by Japan and Norway through the International Whaling Commission.  While all other major nations oppose lifting of the ban, Japan, through the leverage of aid assistance to small island states, may find enough supporting votes to overturn the prohibition.   In the meantime, every year since the commercial whaling moratorium began in 1986, Japan has continued to kill about 750 whales each year for so called scientific research.

The research is in fact nothing more than the routine data gathering that was conducted during decades of commercial whaling and the catch is still sold commercially.  The only real difference is a reduced kill which they now wish to expand.

The economics of whaling are marginal in terms of employment, profit, and contribution to GDP.  The product plays no significant cultural role beyond prestigious consumption.  The determined effort to pursue whaling despite disapproval from all of the other major nations appears to be nothing more than recalcitrance in response to external disapproval.

While debate has raged over things such as population sizes, recruitment, sustainable yield and broader ecological effects there is a conspicuous silence on the most blatantly obvious issue of all.  It almost appears there is some unspoken taboo on any mention of the ethics of whaling.

Whales and dolphin are sentient beings.  Killing them is on a par with killing members of our own species.  They have brains larger and more complex than our own.  They have complex social relationships.  They treat us with a level of respect and curiosity unequalled by other wild creatures.  Those who have worked closely with them are universally impressed with their intelligence, inventiveness, playfulness and ability to communicate among themselves.  There is good evidence they have self awareness.  In short they are sentient beings.  Anecdotal or otherwise the evidence is overwhelming.  Any burden of proof must lie with the disbelievers.

To slaughter them as prestige food or routine data gathering is unconscionable.  A senior Japanese delegate to the IWC has publicly referred to minke whales as "cockroaches of the sea",  an attitude eerily reminiscent of other perpetrators of genocide.

Neither reasoned argument nor righteous posturing are likely to have any meaningful effect.  Two things that will are internal opposition and market disapproval.  Recent surveys indicate that while 75% of Japanese support a return to commercial whaling the majority of their young people are opposed to it. Support for them and their organizations will have far more influence on Japanese decision makers than overseas protestors.   Second, wherever practical, avoid buying the products of offending nations and encourage others to do so. A growing boycott resulting in even a just perceptible decline in exports would be a very significant matter and provoke strong internal opposition from powerful sectors indifferent to whaling itself.

Politeness in the face atrocity is a form of complicity.  It is time to call it what it is.  Whaling is purely and simply murder.  It has no place in any civilized society.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare estimates that this year some 10 million whale watchers will spend over US$1 billion on tours, travel, food and accommodation in 87 countries.  Whale watching is a rapidly growing and sustainable industry.  It it clearly time for the IWC to begin to focus on the real value of whales instead of endless argument over how many we can kill while leaving enough survivors to not deprive us of ongoing killing in the future.

For more on opposition to whaling in Japan see:
(IKAN) Iruka &Kujira (Dolphin & Whale) Action Network
http://homepage1.nifty.com/IKAN/eng/English1.html


Walter Starck
Editor/Publisher
wstarck@goldendolphin.com

Unlike fishing we can do without whaling. It is not an important food source. Alternatives to whale products have been found many years ago.

If we wanted to we could do without fishing also. For such a staunch defender of recreational fishing to make this argument is very naive. If he accepts it for whaling, what will he do when the hippies make the same argument about recreational fishing? Has he decided where we should draw the line on intelligence, or has he just been swayed by emotional arguments?

If we wanted to we could do without fishing also. For such a staunch defender of recreational fishing to make this argument is very naive. If he accepts it for whaling, what will he do when the hippies make the same argument about recreational fishing? Has he decided where we should draw the line on intelligence, or has he just been swayed by emotional arguments?

No, we can't do without fishing. Unless you want to consign millions of people to starvation. Fish are the main source of protein in many parts of the world. The amount of fish harvested exceeds that of any domestic animal production. Its possible to harvest a signifcant percentage of most fish populations every year and still be perfectly sustainable. The oceans can produce food more efficiently than we can by agriculture I dare say. Aquaculture is very productive also.

Your point about comparing whaling to fishing is taking things to an illogical extreme. No one will suggest that fish are sentient creatures or akin to humans. Also they are extremely fecund and subject to very high levels of natural predation. Fishing does not have much impact on their ecology provided it is not overdone. I don't think a signifacant harvest of whales will have the same sustainability. So why do it then?

No one will suggest that fish are sentient creatures or akin to humans.

Plenty of people have suggested exactly that to me.

I don't think a signifacant harvest of whales will have the same sustainability.

So, harvest fewer of them.

The point is, if you support a ban on whaling based on arbitrary reasons, you are playing the same tricks as those people you oppose. I see no difference between Walter Starck saying we should ban whaling because they are smart and PETA saying we should ban recreational fishing because it is cruel.

Fishing is a massive industry and ending it completely may make some people go hungry. But it can be broken up in any number of different ways. Singling out whaling is just one of those ways. It makes more sense to ban catch and release angling than to ban whaling. At least the whale meat is consumed and not wasted.

The original IWC ban was all about sustainability. It had absolutely nothing to do with intelligence, cruelty or other emotional arguments. Walter Starck is supporting the shifting of the goal posts. He is saying that it is OK to intervene temporarily when stocks are at risk, with the promise that the itnervention will be removed when stocks recover, then afterwards change your mind and say that because some people have come to like the animals the intervention will be permanent.

Plenty of people have suggested exactly that to me.

Oh really? Read up on animal physiology. It is of considerable doubt that fish feel pain let alone have self awareness or approach human levels of intelligence.

I don't think a significant harvest of whales will have the same sustainability.

So, harvest fewer of them.  

Thats the point - such a low level of harvest will not be a significant food source.

The point is, if you support a ban on whaling based on arbitrary reasons, you are playing the same tricks as those people you oppose. I see no difference between Walter Starck saying we should ban whaling because they are smart and PETA saying we should ban recreational fishing because it is cruel.  

There is a huge difference between whales/dolphins and fish. Its irrefutable. The reasons Walter gave aren't abitrary at all.    

Fishing is a massive industry and ending it completely may make some people go hungry. But it can be broken up in any number of different ways. Singling out whaling is just one of those ways. It makes more sense to ban catch and release angling than to ban whaling. At least the whale meat is consumed and not wasted.

More than some people would go hungy without fishing - millions would.

Released fish aren't wasted, they have a high level of survival. The few that die become part of the food chain.

Comparing fishing to whaling on cruelty grounds is like giving fish human attributes. It doesn't stand up to the slightest scruitiny. The physiological evidence is that fish do not feel what we call pain.

It is of considerable doubt that fish feel pain let alone have self awareness or approach human levels of intelligence.

Science has no way of telling whether fish feel pain. The research into fish pain makes some fundamental assumptions about pain that don't stack up.

Thats the point - such a low level of harvest will not be a significant food source.

So what? Since when was the amount of food harvested a particular way a valid point for or against any harvest?

There is a huge difference between whales/dolphins and fish. Its irrefutable. The reasons Walter gave aren't abitrary at all.

Where do you draw the line then? I bet Walter cannot give you an objective measure, just a lot of empty headed arm waving.

The reason is arbitray in the sense that it was introduced after the original ban to keep a ban whose jsutification is expiring. Also, if you introduce intelligence as a valid reason for banning a harvest, what other reasons will you allow? Sure whales are obviously different, which is why Walter feels safe making such a flawed argument - because in a narrow, specific set of circumstances he cannot see the flaws in it and how it will inevitably be used against him.

Released fish aren't wasted, they have a high level of survival.

The ones that don't survive are wasted. The ones that do survive are subject to unnatural acts which many members of the public consider cruel.

The few that die become part of the food chain.

So do the harvested whales. So does all the bycatch from trawlers.

Comparing fishing to whaling on cruelty grounds is like giving fish human attributes.

Walter's argument is like giving whales human attributes. Go ahead and ask him for an objective way to draw the line.

It's true that there is a huge conceptual gap between fish and whales. This just means that it is easy to assume that the line would be drawn somewhere between fish and whales. Yet there is no justification for this assumption. It is a purely emotive argument. Once you support one, you find it much harder to hold back all the others.

Whales and dolphins are far more akin to humans than to fish. I am not going to condone their hunting because of some devious theory that it might give some animal libbers oxygen and help them target fishing.

This article shows why it is highly unlikely that fish feel pain:

A critique of the paper: Do fish have nociceptors: Evidence for the evolution of a vertebrate sensory system published in Proceedings of the Royal Society, 2003 by Sneddon, Braithwaite and Gentle.
James D. Rose, Ph.D.
Department of Zoology and Physiology
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 82071
USA

The paper by Sneddon, et al. is flawed and does not provide any legitimate evidence that trout are capable of feeling pain. There are numerous problems with methods and data interpretation in this paper but this critique will
focus only on those of greatest significance. First, an explanation of the invalid claims for evidence of pain will be presented, followed by an account of the misinterpretations of the behavioral results.

Flaws in the argument for a demonstration of pain.

1. The authors definitions of pain and nociception are invalid, consequently this paper does not actually deal with pain (a conscious experience), it deals only with nociception (unconscious responses to noxious stimuli). Pain, as defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain is purely a conscious experience, with a sensory component and a component of emotional feeling (suffering). In contrast to this conscious experience of pain, the unconscious detection, transmission and response to noxious stimulation by
lower levels of the nervous system is and defined as nociception - not pain. According to Sneddon, and associates, any behavior that is a reflex would be evidence of nociception but any behavior more complex than a
reflex would be evidence of pain. This way of distinguishing pain from nociception is invalid because there are clearly complex, non-reflexive behaviors that can be purely nociceptive and unconscious. For example, humans with extensive damage of the cerebral hemispheres can still make a complex of responses including facial grimaces, vocalizations, struggling and avoidance reactions to noxious stimuli, but they are unconscious and
unable to experience pain. From the definition of pain used by Sneddon and associates, it would be concluded that these unconscious humans are feeling pain rather than making purely unconscious, nociceptive responses,
which is clearly erroneous. There are many other examples of complex, non-reflexive, even distress-like behaviors that can be performed unconsciously. A person having a night terror, for instance, will show a compelling fear-like display, including a scream, terrified facial expression, elevated heart rate, sweating and dilated pupils, even though they are unconscious and in such deep sleep that they are difficult to awaken. The point is that complex behavioral displays that seem to reflect distress can be purely unconscious  even in humans. It should not be hard to appreciate that the behaviors of which a fish is capable could be unconscious as well.

2. In order to show that a fish experiences pain, it is necessary to show that a fish has consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no pain. None of the fish behaviors in this paper require the involvement of consciousness and the authors don't even deal with this essential issue. Furthermore, as I have shown in my 2002 Reviews in Fisheries Science paper, there is extensive scientific evidence that pain and consciousness depend on very specific brain regions, namely specialized neocortex regions of the cerebral hemispheres. These
specialized neocortical regions perform the additional levels of neural processing, beyond unconscious nociception, that make the experience of pain possible. These brain regions are absent in fishes and there are no
alternative brain systems to perform the same functions. Consequently, there is no neurological basis for assuming that a fish might have a capacity for consciousness or pain. Thus, the burden of proof that trout are conscious and potentially capable of feeling pain remains on these authors. They dealt with this issue only by citing previous studies that also used invalid criteria for pain, such avoidance learning, which actually occurs unconsciously. Only anthropomorphic speculation would lead one to conclude that the trout in this study were experiencing pain. The behavioral results allegedly showing evidence of pain were misinterpreted.

1. The behavioral studies were done by injecting large volumes of one of three solutions: bee venom, acetic acid solution or saline, into the jaw of rather small trout. For the sizes of the fish used, these injections of liquid
would have been equivalent to injecting 100 milliliters (more that 3 ounces) of solution into the lip of a human. Bee venom contains a great variety of toxins that affect the nervous system and cause a hormonal stress response in addition to stimulating receptors signaling tissue injury. In spite of the large dose of venom or acid, the activity level of these fish was not affected, they did not hide under a shelter in the tank and they resumed feeding in less than three hours. Furthermore, fish that received no injection at all or fish that
received a saline injection did not feed, on average, for an hour and 20 minutes, showing that a large saline injection produced no more effect than just handling.

Cont:

The acid and venom-injected fish also showed an infrequent
rocking behavior that may have reflected a difficulty by the fish in maintaining an upright posture, given the magnitude of the toxic chemical trauma created by the injection. But, even if the infrequent rocking was a response to nociceptive stimulation of the mouth, there is no reason to believe that it is any more than an unconscious nociceptive response, rather than an indication of pain.

2. Sneddon and associates also state that the acid-injected fish rubbed their mouths against the gravel (they don't say how often), but the venom-injected fish did not. They concluded that mouth rubbing was an indication of pain
because mammals, including humans, rub injured tissues to alleviate nociceptive input. If so, why did the venominjected fish, that were also supposed to be in pain, not perform this behavior. In addition, injections of irritants into skin tissues is known to cause hyperalgesia, where skin becomes hypersensitive, like the effect of a sunburn. Who rubs sunburned skin against gravel to alleviate the pain? At one point in the paper, Sneddon and associates
say that feeding was suppressed because the fish were avoiding mouth stimulation, which would cause pain. But later, they say that mouth rubbing was a way of reducing pain. These are contradictory interpretations and
you can't have it both ways. Their interpretations of the mouth-rubbing behaviors don't make sense nor do they show conscious experience of pain.

3. One of the few effects actually produced by the acid or venom injections was an elevated opercular beat rate (breathing). This response could have resulted directly from gill irritation due to leakage or blood borne spread of
the acid or venom injections, but even if increased opercular beat rate was due to nociceptive stimulation of the mouth, this unconscious movement proves nothing about conscious pain.

4. One caveat regarding the behavioral data described above is the fact that some of the statistical analyses were not done correctly. Data for opercular beat rate and for time to resume feeding were analyzed by one-way
analysis of variance, but conclusions were made about specific group differences in these measures. With this type analysis, it is not legitimate to conclude that one group (e.g. acid or venom injected differed from any other
group (e.g. handeled or saline injected), but the authors made such conclusions, nonetheless. Given the sizes of the standard errors of the means for these data, however, the group differences reported by the authors would
probably have been substantiated following proper statistical analysis.

To summarize, the most impressive thing about the acid and venom injections was the relative absence of behavioral effects, given the magnitude of the toxic injections. How many humans would show little change in behavior or be ready to eat less than three hours after getting a lemon-sized bolus of bee venom or acid solution in their lip? Rather than proving a capacity for pain, these results show a remarkable resistance to oral trauma by the trout. It comes as no surprise, then, that many anglers have had the experience of catching the same fish repeatedly within a span of a few minutes. Of course predatory fishes, including trout, feed avidly on potentially injurious prey like
crayfish, crabs and fish that have sharp spines in their fins which further indicates that these fish are not highly reactive to noxious oral stimuli.
In addition, Sneddon and associates claim to have presented the first evidence for nociceptive sensory receptors in fish, but their results were neither wholly original nor unexpected. In my 2002 Reviews paper, I cited a 1971 study
by Whitear that showed the presence of C-fibers in fish. C-fibers are a principal type of nociceptive receptor, so there was very good reason to assume that trout would have nociceptive receptors. Another technical issue arises in the authors description of their procedure for decerebration of trout in order to make them insentient. The term sentience is vague and has no standard scientific meaning, but apparently Sneddon, et al. were performing this decerebration in order to eliminate any potential pain that they assumed was within the capacity of the trout. The usual means of producing a decerebration is to remove all brain tissue above the midbrain. According to Sneddon, et. al, however, they removed the olfactory and optic lobes and cerebellum. This is peculiar and counterproductive because the
entire pathway for nociceptive information from the periphery through the brainstem to the cerebral hemispheres would have remained intact in these fish, since the ofactory lobes but not entire cerebral hemispheres would have been removed according to this description. If fish could feel pain, as the authors contend (and I dispute), these fish probably would have.

The bottom line of this critique is that any attempt to show pain in fish must use valid criteria, including proof of conscious awareness, particularly a kind of awareness that is meaningfully like ours. This is not something that can be taken for granted, because on neurological and behavioral grounds it is so improbable that fish could be conscious and feel pain.

Furthermore, the behavioral results of this study show that in spite of very large injections of acid solution or venom, the fish showed little adverse effect, hardly supporting the claim that they were in pain.

Cited reference: Rose, J. D. 2002. The neurobehavioral nature of fishes and the question of awareness and pain.
Reviews in Fisheries Science, 10: 1-38. This paper can be obtained in electronic form from the author.

Whales and dolphins are far more akin to humans than to fish.

So what? Is similarity to humans now a valid criteria for deciding which animals we can eat? Can you provide an objective basis for judging whether an animal is too close? Same order, same family???

This article shows why it is highly unlikely that fish feel pain

No it doesn't. Saying that fish cannot feel pain because they appear different to humans is like saying they cannot move because they have no arms or legs. It is based on assumptions about what pain is that are philosophically baseless. Bottom line is, we have no clue at all what fish are experiencing in psychological terms.

Whales and dolphins are far more akin to humans than to fish.

So what? Is similarity to humans now a valid criteria for deciding which animals we can eat? Can you provide an objective basis for judging whether an animal is too close? Same order, same family???


Well as Walter pointed out. Their brain size and structure, their social structures and behaviours which indicate a level of intelligence and self awareness.

This article shows why it is highly unlikely that fish feel pain

No it doesn't. Saying that fish cannot feel pain because they appear different to humans is like saying they cannot move because they have no arms or legs. It is based on assumptions about what pain is that are philosophically baseless. Bottom line is, we have no clue at all what fish are experiencing in psychological terms.

Of course it does. Fish lack the neural regions and structures in their brains which are associated with self awareness and pain perception. Their responses to injury do not match the hypothesis that they feel pain.

Well as Walter pointed out. Their brain size and structure, their social structures and behaviours which indicate a level of intelligence and self awareness.  

I'm not sure how this answers the question. Where do you draw the line? Or any of the other questions.

This article shows why it is highly unlikely that fish feel pain  

No, it just demonstrates that the mechanisms would probably be different.

Fish lack the neural regions and structures in their brains which are associated with self awareness and pain perception.

They lack the regions that are associated with pain in humans, not the regions associated with pain in fish. But they also lack arms and legs. If they can move without arms and legs, why wouldn't they be able to feel pain with different areas of the brain? Why would you assume that you need a similar looking brain to feel pain?

Their responses to injury do not match the hypothesis that they feel pain.  

Pain is not an observable response to injury. It is reasonable to expect a response to an injury to be suited to the environment, regardless of how much pain is felt. To say that the observatiosn do not match the hypothesis is absurd, because their is no reasonable way to predict what observations would indicate pain.

Perhaps you should try to define pain. Then you would get a feeling for the flaws in the assumptions behind this reasearch. So, what is pain?

Their brain size and structure, their social structures and behaviours which indicate a level of intelligence and self awareness.

You could end up with a very long list of candidates for non-consumption based on that criteria. Pigs being one.

The facts are there are no conclusive tests to determine sentience- your argument is based solely on an emotional attachment

You could end up with a very long list of candidates for non-consumption based on that criteria. Pigs being one.

The facts are there are no conclusive tests to determine sentience- your argument is based solely on an emotional attachment

No the're based on a considerable amount of evidence. Just because it is a difficult area of research compared to other fields with no 'conclusive tests' does not make it soely a matter of 'emotional attachment'. you have to look at the balance of evidence and make a moral judgement.

Obviously you have to draw a line somewhere. You and freediver say if we draw a line with whales and dolphins this will automatically open the floodgates to see a lot harvesting banned of lower order animals. Sounds more like a debating trick than a reasonable propostion. I could make up similar arguments for the other side, eg if killings whales and dolphins is deemed OK then our animal cruelty laws will go out the window. Maybe we will then allow hunting of the great apes. How about euthanasing the handicapped?

No the're based on a considerable amount of evidence.

Where?

you have to look at the balance of evidence and make a moral judgement.

Based on who's morals?

Obviously you have to draw a line somewhere.

You also need to have defined prerequisites before you draw that line

I could make up similar arguments for the other side, eg if killings whales and dolphins is deemed OK then our animal cruelty laws will go out the window.

So far, this is the only basis for banning whaling..period.

Sounds more like a debating trick than a reasonable propostion.

Just because you are unable to debate it does not make it an unreasonable proposition

No the're based on a considerable amount of evidence.

The is no objective way to intepret the evidence. The evidence is meaningless because the interpretations reflect only the assumptions made, nothing more.

The only thing that really sets whales and dolphins apart from other animals we eat is culture. it is not part of our culture to eat them. It's like trying to ban the consumption of snails.

you have to look at the balance of evidence and make a moral judgement.

Where do you draw the line? you seem to avoid this question. If you make it a matter of judgement, you have to draw the line somewhere. You can't just wave your arms in the air and say eating whales is bad so lets stop it and not put it into context.

You and freediver say if we draw a line with whales and dolphins

I am not talking about drawing the line with specific species. I am talking about drawing the line objectively, so that when the hippies say "well you supported the ban on whales because they are intelligent, so if you don't suppoprt the ban on pigs you are a hipocrit" you have something to respond with to justify banning whales but not 1000 other animals.

Sounds more like a debating trick than a reasonable propostion.

Sure, it is a trick to get you to think about the long term consequences of making this argument, to put it into perspective and to try to be objective rather than purely emotive about it.

I could make up similar arguments for the other side, eg if killings whales and dolphins is deemed OK then our animal cruelty laws will go out the window.

Animal cruelty laws are based entirely on emotive and moral objections. There is a clear line drawn between inflicting pain when it is necessary and unnecessary for food production. It has never been used to tell people what they can and cannot eat. Allowing the harvest of whales would have no impact at all on animal cruelty laws.

How about euthanasing the handicapped?

Drawing the line at your own species is both reasonable and objective.

Maybe we will then allow hunting of the great apes.

The objection to hunting them is on grounds of sustainability. There are plenty of monkeys etc that are harvested sustainably.

No the're based on a considerable amount of evidence.

Where?

I have put some up. Then I reiterated for freediver. I am not going to turn it into a thesis. If you want to learn more about the behaviour and intelligence of whales and dolphins then why don't you do your own research/ reading?

you have to look at the balance of evidence and make a moral judgement.

Based on who's morals?

Societies of course. 'Do unto others as you would do unto them' is a good starting point. The 'others' in this case are species that are close to us in terms of awareness and intelligence.  

Obviously you have to draw a line somewhere.

You also need to have defined prerequisites before you draw that line

We are drawing a line already and our world hasn't fallen apart has it? Whaling has been banned in Australia and most other countries for decades. Our livestock industries are still intact are they not? Surely thats good evidence you propostion is not a plausible one! Only a couple of countries still practice whaling and it has not done much for their international reputations.

I could make up similar arguments for the other side, eg if killings whales and dolphins is deemed OK then our animal cruelty laws will go out the window.

So far, this is the only basis for banning whaling..period.

Sounds more like a debating trick than a reasonable propostion.

Just because you are unable to debate it does not make it an unreasonable proposition.

Well lets see what you make of these comments and I'll let others decide who is able to debate.

We are drawing a line already and our world hasn't fallen apart has it?

No we are not. At the moment (at least up until the hippies usurped the IWC) only the sustainability argument was accepted as justification for banning the consumption of certain animals, with the exception of humans. This isn't just about other animals being banned, it is about whether we are just showing cultural bias in banning whale consumption. It is about justice and fair treatment for everyone.

Whaling has been banned in Australia and most other countries for decades. Our livestock industries are still intact are they not? Surely thats good evidence you propostion is not a plausible one!

The orginal ban was based on sustainability. It was a stock management tool, not a tool of cultural imperialism.

The orginal ban was based on sustainability. It was a stock management tool, not a tool of cultural imperialism.

Whatever the reason it puts a huge hole in your argument that a ban on whaling will lead to ban on other harvesting, even that of fish. Certainly sustainability is only part of the issue. The IWC is a whaling body afer all and the issue is much wider than what they decide. Eg in the world of public opinion and politics the moral dimension is a big part of the whaling issue.

As to 'cultutal imperialism', isn't it true that whaling was never a big part of Japanese culture and it only took off after WW2? For indigneous hunter gatherers then this is different case. Are ther not exemptions in place for them to take protected species?    

Whatever the reason it puts a huge hole in your argument that a ban on whaling will lead to ban on other harvesting, even that of fish.

That is not what I am arguing. The original ban for sustainability was a good idea. Refusing to remove the ban and keeping it for entirely different reasons - reasons that would never have been accepted for establishing the ban and would not be accepted today - is a bad idea.

Eg in the world of public opinion and politics the moral dimension is a big part of the whaling issue.

Is cultural impreialism immoral? When you add a moral dimension you should be consistent. That is not the case with whaling.

As to 'cultutal imperialism', isn't it true that whaling was never a big part of Japanese culture

It was a big part of it for those who practiced it. Obviously for the people who lived in the mountains it wasn't very important. And besides, how is the 'magnitude' of a culture significant in arguments over cultural imperialsim? Is it OK if it only affects a few people? You could make the same silly argument about most food sources, especially fishing - it has taken off with new technology. You should not need to invoke culture or any other such argument to justify a sustainable catch. It only came into play for tolerable 'exceptions' to ban based on sustainability and more recently as an emotive argument to counter other silly emotive arguments.

and it only took off after WW2?

Prior to WWII the global catch was already very high.

I have put some up. Then I reiterated for freediver. I am not going to turn it into a thesis. If you want to learn more about the behaviour and intelligence of whales and dolphins then why don't you do your own research/ reading?

Rubbish- you posted one article regarding fish and pain. If there are reams of evidence that these mammals should be somehow spared because of their magical properties then post it. You can't because there isn't any

I have read up on behaviour and intelligence and sentience- none of which can be used as a demarcation line that distinctly separates what people should and shouldn't eat.


Societies of course.

Which society?

'Do unto others as you would do unto them' is a good starting point. The 'others' in this case are species that are close to us in terms of awareness and intelligence.

So are you going to call for that ban on bacon, or is it only charismatic megafauna that brings your anthropomorphism to the fore when it comes to protectionist measures based on emotion? There are plenty of divers out there who would say that certain species of fish also display characteristics of intelligence.

We are drawing a line already and our world hasn't fallen apart has it? Whaling has been banned in Australia and most other countries for decades.

See FD's post on the reasons for the ban in the first place

Well lets see what you make of these comments and I'll let others decide who is able to debate.  

I didn't think much of them at all

Rubbish- you posted one article regarding fish and pain. If there are reams of evidence that these mammals should be somehow spared because of their magical properties then post it. You can't because there isn't any


So how did you reach this wonderful state of enlightenment - years of research on the subject? It looks like you haven't even read this thread. I did post an article on this subject - by Dr Walter Starck. Freediver and myself have also been refering to it in many of our posts.  

Dr Starcks 'opinion' piece is just that- an opinion that holds as much weight as a rabid anti-fishing environmentalist on why recreational catch and release fishing should be banned.

Try again.

Here's some more:

Whale and dolphin intelligence is confirmed


A new scientific paper published in an international journal sheds light on the previously disputed intelligence of whales and dolphins

Whales and Dolphins are indeed highly intelligent, as has long been believed – this is the conclusion of a new paper from Mark Simmonds, International Director of Science for WDCS, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. The research stands in stark contrast to some recent reports that such animals fail to exhibit intelligence.

In his paper, Into the Brains of Whales, published this month in Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Simmonds puts forward a compelling argument for the highly developed intelligence of both whales and dolphins. He asserts that, rather than brain anatomy or size, which is sometimes used to indicate cognitive ability, more accurate indicators of intelligence can be found in behaviour and social structures.

One such indicator is that of self-awareness. Bottlenose dolphins have been shown to be able to recognise themselves in a mirror, a behaviour that until recently has only been recorded in humans and great apes. Similarly, tool use can be seen as a mark of intelligence. In a masterstroke of innovation, some Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins carry sponges on the ends of their beaks to protect them when foraging for food on the sea bed.

Evidence of the typically human emotions, grief, parental love and joy, as well as the existence of complex social interactions and structures, are further indicators of the highly developed intelligence of whales and dolphins. In one example, despite the risk of dehydration, stranding and shark attack, a group of false killer whales floated for 3 days in the shallows of the straits of Florida, USA to protect an injured male. Such was their cohesion and reliance upon the group, individuals became agitated when rescuers tried to separate them, calming only when reunited.

The potential impacts of threats such as whaling, pollution and fishing nets on such highly intelligent animals, may be far greater and wider ranging than is currently thought. In drastically reducing populations, whalers may have destroyed not just numerous individuals, but also the cultural knowledge they had relating to exploitation of certain habitats and areas, ultimately altering the evolution of the species.

Simmonds comments. ‘It is the behaviour of animals that tells us about their mental capacities, not brain size or anatomy. Anyone who has interacted with dolphins usually swiftly and intuitively realises that they are meeting intelligent, emotional and extraordinary animals’.

In his paper he concludes. "Our relationship with these animals therefore needs to move to a new paradigm recognising these animals as unique individuals, communities, societies and cultures and valuing them as such"

Into the Brains of Whales by Mark Peter Simmonds was published this month in the Journal of Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100 (2006) 103-116 and a penultimate draft is available at www.wdcs.org/publications. The published paper can be purchased at www.sciencedirect.com for a charge of $30.

Source:WDCS  

One such indicator is that of self-awareness. Bottlenose dolphins have been shown to be able to recognise themselves in a mirror, a behaviour that until recently has only been recorded in humans and great apes. Similarly, tool use can be seen as a mark of intelligence.

So the ability of an animal to recognise itself in a mirror is where you would like to draw the line?

Wikipedia gives a good summary on cetacian intelligence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_intelligence

They rate impressively in areas of brain size, behaviour, pod characteristics, complex play, creative behaviour, use of tools, communication self awareness and comparative cognition.

IQSRLOW wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 4:36pm:

One such indicator is that of self-awareness. Bottlenose dolphins have been shown to be able to recognise themselves in a mirror, a behaviour that until recently has only been recorded in humans and great apes. Similarly, tool use can be seen as a mark of intelligence. So the ability of an animal to recognise itself in a mirror is where you would like to draw the line?

No I draw the line at dolphins and whales. The great apes would fall into that category as well.  If you want to discuss want I think about harvesting other species I'm happy to do so.

No I draw the line at dolphins and whales.

Why only cetaceans? (The apes line has already been covered by FD)

If the mark of intelligence is your only defining criteria, then you must support arguments against harvesting all animals that display some level of intelligence.

If you want to discuss want I think about harvesting other species I'm happy to do so.

I'm interested to discuss why you think cetaceans deserve special a special category

Some more on dolphins:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041027112550.htm

In addition to their large brains, odontocetes have demonstrated behavioral faculties previously only ascribed to humans and, to some extent, other great apes. These abilities include mirror self-recognition, the comprehension of artificial, symbol-based communication systems and abstract concepts, and the learning and intergenerational transmission of behaviors that have been described as cultural.

Despite cognitive commonalities, the odontocete evolutionary pathway has proceeded under a very different set of independent circumstances from that of primates, Marino explains. The highly expanded brain size and behavioral abilities of odontocetes are, in a sense, convergently shared with humans, she says.

"Dolphin brains are four to five times larger for their body size when compared to another animal of similar size. In humans, the measure is seven times larger -- not a huge difference. Essentially, the brains of primates and cetaceans arrived at the same cognitive space while evolving along quite different paths" Marino says. "What the data say to me is that we, as humans, are not that special. Although we are highly encephalized, it's not by much or for that long compared with odontocetes".

These abilities include mirror self-recognition, the comprehension of artificial, symbol-based communication systems and abstract concepts, and the learning and intergenerational transmission of behaviors that have been described as cultural.

So if these attributes are found in other species in future studies- say Blue Groper, then you would advocate a ban on them too?

No I draw the line at dolphins and whales. The great apes would fall into that category as well.

So you would class apes as dolphins and whales? Perhaps you should elaborate on where you would draw the line, as it appears that you are attempting to create a facade of objectiveness around a purely emotional and cultural selection.

IQSRLOW wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 5:39pm:

These abilities include mirror self-recognition, the comprehension of artificial, symbol-based communication systems and abstract concepts, and the learning and intergenerational transmission of behaviors that have been described as cultural. So if these attributes are found in other species in future studies- say Blue Groper, then you would advocate a ban on them too?

Come off it. Fish are nowhere near that advanced. As the article I put up on fish and pain shows they don't have anything resembling the brain structures that would indicate conciousness.

Pain is not an observable response to injury. It is reasonable to expect a response to an injury to be suited to the environment, regardless of how much pain is felt. To say that the observatiosn do not match the hypothesis is absurd, because their is no reasonable way to predict what observations would indicate pain.

Perhaps you should try to define pain. Then you would get a feeling for the flaws in the assumptions behind this reasearch. So, what is pain?  

The article offered a definition of pain, freediver:

The authors definitions of pain and nociception are invalid, consequently this paper does not actually deal with pain (a conscious experience), it deals only with nociception (unconscious responses to noxious stimuli). Pain, as defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain is purely a conscious experience, with a sensory component and a component of emotional feeling (suffering). In contrast to this conscious experience of pain, the unconscious detection, transmission and response to noxious stimulation by lower levels of the nervous system is and defined as nociception - not pain. According to Sneddon, and associates, any behavior that is a reflex would be evidence of nociception but any behavior more complex than a
reflex would be evidence of pain. This way of distinguishing pain from nociception is invalid because there are clearly complex, non-reflexive behaviors that can be purely nociceptive and unconscious. For example, humans with extensive damage of the cerebral hemispheres can still make a complex of responses including facial grimaces, vocalizations, struggling and avoidance reactions to noxious stimuli, but they are unconscious and
unable to experience pain. From the definition of pain used by Sneddon and associates, it would be concluded that these unconscious humans are feeling pain rather than making purely unconscious, nociceptive responses,
which is clearly erroneous. There are many other examples of complex, non-reflexive, even distress-like behaviors that can be performed unconsciously. A person having a night terror, for instance, will show a compelling fear-like display, including a scream, terrified facial expression, elevated heart rate, sweating and dilated pupils, even though they are unconscious and in such deep sleep that they are difficult to awaken. The point is that complex behavioral displays that seem to reflect distress can be purely unconscious  even in humans. It should not be hard to appreciate that the behaviors of which a fish is capable could be unconscious as well.

Pigs feel pain, they have complex social structures and they exhibit intelligence- Should bacon be banned?

Pigs are ranked lower than dolphins and whales in intelligence. They are porbably akin to dogs in intelligence. Do you condone cruelty to dogs IQSRLOW? Our legal system certainly doesn't.

So I would suggest they should be raised and slaughtered humanely. Also unlike whales and dolphins they have been domesticated for centuries for the purpose of food production. This puts things in a somewhat different light also.  

As the article I put up on fish and pain shows they don't have anything resembling the brain structures that would indicate conciousness.

What brain structures indicate consciousness and why? I think you'll find is that the scientsits behind those studies have nothing at all to go on beyond what they have observed in humans and 'extrapolated' from there.

The article offered a definition of pain, freediver:

So as evidence that that feel pain you offer up a paper that doesn't actually deal with pain? This is what it says:

consequently this paper does not actually deal with pain

Once again pj, do you, Walter Starck or anyone else have an objective way of drawing the line on this matter, or is it a case of 'ban the animals that pj has read about on wikipedia'?

Do you condone cruelty to dogs IQSRLOW?

I don't know about IQ, but I condone the consumption of dog meat. As I pointed out before, slaughter of animals for food has never been ruled out by animal cruelty legislation.

So I would suggest they should be raised and slaughtered humanely.

So you oppose pig hunting as well then? You think we should only eat cows, pigs, sheep, goats etc that have been raised on farms? Are you starting to see where this is going?

Also unlike whales and dolphins they have been domesticated for centuries for the purpose of food production.

Ah, the 'our culture and our way of doing things is better' argument.

Do you condone cruelty to dogs IQSRLOW?

As FD has pointed out you are equating cruelty with consumption- you might as well had in your fishing rod now and join PETA

Your the one who said pigs feel pain IQSRLOW. I took this a a reason to raise and slaughter them humanely - not as a reason to ban consumption.

How you take this to lead to a ban on fishing I do not know. Especially considering that fish DO NOT feel pain.

First link when you google 'do fish feel pain'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm

Fish do feel pain, scientists say
By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent

The first conclusive evidence of pain perception in fish is said to have been found by UK scientists.
Rainbow trout BBC
Fish have pain receptors like us

This complements earlier findings that both birds and mammals can feel pain, and challenges assertions that fish are impervious to it.

The scientists found sites in the heads of rainbow trout that responded to damaging stimuli.

They also found the fish showed marked reactions when exposed to harmful substances.

The argument over whether fish feel pain has long been a subject of dispute between anglers and animal rights activists.

The research, by a team from the Roslin Institute and the University of Edinburgh, is published in Proceedings B of the Royal Society, the UK's national academy of science.

The researchers, led by Dr Lynne Sneddon, say the "profound behavioural and physiological changes" shown by the trout after exposure to noxious substances are comparable to those seen in higher mammals.

pj, do you support a ban on pig hunting or not?

I took this a a reason to raise and slaughter them humanely - not as a reason to ban consumption.

So as FD pointed out- you wish to ban all hunting then?

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2008 at 8:45pm:

pj, do you support a ban on pig hunting or not?

There's not much point in banning something that doesn't exist. There's no such thing as commercial pig hunting.

Other obvious differences between pig and commercial whaling include:

Pig are domesticated in even stone age cultures - there's no need to hunt their wild population for food.

Pigs are feral animals in this country. Its ethical to cull them for environmental reasons. No sustaiability worries here!  

A clean bullet from a professional shooter is a humane way of dispatching them, unlike the slow death involved in harpooning whales.

Pig are domesticated in even stone age cultures - there's no need to hunt their wild population for food.

Fish are now farmed- there is no need for you to continue recreational fishing, much less C&R fishing

A clean bullet from a professional shooter is a humane way of dispatching them, unlike the slow death involved in harpooning whales.

A clean bullet from a professional shooter is a humane way of dispatching them, unlike the slow death involved in hooking a fish and the induced barotrauma they suffer on the way up relegating C&R as a complete waste of time.

...you still don't get it do you?

Fish don't feel pain. The post you put up shows how little you read of my article on the topic, which thoroughly discredited the Sneddon study!

PS: You accuse me of anthropomorphism because I recognise the attribute of dolphins and whales, yet you happy to put fish on the same level.  

Did you read the link 6 posts up?

IQSRLOW wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 11:27am:

Did you read the link 6 posts up?

Yes and it refers to the Sneddon study which was thoroughly debunked in the article I put up.

So what will become of recreational fishing when the next study confirms differently? Do you really think that that study is conclusive and no further studies will be entered into?

This is the point- You tread a slippery slope when you advocate one animal shouldn't be hunted over another based on what 'current' studies classify as pain/sentience- they are subject to change and stances like yours will provide animal activists all the ammunition they will need.

Sustainability should be the only measure, not whether they feel pain or cultural bias or the manufacturing of reasons to sustain that bias.

There's not much point in banning something that doesn't exist. There's no such thing as commercial pig hunting.

There are both commerical and 'recreational' pig hunters all over Australia. I don't think they'd take kindly to you telling them they don't exist. You can get a huge sum of money for a large wild boar delivered in a timely manner to a business luncheon in Germany.

there's no need to hunt their wild population for food

Once again, do you support a ban on pig hunting or not? It's a simple question pj. Why won't you answer it?

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 12:36pm:

There's not much point in banning something that doesn't exist. There's no such thing as commercial pig hunting. There are both commerical and 'recreational' pig hunters all over Australia. I don't think they'd take kindly to you telling them they don't exist. You can get a huge sum of money for a large wild boar delivered in a timely manner to a business luncheon in Germany.

The only commercial pig hunters I know of in Australia are those whch are paid to cull the feral population and I already mentioned that. There is no commercial wild harvest of pigs for food in Australia, ie what would be akin to they way we used to hunt whales. I don't recall saying rec hunting of pigs doesn't exist either. As for wild boar in Germany no doubt they would command a huge ammout of money as it would be a niche business - not a wholesale commercial harvest.  



freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 12:36pm:

there's no need to hunt their wild population for food Once again, do you support a ban on pig hunting or not? It's a simple question pj. Why won't you answer it?

Because I don't sit in front of a computer all day - I've been out fishing. I already answered it when I said I would rule out harvesting whales, dophins and great apes. So you could already infer I would allow hunting of pigs.

No you haven't answered it. You have completely ignored rec pig hunters and dodged the issue on commerical hunters because they don't produce what you would class as 'wholesale' quantities. Now didn't you say earlier that the fact that the whale harvest is comparably small is a reason for banning it?

Assuming you do support pig hunting, how can you justify that to someone who calls you a hypocrit for opposing the hunting of other animals? If you get your dodgy argument for the whale ban accepted, isn't it inevitable that the same argument will be applied to pigs? Do you expect the pig lovers to be satisfied with 'I draw the line at whales and dolphins (including great apes)'?

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 2:05pm:

No you haven't answered it. You have completely ignored rec pig hunters and dodged the issue on commerical hunters because they don't produce what you would class as 'wholesale' quantities. Now didn't you say earlier that the fact that the whale harvest is comparably small is a reason for banning it??

I have answered it. Also it was you who first made the comparison between commercial whaling and pig hunting. Don't blame me for the fact that there are huge inherent differences between the two practices. Whales numbers have been devastated in their natural habital. Pigs on the other hand are feral animals in this country.  They destroy crops, devastate livestock, damage fences, pollute the environment and carry diseases. According to Landline: "In some areas, the feral pig is the No. 1 pest threat to farmers. One of those regions is Far North Queensland, where there's been an explosion in pig numbers. The pests are wiping out sugarcane and banana crops and even encroaching upon urban areas".

Obviously these animals need to be culled. To not do so will result in considerable economic and evironmental cost. Rec shooters can play a helpful role. To point out the obvious yet again whales are a natural part of the marine environment. There is no recreational hunting of whales. Traditional hunting by indigenous peoples is allowed to go on and no doubt this is a reasonable compromise.
 


freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 2:05pm:

Assuming you do support pig hunting, how can you justify that to someone who calls you a hypocrit for opposing the hunting of other animals? If you get your dodgy argument for the whale ban accepted, isn't it inevitable that the same argument will be applied to pigs? Do you expect the pig lovers to be satisfied with 'I draw the line at whales and dolphins (including great apes)'?

Well I'd just argue what I have been arguing, ie the vast differences between the two practices and species. Their economic importance and or detriment and the environmental concerns. Your argument is the dogy one and a gross over simplifiction of these issues.

What about roo shooting then? What about hunting animals like pigs where they are native?

What seem like big differences to you will not matter at all to people who want to use your argument to protect other animals from hunting and call you a hypocrit when you try to oppose them.

Whales numbers have been devastated in their natural habital.

You have already stated that numbers or sustainability is not in your argument so why that point?

Pigs on the other hand are feral animals in this country.

We don't hunt whales in this country

When they come for your fishing rod you will only have yourself to blame for your stupid actions.

IQSRLOW wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 4:18pm:

Whales numbers have been devastated in their natural habital. You have already stated that numbers or sustainability is not in your argument so why that point?

Not at all. What I have said is that sustainability on not the only argument. Remember you and FD off up pig hunting as a comparison - don't blame me for pointing out the differences compared to whaling.

I raised the question of ethics. Walter also mentioned in his article the fact that Whaling is heavily subsidised and not an economically or culturally important product. Just because there is more than one reason to do without whaling does not detract from from the case  - it just makes it more compelling.




IQSRLOW wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 4:18pm:

We don't hunt whales in this country When they come for your fishing rod you will only have yourself to blame for your stupid actions.

What 'stupid actions' are those. All I'm doing is supporting the staus quo. There is no whaling in Australia - I haven't heard this used a justification to ban angling. The biggest threat to my sport is the  marine parks FD is so fond of. Preservation groups like the NCC, the NPA and the Greens have tried to justify them with all sorts of misinformation, eg: exaggerated claims of overfishing, global warming and so on. I have never heard them say: 'we have banned whaling so why not angling'.  

'we have banned whaling so why not angling'.  

The reason why you haven't heard it yet is because Australia banned whaling because of sustainability issues...not because of some green tinged, feel good, abstract association that they are sentient beings...which is what you advocating now.

IQSRLOW wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 5:32pm:

'we have banned whaling so why not angling'.   The reason why you haven't heard it yet is because Australia banned whaling because of sustainability issues...not because of some green tinged, feel good, abstract association that they are sentient beings...which is what you advocating now.

Walter Starck is no greenie!

So using you argument why don't we abolish all our animal cruelty laws? Surely its only matter of time now that the precedent is set that they will be extended so as to ban fishing.

Walter Starck is no greenie!  

You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Dr Starck

Surely its only matter of time now that the precedent is set that they will be extended so as to ban fishing.

You've never heard of the National Animal Welfare Bill 2005? If that little piece of legislation was passed you can be sure all your green bed buddies would have turned on you quicker than a Great white on a seal- in fact they would have forgotten all about whales because legally there is little they can do except to appeal to emotion and ignorance. With the law on their side they are capable of a lot more ....

3 Purposes of Act
The purposes of this Act are to do the following: 12
(a) promote the responsible care and use of animals; 13
(b) provide standards for the care and use of animals that: 14
(i) where it is deemed necessary to capture and kill 15
wildlife, only those devices and techniques should be 16
used which do not inflict unnecessary cruelty, harm 17
non-target animals or damage natural habitat; 18
(ii) prohibit the capture and killing of wild animals for 19
the purpose of entertainment or sport; 20
(iii) ensure that, in the implementation of the matters 21
contained in paragraphs (i) and (ii), all necessary 22
measures shall be taken to protect habitat and 23
ecosystems; 24
(c) protect animals from unjustifiable, unnecessary or 25
unreasonable pain; 26
(d) ensure the use of animals for scientific purposes is 27
accountable, open and responsible. 28

Do what you like on your bandwagon pjb, just remember who is at the steering wheel and once your exhilaration from all the hype and motherhood statements dies down, take note of the general direction they are taking you.

IQSRLOW wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 6:23pm:

Walter Starck is no greenie!   You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Dr Starck

He's the real deal. Ie knows what he is talking about regarding the marine environment - unlike some people here.


IQSRLOW wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 6:23pm:

Surely its only matter of time now that the precedent is set that they will be extended so as to ban fishing. You've never heard of the National Animal Welfare Bill 2005? If that little piece of legislation was passed you can be sure all your green bed buddies would have turned on you quicker than a Great white on a seal- in fact they would have forgotten all about whales because legally there is little they can do except to appeal to emotion and ignorance. With the law on their side they are capable of a lot more .... 3 Purposes of Act The purposes of this Act are to do the following: 12 (a) promote the responsible care and use of animals; 13 (b) provide standards for the care and use of animals that: 14 (i) where it is deemed necessary to capture and kill 15 wildlife, only those devices and techniques should be 16 used which do not inflict unnecessary cruelty, harm 17 non-target animals or damage natural habitat; 18 (ii) prohibit the capture and killing of wild animals for 19 the purpose of entertainment or sport; 20 (iii) ensure that, in the implementation of the matters 21 contained in paragraphs (i) and (ii), all necessary 22 measures shall be taken to protect habitat and 23 ecosystems; 24 (c) protect animals from unjustifiable, unnecessary or 25 unreasonable pain; 26 (d) ensure the use of animals for scientific purposes is 27 accountable, open and responsible. 28

So that was in 2005 - and I am still allowed to go fishing. No doubt due to a sensible assessment of the isues leading to the bill being knocked on its head.
You have avoided my question too. You say the whaling ban is a precedent to ban fishing and so should be lifted. Then why don't we abolish our animal cruelty laws as they could also be extented to ban fishing. Its illegal to treat some animals the way we do fish.


IQSRLOW wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 6:23pm:

Do what you like on your bandwagon pjb, just remember who is at the steering wheel and once your exhilaration from all the hype and motherhood statements dies down, take note of the general direction they are taking you.

Sounds like your just the different side of the same coin. More interested in your beliefs than a rational look at the evidence. From some of your comments it appears you haven't even read  my articles yet fob them off with throw away lines.

I agree with some of what Walter Starck says but I don't fawn and hang off his every word

I've read your opinion pieces and I disagree with them.

Then why don't we abolish our animal cruelty laws as they could also be extented to ban fishing.

What do you think they tried to do in 2005? The reason it was knocked on the head was because some of it was based on an emotional argument. Animal cruelty laws pertain to the treatment of animals not the non-hunting of animals for consumption.

Its illegal to treat some animals the way we do fish.
Is your next campaign against C&R fishing? If it isn't then you are a hypocrit

Until a rational measure of sentience can be established, you are risking the sport I love for an emotional attachment to charismatic megafauna

IQSRLOW wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 7:13pm:

I agree with some of what Walter Starck says but I don't fawn and hang off his every word I've read your opinion pieces and I disagree with them.

The article on fish and pain was not an opinion piece at all. It was a reasoned critique of the Sneddon paper by one of the leaders in the field of animal physiology. I don't think you read because you went on to post a report on the Seddon paper trumpeting that fish do feel pain!


IQSRLOW wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 7:13pm:

Then why don't we abolish our animal cruelty laws as they could also be extented to ban fishing. What do you think they tried to do in 2005? The reason it was knocked on the head was because some of it was based on an emotional argument. Animal cruelty laws pertain to the treatment of animals not the non-hunting of animals for consumption. Its illegal to treat some animals the way we do fish. Is your next campaign against C&R fishing? If it isn't then you are a hypocrit Until a rational measure of sentience can be established, you are risking the sport I love for an emotional attachment to charismatic megafauna

[/quote]

There are plenty of ways they can measure it as well as assess the ability to sense pain - as the articles I put up demonstrate.

No I'm not going to campaign against C&R fishing just because I don't favour whaling or cruel treatment of higher animals. Your saying all creatures (except humans) must be on an equal footing because of some uncertainties in measuring sentinece or pain perception. Then using your logic we must abolish our animal cruelty laws or be guilty of hypocracy. Obviously our laws see a difference between species. You would be prosecuted for treating a cat or dog the way fishermen treat fish.  

There is no whaling in Australia - I haven't heard this used a justification to ban angling.

That is not what we are saying. You have no doubt heard the argument that fishing should be banned because it is cruel though. Now you are saying that it is a reasonable justification to ban the harvest of an entire group of species. You draw the line at whales and dolphins (including great apes) but you have no objective argument why other people should not draw the line somewhere else. It is not thw whaling ban that is the problem it is the justification on animal cruelty grounds. That is the problem.

Walter Starck is no greenie!

He is making the same noises as the PETA people who say fishing should be banned because it is cruel. They are indistinguishable. Walter is very good at telling his target audience what they want to hear and then selecting and bending the science to fit that message.

So using you argument why don't we abolish all our animal cruelty laws?

Like I said already, animal cruelty laws have never been used to ban wild harvest.

Also, what about kangaroos and pigs in their native habitats? Your feral species argument does not get you very far. It just helps you put off coming up with an objective justification for where you draw the line, which you seem to be avoiding like the plague.

There are plenty of ways they can measure it as well as assess the ability to sense pain

No there isn't. It is impossible to measure pain directly. Even in humans, the only way is to ask people to rank it from 1 to 10. The article you gave as evidence above even said it does not actually deal with pain at all.

No I'm not going to campaign against C&R fishing just because I don't favour whaling or cruel treatment of higher animals.

I'm not saying you will, but your own argument will render you impotent against those that do.

Your saying all creatures (except humans) must be on an equal footing because of some uncertainties in measuring sentinece or pain perception.

No, I'm saying there is no way at all to measure pain. It is all based on unreasonable assumptions. Nor am I saying that all animals are on an equal footing. What I am saying is that you have no objective way to support where you, as opposed to PETA, draw the line.

Then using your logic we must abolish our animal cruelty laws or be guilty of hypocracy.

I believe I have addressed this point at least three times already.

Walter also mentioned in his article the fact that Whaling is heavily subsidised and not an economically or culturally important product.

Farming is heavily subsidised in Australia. Is that an argument for banning farming, or is it just a red herring?

Did you know that scientists in Australia are required to treat all animals humanely, including invertebrates like abalone? They have guidelines on how to kill an abolone in what they hope is the least painful way (on ice). Does this suggest to you that scientsists believe they feel no pain?

---

These are the people Walter Starck is in bed with. Where do you think they will stop?

Vic protest urges end to whale slaughter

http://news.smh.com.au/vic-protest-urges-end-to-whale-slaughter/20080103-1k1m.html

Animal liberationists have staged a anti-whaling protest outside the Japanese consulate in Melbourne.

Protesters used a giant Japanese flag, containing a woman with her body painted red lying in a circle of blood, to symbolise the hundreds of whales Japan plans to kill.

Animal Liberation Victoria campaigner Noah Hannibal vowed to continue to protest until Japan stopped slaughtering whales.

"This is bloody, senseless murder," Mr Hannibal said.

---

Labor must step up whale action: Greens

http://news.smh.com.au/labor-must-step-up-whale-action-greens/20080104-1k63.html

The new federal Labor government is doing little more than its predecessor to prevent whales being killed in the Antarctic, the Australian Greens say.

Greens senator Rachel Siewert is angry the Customs ship - Oceanic Viking - the government promised to send to the Antarctic to monitor Japanese whaling ships has still not left Fremantle in Western Australia.

A spokesman for Japan's Institute for Cetacean Research, which contracts the whalers, told AAP this year's whale research program was "mid-way through".

Greenpeace ship the Esperanza is in the iceberg zone but at last report had not found the Japanese fleet.

PJ, it seems you have your facts wrong. Pigs are smarter than most of the whales that are harvested, at least according to this scientist:

http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/animal-world/besides-humans-which-animals-most-intelligent

Besides humans, which animals are the most intelligent?
According to Edward O. Wilson, a behavioral biologist (scientist who studies the behavior of animals), the ten most intelligent animals are the following:

Chimpanzee (two species)
Gorilla
Orangutan
Baboon (seven species, including drill and mandrill)
Gibbon (seven species)
Monkey (many species, especially the macaques, the patas, and the Celebes black ape)
Smaller-toothed whale (several species, especially killer whale)
Dolphin (many of the approximately eighty species)
Elephant (two species)
Pig

Minke whales are baleen whales, not toothed whales. Same with all the other harvested species, as far as I can tell:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea

You are also wrong about whether you can measure animal intelligence, let alone pain, in any objective way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition

Some animals, including Great apes, crows, dolphins, dogs, elephants, cats, and parrots are typically thought by humans as intelligent in ways that other animals are not..... Comparative psychologists have sought in vain for ways of providing an objective underpinning for these essentially subjective and anthropocentric judgements.

http://www.butterworms.com/images/ebayCrikjpg.jpg

Dolphins are harvested FD, eg by the Japanese:

http://www.abc.net.au/northcoast/stories/s2085468.htm?backyard

500 kilometres south of Tokyo, fisherman in Taiji are employed to harvest whales and dolphins for meat. Dave Rastovich says each sea mammal is worth around one thousand dollars and every year around 26 thousand dolphins are killed.

They and killer whales are very high up on your list FD. As to the intelligence of the larger whales - they are not as well studied as dolphins or land creatures for obvious reasons. They can't be kept in captivity, limited funding etc. This must be kept in mind when making comparisons.

You are also wrong about whether you can measure animal intelligence, let alone pain, in any objective way.


There is even controversy about the objectivity of tests of human inelligence. Eg that IQ tests have a cultural bias. That doesn't mean that human or animal intelligence doesn't exist or that we can't get a reasonable estimate. Same goes for pain. You used the same spurious argument to claim evolution is not a scientific theory.  

pjb05 wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 11:15am:

Fish don't feel pain. The post you put up shows how little you read of my article on the topic, which thoroughly discredited the Sneddon study! PS: You accuse me of anthropomorphism because I recognise the attribute of dolphins and whales, yet you happy to put fish on the same level.

Fish dont feel pain pjb05?  So thats goes for all fish then, including whales?

Please tell me how one measures this?[the pain factor in fish]

Because I believe otherwise.

wrote on Jan 5^th, 2008 at 8:15am:

Because I believe otherwise.

Whales aren't fish Oceans. If you wan't an explanation as to why fish don't feel pain then read the arcticle I put up.

You're missing the point PJ. I'm not saying that animals aren't intelligent or that they don't feel pain. You are the one saying that they don't feel pain, not me. What I'm saying is that your reasons for supporting a ban on some animals and not others is not objective and is largely hypocritical. You support an intelligence based ban on animals that are considered less intelligent than pigs, then expect us to believe that the same argument would not be used to ban the hunting of pigs and other animals. You used 'scientific evidence' to support the ban, but now you reject that same evidence on the slightest pretext because it turns out that it doesn't actually support your argument, or that of Walter Starck. You expect us to believe that your totally arbitrary line in the sand will stay put once you achieve a ban on whaling, even though common sense would say otherwise. So far the closest you have come to explaining how we should decide what animals are totally protected from hunting is to protect those animals that you have read about on wikipedia.

You're missing the point PJ. I'm not saying that animals aren't intelligent or that they don't feel pain. You are the one saying that they don't feel pain, not me.

No, I'm saying some are intelligent and some aren't. Some feel pain and some don't. Just about every except the extreme animal libbers accepts that.  

What I'm saying is that your reasons for supporting a ban on some animals and not others is not objective and is largely hypocritical. You support an intelligence based ban on animals that are considered less intelligent than pigs, then expect us to believe that the same argument would not be used to ban the hunting of pigs and other animals.

Well you have just spent pages saying that we can't assess the intelligence of animals or their ability to feel pain. Now your willing to accept pigs are more intelligent than whales becauce one article says so. Your same ranking shows that small toothed whales and dolphins are more intelligent than pigs. For some of the larger whales the data is sketchy because they are more difficult to study. They can't be held in captivity for instance.

As I pointed out there are huge differences between the situation beween pig and whales. The former are under no threat, the latter have been severely deleted. The former are a pest and do huge economic damage in places where they have been introduced, the latter are in there natural habitat and the economic benifits of their harvest are marginal. Pigs are domesticated and this will never be practical for whales.  

You used 'scientific evidence' to support the ban, but now you reject that same evidence on the slightest pretext because it turns out that it doesn't actually support your argument, or that of Walter Starck.

Nonsense. Look at the Sneddon paper and the critique I put up. The Sneddon study is flawed from top to bottom. I don't use the post office method to assess scientific evidence. The weight lies with how rigorous the studies are and how well the conclusion match the natural observations - not the number of articles which support a particular view. I loked at the evidence and then supported the ban.

You expect us to believe that your totally arbitrary line in the sand will stay put once you achieve a ban on whaling, even though common sense would say otherwise. So far the closest you have come to explaining how we should decide what animals are totally protected from hunting is to protect those animals that you have read about on wikipedia.

Well I put up my opinions (and Walter Starcks) and I was criticised becauce they were merely 'opinions'. So I put up several articles including the Wiki one.  The Wikipedia article is a well balance summary on cetacian intelligence. It actually canvassed a range of views. I don't have to achieve a ban on whaling because we already have it (with a few exceptions). There are some exception for indigenous comunities which is a reasonable compromise. There is no sign of the sky falling in or it being used to ban fishing or other hunting.

You have avoided my point that we also have laws against animal cruelty. Why aren't these an 'arbitary line in the sand' which won't stay put. You could point to inconsistencies there too, even compared to the way we treat people. Some of that is part of being human.  In the US civil war General Grant once had a man tied to a tree for 4 hours for being cruel to a horse. In the battle the next day 5,000 men were killed ar maimed!  

Now your willing to accept pigs are more intelligent than whales becauce one article says so.

No. I'm saying that as well as being fundamentally flawed, your own evidence contradicts your own argument.

The weight lies with how rigorous the studies are

But none of them have any rigour at all. They are all subjective and anthropocentric.

The former are a pest and do huge economic damage in places where they have been introduced

So what about where they are not feral? I've asked that a couple of times and you conveniently ignored it.

Well I put up my opinions (and Walter Starcks) and I was criticised becauce they were merely 'opinions'.

Well at least you are conceding that there is nothing objective or scientific to Walter's silly claims. However, the criticism had nothing to do with it being 'merely opinions'. The criticism was based on where using such a subjective anthropocentric argument would inevitably lead.

The Wikipedia article is a well balance summary on cetacian intelligence.

According to wikipedia, there is nothing at all objective about attempts to measure animal intelligence. It is all subjective and anthropocentric. Furthermore, the fact that you read up more about one animal than another is not exactly solid ground on which to base a whaling ban.

There is no sign of the sky falling in or it being used to ban fishing or other hunting.

That's because there isn't a real ban. Japan is harvesting about 1000 of them each year. Do you really think the animal libbers are going to move on to their next target before the get the whaling ban written in stone? It's their only chance at the moment. Luckily common sense appears to be prevailing and the whaling ban is gradually slipping away. As soon as the IWC became an animal welfare lobby rather than a sustainable hunting lobby it lost it's mandate and countries like Japan now treat it with the contempt it deserves (politely of course).

You have avoided my point that we also have laws against animal cruelty.

No I haven't. I have responded to it multiple times already. There are a number of issues which you have brought up repeatedly, each time ignoring our responses to them. There are a number of big questions which you have left unanswered, despite them being repeated for you. I have no interest in repeating the same thing over and over again. This argument is not moving forward because you are ignoring the responses you get then starting again from the beginning.

Now your willing to accept pigs are more intelligent than whales becauce one article says so.

No. I'm saying that as well as being fundamentally flawed, your own evidence contradicts your own argument.

Not at all. Just because there is some differerences in the way researchers rank animals is not reason to throw my whole case out. Just about all rank dolphins and small tooth whales near the top.



The weight lies with how rigorous the studies are

But none of them have any rigour at all. They are all subjective and anthropocentric.

Just a bland assertion. What is your knowledge of animal behaviour and physiology to make you such an authority.



The former are a pest and do huge economic damage in places where they have been introduced

So what about where they are not feral? I've asked that a couple of times and you conveniently ignored it.

I haven't ignored that at all. I don't know why your would try to say that when I could easily quote my past threads.  



Well I put up my opinions (and Walter Starcks) and I was criticised becauce they were merely 'opinions'.

Well at least you are conceding that there is nothing objective or scientific to Walter's silly claims. However, the criticism had nothing to do with it being 'merely opinions'. The criticism was based on where using such a subjective anthropocentric argument would inevitably lead.


I'll let you know what I concede if thats alright with you. Obviously a question of ethics or morals is not purely a scientific issue. He alluded to research and evidence of the intelligence of dolphins and whales but did not quote specific examples - fair enough seeing it was an editorial not a scientific paper. His description of the economic worth of whaling and the history of Japan's involvement was quite accurate, but then again not really a scientific matter.

You keep saying it is inevitable (bans on the hunting of other animals) despite of absolutely no evidence. I could just as easily say that if anglers/ fishermen align themselves with and support commercial whaling then we will be tarred with the same brush and be more likely to be singled out for bans.

You don't have the same problem with marine parks, which in this country have been hijacked by extreme green preservationists.  



The Wikipedia article is a well balance summary on cetacian intelligence.

According to wikipedia, there is nothing at all objective about attempts to measure animal intelligence. It is all subjective and anthropocentric. Furthermore, the fact that you read up more about one animal than another is not exactly solid ground on which to base a whaling ban.

Its hard to beleive you read the same article. there are dificulties and controverses in measuring human intelligence - do you think such measures are all subjective too?



There is no sign of the sky falling in or it being used to ban fishing or other hunting.

That's because there isn't a real ban. Japan is harvesting about 1000 of them each year. Do you really think the animal libbers are going to move on to their next target before the get the whaling ban written in stone? It's their only chance at the moment. Luckily common sense appears to be prevailing and the whaling ban is gradually slipping away. As soon as the IWC became an animal welfare lobby rather than a sustainable hunting lobby it lost it's mandate and countries like Japan now treat it with the contempt it deserves (politely of course).

Everyone knows the Japanese are exploiting a loophole that allows scientific research. The ban is not slipping away because of 'common sense' but because Japan has been busily bribing small island states with economic aid in order to stack the vote. Major countries immune to this such as Australia, the UK and the USA are firmly anti-whaling.

PS -  If you think whaling is the only hope of the animal libers then doesn't this put a hole in your argument that angling will be banned next?


You have avoided my point that we also have laws against animal cruelty.

No I haven't. I have responded to it multiple times already. There are a number of issues which you have brought up repeatedly, each time ignoring our responses to them. There are a number of big questions which you have left unanswered, despite them being repeated for you. I have no interest in repeating the same thing over and over again. This argument is not moving forward because you are ignoring the responses you get then starting again from the beginning.[/quote]

Well I'll respond to one now then. IQSRLOW put up draft legislation of animal cruelty laws which amounted to a toughening up of laws to the point that hunting and fishing would be illegal. Using your logic we should abolish our existing animal cruelty laws because they will inevitable lead to such bans.  

Just because there is some differerences in the way researchers rank animals is not reason to throw my whole case out.

I'm not throwing it out because of the differences of opinion. I am throwing it out because it contradicts your argument and is fundamentally flawed.

Just about all rank dolphins and small tooth whales near the top.

Maybe you missed this point. Sperm whales and the others that are harvested are not toothed whales.

Just a bland assertion. What is your knowledge of animal behaviour and physiology to make you such an authority.

It is obvious. And the wikipedia article on animal cognition makes the same argument. It is common knowledge.

I haven't ignored that at all. I don't know why your would try to say that when I could easily quote my past threads.

Go ahead then.

Obviously a question of ethics or morals is not purely a scientific issue.

Not 'purely' scientific? It isn't scientific at all. Science is amoral.

You keep saying it is inevitable (bans on the hunting of other animals) despite of absolutely no evidence.

I have presented evidence. For example, PETA calling for a ban on fishing because it is cruel.

I could just as easily say that if anglers/ fishermen align themselves with and support commercial whaling then we will be tarred with the same brush and be more likely to be singled out for bans.  

This is completely absurd. You think we should 'sacrifice' the whalers and hope that the animal libbers are happy with that? That's a spineless copout. If they can't get whaling banned on animal welfare grounds, they will have no hope with fishing. If we have learnt anything from history, it's that letting them take your enighbours and hoping they will stop there is naive.

Its hard to beleive you read the same article.

It wasn't the same article. It was the article on animal cognition.

do you think such measures are all subjective too?

Sure. Not as subjective as animal tests, but they do have to come up with some way to weight the different components. The big problem with animal tests is the communication side and the problem that intelligence could take far more diverse forms in different species. Communication problems can be overcome in humans and you are making the comparison within a species.

Everyone knows the Japanese are exploiting a loophole that allows scientific research.

Either way, the ban is still meaningless.

Major countries immune to this such as Australia, the UK and the USA are firmly anti-whaling.

Australia plays the same tricks. We donate to small countries and we apply diplomatic pressure to them. Now that the sustainability issue is less of a problem the momentum is starting to swing back the other way.

If you think whaling is the only hope of the animal libers then doesn't this put a hole in your argument that angling will be banned next?

Who knows what will happen in 100 years time? At the moment whaling is their only hope. If they succeed in banning whaling on animal welfare grounds, then other animals will definitely follow. If they fail on whaling, they will have nothing.

IQSRLOW put up draft legislation of animal cruelty laws which amounted to a toughening up of laws to the point that hunting and fishing would be illegal.

Those laws will not make hunting or fishing illegal.

Using your logic we should abolish our existing animal cruelty laws because they will inevitable lead to such bans.  

If they never have before, why would you expect that to suddenly change?

---

Govt refuses to answer whaling questions

http://news.smh.com.au/govt-refuses-to-answer-whaling-questions/20080105-1kbo.html

The federal government continued to evade questions about its troubled Japanese whaling monitoring mission, as the opposition labelled it a sham shrouded in secrecy.

Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt on Saturday seized on revelations that Skytraders, the aviation company contracted by the government to run a promised surveillance plane, only sought safety approval to do so on Friday.

Mr Hunt also took aim at the government over a report that Skytraders will not fly dedicated surveillance missions but only short diversions from scheduled weekly flights.

The news has come after the government was embarrassed by revelations that the Oceanic Viking customs ship was still in port, despite a promise on December 19 it would be out monitoring Japanese whalers within days.

Mr Garrett's spokeswoman did say the government hoped the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) would approve the surveillance flights shortly.

But CASA spokesman Peter Gibson on Saturday said it could be weeks before that happened.

A spokesman for the Japanese whalers said the program, known as JARPA II, was about "midway through".

I hope the Rudd govt cops a caning over this...It was a gross misuse of taxpayer monies that will do absolutely nothing.

Vote grabbing pandering to the lowest common denominator

Me too. At least the coalition was honest about not giving a stuff about the whales. Now Labor is being torn between the far left and the mainstream.

At least the coalition was honest about not giving a stuff about the whales

I don't think that is correct. I think the coalition knew that anything that they tried would be fiscally irresponsible and destined to fail. Legally the coalition knew that there was nothing they could do but the Rudd govt decided to pander to the green-fed uneducated voter base.

Now they are back pedalling on the priority that they gave it.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2008 at 9:20pm:

Me too. At least the coalition was honest about not giving a stuff about the whales. Now Labor is being torn between the far left and the mainstream.

Not so.  In fact in 2005 Australia led a contingent to maintain the moratorium on whaling at the IWC in South Korea. And we were successful.   Australia also exerted full diplomatic pressure to attempt to get Japan to stop scientifc whaling, including putting forward a motion at the IWC condemning the increase in the scientific kill.

Japan ignored that as they have ignored Kevvy's blabber.  And though Australia actually did something under Johnny, under Kevvy it has all been just gum bumping to date.

Johnny cared about whales, Kevvy cares about public relations.  Johnny acts while Kevvy does nothing - witness Kyoto.

Me too. At least the coalition was honest about not giving a stuff about the whales. Now Labor is being torn between the far left and the mainstream.

For someone trying to start a political party and who has a policy on whaling you don't know much about the subject. I even told you that Australia has been actively anti-whaling along with the US and UK.




IQSRLOW put up draft legislation of animal cruelty laws which amounted to a toughening up of laws to the point that hunting and fishing would be illegal.

Those laws will not make hunting or fishing illegal.  

Using your logic we should abolish our existing animal cruelty laws because they will inevitable lead to such bans.    

If they never have before, why would you expect that to suddenly change?


The laws would have done, that was IQSRLOW's point. He highlighted the section which banned the hunting of animals for amusement. By saying we can't rank animals for intelligence or pain perception you are just making it easier to justifiy bans on angling.

Animal cruelty laws have been used to ban a form of hunting. The UK has recently banned fox hunting.  

Meantime the covert whale watching operation goes on at snails pace with the ship being readied for some future 'operational matter'.



Quote:

Government tight-lipped on whaling The Federal Government today continued to evade questions about its troubled Japanese whaling monitoring mission, as the Opposition labelled it a sham shrouded in secrecy. Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt today seized on revelations that Skytraders, the aviation company contracted by the Government to run a promised surveillance plane, only sought safety approval to do so yesterday. Mr Hunt also took aim at the Government over a report that Skytraders would not fly dedicated surveillance missions but only short diversions from scheduled weekly flights. The news has come after the Government was embarrassed by revelations that the Oceanic Viking customs ship was still in port, despite a promise on December 19 it would be out monitoring Japanese whalers within days. Mr Hunt said the Government had some explaining to do. "They promised dedicated whale monitoring flights but all we're getting now is a brief diversion of the Antarctic flights," Mr Hunt said. "So firstly they're late and they're a pale imitation of what was promised. "The question for Mr Rudd is, 'Who's watching the whales while you're watching the cricket?' " The Government has consistently refused to answer questions about the state of the surveillance mission, saying they are "operational matters". Today, a spokeswoman for Environment Minister Peter Garrett said about the Skytraders' report: "These are operational matters and we have got no further comment." But Mr Hunt said it was time the Government lifted the "shroud of secrecy" and gave the Australian public an explanation. "I think the reason they won't come clean is because what was promised or implied has turned out to be nothing more than a sham," he said. Mr Garrett's spokeswoman did say the Government hoped the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) would approve the surveillance flights shortly. But CASA spokesman Peter Gibson today said it could be weeks before that happened. Top Secret!  Nothing the mushrooms should know!

I even told you that Australia has been actively anti-whaling along with the US and UK.

By active, do you mean allowing Japan to kill whales in our whale sanctuary? Or just that they told them it's not a nice thing to do?

By saying we can't rank animals for intelligence or pain perception you are just making it easier to justifiy bans on angling.

You can rank them all you want, but it is purely subjective and anthropocentric, thus you have no objective reason for expecting others to draw the line where you do. I am not making it easier to ban angling, you are. You are the one saying we should ban the hunting of animals for food over intelligence, animal cruelty etc. I am merely pointing out what should is obvious to everyone else - if you get that justification accepted, you will not be able to stop what other animals it is applied to.

Animal cruelty laws have been used to ban a form of hunting. The UK has recently banned fox hunting.

Did they eat the foxes?

What about pig hunting where they are not feral pests?

Why do you think that the quantity harvested is important? Surely if something is wrong, then doing it on a really large scale is more wrong, not less wrong. Imagine Hitler saying he should be able to continue killing Jews because it is a massive industry and employs so many people, and their entire societiy is now strucutred around it.

I even told you that Australia has been actively anti-whaling along with the US and UK.

By active, do you mean allowing Japan to kill whales in our whale sanctuary? Or just that they told them it's not a nice thing to do?

We covered this before, the Japanese are exploiting a loophole that allows scientific whaling. Our juristiction in Antartic waters is also questionable. Australia is pushing these issues in international forums and that is all we can do at the moment.



By saying we can't rank animals for intelligence or pain perception you are just making it easier to justifiy bans on angling.

You can rank them all you want, but it is purely subjective and anthropocentric, thus you have no objective reason for expecting others to draw the line where you do. I am not making it easier to ban angling, you are. You are the one saying we should ban the hunting of animals for food over intelligence, animal cruelty etc. I am merely pointing out what should is obvious to everyone else - if you get that justification accepted, you will not be able to stop what other animals it is applied to.

You also used a similar argument to say that evolution is not a scientific theory. You don't seem to have much regard for any science which involves a complex subject, inferences and pulling together a variety of obsevations.

Your also missing a huge point with your whaling ban will inevitably lead to bans on other hunting including angling. Most countries (all bar 2) already have bans on commercial whaling. The have so for a long time. There is no sign the want to resume whaling just because some sutainability issues may have eased. Other forms of hunting in national territories do not come under any international juristiction. There is no IWC for recreational fishing!        



Animal cruelty laws have been used to ban a form of hunting. The UK has recently banned fox hunting.

Did they eat the foxes?

Irrelevent - it was banned on cruelty grounds. All the more reason not to throw away the 'fish dont feel pain' evidence as you are happy to do.

What about pig hunting where they are not feral pests?

It's up to each country what they do. It's not relevant in Australia obviously. If the pig hunting involves the mauling of the prey by dogs as in the case of fox hunting then a case could be made for using more humane methods.

Why do you think that the quantity harvested is important? Surely if something is wrong, then doing it on a really large scale is more wrong, not less wrong. Imagine Hitler saying he should be able to continue killing Jews because it is a massive industry and employs so many people, and their entire societiy is now strucutred around it.

Wasn't I saying the opposite when I said whaling was marginal in economic and cultural terms.

Australia is taking up the case against Japanese whaling in the international courts:

Whaling expert to consider court case
A world expert on the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice, the Cambridge law faculty chair James Crawford, has been drafted by the Federal Government to tackle Japanese whale hunting.

The Rudd Government is also seeking the views of its own lawyers, but it is expected that Professor Crawford would argue Australia's case if, as now seems likely, legal action proceeds.

Professor Crawford represented Australia in 1999 in a joint action with New Zealand against Japan over its huge so-called experimental catch of southern bluefin tuna in a case with parallels to the "scientific" whaling program Canberra brands a sham.

Taking the dispute before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea was a bold move, and Australia and New Zealand won the first round, but it was reversed on a jurisdictional technicality.

Professor Crawford is understood to have been asked to consider prospects for success if the dispute over whaling was taken to that tribunal as well as initiating action before the International Court of Justice.

Failure could strengthen Japan's push to re-open the 1986 ban on commercial whaling that it continues to circumvent through the scientific whaling loophole.

The Law of the Sea Convention, which came into force in 1994, requires parties to it to sustainably manage migratory fish species and refers to provisions of the 1946 Whaling Convention.

Tim Stephens, of the University of Sydney's law faculty, was on a panel of experts that made a submission last March to the Howard government on anti-whaling legal options.

"The bluefin tuna case shows Australia could make a successful argument before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on whales," Dr Stephens told the Herald yesterday. "And Professor Crawford would be the best man in the world to do that.

"He has appeared before the ICJ as well as the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea many, many times representing various governments from around the world."

One option is to take Japan before the International Court of Justice based on an argument that its intended slaughter of more than 900 whales this summer contravenes the Whaling Convention.

News that Professor Crawford has been brought into the fight against Japanese whaling comes as the Federal Government is under fire for being slow to dispatch the customs chartered vessel Oceanic Viking to collect photographic and other evidence to back legal challenges.

The Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, said two weeks ago that the ship would depart within a "few days" but it is yet to leave Fremantle.

The Government argued yesterday that its aim was to seek to maximise prospects for obtaining graphic photographic and video images of the slaughter and other evidence by choosing an optimal 20-day surveillance period.

Officials are working on a proposal to introduce reforms in the International Whaling Commission, where Japan is trying to overturn the commercial whaling ban by winning over developing-country members.

From Sydney Morning Herald:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/whaling-expert-to-consider-court-case/2008/01/04/1198950075821.html

You also used a similar argument to say that evolution is not a scientific theory.

The only thing the two arguments have in common is that you don't appear to understand them. The theory of evolution is objective. Assessments of animal intelligence are not.

Irrelevent - it was banned on cruelty grounds

It is irrelevant. Going round killing animals for fun is completely different from harvesting them for food.

It's up to each country what they do.

So we shouldn't try to interfere if Japan wants to harvest whales? Please don't avoid this point for the next dozen posts.

You are going to unusual lengths to avoid the philosophical quandry you ahve gotten yourself into. I guess I'll have to get hypothetical on you - if you lived in a country where pigs were native, would you oppose the hunting of them?

Wasn't I saying the opposite when I said whaling was marginal in economic and cultural terms.

No. You were arguing that it was OK to ban it because it was only a small industry, but cattle and sheep are OK to kill because it is a much larger industry. You were claiming that the size of an industry is relevant to whether it should be banned on cruelty grounds. You are yet to explain the logic behind this.

You also used a similar argument to say that evolution is not a scientific theory.

The only thing the two arguments have in common is that you don't appear to understand them. The theory of evolution is objective. Assessments of animal intelligence are not.

So does 'objective' mean that evolution is a scientific theory? Dare I say is there a 'scientific consensus' on evolution?



Irrelevent - it was banned on cruelty grounds

It is irrelevant. Going round killing animals for fun is completely different from harvesting them for food.

Well you were trying to tell me that a ban on whaling will lead to a ban on angling. Angling is something we do for fun. It looks like national cruelty laws are more for fishermen to worry about. Not to mention all the no fishing signs mushrooming up and down the coast with your marine parks.    



It's up to each country what they do.

So we shouldn't try to interfere if Japan wants to harvest whales? Please don't avoid this point for the next dozen posts.

No I'm glad you raised it. Japan voluntarily joined the IWC. It has a vote like all the other member nations. The vote to ban whaling was over the 75% required - so tough luck. They are whaling in international waters as well so it is the business of other nations. There is no equivalent way of banning hunting of pigs in a sovereign countries own territory, so its up to them what they do. 

You are going to unusual lengths to avoid the philosophical quandry you ahve gotten yourself into. I guess I'll have to get hypothetical on you - if you lived in a country where pigs were native, would you oppose the hunting of them?

No, but you can't tell me that this hypothetical case is on par to the situation with whales. Eg we haven't driven them close to extinction as we have with many species of whales, its easier to kill pigs humanely compare to harpooning whales at sea, dolphins and other small toothed whales are more intelligent than pigs, perhaps other whales as well.



Wasn't I saying the opposite when I said whaling was marginal in economic and cultural terms.

No. You were arguing that it was OK to ban it because it was only a small industry, but cattle and sheep are OK to kill because it is a much larger industry. You were claiming that the size of an industry is relevant to whether it should be banned on cruelty grounds. You are yet to explain the logic behind this.

Pretty simple isn't it. You have to take human welfare into account as well. Animals will be killed for food - thats unavoidable. As to which ones you have to weigh up the issues of cruelty, ethics, cultural and economic values, sustainability and ecology. The killing of whales and dolphins doesn't make much sense on any of these grounds.  

In the case of cattle and sheep a lot of these issues don't apply at all.

So does 'objective' mean that evolution is a scientific theory?

No. It is two very different issues.

Japan voluntarily joined the IWC.

They can voluntarily unjoin. Or call their whaling scientific. That loophole has been left open under the same agreements you defer to.

They are whaling in international waters as well so it is the business of other nations.

Not if they are not harming those other nations. It is none of their business at all.

There is no equivalent way of banning hunting of pigs in a sovereign countries own territory, so its up to them what they do.

I am not asking you whether it is possible to ban pig hunting in a foreign country. I am asking you whethern it should be banned. You are using every possible copout you can think of to avoid answering that question.

No, but you can't tell me that this hypothetical case is on par to the situation with whales.

True. Pigs are considered to be more intelligent than the whales that are harvested and the hunt is on a much bigger scale. If harming intelligent creatures is your concern, as it appears to be with Walter Starck, then the pig issue is far greater.

Eg we haven't driven them close to extinction as we have with many species of whales

Once they have recovered and a sustainable harvest is possible, this is no longer an issue. Or do you think that if we ever push a species close to the brink we should never be allowed to harvest it again?

its easier to kill pigs humanely compare to harpooning whales at sea

Not wild ones. It's pretty rough on them, especially when the dogs get into them. And besides, I thought this was about intelligence, not cruelty. Walter built his entire argument around whale intelligence, but he got the species of whale wrong. If it's about cruelty instead, then factory farming pigs is by far the bigger issue.

Animals will be killed for food - thats unavoidable. As to which ones you have to weigh up the issues of cruelty, ethics, cultural and economic values, sustainability and ecology.

No you don't. You have to ignore culture, otherwise it's cultural imperialism. You can't tell another country not to eat an animal jsut because you don't like it. Otherwise we would have the Indians trying to tell us we can't eat cows. The economics is not a reason to ban a harvest, it is only a reason to remove subsidies etc. Animal cruelty has never been used to ban the consumption of animals, so there is no need for that either. Once you ban one animal on cruelty grounds, you have no objective way to draw the line.

In the case of cattle and sheep a lot of these issues don't apply at all.

Talk about Eurocentrism. Did you know that eating cows is taboo in India? Of course you think it doesn't apply, because it would never occur to you that the argument would be applied to the animals you eat.

So does 'objective' mean that evolution is a scientific theory?

No. It is two very different issues.

I know their different issues but you say both aren't scientific - which puts you right out on the fringe.



Japan voluntarily joined the IWC.

They can voluntarily unjoin. Or call their whaling scientific. That loophole has been left open under the same agreements you defer to.

The point is that the ban is not cultural imperialism or the west 'forcing' Japan to stop whaling - it was the vote of an international body that they chose to join. The vote went against them because some pro-whaling countries became anti-whaling over time. As to scientific whaling even you call it a loophole. Ie the Japanese are doing it in a way which was never intended.  



They are whaling in international waters as well so it is the business of other nations.

Not if they are not harming those other nations. It is none of their business at all.

International waters are the business of all countries. If whales are hunted to the brink again then everyone is affected by the loss of ecological value as well as industries such as whale watching.



There is no equivalent way of banning hunting of pigs in a sovereign countries own territory, so its up to them what they do.

I am not asking you whether it is possible to ban pig hunting in a foreign country. I am asking you whethern it should be banned. You are using every possible copout you can think of to avoid answering that question.

I said no, look the next paragraph of mine you quoted. Its rather arrogant to plough on with your pre-determined arguments without reading what I actually say. Whether is possible or not to ban pig hunting or not in another country is a huge point as your main argument against banning commercial whaling is that it will inevitably lead to other bans.


No, but you can't tell me that this hypothetical case is on par to the situation with whales.

True. Pigs are considered to be more intelligent than the whales that are harvested and the hunt is on a much bigger scale. If harming intelligent creatures is your concern, as it appears to be with Walter Starck, then the pig issue is far greater.

You can't say there more intelligent because there are so many species of whales and not many have been studied all that well. I'd doubt if the native pig hunt is on a bigger scale - and certainly is nothing like the recent history of whaling. Walter spent half his article attacking whaling on other issues also.


Once they have recovered and a sustainable harvest is possible, this is no longer an issue. Or do you think that if we ever push a species close to the brink we should never be allowed to harvest it again?

Given the past history there will always be doubts about commercial whaling on sustainability grounds. They are slow growing and slow to reproduce. When a commercial industry is established there is commercial pressure to keep it going. look at what happened in the past, even with the IWC to 'regulate' it - there was rampant under reporting of harvest by some countries.

its easier to kill pigs humanely compare to harpooning whales at sea

Not wild ones. It's pretty rough on them, especially when the dogs get into them. And besides, I thought this was about intelligence, not cruelty. Walter built his entire argument around whale intelligence, but he got the species of whale wrong. If it's about cruelty instead, then factory farming pigs is by far the bigger issue.

The use of dogs raises some ethical issues. Otherwise a clean shot with a bullet is far more humane than why is involved in killing whales.



Animals will be killed for food - thats unavoidable. As to which ones you have to weigh up the issues of cruelty, ethics, cultural and economic values, sustainability and ecology.

No you don't. You have to ignore culture, otherwise it's cultural imperialism. You can't tell another country not to eat an animal jsut because you don't like it. Otherwise we would have the Indians trying to tell us we can't eat cows. The economics is not a reason to ban a harvest, it is only a reason to remove subsidies etc. Animal cruelty has never been used to ban the consumption of animals, so there is no need for that either. Once you ban one animal on cruelty grounds, you have no objective way to draw the line.

I said consider culture, which includes that of others. Thats why we still allow hunting of marine mammals by aboriginal peoples. Commercial whaling does not have much cultural significance.

I know their different issues but you say both aren't scientific - which puts you right out on the fringe.

I said it was subjective and anthropocentric, ie not objective. I didn't say anything about whether it was scientific. Scientific and objective are two different words with two different meanings. This evolution thing you keep bringing up is a red herring.

The point is that the ban is not cultural imperialism or the west 'forcing' Japan to stop whaling

It is if they change the rules halfway through and say the ban that was implimented on sustainability grounds should be kept through cultural imperialism.

it was the vote of an international body that they chose to join

Just because it was democratic does not mean it isn't cultural imperialism.

As to scientific whaling even you call it a loophole. Ie the Japanese are doing it in a way which was never intended.  

You appear to be confusing the two issues of whether it is right in a technical or legal sense and whether we should be doing it from a philosophical perspective. The existence of the IWC ban is not a valid reason for the IWC ban. It is a circular argument.

If whales are hunted to the brink again then everyone is affected

Right, sustainability is a valid reason. Cultural imperialism is not.

You can't say there more intelligent because there are so many species of whales and not many have been studied all that well.

This is getting rediculous. First you say they are intelligent, then when it is pointed out to you that pigs are smarter, you switch and say we should ban the harvest because they might be more intelligent. Well, pigs are probably more intelligent than the whales being harvested. You are applying a totally different standard to pigs that you are to whales. It has nothing to do with the evidence. You like bacon or find it acceptable, You don't like whale hunting, so you try to bend the evidence to fit your view. Admit it, the evidence is totally against you on the pigs vs whales issue.

If I can't say that pigs are more itnelligent, how can you say that whales are more itnelligent? How can you justify a whaling ban and not a bacon ban?

I'd doubt if the native pig hunt is on a bigger scale - and certainly is nothing like the recent history of whaling.

Rather than going on about whether it is bigger, first you should explain why it even matters. Why is it a valid argument. Like your intelligence argument, it is not a valid reason and even if it were, it would go against you, not for you.

Walter spent half his article attacking whaling on other issues also.

The other attacks are just as flawed. They are no better than PETA's poster of a pet dog with a fish hook through it's mouth. He actually equated killing a whale with killing a human. That is animal welfare extremism.

Given the past history there will always be doubts about commercial whaling on sustainability grounds.

You are missing the point. If you want a ban for sustainability reasons, then argue on sustainability. Don't argue on animal welfare grounds instead.

When a commercial industry is established there is commercial pressure to keep it going.

It can only keep going if it is sustainable, hence the original IWC ban. You could make exactly the same argument about fishing. You are rpetending to be interested in sustainability to impose your cultural imperialism.

Thats why we still allow hunting of marine mammals by aboriginal peoples. Commercial whaling does not have much cultural significance.

When you say it doesn't have much cultural significance, you are compeltely ignoring half of the cultural argument. A taboo on whaling is now part of our culture. We are trying to impose that culture on other people. it doesn't matter how important you think it is to Japanese culture, it is still cultural imperialism. If the citizens of Kazahkstan decided they wanted to aprticipate in sustainable whaling, then attempting to stop them would be cultural imperialsim.

The use of dogs raises some ethical issues

Well, should be ban the hunting of pigs with dogs then?

Should we ban sow stall pig farming, given the pigs are smarter than the whales you try to protect?

On the rest of Walter Starck's flawed argument. Note that there is not a single argument there that stands up to any scrutiny.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1168478179/54#54

Japan, through the leverage of aid assistance to small island states, may find enough supporting votes to overturn the prohibition.

Australia does the same thing. This is not a valid reason to ban whaling anyway. The method of obtainaing or rpeventing the ban is a totally separate issue from whether the ban is justified.

The research is in fact nothing more than the routine data gathering that was conducted during decades of commercial whaling and the catch is still sold commercially.  The only real difference is a reduced kill which they now wish to expand.

Again, not a reason to justify the ban. It is a purely technical issue, and technically the Japanese are allowed to.

The economics of whaling are marginal in terms of employment, profit, and contribution to GDP.

Not a valid reason to interefere with Japan by banning whaling. This is like Japan arguing we should ban farming in Australia because it is subsidised.

The product plays no significant cultural role beyond prestigious consumption.

This is so not a valid argument. It's like arguing we should ban expensive sports cars. We have to justify the cultural imperialism. The Japanese do not have to justify theuir culture to us.

The determined effort to pursue whaling despite disapproval from all of the other major nations appears to be nothing more than recalcitrance in response to external disapproval.

Argumentum ad populum. Not a valid argument.

While debate has raged over things such as population sizes, recruitment, sustainable yield and broader ecological effects there is a conspicuous silence on the most blatantly obvious issue of all.  It almost appears there is some unspoken taboo on any mention of the ethics of whaling.

Conspicuous silence? He must ahve his head in the sand. These days it's all about ethics, not sustainability.

Whales and dolphin are sentient beings.

Then so are pigs.

Killing them is on a par with killing members of our own species.

Then the same with pigs.

They have complex social relationships.

So do pigs.

They treat us with a level of respect and curiosity unequalled by other wild creatures.

crap.

Those who have worked closely with them are universally impressed with their intelligence, inventiveness, playfulness and ability to communicate among themselves.

Plenty of people feel the same way about pigs and cows.

Any burden of proof must lie with the disbelievers.

We don't have to prove anything, because the right lies with the whalers. This line of argument would ban the harvest of all animals.

To slaughter them as prestige food or routine data gathering is unconscionable.  A senior Japanese delegate to the IWC has publicly referred to minke whales as "cockroaches of the sea",  an attitude eerily reminiscent of other perpetrators of genocide.  

Pure fluff.

Recent surveys indicate that while 75% of Japanese support a return to commercial whaling the majority of their young people are opposed to it.

Argumentum ad populum.

Politeness in the face atrocity is a form of complicity.

Circular argument. He ahs to prove it is an atrocity first (and stope ating bacon).

It is time to call it what it is.  Whaling is purely and simply murder

Remind you of PETA at all? "Meat is murder"?????

The International Fund for Animal Welfare estimates that this year some 10 million whale watchers will spend over US$1 billion on tours, travel, food and accommodation in 87 countries.

Not a valid argument. This is like saying we should ban fishing because scuba diving is so valuable. They are not mutually exclusive.

I know their different issues but you say both aren't scientific - which puts you right out on the fringe.

I said it was subjective and anthropocentric, ie not objective. I didn't say anything about whether it was scientific. Scientific and objective are two different words with two different meanings. This evolution thing you keep bringing up is a red herring.

Well it does at least put serious doubt on your credibility on scientific issues. Ie to dismiss evolution as not scientific when it is almost univerally acceepted by the scientific community.

The point is that the ban is not cultural imperialism or the west 'forcing' Japan to stop whaling

It is if they change the rules halfway through and say the ban that was implimented on sustainability grounds should be kept through cultural imperialism.

The rules haven't been changed.



it was the vote of an international body that they chose to join

Just because it was democratic does not mean it isn't cultural imperialism.

The IWC took account of cultural sensitivities by allowing traditional aboriginal whaling. The 'cultural imperialism' tag comes straight from Japanese whaling lobby. To say that a commercial industry that has only existed since 1945 is culturally significant is quite a stretch. The ban only came into being because pro-whaling countries changed their position on the issue.

As to scientific whaling even you call it a loophole. Ie the Japanese are doing it in a way which was never intended.  

You appear to be confusing the two issues of whether it is right in a technical or legal sense and whether we should be doing it from a philosophical perspective. The existence of the IWC ban is not a valid reason for the IWC ban. It is a circular argument.

Your the one going around in circles. You said because the Japanese still take whales the 'ban' is not really a ban.



If whales are hunted to the brink again then everyone is affected

Right, sustainability is a valid reason. Cultural imperialism is not.

Ethics/ cruelty does not equal 'cultural imperialism'. Just about every country has animal cruelty laws. Because whaling is supect on both counts just makes a clearer case for bans.



You can't say there more intelligent because there are so many species of whales and not many have been studied all that well.

This is getting rediculous. First you say they are intelligent, then when it is pointed out to you that pigs are smarter, you switch and say we should ban the harvest because they might be more intelligent. Well, pigs are probably more intelligent than the whales being harvested. You are applying a totally different standard to pigs that you are to whales. It has nothing to do with the evidence. You like bacon or find it acceptable, You don't like whale hunting, so you try to bend the evidence to fit your view. Admit it, the evidence is totally against you on the pigs vs whales issue.

No, you pointed out than ONE study said that pigs MIGHT be smarter than SOME species, but NOT ALL species of whales/ dolphins!/i]


If I can't say that pigs are more itnelligent, how can you say that whales are more itnelligent? How can you justify a whaling ban and not a bacon ban?

[i]Some whales/ dolphins are consistantly ranked higher than pigs, which you conveniently leave out. The bacon we eat comes from domestic animals.  



I'd doubt if the native pig hunt is on a bigger scale - and certainly is nothing like the recent history of whaling.

Rather than going on about whether it is bigger, first you should explain why it even matters. Why is it a valid argument. Like your intelligence argument, it is not a valid reason and even if it were, it would go against you, not for you.

It makes it easier to decide the lesser of two evils. If the benifits are marginal and the detriments are significant for a course of action then the sensible thing to do is not to take that action.  


Walter spent half his article attacking whaling on other issues also.

The other attacks are just as flawed. They are no better than PETA's poster of a pet dog with a fish hook through it's mouth. He actually equated killing a whale with killing a human. That is animal welfare extremism.

Well PETA will be pleased with you with you argument that we cannot  distinguish the capacity for pain of fish from higher creatures.  

Given the past history there will always be doubts about commercial whaling on sustainability grounds.

You are missing the point. If you want a ban for sustainability reasons, then argue on sustainability. Don't argue on animal welfare grounds instead.

I'm arguing on both. Can't you accept two ideas at once?


When a commercial industry is established there is commercial pressure to keep it going.

It can only keep going if it is sustainable, hence the original IWC ban. You could make exactly the same argument about fishing. You are rpetending to be interested in sustainability to impose your cultural imperialism.

Well a ban is not sustainable use is it. That they resorted to this shows they failed to sustainably manage the resource. Fisheries are closed sometimes in exreme cases of depletion. But they have a far greater capacity for rebounding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8lvep0-Ii0

It's the current video that has been in our news. It's a clip made by a Japanese that highlights the hypocrisy of Australians when it comes to the cruelty and hunting of endangered species aspect of the anti-whaling argument (it specifically references the hunting of dingos as pests when they are endangered) It also tries to tie in racism.

Not very well done but has some interesting points.

IQ would you mind adding a brief description of the video? I don't normally download them.

Well it does at least put serious doubt on your credibility on scientific issues.

Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

The rules haven't been changed.

Yes they have. The IWC was set up to protect the future of the whale harvest, not to destroy it.

The IWC took account of cultural sensitivities by allowing traditional aboriginal whaling.

For the umteenth time, I am not alking about the original IWC ban. I support that.

The 'cultural imperialism' tag comes straight from Japanese whaling lobby.

Who cares where it comes from? FYI, I did not need anyone to tell me what it is, I recognised it myself.

To say that a commercial industry that has only existed since 1945 is culturally significant is quite a stretch.

OMG! You are kidding aren't you? Whaling is one of the industries this country was founded on.

The ban only came into being because pro-whaling countries changed their position on the issue.

What are you talking about?

You said because the Japanese still take whales the 'ban' is not really a ban.

Duh.

Ethics/ cruelty does not equal 'cultural imperialism'.

In this case it does.

Just about every country has animal cruelty laws.

Like I have already repeated many times, there are zero animal cruelty laws banning the harvest for consumption of any animal.

No, you pointed out than ONE study said that pigs MIGHT be smarter than SOME species, but NOT ALL species of whales/ dolphins!

Lets get this sorted out. The whales that are actually harvested (baleen whales, not killer whales etc) are not the intelligent ones. The fact that killer whales are smart is totally irrelevant to the ban on sperm whales. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. All you have in response is that they could be intelligent.

Some whales/ dolphins are consistantly ranked higher than pigs, which you conveniently leave out.

I did not leave it out. I just pointed out that you are talking about the wrong species. How many times do I have to say that?

The bacon we eat comes from domestic animals.  

So what?

It makes it easier to decide the lesser of two evils.

It only makes it easier because it introduces yet another totally irrelevant factor to make your decision on. And the way you use it is contrary to common sense.

Given the past history there will always be doubts about commercial whaling on sustainability grounds.

Sure, but like In said, that is not a good reason to make up another reason.

I'm arguing on both. Can't you accept two ideas at once?

In case you haven't noticed, I have already accepted one of them. I am happy to discuss both, but using one to justify the other is rediculous. It also helps if you can stay on topic and not switch to 'well it isn't sustainable anyway' to avoid discussing whether anaimal welfare is even a valid reason. Are you just trying to get off this topic?

Well a ban is not sustainable use is it.

It can be part os a sustainable management program, just not an indefinitely. That's what the hippies fail to understand about the whaling ban. It was never supposed to be permanent.

Fisheries are closed sometimes in exreme cases of depletion. But they have a far greater capacity for rebounding.

Um, how does this support your argument? You wouldn't claim fish feel pain just to keep such a fishing ban permanent.

No, you pointed out than ONE study said that pigs MIGHT be smarter than SOME species, but NOT ALL species of whales/ dolphins!

Lets get this sorted out. The whales that are actually harvested (baleen whales, not killer whales etc) are not the intelligent ones. The fact that killer whales are smart is totally irrelevant to the ban on sperm whales. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. All you have in response is that they could be intelligent.  

All the studies I have seen rank these harvested whales as intelligent. Yes usually less so than dolphins or killer whales and in your example slightly below pigs. I should remind you that you said than ALL animals are fair game and that we should draw the line only with our own species. Also that the Japanese also hunt dolphins.

PS: quoting latin does not make you sound more intelligent. And all the "duhs" and "OMG's" are uneccessary also.

To say that a commercial industry that has only existed since 1945 is culturally significant is quite a stretch.

OMG! You are kidding aren't you? Whaling is one of the industries this country was founded on.


Japan has a long history of whaling - but this was done by coastal communities catching the inshore whales and dolphins for susistance. Agriculture was always the mainstay of the Japanese economy. Inland peoples did not eat whale meat. Commercial hunting of pelagic whales only took off after WW2 and was a useful food source at a time of food shortages. Note also the polularity of whale meat in Japan today is not high and is decling despite efforts to promote it.  

I should remind you that you said than ALL animals are fair game and that we should draw the line only with our own species.

Yes, that's what I think. However, given that you are using this argument, it's a bit hypocritical to look for excuses to eat bacon. You still haven't explained why doing something wrong on a really big scale is OK, but if it's on a small scale it should be banned. You still haven't explained why breeding animals yourself justifies far worse treatment for the lifetime of an animal in a factory farm. Do you support a ban on pig hunting with dogs?

We are predators by nature. Where humans live in a natural setting with apes and monkeys, they eat them too if they can get their hands on them. It would also be cultural imperialism to tell tropical people that they can't sustainably harvest apes and monkeys and that they have to chop down the forest and farm cattle instead. We do not have to justify what we are.

quoting latin does not make you sound more intelligent

True, but it saves a lot of time.

Japan has a long history of whaling - but this was done by coastal communities catching the inshore whales and dolphins for susistance.

Same with fishing. Same with all agrictulture. It's all done a far bigger scale now than before. Also, before you were arguing that whaling should be banned because it is only a small industry. Now you say it should be banned because it is bigger than it used to be. Please explain why size matters so much and try to be consistent with ethe argument.

I should remind you that you said than ALL animals are fair game and that we should draw the line only with our own species.

Yes, that's what I think. However, given that you are using this argument, it's a bit hypocritical to look for excuses to eat bacon. You still haven't explained why doing something wrong on a really big scale is OK, but if it's on a small scale it should be banned. You still haven't explained why breeding animals yourself justifies far worse treatment for the lifetime of an animal in a factory farm. Do you support a ban on pig hunting with dogs?

Would I support a ban on pig hunting with dogs - possibly, I haven't thought about it that much. I don't see too much downside to such a ban. It would be up to individual countries as there is no equivalent to the IWC for the case of hunting of terrestial mammals. I doubt if the wild pig hunting industry your fond of would use that method as the mauling by dogs would damage the meat. Recreational hunting? Well I don't think its terribly sporting to let the dogs do the work!

Breeding animals for for food shouldn't be cruel if its done properly. Its in a farmers interests to keep their livestock weel fed and watered and protected from predators. It could be argued that if raised this way they get a better life than they would in the wild. There are rules for humane slaughter. If there are some cases of cruel treatment of livestock, well two wrongs don't make a right.  

We are predators by nature. Where humans live in a natural setting with apes and monkeys, they eat them too if they can get their hands on them. It would also be cultural imperialism to tell tropical people that they can't sustainably harvest apes and monkeys and that they have to chop down the forest and farm cattle instead. We do not have to justify what we are.

Yes and the IWC allows traditional subsistance whaling by indigenous peoples. Commercial whaling is not culturally important and not neccessary for subsitance.




Japan has a long history of whaling - but this was done by coastal communities catching the inshore whales and dolphins for susistance.

Same with fishing. Same with all agrictulture. It's all done a far bigger scale now than before. Also, before you were arguing that whaling should be banned because it is only a small industry. Now you say it should be banned because it is bigger than it used to be. Please explain why size matters so much and try to be consistent with ethe argument.

The World has moved on from when whaling was a bigger industry. Western countries mainly hunted them for their oil. We simply don't need to now as we have alternative products. In the case of Japan there were food shortages after WW11 and whale meat was a useful source of protein. That need is no longer there with abundant alternatives the prosperity to pay for them. Not to mention that we drove whales close to the brink.

Fisheries and agriculture on the other hand we can't do without - the alternative is starvation. If you have any concern for humanity the realities of food production mean that is way it has to be. If done properly though these activities are sustainable, though they do have an impact. Agricultural improvements have seen productivity rise several times over for a lot of crops - which means less land has to be cleared. The World's forest cover has actually been stable over the last decade or so.  

I doubt if the wild pig hunting industry your fond of would use that method as the mauling by dogs would damage the meat.

Compared to what? A shotgun? I lethal injection? Singing the pig to sleep? It's not your place to say how people should hunt pigs. It's certianly not your place to invent rational sounding arguments to fill in for your irrational ones. IF you think animal welfare justifies the ban, say so, don't make up some other reason.

Well I don't think its terribly sporting to let the dogs do the work!

So what? Some people enjoy it. It gets the job done. How else do you hunt pigs in thick scrub?

Plenty of hippies think it isn't sporting to catch fish on a line.

Breeding animals for for food shouldn't be cruel if its done properly.

Ah, but it isn't 'done properly', at least not to your standard. It's amazing what people will turn a blind eye to if it puts cheap bacon on their table (as oppose to whale meat on a Jap's table).

Do you support an end to intensive factory farming of pigs? So far we have added one more form of hunting to your list. What about farming methods?

Its in a farmers interests to keep their livestock weel fed and watered and protected from predators. It could be argued that if raised this way they get a better life than they would in the wild. There are rules for humane slaughter.

Are you even aware of the animal welfare problems associated with factory farming, or is whaling your first foray? Or is this just another case of inventing a rational sounding reason to protect animal welfare?

Yes and the IWC allows traditional subsistance whaling by indigenous peoples.

Should we have to make and use a wooden spear to catch fish from?

Commercial whaling is not culturally important and not neccessary for subsitance.

Niether is Yellowfin Tuna. Pretty hollow argument eh? Or do you think the Japs should live in subsistence while we get fat from bacon? We can go Tuna fishing in overpowered motorboats, but they have to use a rowboat to catch whales?

The World has moved on from when whaling was a bigger industry.

Moved to where? I don't think it has moved at all.

That need is no longer there with abundant alternatives the prosperity to pay for them.

Like what? Depleting Tuna stocks?

Fisheries and agriculture on the other hand we can't do without - the alternative is starvation.

Or we could eat whale. All you are arguing here is that it is possible to ban whaling, not that we should. Or do you expect the Japanese to stop out of deference to our recently acquired cultural taboo on whaling? Do you think that the Japanese have to justify insulting our sensibilities by whaling, when it is possible for them to eat potatoes instead?

If you have any concern for humanity the realities of food production mean that is way it has to be.

No, it's actually the opposite. Sustainable harvest of wild stocks needs to come before commercial agriculture, which is far more destructive.

The World's forest cover has actually been stable over the last decade or so.  

Because we are running out and taking appropriate action and because of global warming, not because the pressure to deforest has suddenly stopped. Just like we avoided hunting the whales to extinction. It is a meaningless argument.

I doubt if the wild pig hunting industry your fond of would use that method as the mauling by dogs would damage the meat.

Compared to what? A shotgun? I lethal injection? Singing the pig to sleep? It's not your place to say how people should hunt pigs. It's certianly not your place to invent rational sounding arguments to fill in for your irrational ones. IF you think animal welfare justifies the ban, say so, don't make up some other reason.


Compared to a high powered rifle of course. You know - the weapon of choice for professional shooters. I didn't say it was my place, and I even said I haven't thought about it that much. I said it was up to each country to decide. You asked for my opinion and then give an unitelligable rant because I gave it.


Well I don't think its terribly sporting to let the dogs do the work!

So what? Some people enjoy it. It gets the job done. How else do you hunt pigs in thick scrub?

Plenty of hippies think it isn't sporting to catch fish on a line.

Are you trying to tell me there isn't a difference between catching fish on a line and setting dogs on to a pig for 'sport'. Even the RSPCA which opposes the hunting of animals for sport makes an exception for angling.  

Your giving the anti-fishing hippies a great oportunity to ban angling with your devotion to the promotion of marine parks!

Are you trying to tell me there isn't a difference between catching fish on a line and setting dogs on to a pig for 'sport'.

I don't see a difference in the degree to which each constitutes a sport. There is no sport in predatory relationships. It is a meaningless argument. And besides, you are the one calling for the ban. You are the one that has to make a case that it isn't sporting, and that something should be banned because it isn't sporting, if you want to use that line of argument. I suggest you just concede now that it was yet another red herring.

Even the RSPCA which opposes the hunting of animals for sport makes an exception for angling.

Do they also make an exception for animals that are eaten? Hunting for sport often implies for sport alone.

Your giving the anti-fishing hippies a great oportunity to ban angling with your devotion to the promotion of marine parks!

No I'm not. I'm making it harder for them to employ your trick - make up a rational sounding argument for a ban because their irrational one won't stick. If we give them a chance (and even if we don't - I have seen it already) they will make the exact same argument as you have - fishermen can't be trusted to manage the resource, fish feel pain so fishing should be banned because it is unsustainable and it isn't sport either because the fish never seem to eat us and we should also ban it because of all the trees we chopped down and the pollution.

So what about factory farming pigs? Have you not thought about that yet either? Have you not even heard of the issue before? I suggest you think a bit more about the pig situation before you start telling everyone that less intelligent animals should not be harvested because they are so smart, or because they might be so smart.

You have also gone quiet on the issue of scale. You haven't yet explained why scale is a relevant issue or why you can argue both that large and small scales of industry justify a ban.

You also haven't come up with an abjective way to draw the line. You started by insisting it was only whales and dolphins (including great apes). Now you include pig hunting and admit you haven't really thought about how far this could go. Where exactly do you draw the line? Or do you want to wait until you have banned a long list of activities before you think about that?

Do you support an end to intensive factory farming of pigs? So far we have added one more form of hunting to your list.

No you haven't. Why would you bother lying about something when its so easy to check my words? I said possibly there is a case to ban one method of one form of hunting but I haven't thought about it that much and that it will be up to each country to decide in any case. And I only offered my opinion because you kept nagging for it.
 

[/i] What about farming methods?

Its in a farmers interests to keep their livestock weel fed and watered and protected from predators. It could be argued that if raised this way they get a better life than they would in the wild. There are rules for humane slaughter.

Are you even aware of the animal welfare problems associated with factory farming, or is whaling your first foray? Or is this just another case of inventing a rational sounding reason to protect animal welfare?

Don't talk about inventions when you blatantly misquote me. Yes I'm 'even' aware of animal welfare problems with some factory farming and I alluded to them. They come under the domain of animal cruelty legislation of each country. Commercial whaling is under the domain of the IWC. two wrongs don't make a right.   

Yes and the IWC allows traditional subsistance whaling by indigenous peoples.

Should we have to make and use a wooden spear to catch fish from?

It means that cultural sensitivies are recognised.


Commercial whaling is not culturally important and not neccessary for subsitance.

Niether is Yellowfin Tuna. Pretty hollow argument eh? Or do you think the Japs should live in subsistence while we get fat from bacon? We can go Tuna fishing in overpowered motorboats, but they have to use a rowboat to catch whales?

One fish species isn't, but the World's fisheries sustain many millions of people.



The World has moved on from when whaling was a bigger industry.

Moved to where? I don't think it has moved at all.

We can now easily sustitute other products as I pointed out.


That need is no longer there with abundant alternatives the prosperity to pay for them.

Like what? Depleting Tuna stocks?

Are you trying to say that we should resume whaling to take pressure off tuna stocks? There are plenty of examples of sustainable fisheries  - particularly in the waters of developed countries.  

Fisheries and agriculture on the other hand we can't do without - the alternative is starvation.

Or we could eat whale. All you are arguing here is that it is possible to ban whaling, not that we should. Or do you expect the Japanese to stop out of deference to our recently acquired cultural taboo on whaling? Do you think that the Japanese have to justify insulting our sensibilities by whaling, when it is possible for them to eat potatoes instead?

If you have any concern for humanity the realities of food production mean that is way it has to be.

No, it's actually the opposite. Sustainable harvest of wild stocks needs to come before commercial agriculture, which is far more destructive.

Nonense, unless you want to go back to a pre-civilised existance. Our civilisation was founded on agriculture and domestication of animals. it allowed us to get away from the hunter gatherer existance and develope our knowledge and technology. There is no way our population could be supported by wild stocks.  

The World's forest cover has actually been stable over the last decade or so.  

Because we are running out and taking appropriate action and because of global warming, not because the pressure to deforest has suddenly stopped. Just like we avoided hunting the whales to extinction. It is a meaningless argument.

No, its because we don't have to keep putting land under the plough because we can use what arable land there is far more productively.

I don't see a difference in the degree to which each constitutes a sport. There is no sport in predatory relationships. It is a meaningless argument. And besides, you are the one calling for the ban. You are the one that has to make a case that it isn't sporting, and that something should be banned because it isn't sporting, if you want to use that line of argument. I suggest you just concede now that it was yet another red herring.

I haven't called for a ban - refer to my last post. If its a red herring you introduced it. You nagged for my opinion on the use of dogs so I gave it. As I sport it might be called to account given that we already ban entertainments like dog fighting and cock fighting. Once again is dishonest and desperate of you to suggest this means I am calling for a ban on pig hunting.

Talking about concessions it appears you have deleted a post you put up last night!

Your giving the anti-fishing hippies a great oportunity to ban angling with your devotion to the promotion of marine parks!  

No I'm not. I'm making it harder for them to employ your trick - make up a rational sounding argument for a ban because their irrational one won't stick. If we give them a chance (and even if we don't - I have seen it already) they will make the exact same argument as you have - fishermen can't be trusted to manage the resource, fish feel pain so fishing should be banned because it is unsustainable and it isn't sport either because the fish never seem to eat us and we should also ban it because of all the trees we chopped down and the pollution.


I haven't heard any of the anti-fishing mafia in the form of the NPA, NCC and the Greens use the fish fell pain argument to ban fishing, either they don't believe it or are afraid of being a laughing stock. The unsustainable fishing argument doesn't stack up in Australia's lightly fish waters - though you have tried to give it a run. With marine parks they have the perfect mechanism to ban fishing and they are campaigning hard for ever more of them.  A honey pot of government and NGO funds creates  tremedous incentive for the parks to keep expanding, aided by bureaucratic empire building, politically motivated scientists and preference wheeling and dealing. They can further deter angling with massive fines and criminal convictions if you get caught fishing in the wrong place. All the time they can claim this is for our own good as marine parks are the 'perfect fisheries management tool', ie as aided by you. Like you they appeal the the authority of the consensus statement.

I said possibly there is a case to ban one method of one form of hunting but I haven't thought about it that much and that it will be up to each country to decide in any case.

Would you like to take a guess at how many other forms of hunting could 'poosibly' be banned using your argument?

Yes I'm 'even' aware of animal welfare problems with some factory farming and I alluded to them.

I brought the issue up because you did not allude to them. It sounded more like you were guessing at what they might be.

It means that cultural sensitivies are recognised.

How can you 'recognise' cultural sensitivities while engaging in cultural imperialsm. It is not recognition. It is tokenism.

One fish species isn't, but the World's fisheries sustain many millions of people.

So what? Fishing can be broken up. If you analyse whaling in isolation from other harvests, why do you insist that all forms of fishing be lumped together? This comes back to the scale argument, which you haven;t explained.

We can now easily sustitute other products as I pointed out.

But why should we? As I have pointed out, just because you can ban whaling doesn't mean you should.

Are you trying to say that we should resume whaling to take pressure off tuna stocks?

No, but it doesn't make sense to ban sustainable harvests on the grounds they can can easily be replaced when global fish harvests at at risk of significant decline.

There are plenty of examples of sustainable fisheries  - particularly in the waters of developed countries.  

There are also examples of sustainable whaling.

Our civilisation was founded on agriculture and domestication of animals.

Isn't this an argument for banning all hunting and fishing? It is not a valid reason for banning whaling. It is just an excuse.

There is no way our population could be supported by wild stocks.

I'm not saying it should. I'm saying that sustaianble wild harvest is a better source of food than commerical agriculture.

No, its because we don't have to keep putting land under the plough because we can use what arable land there is far more productively.

If we all became vegetarian, we could halve the amount of land under agriculture. Again, this doesn't mean we should.

You nagged for my opinion on the use of dogs so I gave it.

I nagged because you refused to answer inconvenient questions. You refused to give an objective reason for the whaling ban or why you think others would also draw the line at whaling.

Once again is dishonest and desperate of you to suggest this means I am calling for a ban on pig hunting.

I am just pointing out the inevitable consequences of successfully banning one harvest on animal welfare gorunds.

Talking about concessions it appears you have deleted a post you put up last night!

No I haven't.

The unsustainable fishing argument doesn't stack up in Australia's lightly fish waters

neither does the unsustainable whaling argument.

Below is a list of the ‘hollow’ arguments pj has presented for why we should ban the harvest of Minke whales and why he is confident the ban won’t be extended to lots of other animals. Most of them are red herrings (ie irrelevant points). Some additional fallacies are listed afterwards. Most of the arguments centre around cruelty and animal intelligence. Hopefully I have included all of pj’s arguments. I think I would have noticed if he made a valid argument somewhere.

PJ tends to make an argument, ignore my response when I point out it’s flaws, then make it again a few posts later, worded slightly differently. Now rather than repeating myself I can just give a number so he can figure out why he is wrong.

1) Whaling is not central to Japanese culture.

2) The Japanese would not starve if they stopped whaling.

3) Whaling is a smaller industry than beef, pigs, fishing etc.

4) You can’t group whaling together with other harvests to form a really big group (eg fishing) that sounds to difficult to get rid of.

5) The whaling industry is smaller than it used to be.

6) The industry is (or was) bigger than it was prior to WWII.

7) Whaling is done for different reasons than it was historically (oil).

8) Whales were not bred for harvest.

9) Whales were overharvested in the past (ie ‘they’ can’t be trusted).

10) Killer whales appear to be smarter than pigs.

11) We can’t be certain that Minke whales are not smarter than pigs.

12) Killing a whale is no different to killing a human.

13) Killing a whale takes a while.

14) Lots of people think whaling is wrong.

15) The IWC has banned whaling.

16) Whaling is conducted via a loophole in the IWC laws.

17) The Japanese subsidise whaling

18) Whale watching is valuable

19) The Japanese are putting diplomatic pressure on small nations to lift the ban.

20) The Japanese are being recalcitrant in not bowing to international pressure.

21) Politeness in the face atrocity is a form of complicity.

22) Evolution is not a scientific theory.

23) Freediver has no credibility.

24) Marine parks.

25) There is no evidence a cruelty based ban on whaling would lead to a similar ban on other harvests.

1, 2: Cultural imperialism. The Japan do not have to justify whaling to us. We have to justify imposing our recently acquired cultural taboos on them. To some extent all the claims above involve cultural imperialism, in that they assume the Japanese must justify freedom from our cultural taboos.

1,2,3,4,5,7: Focus on the ability to ban whaling, not whether we should ban whaling.

3,4,5,6: The magnitude of the industry is irrelevant to the animal cruelty argument.

8: Breeding an animal for harvest does not justify killing it any more than killing a wild animal. Sustainable wild harvests have far less impact on the environment than commercial agriculture, so this argument actually works in favour of whaling..

9: many other species have been overharvested in the past but have now recovered and are managed sustainably.

10,11: Measurements of animal intelligence are not objective. They are entirely subjective and anthropocentric. That is, they centre around an animal’s tendency to mimic proxies for human intelligence or it’s ability to perform circus tricks on cue.

13: It doesn’t take as long as it takes many fish, turtles etc to die on longlines. Recreational fishermen can take longer to land large fish.

14,15,16: Argumentum ad populum and appeal to an irrelevant authority. Just because something is banned does not mean it should be banned. If the IWC ban has no more authority on whether the ban is right than the loophole that allows whaling to continue. The original IWC ban was based on sustainability, but is now being held onto for cultural reasons (ie, our recently acquired taboo on killing them).

17, 18: the economic issues are not a justification for banning whaling. They are only a justification for correcting the economic problems. Whaling and whale watching are not mutually exclusive, any more than scuba diving and fishing are mutually exclusive. We don’t have to ban fishing so people can go scuba diving, just as we don’t have to ban farming because it is subsidised.

19: Australia does the same.

19,20,21: Circular arguments. They assume the ban is justified in the first place then interpret actions on that assumption to reinforce the need for the ban.

22,23,24: Argumentum ad hominem

25: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Plus, the fact that there is arguably already a cruelty based ban on whaling is evidence that there will be attempts to ban other harvests, if the whaling ban issue is fully resolved. Many powerful organisations such as PETA are already calling for a complete ban on recreational fishing on animal cruelty grounds. They are pouring lots of funds into a long term strategy of 'indoctrinating' children to see fishing as equivalent to torturing your pet dog. Many non-food based hunts, such as fox hunting in the UK, have also been banned recently. The whole point of the argument against banning whaling on cruelty grounds is that it would be the first case of banning a harvest for food. It would set a precedent. You do not need direct evidence to expect a precedent to set a precedent.

From FD's first post on this topic:

One of my first forays into Australian politics was the promotion of marine parks as fisheries management tools. This is something that I am still heavily involved with. One of the common criticisms I heard was that marine parks were a 'foot in the door' for the 'greenies.' This even came from people who claimed to be 'the real environmentalists.' It came across as a rather absurd argument. Sure there are some animal liberationists who want to ban recreational fishing, but to assume they could have any political power over fishermen is just rediculous. Furthermore to base your political strategy around fear of such an unlikely outcome is more likely to make it come true. If you refuse to self regulate then someone else will take the opportunity to do it for you next time there is a crisis.


Why is it good enough for you to mention marine parks in relation to this topic but not me? You also mentioned angling as an activity inevitably under threat as a result of the commercial whaling ban, when it is already under actual threat from marine parks. Its undeniable that marine parks have been hijacked by extreme environmental groups with an anti-angling philosophy and they have been good at getting their own way.

Further to your argument that the whaling ban will open the floodgates to ban other forms of hunting there is no evidence of this. Firstly there is no mechanism like the IWC for other countries to interfere with our practices. Secondly we and other countries which have banned our own whaling efforts have not seen this leading to other hunting bans.

With the pig hunting using dogs example if any ban were to eventuate it would more likely be due to the similarity of the practice to dog fights and cock fights where bans exists under animal cruelty laws. Thats why I said there might be a case for such a ban. Of course there is somewhat of a difference between these practices and thats why pig hunting with dogs is still legal.  Using FD's logic we should scrap all our animal cruelty laws as they will inevitable be taken too far by animal rights activists.    

Why is it good enough for you to mention marine parks in relation to this topic but not me?

I did not use it to attack your credibility. You did so to me. Even if you were right about marine parks, that would reinforce my argument about whaling, not undermine it.

Further to your argument that the whaling ban will open the floodgates to ban other forms of hunting there is no evidence of this.

The argument is based on common sense. Your alleged evidence about marine parks also applies to whaling. What is more likely to be hijacked - bans based on animal cruelty or bans based on fisheries management?

Here's another logical fallacy for you - confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence. I think I'll add that to the list.

Firstly there is no mechanism like the IWC for other countries to interfere with our practices.

Who says it has to be a form of cultural imperialism? It is more likely to come from within our own society. And the fact that the legal mechanism are not in place is irrelevant. The legal mechanism are in place for sustainability reasons. They have already been hijacked. Oh yeah, there's your evidence for you. A ban based on sustainability has already been hijacked. Obviously you pick the low hanging fruit first.

Secondly we and other countries which have banned our own whaling efforts have not seen this leading to other hunting bans.

Didn't you bring up the example of fox hunting in the UK? What do you think the Australian animal libbers would do if they ever achieved a meaningful ban on whaling? Call it a day?

With the pig hunting using dogs example if any ban were to eventuate it would more likely be due to the similarity of the practice to dog fights and thingy fights where bans exists under animal cruelty laws.

No it isn't. Whaling is hunting for food. Pigging is hunting for food. Do you see the connection yet? What is it that is stopping animal cruelty laws being applied to food harvest? It's the fact that animal cruelty laws have not been used to ban a food harvest. Even if the laws were a modified version of current laws, this does not undermine the argument that banning one food harvest on cruelty grounds would lead to others being banned.

Using FD's logic we should scrap all our animal cruelty laws as they will inevitable be taken too far by animal rights activists.

How many times have I responded to this argument? How many times have you ignored the response, then made the same silly argument again? I can't even think of how to work this into my list as it is so far removed from the issue of whether to ban whaling.

Why is it good enough for you to mention marine parks in relation to this topic but not me?

I did not use it to attack your credibility. You did so to me. Even if you were right about marine parks, that would reinforce my argument about whaling, not undermine it.

It doesn't reinforce it - it just shows you are proposing a hypothetical threat to angling (and other activities), while ignoring one that is actually occuring. There is no sign of the NCC, NPA or the Greens using the cruelty argument against fishing, let alone whaling bans a precedent or a mecanism. Yet angling is still under threat.



Further to your argument that the whaling ban will open the floodgates to ban other forms of hunting there is no evidence of this.

The argument is based on common sense. Your alleged evidence about marine parks also applies to whaling. What is more likely to be hijacked - bans based on animal cruelty or bans based on fisheries management?

See above. If only one is actually happening then the answer is obvious.


Here's another logical fallacy for you - confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence. I think I'll add that to the list.

No but I'd rather deal with real threats angling that far fetched hypothetical ones.


Firstly there is no mechanism like the IWC for other countries to interfere with our practices.

Who says it has to be a form of cultural imperialism? It is more likely to come from within our own society. And the fact that the legal mechanism are not in place is irrelevant. The legal mechanism are in place for sustainability reasons. They have already been hijacked. Oh yeah, there's your evidence for you. A ban based on sustainability has already been hijacked. Obviously you pick the low hanging fruit first.

I'm glad you admit marine parks have been hijacked. So does this mean you withdraw your unqualified support for them? How did the legal mechanism get up for fisheries? Marine parks are just being justified on sustainability. We are even told they are not there to manage fisheries but to "preserve biodiversity". Ie green ideology and a desire for a 'look but don't touch' environment.

Also why didn't they try to get cruelty legistlation up instead? Not doubt because the cruelty case is weak for fishing!



Secondly we and other countries which have banned our own whaling efforts have not seen this leading to other hunting bans.

Didn't you bring up the example of fox hunting in the UK? What do you think the Australian animal libbers would do if they ever achieved a meaningful ban on whaling? Call it a day?

We have a complete ban on whaling in Australia. Fox hunting fails your own definition because fox hunting is for sport not food. The animal libbers are against any exploitation of animals - its there reason for being. No, they are not going top stop with one ban and they are not going to stop with no bans or a hundred bans.



With the pig hunting using dogs example if any ban were to eventuate it would more likely be due to the similarity of the practice to dog fights and thingy fights where bans exists under animal cruelty laws.

No it isn't. Whaling is hunting for food. Pigging is hunting for food. Do you see the connection yet? What is it that is stopping animal cruelty laws being applied to food harvest? It's the fact that animal cruelty laws have not been used to ban a food harvest. Even if the laws were a modified version of current laws, this does not undermine the argument that banning one food harvest on cruelty grounds would lead to others being banned.


A nation's animal cruelty laws can apply to sports, domesticated farm animals and hunting for food. Harvesting of pigs can occur for all three reasons as well as the culling of feral pigs - your connection doesn't hold up.  


Using FD's logic we should scrap all our animal cruelty laws as they will inevitable be taken too far by animal rights activists.

How many times have I responded to this argument? How many times have you ignored the response, then made the same silly argument again? I can't even think of how to work this into my list as it is so far removed from the issue of whether to ban whaling.

It's not as silly as your whale harvest argument. You have even mentioned examples that support it. Eg the fox hunt ban in the UK and the use of dogs on pigs.

PJ, I'm not sure if you've realised yet, but by saying whaling is cruel and should be banned, you are one of the animal libbers. To be honest, you really should say 'we' or 'my comrades' rather than they.

It doesn't reinforce it - it just shows you are proposing a hypothetical threat to angling (and other activities), while ignoring one that is actually occuring.

That makes no sense at all. If marine parks are a threat to other activities, why isn't a whaling ban? the whaling ban is actually happening is it not? It is doing a far better job of banning whaling than marine parks are at banning fishing. You have no valid reason for calling marien aprks a real threat and the whaling ban a hypothetical threat.

]You are arguing that animal libbers will try to take advantage of a fisheries management but won't get any mileage from actually succeeding in banning a harvest on animal cruelty grounds. You are arguing that successfully hijacking a ban for sustainability will have less impact than the use of another fisheries management tool that doesn't involve a harest ban on any species. That is just absurd.

There is no sign of the NCC, NPA or the Greens using the cruelty argument against fishing, let alone whaling bans a precedent or a mecanism.

That's because the whaling ban is still a touch and go thing. What do you think would happen if some group made a serious effort and tried to use a whaliong ban to ban fishing. I'll tell you what would happen. people like you would wake up to themselves and the whaling ban would disappear overnight. It has to become part of global culture before they will risk losing it.

If only one is actually happening then the answer is obvious.

The whaling ban is actually happening. Hijacking marine parks to ban fishing is not. Here's the proof - plenty of fishermen still support marine parks. How many whalers do you think support your argument that whaling is cruel and should be banned completely. Fopr your argument to make sense would require a grand conspiracy whereby the majority of fishermen do not realise that fishing is being banned.

I'm glad you admit marine parks have been hijacked.

I didn't say that.

How did the legal mechanism get up for fisheries?

I was talking about whaling. There is no legal mechanism for banning fishing on cruelty grounds.

Marine parks are just being justified on sustainability. We are even told they are not there to manage fisheries but to "preserve biodiversity".

Because 'you' are idiots. The biodiversity is being preserved by managing fishing.

Also why didn't they try to get cruelty legistlation up instead?

They did. They still are. It has begun already. Animal libbers just like yourself have already moved onto fishing. See the last bit in the list post.

The animal libbers are against any exploitation of animals - its there reason for being. No, they are not going top stop with one ban and they are not going to stop with no bans or a hundred bans.

I don't care if they try unsuccesfully forever to get such a ban over the line. I do care if people like you create a precedent for them.

A nation's animal cruelty laws can apply to sports, domesticated farm animals and hunting for food.

Laws can apply to anything you want them to. The point is, with the exception of the whaling precedent, they have never been used to ban the harvest for food of an entrie species. Do you understand the precedent you are trying to set?

Eg the fox hunt ban in the UK and the use of dogs on pigs.

Not a harvest, Not a ban.

It's not as silly as your whale harvest argument.

Then why do you just keep repeating it and ignore my responses?

This is the argument so far on this point, and trust me it is this rediculous:

PJ: Using FD's logic we should get rid of animal cruelty laws in case they are used.

FD: But they have never been used to ban a harvest for food.

PJ: Using FD's logic we should get rid of animal cruelty laws in case they are used.

FD: But they have never been used to ban a harvest for food.

PJ: Using FD's logic we should get rid of animal cruelty laws in case they are used.

FD: But they have never been used to ban a harvest for food.

PJ: Using FD's logic we should get rid of animal cruelty laws in case they are used.

FD: But they have never been used to ban a harvest for food.

PJ: Using FD's logic we should get rid of animal cruelty laws in case they are used.

FD: But they have never been used to ban a harvest for food.

PJ: Using FD's logic we should get rid of animal cruelty laws in case they are used.

FD: But they have never been used to ban a harvest for food.

PJ: Using FD's logic we should get rid of animal cruelty laws in case they are used.

FD: But they have never been used to ban a harvest for food.

PJ: Using FD's logic we should get rid of animal cruelty laws in case they are used.

FD: But they have never been used to ban a harvest for food.

Repeat ad infinitum.

Do you even realise that your whaling argument is the precedent they need to apply animal welfare laws to food harvest? Do you understand how this point undermines your argument, rather than supporting it? We do not need to get rid of current animal cruelty laws, because even I support them. We do need to oppose the precedent of banning a harvest completely on animal cruelty grounds.

PJ, whatever your thoughts on marine parks, they are not a valid reason for banning whaling. You are calling for a whaling ban. Every single reason you have given has been shown to be flawed. You need to justify your call for a whaling ban. You cannot. So you change the topic to marine parks. I introduced marine parks originally because it backed up my argument. It does not back up yours. The threat of hijacking marine parks, however small, is a reason not to give a precedent of banning a harvest on cruelty grounds. It is not a reason to ban whaling. Even with your twisted logic, you can't even make it support your claim that the whaling ban would not be used to ban other sports. You can only point out additional threats to fishing that any sane person would see as a reason to oppose the whaling ban. You fear the animal libbers will hijacking fisheries management tools, yet you use animal libber arguments and debating tactics to help them hijack whaling management tools. You parrot every argument they make, but cannot see how the same argument would be applied else where. That does not make sense.

Do you have any valid reasons for the whaling ban? (In case you still haven't cottoned on yet, marine parks are not a valid reason for banning whaling). There's no point comparing it to marine parks in terms of a threat if you don't have a single valid reason for the ban. It's like you are arguing 'oh, lets join the opposition and help them do something stupid - we should do this on the off chance that it doesn't come back to bite us. Unless there's proof it will come back to bite us, I will pretend I am blind to the risk.

Bored, bored, bored...

PJ: Using FD's logic we should get rid of animal cruelty laws in case they are used.

FD: But they have never been used to ban a harvest for food.

Repeat ad infinitum.

Did you put your hands over your ears and stamp your feet at the same time?

Do you even realise that your whaling argument is the precedent they need to apply animal welfare laws to food harvest? Do you understand how this point undermines your argument, rather than supporting it? We do not need to get rid of current animal cruelty laws, because even I support them. We do need to oppose the precedent of banning a harvest completely on animal cruelty grounds.

So there is such a thing as legitimate animal welfare - then why does my concern for the welfare of whales make me a rabid animal libber?

Your "we do need to oppose the precedent of banning a harvest completely on animal cruelty grounds" argument is just high school posturing. You ignore all the sublties and supporting arguments such as:

- The ban is only for commercial whaling, aboriginal susistence whaling is and will continued to be allowed. There is and will be no complete ban.

- There is no legal framework for an international ban on other animal harvests. You admitted this when you you said that such a move will happen domestically.
If so then why hasn't it happened in countries that have banned commercial whaling for decades? Ie the 'precedent' is in place.

- No goverment will seriously damage the welfare of its people for animal liberation reasons. In the case of commercial whaling the benifits in terms of a food source and economics are marginal.

- Its hard to kill whales at sea humanely. In other cases we have the option of encouraging more humane methods. Your 'this means we should ban bacon' argument ignores the option of encouraging humane methods of raising pigs.

- The ban is linked with and cannot be separated from the sustainability issues. Several species were driven close to the brink. They may take more than one hundred years to recover. Given the past history there is a risk in resuming commercial whaling.

- The ethics question cannot be discounted. Whether we should kill such intelligent creatures for marginal benifit is a legitimate issue. Your rubbishing of the field of animal intelligence is similar to your other attemps to pick away at the case for the ban. You saying this is my only reason for supporting the ban - it is not. The fact that the issue is wider than that is not my doing - its just the way it is.

When these reasons are viewed as a whole the case is strong. You have been trying to pick away at each justification in isolation. Even then your arguments are flawed and illogical.      
 

So there is such a thing as legitimate animal welfare - then why does my concern for the welfare of whales make me a rabid animal libber?

Because it is hypocritical. Because it is cultural imperialism. Because you are trying to set a precedent of banning a food on animal welfare grounds.

You ignore all the sublties and supporting arguments such as:

Well I'm glad I made that list. I didn't think you'd start again from the beggining like that. I thought you had wisened up and moved on. See 1, 25, 17, 13, 9, 10, 11 above - that's in the order you presented them. Have you considered responding to my criticisms of each argument, rather than repeating them?

When these reasons are viewed as a whole the case is strong.

No it isn't. It's just tedious because people like you bring up one issue then move on to countless others as the flaw in each one is pointed out. Like I said, you have not raised a single valid reason for the whaling ban. Even 100 invalid reasons will not substitute for a single valid one.

You have been trying to pick away at each justification in isolation.

Duh. That's how ratioanl debate works pj. It's not about waving your arms in the air and hoping no-one will count up all the little flaws in your argument. You can't say 'well this argument is irrational, but if I lump it with 20 other irrational arguments and say them really quickly then maybe it's OK.'

Westerners, especially Australians and Americans, have a curious habit of adopting legal bans as cultural taboos. Whaling is just the most absurd of many. Not only did we adopt an irrational taboo, we tried to impose it upon far more rational societies. We make fools of ourselves on the international stage, huffing and puffing our moral superiority, oblivious to the fact that our delusions of high ground are nothing more than cultural imperialism. Howard and Rudd were forced to face up to the Japanese leader and squirm about the idiocy of the people they represent, then go home and talk up their ‘real action’ on whaling. Many new animal libbers think they are safe in opposing whaling because it will never affect them. Think again.

Consider the case of crocodiles. Once overharvested, they are quickly recovering with bans on harvest. Unfortunately, crocodiles are territorial. As the populations climb in remote areas, the smaller ones are forced into small suburban creeks, out to sea and onto beaches. As they recover more, even very large crocodiles are forced into conflict with humans. They take pets from people’s backyard. They take people camping near beaches. Recently, residents of a quit Cairns suburb became very concerned when a large crocodile took up residence. Crocodiles stalk their prey. They watch it over many days, picking up patterns of behaviour, looking for the perfect time to strike. All that separated resident’s front gates from this particular croc was a quiet suburban back street. Every day it would sun itself on the grass, watching housewives hang the laundry, watching pets come down for a drink, watching children walk to school, watching visually impaired old ladies make their way slowly to the shops, watching drunken youths stagger home from parties. Choking in red tape, authorities did nothing. When a few local lads took it upon themselves to beat the maneater to death, they were treated as criminals, even though to other locals they were heroes. If the croc had taken a schoolkid, it would have been an unfortunate, unforseeable accident. Wake up Australia.

Consider kangaroos. California has banned them. The state with perhaps the world’s largest and cruelest factory farming industry, a state with millions of obese people, banned sustainably harvested, organic, free range, low fat meat in favour of subsidised big macs. The ban was supposedly based on sustainability, though it was horribly misinformed. At least the Californians have realised their mistake and have almost removed the ban. Guess who launched a massive campaign to oppose this move? It was PJ’s fellow animal libbers. But, I hear you say, that’s ignorant Americans for you. They wouldn’t have a clue. Yet it is only very recently that kangaroo started appearing beside steak on the supermarket shelves. Why? Because animal libbers like PJ called boycotts on the shops that did sell it. Enough Australians got swept up in the emotion, failing to consider how destructive cattle are to our fragile environment.

Consider great white sharks. they were also overharvested once. Now they are recovering. They re also maneaters and people do get taken by them. The debate over what to do with them is hamstrung by irrational people crying ‘it’s wrong to eat these sharks’ while tucking into their fish and chips. How far will we let them recover before allowing some kind of harvest to begin again?

Consider the grey nurse shark. What if it turns out that that is not 400, but 40000 of them? What if in a few decades there are 4 million of them and you can’t land a fish in some places because the water is thick with hungry grey nurses. It may never happen, but if it did, would grey nurses be forever off our menu because we were wise enough to protect them for future generations?

Consider brushtail possums. These were never under threat. They have always been a pest. Brushtail possums are four times as dense in the urban environment as they are in the wild. They are basically native rats, except that people tolerate and even encourage them through feeding. They carry several nasty diseases. For example they are the principle carriers of Ross River Fever, with something like 70% of them testing positive. They damage ceilings. They are carnivorous and eat small animals and bird eggs. Combine this with the introduction of cats and aggressive bird species from overseas (helped along by the urban environment) and it is no wonder that avian biodiversity is so low in the suburbs. Every opportunity to sustainably harvest a wild source of food that we pass up reinforces the role of commercial agriculture (chemicals, hormones, transport, fossil fuels) in our lives. Possums add to this by devouring tomatoes and other plants in our backyards. It’s a chemical company’s dream companion, an animal that people love that forces them to be completely dependent on farmers who kill everything in their path and create chemically enforced monocultures. Fortunately some cafe’s in Brisbane and other cities now sell a hearty meal of possum. Let’s hope we follow the example set by kangaroos, not the example some are trying to set with whales.

Consider the Blue Groper. It is illegal to take them by hand spear in NSW, but you can take them on a line. These large colourful fish are everywhere and they are not afraid of people. Consequently, it is also 'wrong' to spear them. Even spearfishermen in NSW react badly to the suggestion that the rules should be changed once there are plenty of marine parks established. The fish are territorial and would recieve more than enough protection in marine parks. There would be plenty to keep the scuba divers happy. Yet if you pick any other fish and arbitrarily declared it off limits to one group of fishermen, they would be up in arms.

Sustainable wild harvests have far less ecological impact than intensive farming. They do not require modification of the landscape or the artifical recreation of entire food chains (eg, chopping down trees to grow grain to feed cattle, or trawling up fish to feed penned tuna). They are not reliant on chemically reinforced monoculture. The animals are free range and comparably chemical and hormone free. We should take advantage of every viable opportunity to harvest wild food sustainably rather than relying on commercial agriculture. We should not arbitrarily ban the consumption of certain animals for cultural or emotional reasons.

Consider the Blue Groper. It is illegal to take them by hand spear in NSW, but you can take them on a line. These large colourful fish are everywhere and they are not afraid of people. Consequently, it is also 'wrong' to spear them. Even spearfishermen in NSW react badly to the suggestion that the rules should be changed once there are plenty of marine parks established. The fish are territorial and would recieve more than enough protection in marine parks. There would be plenty to keep the scuba divers happy. Yet if you pick any other fish and arbitrarily declared it off limits to one group of fishermen, they would be up in arms.  


I thought you said that it was impossible to catch a fish off the shore FD? The fact that they aren't afraid of people was the problem. These slow moving and inquisitive fish were vulnerable to divers with spearguns and you did a good job of nearly wiping them out. The fact that there numbers are healthy since they have been an angling only species would suggest that the policy is working and there is nothing arbitrary about it. Also no need for marine parks to protect them either.  A further example of your ignorance is that there are several species off limits to anglers for sound conservation reasons and acceptance/ compliance is high, eg estuary cod in NSW, east coast cod, black cod, grey nurse shark to name a few.

If you want to catch one why don't you pick up a rod and reel FD? You might find it more sporting than blasting an easy target with a speargun.

I thought you said that it was impossible to catch a fish off the shore FD?

Strawman.

These slow moving and inquisitive fish were vulnerable to divers with spearguns and you did a good job of nearly wiping them out.

This kind of misses the point pj.

Also no need for marine parks to protect them either.

Strawman.

A further example of your ignorance is that there are several species off limits to anglers for sound conservation reasons and acceptance/ compliance is high, eg estuary cod in NSW, east coast cod, black cod, grey nurse shark to name a few.

This also misses the point. It is not an 'example of my ignorance'. It is a red herring.

If you want to catch one why don't you pick up a rod and reel FD?

This misses the point also.

Oh yeah, have you come up with any valid reasons for supporting the whaling ban yet, or a response to my criticisms?

Now you have been caught out as not knowing what your talking about with your statement on blue groper and all you can offer is "strawman" "misses the point" and "red herring".

Yes, I do have some responses to your last criticisms on whaling. But given the above treatment you have given mine and the fact that I am tired after working 9 hours a day this week (plus commuting), they can wait for another day.

I haven't been caught out on anything. Nothing I posted was wrong. You just read something strange between the lines.

Please, take your time.

The seal hunt is another good example of animal libbers trying to ban a harvest, though I'm not sure whether they get eaten or just used for fur. The animal libbers get all upset because clubs are used, even though it's a fairly quick way to dispatch an animal. It just looks bad having red blood on white ice and seeing a person get some exercise rather than using a mechanical hammer behind closed doors.

---

Greenpeace locates Japanese whalers

http://news.smh.com.au/greenpeace-locates-japanese-whalers/20080112-1lks.html

A Greenpeace protest ship is in pursuit of a fleet of Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean after finding the vessels early on Saturday morning.

Expedition leader aboard the Greenpeace vessel Esperanza Karli Thomas said the six Japanese ships fled when Greenpeace located them shortly after midnight (AEDT).

"The first thing they did when we approached them was to scatter and run," Thomas said.

"We stayed with the factory ship the Nisshin Maru, which is always the major target," she said.

She said Greenpeace was engaged in high-speed pursuit of the whaling ships and would take non-violent action to stop them hunting more of the marine mammals.

Greenpeace broadcasted a message in Japanese and English to the whaling ships condemning the hunt and insisted they to return to port immediately.

International spokesman for Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research, Glenn Inwood, said his organisation believed Greenpeace used whaling as a way of fundraising.

"We have made our views known on the whole Greenpeace thing. Japan's research is legal. What (protest groups) Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace do is illegal," he said.

Australian customs vessel the Oceanic Viking left Western Australia on Tuesday to monitor the Japanese fleet at work.

The confrontation in the Southern Ocean is the first since last year, when the Japanese whale hunt ended early due to an accidental fire aboard the Nisshin Maru that killed one crew member.

---

Customs ship 'not able to sail Antarctic waters'

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/customs-ship-not-able-to-sail-antarctic-waters/2008/01/12/1199988636744.html

The federal opposition has raised doubts about whether the customs ship sent to monitor Japanese whaling is capable of sailing in Antarctic waters.

The Oceanic Viking sailed from Western Australia on Tuesday to conduct surveillance of the Japanese fleet on its annual scientific whaling hunt in the Southern Ocean.

But opposition justice and border protection spokesman Christopher Pyne today said a government expert had told him the former P&O cruise ship is only equipped to operate in sub-antarctic waters.

"It means it doesn't have the ability to shadow the Japanese whaling fleet into the Antarctic waters if this source is right," Mr Pyne said.

The federal opposition has raised doubts about whether the customs ship sent to monitor Japanese whaling is capable of sailing in Antarctic waters.

The Oceanic Viking sailed from Western Australia on Tuesday to conduct surveillance of the Japanese fleet on its annual scientific whaling hunt in the Southern Ocean.

But opposition justice and border protection spokesman Christopher Pyne today said a government expert had told him the former P&O cruise ship is only equipped to operate in sub-antarctic waters.

"It means it doesn't have the ability to shadow the Japanese whaling fleet into the Antarctic waters if this source is right," Mr Pyne said.

"Is the reason the government won't allow aerial photography and details of operations to be released because they know that the Oceanic Viking in fact will have to stop in the pursuit of Japanese whalers when they reach Antarctic waters?"

Mr Pyne said the government may be relying on Greenpeace to carry out the tasks the Oceanic Viking was commissioned to do.

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2008 at 9:32pm:

I haven't been caught out on anything. Nothing I posted was wrong. You just read something strange between the lines.

Everything you posted on the blue groper was wrong. You said the spearfishing ban on groper was arbitrary when it was not. It was a ban on method that was too effective. There are plenty of examples of similar bans. You admit that blue groper nos are now healthy - this shows the spearfishing ban was effective.

You said that anglers would never accept a species ban when in fact there are several and accpetance is high.

You say that marine parks will give them enough protection to enable the spearfishing ban to be lifted. This is pure speculation. Given the past history of depletion by divers it is quite likely that such a policy would lead to severe local depletions where spearfishing is allowed. Given the present protection is working you have to come up with something better than that.

Instead of trying to argue these points you do what you did with the whaling debate. Ie use political and rhetorical devices which are a way of avoiding reason and thought. Hence we get slogans and phrases like:

- cultural imperialism
- not a valid argument
- strawman
- red herring
- misses the point

and these are repeated over and over.

A good example of 'Newspeak' I would think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Newspeak is a fictional language in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel, it is described as being "the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year." Orwell included an essay about it in the form of an appendix[1] in which the basic principles of the language are explained. Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. This suits the totalitarian regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative thinking ("thoughtcrime") or speech impossible by removing any words or possible constructs which describe the ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on. One character says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."

The Newspeak term for the English language is Oldspeak. Oldspeak was intended to have been completely eclipsed by Newspeak before 2050.

The genesis of Newspeak can be found in the constructed language Basic English, which Orwell promoted from 1942 to 1944 before emphatically rejecting it in his essay "Politics and the English Language".[2] In this paper he laments the quality of the English of his day, citing examples of dying metaphors, pretentious diction or rhetoric, and meaningless words — all of which contribute to fuzzy ideas and a lack of logical thinking. Towards the end of this essay, having argued his case, Orwell muses:

“ I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions. ”

Thus forcing the use of Newspeak, according to Orwell, describes a deliberate intent to exploit this degeneration with the aim of oppressing its speakers.

You're getting slack pj. So far you've done a reasonable job of quoting me and responding to what I actuially said. Now your just making stuff up. HAve you figured out what a strawman is yet?

Everything you posted on the blue groper was wrong.

Yet you cannot quote anything I actually said and point out why it is wrong.

You said the spearfishing ban on groper was arbitrary

No I didn't, which is of course why you didn't quote me.

You said that anglers would never accept a species ban

No I didn't. Again, that's why you didn't quote what I actually said.

You say that marine parks will give them enough protection to enable the spearfishing ban to be lifted. This is pure speculation.

It is common sense.

Ie use political and rhetorical devices which are a way of avoiding reason and thought.

No, that's what you did. I pointed out how every single one of your claims was based on flawed logic.

Hence we get slogans and phrases like:

They aren't just 'rhetorical' techniques. Some of them are logical fallacies. That is, they are terms that refer to common errors of logic that you made. Of course, pointing out such basic errors is technically a rhetorical technique - a very good one.

Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar.

I am trying to expand your vocabulary by introducing easy ways to refer to errors of logic without having to explain them to you over and over again. If you aren't sure what they mean, here's another link to some explanations:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html

Perhaps you should try to understand the errors of logic rather than accusing me of censorship when I try to get you to avoid them.

Anyway, back to the whaling. Do you have any valid reasons for supporting the whaling ban? Do you have a response to any of the criticisms I have made of the arguments you have put forward so far, or are you just going to ignore those criticisms and repeat yourself? In case you've forgotten, here is the list of your hollow arguments:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/why-allow-whaling.html#hollow-arguments

[quote author=freediver link=1168478179/165#170 date=1200185503]You're getting slack pj. So far you've done a reasonable job of quoting me and responding to what I actuially said. Now your just making stuff up. HAve you figured out what a strawman is yet?

I have responded directly to arguments you have made with the blue groper statement - no strawman arguments or misquotes. if you meant something different to my interpretation then its up to you to spell it out.  



Everything you posted on the blue groper was wrong.

Yet you cannot quote anything I actually said and point out why it is wrong.

I did in my last post - its just that you don't want to accept your wrong.



You said the spearfishing ban on groper was arbitrary

No I didn't, which is of course why you didn't quote me.

FD said: "Yet if you pick any other fish and arbitrarily declared it off limits to one group of fishermen, they would be up in arms." Sound like you were calling the spearfishing ban arbitrary to me!  



You said that anglers would never accept a species ban

No I didn't. Again, that's why you didn't quote what I actually said.

Once again the same quote said that we'd up in arms: "Yet if you pick any other fish and arbitrarily declared it off limits to one group of fishermen, they would be up in arms".



You say that marine parks will give them enough protection to enable the spearfishing ban to be lifted. This is pure speculation.

It is common sense.

I'll add that to your other examples of newspeak.



Ie use political and rhetorical devices which are a way of avoiding reason and thought.

No, that's what you did. I pointed out how every single one of your claims was based on flawed logic.

Hence we get slogans and phrases like:

They aren't just 'rhetorical' techniques. Some of them are logical fallacies. That is, they are terms that refer to common errors of logic that you made. Of course, pointing out such basic errors is technically a rhetorical technique - a very good one.

Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar.

I am trying to expand your vocabulary by introducing easy ways to refer to errors of logic without having to explain them to you over and over again. If you aren't sure what they mean, here's another link to some explanations:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html

Perhaps you should try to understand the errors of logic rather than accusing me of censorship when I try to get you to avoid them.


No you do it every time you get into trouble. You have thrown up 'strawman' and 'red  herring' and 'not a valid argument' when I have directly responded to arguments you have made yourself.  

Anyway, back to the whaling. Do you have any valid reasons for supporting the whaling ban? Do you have a response to any of the criticisms I have made of the arguments you have put forward so far, or are you just going to ignore those criticisms and repeat yourself? In case you've forgotten, here is the list of your hollow arguments:

No I haven't forgotten, I'm just a bit more busy than you appear to be. Don't try to make an argument out of how long I take to reply.

I have responded directly to arguments you have made with the blue groper statement - no strawman arguments or misquotes.

Of course they weren't misquotes because you didn't quote anything. They were however strawmen.

I did in my last post - its just that you don't want to accept your wrong.

That wasn't a quote. have you forgotten what a quote is or something?

Sound like you were calling the spearfishing ban arbitrary to me!

Well, at least you quoted me that time. Well done. Now read what you quoted again. Maybe read the context if you are unsure, as it must be something in the context that leads you to believe I was referring to the groper ban. Better still, I'll explain - with enough marine parks, the justifiaction for the ban will lose validity. I was contrasting a ban that was once justified but may no longer be at some time in the future, with an arbitrary ban. I did this to back up the original point - that people tend to adopt such bans as cultural taboos. There is nothing to this simple claim alone about whether the ban was originally justified or whether it still is.

Once again the same quote said that we'd up in arms.

Are you saying fishermen would accept an arbitrary ban? Read the quote - I was referring to a hypothetical arbitrary ban, not claiming any specific current ban is arbitrary and unacceptable.

Hence we get slogans and phrases like

I accused you of making logical errors. I listed all the errors you made. That is not a slogan. That is a meaningful claim that you could easily refute if you were able to. Again, here is the list of your errors of logic:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html

You have thrown up 'strawman' and 'red  herring' and 'not a valid argument' when I have directly responded to arguments you have made yourself.

No you didn't. You simply changed topic to some other hollow argument. You went round and round in circles, eventually coming back to the same claims over and over again, but ignoring the criticisms I had already made of each.

Remember, you even said yourself that I should not consider your claims in isolation because when you lump them altogether they are more convincing. All you have presented is a list of arguments that do not stand up when considered in isolation.

Don't try to make an argument out of how long I take to reply.

I'm not. I encouraged you to take your time, so that you can address the real issue of whether we should allow whaling rather than avoiding the issue. I want you to try to come up with a valid argument, or to respond to some of my criticisms -  a response that goes beyond making a different argument to change the topic away from the flaws in the first.

You think your arguments are somehow stronger if you lump them all together and ignore the problems with each one. The list of all the arguments you have amde and why every single one is flawed is far stronger.

I have responded directly to arguments you have made with the blue groper statement - no strawman arguments or misquotes.

Of course they weren't misquotes because you didn't quote anything. They were however strawmen.

I did in my last post - its just that you don't want to accept your wrong.

That wasn't a quote. have you forgotten what a quote is or something?


I put up your whole (short) paragraph on blue groper FD. That wasn't enough for you so I quoted individual sentences.


Using marine parks to protect blue groper to allow spearfishermen to get their kicks hardly a sensible policy. You have admitted that the species is thriving under the present rules. They were being depleted when they were a fair target to every trophy seeker with a speargun. Your just punishing the wrong activity with marine park argument. You have avoided the issue of local depletions where spearfishing would be allowed.    

Below is a list of the ‘hollow’ arguments pj has presented for why we should ban the harvest of Minke whales and why he is confident the ban won’t be extended to lots of other animals. Most of them are red herrings (ie irrelevant points). Some additional fallacies are listed afterwards. Most of the arguments centre around cruelty and animal intelligence. Hopefully I have included all of pj’s arguments. I think I would have noticed if he made a valid argument somewhere.

I said ban commercial whaling FD. I didn't single out minke whales.

PJ tends to make an argument, ignore my response when I point out it’s flaws, then make it again a few posts later, worded slightly differently. Now rather than repeating myself I can just give a number so he can figure out why he is wrong.

FD calls not agreeing with him 'ignoring his responses'.

1) Whaling is not central to Japanese culture.

Its true. FD has shown he has not researched the topic when he tried to say otherwise.

2) The Japanese would not starve if they stopped whaling.

I think it was more like whaling is marginal as a food source and as an economic activity.

3) Whaling is a smaller industry than beef, pigs, fishing etc.

Far smaller - miniscule in comarison.

4) You can’t group whaling together with other harvests to form a really big group (eg fishing) that sounds to difficult to get rid of.

I don't follow and it does't sound like anthing I have said.

5) The whaling industry is smaller than it used to be.

Pretty obvious given that a commercial ban is in place.

6) The industry is (or was) bigger than it was prior to WWII.

If you mean by that Japanese commercial whaling only took off after WW2 then this is an historical fact. It goes to the issue of cultural significance. Its like saying that i shouldn't be retrenched from my job of 20 years because it is culturally significant to me.

7) Whaling is done for different reasons than it was historically (oil).

Another historical fact and shows we don't need to do it anymore.

8) Whales were not bred for harvest.

FD brought up the case of animal welfare for farmed animals and tried to equate and whaling ban with banning the raising of domestic animals. Obviously (except to FD) these are vary different practices in terms of ethic and sustainability.

9) Whales were overharvested in the past (ie ‘they’ can’t be trusted).

Driven close to extinction more like it

10) Killer whales appear to be smarter than pigs.

11) We can’t be certain that Minke whales are not smarter than pigs.

Both true.

12) Killing a whale is no different to killing a human.

I didn't say that - I think you are referring to Walter Starcks article.

13) Killing a whale takes a while.

True. I can put up an RSPCA report on it if you like.

14) Lots of people think whaling is wrong.

True - but I don't recall basing my case on that.

15) The IWC has banned whaling.

16) Whaling is conducted via a loophole in the IWC laws.

FD tried to say the rules weren't meant to be a ban on commercial whaling because Japan can and does still take whales. Obviously they are using the laws against the spirit intended, ie using a loophole.

17) The Japanese subsidise whaling

Evidence of marginal economic value.

18) Whale watching is valuable

Probably more valuable than commercial whaling. FD said the two aren't linked. People pay good money to see whales. Obviously this is linked to the poor sustainability record of whaling and their slow capacity to recover from overharvest.

19) The Japanese are putting diplomatic pressure on small nations to lift the ban.

They don't even try to deny it. They use their aid to bribe votes on the IWC. FD says Australia does the same but this is not true. Sure we have an aid program but we don't use it to secure IWC votes. There is a strong correlation between Japanese aid and the way small counties vote, they have even paid membership fees on the IWC, Japanese official have admited to these practices.  

20) The Japanese are being recalcitrant in not bowing to international pressure.

21) Politeness in the face atrocity is a form of complicity.

Quotes from Walter Starck.

22) Evolution is not a scientific theory.

FD used similar arguments for both. There is no objective test to prove fish (or other animals) feel pain. Evolution is not a scientific theory because there is not experiment to verify or disprove it.

23) Freediver has no credibility.

A valid point. Not something I base my whole case on though. Our politician use credibility arguments all the time and FD wants to be a player in politics.

24) Marine parks.

Relevant to FD's central argument that a ban on whaling on animal welfare grounds will inevitably lead to bans on other harvests including angling. Marine parks and there no fishing signs are a reality right now. The proccess has been hijacked by green preservationists who are hostile to angling and any form of wild harvest.  

25) There is no evidence a cruelty based ban on whaling would lead to a similar ban on other harvests.

[i]FD says just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it might. Any mention of ways of banning harvests such as marine parks, use of animal cruelty laws is met by 'red herring'.

Uh PJ, you responded to the bits where I summarised your arguments. You did not respond to the criticisms of your arguments. You appear to have missed the point completely. Can you tell the difference between when I describe your argument and when I point out the flaws in it?

I have responded directly to arguments you have made with the blue groper statement - no strawman arguments or misquotes.

Wrong. They were mostly strawmen. I've got no idea where you got it into your head that I had said those things, but if you just read what I actually posted, you should be able to figure it out. You misunderstood what I was saying. The few times you did actually grasp the meainging of a single sentence, you misunderstood my reason for making the argument.

Uh PJ, you responded to the bits where I summarised your arguments. You did not respond to the criticisms of your arguments. You appear to have missed the point completely. Can you tell the difference between when I describe your argument and when I point out the flaws in it?

I have told you I am busy FD - that will have to do for now. I am tackling each section at a time, so why don't you drop that condescending tone and actually make a reply that addresses what I have said. A lot of it does address what you described in the arguments section. Now, actually I did respond to the arguments section but it was lost when I got the page expired message when I tried to save it.  

I have responded directly to arguments you have made with the blue groper statement - no strawman arguments or misquotes.

Wrong. They were mostly strawmen. I've got no idea where you got it into your head that I had said those things, but if you just read what I actually posted, you should be able to figure it out. You misunderstood what I was saying. The few times you did actually grasp the meainging of a single sentence, you misunderstood my reason for making the argument.

Well expalin what you mean then. One of your of your sentences was open to different interpretations, ie the vauge one about fishermen being up in arms over a theoretical arbitrary ban. I am getting tired of hearing 'strawman' to everything also.

so why don't you drop that condescending tone and actually make a reply that addresses what I have said

Because there is no point. You were effectively agreeing with yourself, and any response would be the same as the criticisms that are already there.

Now, actually I did respond to the arguments section but it was lost when I got the page expired message when I tried to save it.  

If that happens again, try opening notepad and pasting. It may have been saved to your clipboard.

One of your of your sentences was open to different interpretations, ie the vauge one about fishermen being up in arms over a theoretical arbitrary ban.

OK, if a ban was originally justified, but no longer is, then it has in a way become arbitrary. People tend to still support it for mostly cultural reasons. However, if a ban was proposed that was arbitrary from the start, people would reject it. I was trying to show that the whaling thing was part of a trend. Suppose whaling had never become unsustainable and never been banned. If a bunch of hippes said we should ban it because it is cruel, they would get laughed at. But because some countries have adopted the ban as part of their culture, they will hang onto it, even though the reasons for hanging onto it were never sufficient to justify the creation of a ban on a wild harvest for food.

---

Whalers pushed out of hunting grounds

http://news.smh.com.au/whalers-pushed-out-of-hunting-grounds/20080113-1lqf.html

Environment group Greenpeace says it has chased the Japanese whaling fleet out of its Southern Ocean hunting grounds near Antarctica.

Greenpeace said it believed the fleet would soon refuel and offload its whale meat onto the tanker Oriental Bluebird, before returning to the hunting grounds.

---

And here is a recent post from another forum I am on, trying to use the whaling ban to justify forcing veganism upon us all:

Whalers call Australians Hypocrites!

This one is doing the rounds in the Australian mass media at the
moment. The pro whaling community has posted a video on youtube
characterising Australians as racist, xenophobic, nationalistic thugs
who like nothing more than to kill our own animals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8lvep0-Ii0


I think the important point of the video is it demonstrates how easily
a lack of moral consistency can be turned against you. The pro whaling
community is RIGHT when it accuses Australia of hypocrisy, because we
are hypocrites (vegan company excluded). We do kill our native animals,
we do support the live sheep trade and we are working very hard at
destroying our own environment for short term gains.

To make a
distinction between killing a whale and killing a kangaroo places a
person on very shaky moral ground. The only thing the whaling community
is wrong about in this sense, is their conclusion. Killing one thing
doesn't justify killing another. We should be killing neither.

From VeganFreaks.org
written by the member John

---

Greenpeace 'delaying' Japan's whale hunt

http://news.smh.com.au/greenpeace-delaying-japans-whale-hunt/20080114-1lx1.html

Greenpeace says its protest vessel continues to hold up Japan's whale hunt by chasing the fleet's mother ship further from the Antarctic whaling zone.

The whalers counter that rather than fleeing, the fleet is keeping its distance from the protest ship Esperanza in the interest of the Japanese personnel's safety.

Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research said Greenpeace was deluding itself about the Esperanza's impact on the fleet's operations.

"Greenpeace has an over-inflated sense of self-importance if they think the research vessels are running from them," institute spokesman Glenn Inwood said.

"In terms of safety for crew and the scientists, it's best that Japan keeps at a distance from Greenpeace.

The Esperanza can only pursue the Japanese fleet for a limited period because it is unable to refuel. But the Japanese ship is similarly hindered.

Greenpeace says it has failed in attempts to pass on its coordinates to the Oceanic Viking, which the government has sent to monitor the hunt.

The organisation refuses to cooperate with the more radical Sea Shepherd group because of differences over protest tactics.

A Federal Court judge will on Tuesday hand down a decision on the Humane Society International's attempt to have whaling in Australia's Antarctic territorial waters declared illegal.

---

Activists threaten to ram Japanese whalers

http://news.smh.com.au/activists-threaten-to-ram-japanese-whalers/20080115-1lyz.html

The militant environmental group Sea Shepherd said Monday that it had located the Japanese whaling fleet near Antarctica and threatened to ram them if they resumed slaughtering the giant sea creatures.

Paul Watson, captain of the Sea Shepherd's ship, said the leading Japanese vessel, the Nisshin Maru, was now outside the hunting area and had not killed any whales in the past 48 hours.

"I think they're running scared really," he told AFP via telephone from on board the ship.

"When we found them originally they were down by the icebergs and as we were moving in they started running and they've been running ever since."

In response to a question, Watson confirmed he would ram the Japanese fleet if his ship came upon them killing whales.

http://news.smh.com.au/court-wants-whalers-out-of-aussie-waters/20080115-1m38.html

The Federal Court has ordered a Japanese whaling company to stop killing whales in Australian Antarctic waters.

The Humane Society International (HSI) launched legal action against whaler Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd in 2004, seeking a Federal Court injunction against harvesting in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in Antarctic waters.

HSI claims the company has slaughtered 1,253 minke whales and nine fin whales since the sanctuary was declared in 2000, in breach of Australian domestic law protecting the animals.

Justice Jim Allsop on Tuesday said unless restrained, the Japanese company would continue to "kill, injure, take and interfere with" Antarctic minke whales and fin whales.

He also said the company had targeted humpback whales in the Australian whale sanctuary in contravention of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

"The respondent has, on the evidence, no presence or assets within the jurisdiction," Justice Allsop said.

"Unless the respondent's vessels enter Australia, thus exposing themselves to possible arrest or seizure, the applicant acknowledges that there is no practical mechanism by which orders of this court can be enforced."

The hearing was derailed in 2005, after then federal attorney-general Philip Ruddock intervened on the grounds it could spark a diplomatic row with Japan.

But the full bench of the Federal Court ordered the proceedings resume in 2006.

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 7:45pm:

http://news.smh.com.au/court-wants-whalers-out-of-aussie-waters/20080115-1m38.html The Federal Court has ordered a Japanese whaling company to stop killing whales in Australian Antarctic waters. The Humane Society International (HSI) launched legal action against whaler Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd in 2004, seeking a Federal Court injunction against harvesting in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in Antarctic waters. HSI claims the company has slaughtered 1,253 minke whales and nine fin whales since the sanctuary was declared in 2000, in breach of Australian domestic law protecting the animals. Justice Jim Allsop on Tuesday said unless restrained, the Japanese company would continue to "kill, injure, take and interfere with" Antarctic minke whales and fin whales. He also said the company had targeted humpback whales in the Australian whale sanctuary in contravention of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. "The respondent has, on the evidence, no presence or assets within the jurisdiction," Justice Allsop said. "Unless the respondent's vessels enter Australia, thus exposing themselves to possible arrest or seizure, the applicant acknowledges that there is no practical mechanism by which orders of this court can be enforced." The hearing was derailed in 2005, after then federal attorney-general Philip Ruddock intervened on the grounds it could spark a diplomatic row with Japan. But the full bench of the Federal Court ordered the proceedings resume in 2006.

Well, has the Jap Fleet disappeared?  They must be trembling in their boots over this.  An Australian Court ordering a Japanese Mob to do its wishes.

I think I'll come out of retirement.  Lawyers love this stuff!

Shite!!

Don't knock it mate.  Those greenies are making lawyers rich.  I have to get a bucket of that money.

Meantime Kevvy's Navy will be at anchor hundreds of miles away from the action watching the cricket on TV and trying to get the dishwasher to work.

http://news.smh.com.au/antiwhaling-activists-reject-demands/20080116-1m6d.html

Activists in the Southern Ocean are refusing to abide by a list of demands issued for the return of two crew members detained aboard a Japanese whaling ship.

Australian Benjamin Potts, 28, and Briton Giles Lane, 35, crew members of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society vessel Steve Irwin, boarded the Japanese harpoon vessel Yushin Maru No. 2 about 4pm (AEDT) on Tuesday to deliver a written plea to stop killing whales.

Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson said he had received an email from Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) that instructed his vessel to stop its protest activities as a condition of returning his crew.

"They are saying that we have to agree to not take any action against their whaling activities, not to video or photo their whaling activities and want us to send a boat - a small zodiac - 10 miles over the horizon to pick up my crew, which I am not going to do," Watson told AAP.

"It endangers the life of the crew, to put them out in these waters in a small boat, 10 miles out of view. So I am not going to meet these demands.

"When you hold hostages and make demands, that is the definition of a terrorist organisation, and that is the way they are acting."

ICR spokesman Glenn Inwood earlier said protest ship the Steve Irwin was deliberately avoiding Japanese attempts to hand over two detained crew members.

NZ concerned over detained anti-whalers

http://news.smh.com.au/nz-concerned-over-detained-antiwhalers/20080116-1ma4.html

New Zealand's government says it is concerned about the detention of anti-whaling protesters but has no plans to send defence ships to the Southern Ocean.

---

from crikey -  it looks like the table in my article needs some additions for missing countries. Maybe the missing countries are not IWC members.

Every year in the peaceful island cluster of the Faeroe Islands, a protectorate of Denmark, an event called the grindadráp takes place. The local fishermen herd a pod of pilot whales into harbour. Once there, they are driven into knee-deep water where men from the small Faeroese population kill them by cutting their spinal cords by hand. In 2006, they killed in excess of 800 whales.

Yet Greenpeace has never seriously campaigned against the whaling practices of the Faeroese. And it has never campaigned heavily against whaling nations Norway, Iceland or Russia. Greenpeace doesn’t send the Esperanza in pursuit of European vessels when other whale activists do. Instead, it concentrates its efforts away from Europe. Why?

It’s not because these European nations have a significantly smaller catch than the Japanese. Alongside the Faeroese, the Norwegians take roughly 600 whales per year, making a total of close to 1,400 whales compare to Japan’s average of roughly 750 since 2000.

No, the bias in Greenpeace’s Asia-centric whaling campaign is about headlines and fundraising rather than the whales themselves.

Anti-whaling is a cause celebre in Australia – particularly against the Japanese. Chasing a whaling ship out of neighbouring waters makes for good copy in a slow news period and contributes significantly to Greenpeace’s membership coffers. Yet if the same actions took place in Norway and Denmark there would be a considerable backlash that would erode Greenpeace’s supporter base.

As Sea Shepherd Captain and Greenpeace co-founder Paul Watson has stated, "when it comes to whaling, some nations are more tolerated than others by Greenpeace." For example, in 2005, during the northern hemisphere whaling season, the Esperanza was in Norway. According to Sea Shepherd Paul Watson, the ship was devoting its time to collecting water samples. But at the same time, Greenpeace was running an anti-whaling campaign in South Korea, where an International Whaling Commission was about to be held.

Campaigns by Greenpeace against companies like Apple and Shell have singled them out not because they were the worst offenders, but because they are the easiest targets for grabbing headlines in an increasingly crowded and sensitive environmental donations market. This was highlighted in 2006 when a draft press release from the Greenpeace USA office was accidentally sent to the media featuring the text "FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE."

This raises an ethical concern. In their campaigns and lobbying activity, Greenpeace constantly call on governments and the public to take an objective and scientific view in debates on issues like climate change, forestry in developing countries and nuclear power and set out priorities accordingly. The question is, does Greenpeace do the same, or are they simply staging a fundraiser?

High-seas whaling standoff draws in Tokyo, Canberra

http://news.smh.com.au/highseas-whaling-standoff-draws-in-tokyo-canberra/20080116-1meg.html

A high-seas standoff between Japanese whalers and militant anti-whaling activists in the icy waters of the Antarctic drew the governments of Australia and Japan into the fray Wednesday.

At the centre of the row are two Sea Shepherd Conservation Society activists who were detained on one of the Japanese ships after boarding it Tuesday to demand an end to the annual slaughter of the giants of the seas.

Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said Japan had agreed to release the men after being contacted by Australian officials.

Noting that the Steve Irwin is registered in the Netherlands, Smith said Australia had also contacted the Dutch authorities "about urging the vessel to act within its obligations," and the Dutch had agreed.

Sea Shepherd said the two captured activists were assaulted and tied to the radar mast of the harpoon ship Yushin Maru No 2 after they clambered over the rails and onto the Japanese vessel from an inflatable boat.

A spokesman for Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research denied the men had been mistreated, saying they had been given hot meals, a bath and had a good night's sleep.

"They were restrained for a short period (on deck) before being taken to an office," Glenn Inwood said. "It was the only way, you couldn't have them running around the deck not knowing what they're going to do."

---

Deadlock over anti-whaling activists

http://news.smh.com.au/deadlock-over-antiwhaling-activists/20080116-1m6d.html

Japanese whalers are refusing to unconditionally release two anti-whaling activists held at sea despite a diplomatic deal with Australia.

The conservation group Sea Shepherd says it won't meet the whalers' demands and has accused them of treating the activists harshly during their dramatic capture in the Southern Ocean.

The federal Liebor Government have brought this upon themselves.  Little Bully Kevvy started the threatening behaviour with warnings of gun toting vessels trailing the Japs.  Greenpeace and others said Kevvy's Navy should be stopping the whalers and they have taken courage from Kevvy's empty rhetoric.

Now Kevvy's actions are haunting him.

Why should Japan believe or trust Kevvy?  No one in Australia does.  He speaks with forked tongue.

Rudd calls for calm in whaling standoff

http://news.smh.com.au/rudd-calls-for-calm-in-whaling-standoff/20080117-1mfc.html

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has called on the Japanese government and environmental activists to exercise restraint to allow the safe return of two men being detained on a Japanese whaling vessel.

Speaking in Brisbane, Mr Rudd said Foreign Minister Stephen Smith was in constant talks with Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda to procure their immediate safe return.

Mr Rudd said the Australian government still remained committed to ending commercial whaling.

"The key challenge is how do we bring about the end of commercial whaling, period, into the future, that's what I'm concerned about," he said.

"And (that is) the reason I have foreshadowed, for some time now, the absolute importance of accumulating an evidence base which underpins a possible legal action (that) has that as its single objective.

"This is not scientific whaling - this is commercial whaling."

The federal opposition says using the Customs ship Oceanic Viking to effect the transfer of two anti-whaling activists held by Japanese whalers is the best way to resolve the stand-off.

---

Australia may intervene in Japanese whaling row: minister

http://news.smh.com.au/australia-may-intervene-in-japanese-whaling-row-minister/20080117-1ml9.html

Australia could send a customs ship to end a high-seas standoff in Antarctic waters by picking up two anti-whaling activists held on board a Japanese whaler, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said Thursday.

http://news.smh.com.au/customs-ship-to-pick-up-activists-smith/20080117-1mfc.html

---

I would have given them nothing to eat but whale:

Anti-whaling pair return to Sea Shepherd

http://news.smh.com.au/antiwhaling-pair-return-to-sea-shepherd/20080118-1mnk.html

Two anti-whaling activists who were held aboard a Japanese whaling ship have been returned to the Sea Shepherd vessel, the Steve Irwin.

They were handed over to the Australian customs vessel Oceanic Viking early Friday morning by the Japanese.

Mr Potts said he feared for his life while he was being held by the Japanese.

"A number of them grabbed us and they attempted to throw me overboard. They were unsuccessful because I held onto a guard rail. One bloke picked up my shoulders and the gunner picked up my legs."

Mr Potts said both he and Mr Lane were denied access to most information about their plight.

The pair had warned they would start a hunger strike if they were not told what was going to happen to them, he said.

During the time were held by the Japanese it is understood they were fed rice and given green tea and water to drink.

---

Activists vow to carry on disrupting Japanese whaling

http://news.smh.com.au/activists-vow-to-carry-on-disrupting-japanese-whaling/20080118-1moi.html

A militant anti-whaling group said Friday it would immediately resume harassing Japanese whalers in Antarctic waters after detained activists freed by Tokyo are returned to their ship.

The confrontation with Sea Shepherd had forced the Japanese fleet to suspend whaling for several days, but a spokesman for Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research said the whalers would resume the hunt as soon as possible.

Little Kevvy has made Australia an embarrassment - this story is tearing through Asia who are delighted to see a berk like Kevvy fall over his own shoelaces.


Quote:

Australia's Rudd harpooned by Japanese whalers Malaysia Sun Incoming national leaders are defined by how well they deal with their first crisis. John Howard, Kevin Rudd's predecessor as Australian prime minister, won plaudits in 1996 for staring down opponents of gun control and ordering the world's biggest gun buy-back after the Port Arthur massacre claimed 35 lives. In 1997, new Prime Minister Tony Blair deeply impressed the British public by the deft way he coaxed Queen Elizabeth into giving a state funeral to Lady Diana Spencer, whom he famously called 'The People's Princess'. Howard and Blair both went on to stay in office for more than 10 years. Rudd is a week away from his first appearance in the Canberra Parliament as prime minister and he risks falling at his very first hurdle. The 50-year-old former diplomat who has never held ministerial office has been branded a weak leader by not speaking up about Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean. In fact, the normally irrepressible Rudd has failed to speak at all. Since Japanese whalers took two activists into custody, other ministers have had to do the talking. Australian Benjamin Potts and Giles Lane from Britain are crewmembers of the Steve Irwin, owned by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which sailed to the Southern Ocean in December to try and disrupt the harpooning. They are being held incommunicado aboard the Yushin Maru 2, which along with four other vessels left Japan in November with the intention of returning with 935 minke whales and 50 fin whales. The opposition was quick to pounce. Its environment spokesman Greg Hunt said Rudd was too busy watching cricket and hobnobbing with actors Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman to address the crisis. 'There's no reason why Mr. Rudd shouldn't finally pick up the phone and call the Japanese prime minister and do what heads of government do, which is speak to each other,' Hunt said. The risk for Rudd is appearing a hypocrite. Before the November general election that swept Howard from office, Labor had talked tough. Labor castigated the conservatives for not sending warships to patrol the whale sanctuary it had declared in the Southern Ocean. The government's environment spokesman Peter Garrett, who is now the minister, had claimed Howard was too fearful of risking relations with Japan. Garrett, the former lead singer with Midnight Oil, was left to defend Hunt's charge that the dispatch of the nowhere-to-be-seen Oceanic Viking, armed and with 30 customs officers on board, was just 'domestic posturing' and that the unspoken hope was that it would fail to find the Japanese whalers. 'Our intention is to continue to have an overall holistic and fair-dinkum approach to opposing Japanese so-called scientific whaling,' Garrett waffled. The hapless former rocker had no answer as to why the departure of the Oceanic Viking was delayed by over a week and why it had failed to find the Japanese when protesters aboard the Steve Irwin had been able to. The Greens, Rudd's allies in his landslide election win, alleged the new prime minister was all huff and puff. 'They wanted to come out heavy, to be seen to be doing something, and they have not followed through,' Greens member of parliament Rachel Siewert said. Greenpeace had called on the government to send up a plane to pinpoint the location of the fleet, so its ship, the Esperanza, could begin harassing the Japanese. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which sent the Steve Irwin to find the Japanese fleet, was not only successful but also managed to put it to flight. The hostage drama has provided further ammunition for an opposition that senses Rudd, like the Japanese whalers, is on the run. And this is even before his first formal day in office. What a wanker is Kevvy

I voted Liberal.

LOL, the Australian government's 'anti whaling' ship has helped the Japanese to escape the hippies.

Environmentalists fall out over anti-whaling tactics

http://news.smh.com.au/environmentalists-fall-out-over-antiwhaling-tactics/20080120-1mzn.html

A militant anti-whaling group trying to stop Japanese hunters in the icy Southern Ocean on Sunday accused rival Greenpeace of "ocean posing" after it refused to hand over the coordinates of the fleet.

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society said it was forced to move away from the area by Australian officials aboard a customs vessel late last week when it made a rendezvous to pick up two of its activists rescued from a Japanese whaling ship.

As a result it lost track of the fleet, its chief Paul Watson told AFP from the society's ship the Steve Irwin.

"Greenpeace needs to get their footage of a whale being shot," Watson told AFP. "They do it every year. If you really look at it Greenpeace invests more money in advertising than they do in the actual campaign."

Greenpeace does not cooperate with Sea Shepherd on the grounds it promotes violent protest, she said. Sea Shepherd denies it promotes violence, although its tactics in the past have included ramming a vessel and Watson claims to have sunk whaling boats in the past.

Holden said Greenpeace still had the mother ship within its sights. However, she said the real battle was in Tokyo, where she said there were real signs of a shift in attitude, with even conservatives starting to question the value of the annual whale hunt.

---

Activists use 'stink bombs' to harass Japanese whalers

http://news.smh.com.au/activists-use-stink-bombs-to-harass-japanese-whalers/20080119-1mwt.html

A militant anti-whaling group on Saturday said it attacked a Japanese whaling vessel with "stink bombs", frustrating the hunt, only an hour after two of its activists were freed from the harpoon boat.

"One hour after our people were released we then went after the Yushin Maru No. 2 and hit them with our stink bombs," Paul Watson, told AFP via telephone.

"What that will do is it makes it impossible to work on the deck for two days."

The Japanese company which owns the whaling vessels, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd, condemned the butyric acid attacks on its ships which it likened to the work of terrorists.

"We safely released to an Australian patrol boat the intruders without any harm, even though Sea Shepherd has long threatened our safety," the company's president Kazuo Yamamoto said in a statement.

"The night attack is nothing more than an inhumane act for which they deserve to be called terrorists as they show no sign of honour as human beings," he said.

"We are not down here hanging banners and taking pictures, we are down here to save whales," he said.

"We are going to keep hitting these guys... as long as we don't hurt anybody.

Watson said the Steve Irwin, which had to follow the Australian customs boat some 50 miles away from the Japanese ship to collect its detained crew, was now searching for the Japanese fleet.

Meanwhile, Japanese diplomats and government officials will hold an emergency meeting soon to discuss measures to prevent future attacks against whaling vessels, the online edition of the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reported.

Another result in the score card of common sense.

After spending multi-millions of dollars sending a floating observatory I would hope that they would get a chance to exercise their law skills- but it turns out that they released the pirates back onto their boat to continue their high seas mayhem.

And the state Labor govt supports these idiots. Donation jockeys who flout the law should be outlawed and prosecuted- or perhaps I should gather together a gang of like minded idiots to forcibly protest what particularly annoys us about a lawful activity?

They are sickening in their acts, sickening in their flouting of the laws and worst of all, they are sickening in their propaganda display and the accompanying selling to the Australian stupid sector, which seems to grow bigger every year.

Harp seals and whales= emotional fodder for the uneducated masses.

Perhaps it will hit home when they start throwing acid through the window of the local butcher or ramming cattle trucks off the road. For a lot of these people, 'meat is murder' is more than just a slogan. It's an ideology they are prepared to take all the way.

---

Australia backs eco-terrorism: whalers

http://news.smh.com.au/australia-backs-ecoterrorism-whalers/20080121-1n6o.html

Japanese whalers have accused the Australian government of supporting eco-terrorism by returning two Sea Shepherd activists to the protest group last week.

The Sea Shepherd society had a history of highly aggressive action - including fouling whaling boats' propellers with rope and hurling stink bombs onboard - that could only be viewed as eco-terrorism, he said.

Quote:

Little Bully Kevvy started the threatening behaviour with warnings of gun toting vessels trailing the Japs.

Do Customs vessels 'tote guns?'  I mean something more than mere rifles/hand guns etc.  I mean deck mounted bungers.

I expect they would. The footage I've seen of government vessels intercepting boats in our northern waters showed some respectable looking deck mounted weapons. You wouldn't want to do that work without them.

Not sure if it would be enough to cripple the whaling or hippy terrorist boats, but it would send them below deck anyway.

Apparently Aboriginies in Australia catch about 1600 dugongs every year. They really are an endangered species.

Aussie wrote on Jan 21^st, 2008 at 3:53pm:

Quote: Little Bully Kevvy started the threatening behaviour with warnings of gun toting vessels trailing the Japs. Do Customs vessels 'tote guns?'  I mean something more than mere rifles/hand guns etc.  I mean deck mounted bungers.

Quote:

Armed vessel to monitor whalers December 18, 2007 09:52am A CUSTOMS vessel armed with machine guns may be deployed to the Southern Ocean as part of beefed-up Federal Government monitoring of the Japanese whale hunt. Customs said the Oceanic Viking is not a cruise ship, as reported today, but a "full-time contracted vessel". "The 105-metre Oceanic Viking is fitted with two deck mounted 0.50 calibre machine guns, has a fully-equipped medical centre staffed by an Australian Antarctic Division doctor, and carries a full civilian crew and steaming party," the customs website said. Oceanic Viking is also used to patrol Australia's northern waters. Greenpeace has welcomed the reported plan to use the ship to monitor the hunt. "We're certainly supporting the Australian Government's action that they're taking in sending a ship down," Greenpeace's Karli Thomas told Channel 9 today. "The more scrutiny that we can have on the Japanese whaling operation the better." Little Kevvy's Navy

http://news.smh.com.au/greenpeace-tries-to-hamper-nisshin-maru/20080122-1ndr.html

Greenpeace activists on an inflatable boat are attempting to block the Japanese whaling factory ship from refuelling in Antarctic waters, the environment group says.

The protesters have been navigating their inflatable between the Nisshin Maru and fuel ship the Oriental Bluebird for about an hour, Dave Walsh, spokesman on board the Greenpeace ship Esperanza, said about midday (AEDT).

Greenpeace also says the Panamanian-registered Oriental Bluebird does not have a Japanese government permit to be a part of the whaling fleet.

Looks like Greenpeace is hankering for a bit of the donation pie

http://news.smh.com.au/activists-clash-with-japanese-whalers/20080122-1ndr.html

Environmentalists have again clashed with Japanese whalers in Antarctic waters, with Greenpeace activists failing to prevent the refuelling of the fleet's factory ship.

The protesters piloted an inflatable boat between the Nisshin Maru and supply ship the Oriental Bluebird during the operation, a spokesman on board the Greenpeace ship Esperanza said.

"They've gone ahead with refuelling now - it was too dangerous for us to continue blocking them because they were pushing their two ships together, which was quite a dangerous manoeuvre with people sitting between on a boat," Greenpeace spokesman Dave Walsh told the ABC.

Photos released by Greenpeace showed crew of the two whaling ships directing water hoses at the tiny inflatable as it navigated the narrow gap between them.

Mr Walsh said the refuelling was occurring south of the 60-degree line in the Southern Ocean in breach of the Antarctic Treaty, which contains a 1998 protocol to protect the environment.

The Japanese fleet is thought to have suspended whaling until the protest ships, which are unable to refuel, are forced to return to port.

deepthought wrote on Jan 21^st, 2008 at 8:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 21st, 2008 at 3:53pm: Quote: Little Bully Kevvy started the threatening behaviour with warnings of gun toting vessels trailing the Japs. Do Customs vessels 'tote guns?'  I mean something more than mere rifles/hand guns etc.  I mean deck mounted bungers. [quote]Armed vessel to monitor whalers December 18, 2007 09:52am A CUSTOMS vessel armed with machine guns may be deployed to the Southern Ocean as part of beefed-up Federal Government monitoring of the Japanese whale hunt. Customs said the Oceanic Viking is not a cruise ship, as reported today, but a "full-time contracted vessel". "The 105-metre Oceanic Viking is fitted with two deck mounted 0.50 calibre machine guns, has a fully-equipped medical centre staffed by an Australian Antarctic Division doctor, and carries a full civilian crew and steaming party," the customs website said. Oceanic Viking is also used to patrol Australia's northern waters. Greenpeace has welcomed the reported plan to use the ship to monitor the hunt. "We're certainly supporting the Australian Government's action that they're taking in sending a ship down," Greenpeace's Karli Thomas told Channel 9 today. "The more scrutiny that we can have on the Japanese whaling operation the better." Little Kevvy's Navy

[/quote]


Note, my expression "bungers."  

That is 'Aussie' speak for something much more than a deck mounted tatatatatatatatata.....

I meant, by 'bunger' something which will blow you out of the water.......the equivalent of 'gun toting.........' in real world terms

The vessel does have 0.50's that were removed.

you mean it doesn't have them?

Officially? Nup and hopefully never will but you never know with the left...They can be militant. I'm sure there would have been some hippies crying into their tie dies that more posturing couldn't be made of the weapons.

Peace man- now even though you are performing a totally legal operation, do as I say or I'll sink your ship.

I think I might go cut my competitions phone lines as I believe that they are acting unethically. Maybe I can get Kruddy to send a Telstra van to assist me after I have jumped onto his property?

Kruddy has wasted enough taxpayers $$$ on his little green placating jaunt. The bullets should be fired across the bow of the Steve Irwin

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2008 at 9:46pm:

you mean it doesn't have them?

After the outcry they were removed.  The Liebor Party thought being the John Wayne of the seas sounded pretty cool but there was a massive backlash and they were 'officially' removed.

Aussie wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2008 at 8:43pm:

Note, my expression "bungers."   That is 'Aussie' speak for something much more than a deck mounted tatatatatatatatata..... I meant, by 'bunger' something which will blow you out of the water.......the equivalent of 'gun toting.........' in real world terms

A 50 calibre round will pierce all but military vehicles with heavy armour so knocking off sailors aboard a whaling ship at distances of a couple of kilometres makes the weapon formidable.

Luckily the public have more sense than Liebor and the outcry caused the weapons to be removed - but Little Kevvy certainly made the threats and gave courage to the loonies of the sea.  The results are there to see.

The previous government obviously made it clear that piracy was illegal.

Japan urges legal action against anti-whaling activists: ministry

http://news.smh.com.au/japan-urges-legal-action-against-antiwhaling-activists-ministry/20080123-1njy.html

Japan urged Australia Tuesday to take legal action against two anti-whaling protestors who climbed aboard a Japanese whaler in Antarctic seas last week, a foreign ministry statement said.

The activists, from the US environmental group Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, were held on the Japanese harpoon boat for two days after they delivered a letter protesting the slaughter of whales.

Only an hour after the two men were handed to an Australian customs boat on Friday, the crew of a Sea Shepherd ship hurled butyric acid bombs, or "stink bombs," onto the deck of the harpoon boat.

Japanese Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura told Australian Trade Minister Simon Crean in Tokyo that the actions of the group posed a danger and he urged cooperation to prevent "the recurrence of such an incident," according to the ministry statement.

He also asked Canberra to "take appropriate action" under national laws "should the Sea Shepherd boat call at an Australian port."

Crean, during talks here on bilateral ties, regional cooperation and the whaling issue, said the Australian Federal Police are investigating the case and that his government would decide on a response based on the results.

I agree with japan.

the "activists" did an illegal dangerous action and still are.
ALP incited their action due to a meaningless legal case win.
It is up to the ALP to provide safety from activists.

The japanese now have a huge moral advantage, we have lost ground

ALP incited their action due to a meaningless legal case win.

The court case had nothing to do with it. The ALP incited their action due to buying the 'idiot' green vote bolstered by the environMENTAL lobby to win govt. As with most of their policies, it will eventually cost them (us) more than they paid with little to no return except rhetorical grandiose grandstanding and a lowering of Australia in world standing due to our hypocritical stance

This hardly sounds like our government is 'standing up' to the whalers:

Japanese relations will be fine: Smith

http://news.smh.com.au/japanese-relations-will-be-fine-smith/20080125-1o4q.html

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith says Australia and Japan agreeing to disagree over whaling in Antarctic waters won't affect relations between the two countries.

Mr Smith, who flies to Tokyo next week for talks with his Japanese counterpart Masahiko Koumura, described the relationship as long-term and enduring.

freediver wrote on Jan 21^st, 2008 at 4:01pm:

Apparently Aboriginies in Australia catch about 1600 dugongs every year. They really are an endangered species.

The Aborigines or the dugongs?

dugongs

New Zealand PM warns Japanese whalers

http://news.smh.com.au/new-zealand-pm-warns-japanese-whalers/20080125-1o4q.html

New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark has warned Japanese whaling ships, saying surveillance photos of the fleet revealing their location will be published if they enter New Zealand's Antarctic waters.

Japan's six ship whaling fleet has been trying to avoid anti-whaling protest ships in the Southern Ocean after protesters stopped whaling operations when two activists boarded a whaling ship and another group stopped a whaling ship refuelling.

The militant Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which boarded the Japanese ship, has threatened to find the whalers and stop them whaling.

Greenpeace, which prevented the fleet's factory ship Nisshin Maru from refuelling, is also searching for the whalers.

Royal New Zealand Air Force reports the whalers were heading for New Zealand's Antarctic waters, where it has search and rescue responsibilities but not sovereignty, prompted Clark to warn off the Japanese fleet.

"The government's instructions have been that if the Japanese whaling fleet is discovered in the area where New Zealand is patrolling, then we would like photographs and we will release them," Clark told reporters.

"We won't release coordinates for obvious safety related reasons but we will put information out to the world where we see the fleet," she said.

---

Greenpeace anti-whaling ship low on fuel

http://news.smh.com.au/greenpeace-antiwhaling-ship-low-on-fuel/20080126-1oc4.html

Greenpeace's ship Esperanza, which has been pursuing the Japanese whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean, is running low on fuel and returning to port.

Greenpeace said it was estimated that the fleet needed to catch approximately nine minke whales each day and an endangered fin whale every other day in order to reach their self-imposed quota of nearly 1,000 whales.

However, the Japanese government said they would not whale while Greenpeace was with the Nisshin Maru.

---

So just how strongly does our government oppose whaling in the protected zone, where an Australian judge has ruled the whaling illegal.

Japanese coast guards to protect whalers

http://news.smh.com.au/japanese-coast-guards-to-protect-whalers/20080130-1p2c.html

Australia's foreign minister has defended Japan's right to put coast guard staff aboard whaling vessels to protect their seamen from protesters.

Foreign minister Stephen Smith said, via a spokesman, that restraint was needed by all parties in the Southern Ocean.

"The placement of coastguard officers on the Japanese whaling vessels is a matter for Japan," Smith's spokesman said.

He was reacting to reports that Japanese coast guard officers, who have the right to carry weapons, have entered Australia's Antarctic waters to help defend whalers from protesters.

Arikawa said the decision to send coast guard officers to accompany the whalers came directly from the Japanese government and he expected Australia to be unhappy with the move.

"I think the Australian government will condemn or complain about the Japanese government's decision, because they mainly like to complain about anything you know. That is my personal opinion," he said.

The head of the Sea Shepherd protest group, which has had a vessel in the Southern Ocean tracking the whalers, said he would not be deterred by Japan's decision to send coast guard staff.

"We have had confrontations with half of the Soviet navy, the Portuguese, Danish and Norwegian navies. We have been fired on by the Norwegians and the Russians," Sea Shepherd spokesman Paul Watson said.

"When you take on the Soviet navy you are not concerned about the Japanese coast guard.

"I find it rather strange that Australia went to the trouble of taking the guns off the (customs ship) Oceanic Viking so as not to offend the Japanese and yet the Japanese can have armed military personnel down here."

Watson's protest vessel the Steve Irwin is heading back to Melbourne, where it hopes to refuel before again trying to locate the Japanese fleet.

The Greenpeace ship is also heading back to port and expects to arrive in Hobart on Monday.

Japan makes no secret that the meat ends up on dinner plates and accuses Western countries of disrespecting its culture. Only Norway and Iceland defy the moratorium on commercial whaling outright.

Smith to raise whaling issue in Tokyo

http://news.smh.com.au/smith-to-raise-whaling-issue-in-tokyo/20080131-1pbi.html

Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith has arrived in Japan on his first foreign trip since taking office, amid a bitter feud between the allies over whaling.

The Japanese official sought to play down the dispute.

"Whaling of course will be talked about at the foreign ministerial talks, but the two ministers have already discussed it over the telephone and agreed not to make it a diplomatic issue," he said.

Rudd's Labor Party had accused the previous conservative government of John Howard of failing to press for an end to whaling due to concern about business with Japan, Australia's top trading partner.

As he arrived, nearly 100 experts and officials on both sides of the whaling dispute met in Japan in a bid to reach some understanding on the future of the International Whaling Commission, which is bitterly divided between countries which support whaling and those that oppose it.

The symposium, which will submit recommendations to the commission's next meeting, was arranged by the Pew Charitable Trusts, a non-governmental US research institute.

The commission imposed a 1986 moratorium on whaling, but Japan argues that it should go back to its original mandate of managing whale populations for hunting.

---

Whaling resumes in Southern Ocean

http://news.smh.com.au/whaling-resumes-in-southern-ocean/20080201-1per.html

Japan has resumed its slaughter of whales in the Southern Ocean, crew on board the Australian Customs vessel Oceanic Viking have confirmed.

Witnesses reported seeing up to five whales, possibly the minke species, harpooned and then hauled on to the factory ship the Nisshin Maru.

Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith has voiced his "disappointment" at Japan's resumption of whaling during a face-to-face meeting with his counterpart in Tokyo.

---

We may board whaling ship again: Watson

http://news.smh.com.au/we-may-board-whaling-ship-again-watson/20080201-1per.html

Anti-whaling activists are prepared to repeat a risky boarding tactic that sparked a diplomatic row between Australia and Japan.

"That is a possibility, I see nothing wrong with boarding a poaching vessel," he told AAP, from aboard the Steve Irwin off the Tasmanian coast.

"We are dealing with criminals here and I see no problem with boarding them to try and stop what they are doing."

"They are not going to get their quota (of 935 minke whales and 50 fin whales) this year," he said.

In meetings with his Japanese counterpart Masahiko Komura, Mr Smith conveyed the Australian government's strongly-held view that Japan's whaling program should cease, a spokesman for the minister said.

Greenpeace says it wants Mr Smith to use his Tokyo visit to extract a guarantee from Japan that it won't build a new factory whaling ship.

---

Japanese PM calls for calm on whaling

http://news.smh.com.au/japanese-pm-calls-for-calm-on-whaling/20080201-1per.html

Japan's prime minister insisted a bitter dispute over whaling won't hurt bilateral relations, a day after Australia expressed its disappointment as whalers resumed their hunt.

As the row dragged on, hunt supporters and opponents held a rare meeting in Tokyo in a bid to strike a compromise in the international body that handles whales.

About 100 delegates from both sides are weighing possible solutions, including a suggested compromise that could see Western nations acknowledge Japanese coastal communities' right to whaling if Tokyo suspends "research whaling" in the Southern Ocean.

Earlier, Smith said he and his Japanese counterpart Masahiko Komura had also met to discuss the issue, and had "agreed to disagree".

He denied the resumption of whaling, timed to coincide with his arrival in Tokyo, was a calculated insult.

"I regard this as a coincidence," he said.

---

Anti-whalers vow bigger Antarctic presence next year

http://news.smh.com.au/antiwhalers-vow-bigger-antarctic-presence-next-year/20080202-1pp8.html

Militant environmental activists on Saturday vowed to increase their presence in the Southern Ocean next year in their bid to prevent Japanese whalers from killing the giant mammals.

Paul Watson, captain of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society vessel the Steve Irwin, said his ship had stopped the Japanese fleet from killing whales for three to four weeks but was now forced to return to port to refuel.

Next year he wants to bring two ships into the Antarctic waters.

---

Cheers as anti-whalers dock in Melbourne

http://news.smh.com.au/cheers-as-antiwhalers-dock-in-melbourne/20080202-1pob.html

More than 100 people cheered, waved and whistled as the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's ship sailed into Victoria Harbour at Melbourne's Docklands about 2.30pm (AEDT) on Saturday.

---

Police may charge whaling protesters

http://news.smh.com.au/police-may-charge-whaling-protesters/20080202-1pp2.html

The Australian Federal Police will speak to the crew of the Sea Shepherd protest ship to decide whether they behaved illegally in trying to stop Japan's Southern Ocean whale hunt.

"The AFP is currently undertaking preliminary inquiries into the events that occurred in the Southern Ocean in accordance with Australian legislations and Australia's obligation under international law."

Whaling Commission 'must be reformed'

http://news.smh.com.au/whaling-commission-must-be-reformed/20080202-1poz.html

The International Whaling Commission has failed to resolve the increasingly heated debate over Japan's whaling program and needs to be thoroughly reformed, organisers of a conference on the dispute said.

The IWC - the world body regulating the hunting of many species of whales - has been paralysed by a clash between pro- and anti-whaling countries and both sides are dissatisfied with its performance, conference participants said on Friday.

Joshua Reichert, managing director of the US-based Pew Environment Group, which sponsored the conference, said the dispute threatened to spill over into other aspects of Japan's foreign relations.

Participants in the Pew conference - including government officials, scientists and environmentalists - agreed the current system for managing the world's whales is broken, but stopped short of recommending specific IWC reforms.

Environmentalists oppose the IWC-permitted scientific research program that enables Japan to kill about 1,000 whales a year.

Japan accuses the IWC of ignoring scientific evidence that certain species of whales are plentiful enough to be hunted without threat of extinction.

Symposium chairman Tuiloma Neroni Slade said a resolution could include a recognition of wider hunting rights by Japan's coastal whalers, suspension of research whaling, and a limit on the number of animals whaling natio

Symposium chairman Tuiloma Neroni Slade said a resolution could include a recognition of wider hunting rights by Japan's coastal whalers, suspension of research whaling, and a limit on the number of animals whaling nations can kill each year.

Japan said it would not back down.

"If some people are promoting the idea of whaling as totally evil and something that should be totally denied, I don't think that will create any kind of possibility of dialogue or discussion or possible solution," said Joji Morishita of the Fisheries Agency.

---

This is rediculous. Our government finally determined whether Japan really is whaling. They keep blustering on about this solid case but refuse to risk the embarassment of trying to get an international court to take them seriously.

Govt has 'shocking' evidence of whaling

http://news.smh.com.au/govt-has-shocking-evidence-of-whaling/20080207-1qpm.html

Australia has "shocking" evidence to back a legal bid to stop Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean, the federal government says.

But Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus says the government is still unsure who it could prosecute, when, and in what court.

The government's evidence is a pile of "shocking images" of the annual whale hunt taken by crew aboard the armed customs patrol vessel Oceanic Viking.

"We have got evidence of whaling being carried out in circumstances that we believe it should not be done," Mr Debus told reporters in Sydney.

According to Environment Minister Peter Garrett, the images of the slaughter mean any legal bid to stop whaling should be an open-and-shut case.

"It is explicitly clear from these images that this is the indiscriminate killing of whales, where you have a whale and its calf killed in this way," he told reporters in Sydney.

---

Japanese whaling pictures 'sick': Australian minister

http://news.smh.com.au/japanese-whaling-pictures-sick-australian-minister/20080207-1qs9.html

Photographs of a mother whale and her calf being dragged on board a Japanese ship after being harpooned in Antarctic waters have been described as sickening by Australia's environment minister.

"I guess when I saw the photos I just felt a bit of a sick feeling as well as a sense of sadness," Environment Minister Peter Garrett told Nine Network television.

Canberra was determined to pursue its campaign against whaling and would appoint a special envoy to talk with the Japanese on the issue while considering international legal action, Garrett said.

"We have to consider the options on legal action because it's a big step to be taken. But we're going to look at that very closely and some of the images that have been captured will inform that decision," he said.

---

Customs has 'misleading' whaling photos

http://news.smh.com.au/customs-has-misleading-whaling-photos/20080207-1qpm.html

Japanese authorities have hit back in the public relations war over its "scientific" whaling program, accusing Australian officials of misleading the public.

The Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) denied two whales photographed as they were dragged bleeding into the whale processing vessel Yushin Maru, in the Southern Ocean, were mother and calf.

The two whales were unrelated, ICR director general Minoru Morimoto said, and the variance in size showed only "random sampling" in practice.

"It is necessary to conduct random sampling of the Antarctic minke population to obtain accurate statistical data."

"The government of Australia's photographs, and the media reports, have created a dangerous emotional propaganda that could cause serious damage to the relationship between our two countries," he warned.

I wonder what would happen if the Japanese government started publishing graphic front page photos of sheep mulesing in Australia. They could do far more damage to our sheep industry than we can do to whaling.

Japan 'needs reality check over whaling'

http://news.smh.com.au/japan-needs-reality-check-over-whaling/20080209-1r86.html

Japan should stop whaling if it is opposed to international media attention, Greenpeace says.

The Japanese government has announced it will lodge a complaint to Australia over the release of graphic whaling images on Thursday.

Heres an article you missed, FD:

Japanese whalers going broke
Article By Lauren Willians, The Daily Telegraph

February 13, 2008 12:00am

JAPAN's whale killers are going broke and have been forced to slash prices because no one wants to eat their growing mountain of whale meat.

The farcical truth of Japan's whaling industry was exposed yesterday by Japanese media reports that the Institute for Cetacean Research is struggling to repay $37 million in government subsidies.

The report came as Japanese embassy officials made a stern protest in Canberra over the Australian Government's release of shocking whaling photographs.

Making a stand: EU unites against slaughter
The ICR, responsible for Japan's lethal "research operation", is flooding Japan with cheap whale meat that it cannot sell, according to the reports in respected newspaper Asahi Shimbun.

Meat and other parts of whales killed during ICR "scientific research" in the southern ocean is sold to a private fisheries company Kyodo Senpaku, which manages the sale of whale meat in the Japanese market.

But while ICR has consistently increased the number of whales it kills - by 30 per cent between 2005-2006 - there has been no increase in demand for whale meat or products domestically.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific whales campaign director Rob Nicholl said yesterday the losses were further proof that there was no market for whale meat in Japan.

"It's standard economics. There is an oversupply. They've had to reduce the price but they still can't get rid of the stuff," he said.

Japanese embassy officials yesterday met with the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to protest the public release of photographs of the slaughter of whales in the Southern Ocean.

Japan has consistently argued a case for scientific whaling and last week accused the Australian Government of "misleading" the public by releasing the photographs.

Both parties called for calm yesterday, but DFAT representatives maintained their position that the whaling program is unnecessary on scientific grounds.

A DFAT spokesman said, while the photographs were "disturbing, they were in no sense misleading".

"If whaling in the Southern Ocean ceased there would be no need for either the monitoring and surveillance operation or the release images," the spokesman said.

If you have to repay it, doesn't that mean it isn't a subsidy?

Interesting comment about the EU 'uniting' against the slaughter. I think Europe kills more whales than Japan.

---

Anti-whalers resume hunting Japanese

http://news.smh.com.au/antiwhalers-resume-hunting-japanese/20080214-1sae.html

Anti-whaling protest ship the Steve Irwin is returning to the Southern Ocean to resume its chase of the Japanese whaling fleet.

The Sea Shepherd vessel has spent 12 days in Melbourne undergoing repairs, refuelling and resupplying, and new crew members have been brought on board.

Steve Irwin captain Paul Watson said Victorians had donated money for fuel and other supplies during its stay in Melbourne.

freediver wrote on Feb 13^th, 2008 at 6:47pm:

If you have to repay it, doesn't that mean it isn't a subsidy?

Correct, that would be a loan.

Note the misleading title to this article from the daily telegraph - in fact, only one in four Japanese oppose whaling.

Japanese turn backs on whaling

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23248740-5001021,00.html

MORE than two thirds of Japanese people do not support their country's whaling in the Southern Ocean, a survey reveals.

And 87 per cent of the Japanese population were surprised to learn their tax money was being used to subsidise the increasingly-unpopular whaling operation.

The survey, commissioned by Greenpeace, found that while 31 per cent of people backed whaling, 25 per cent opposed it and 44 per cent had no opinion on the issue.

Are the Japanese people even aware of how controversial whaling is internationally?  If nearly half the population doesn't have an opinion - there will never be a reason to stop whaling.

Maybe Greenpeace needs to be more active in Japan - if they're allowed.  Although I doubt the Japanese government would approve seeing as they subsidise this "research".

The bloke who owns the whaling fleet no doubt has some powerful influence within the government.

Are you aware of how controversial whaling is internationally? Do you realise that Greenpeace campaigns heavily on the issue in Australia in order to take advantage of latent racism and our hip pockets, while barely mentioning it in Europe where it would lose them donations and where the locals kill more whales than the Japanese, completely ignoring IWC rules? How seriously do you expect other cultures to oppose Japan's right to eat whatever animals it wants? They have more to fear that we will arbitrarily object to something they do. The Indians would never consider imposing their taboo on beef on the rest of the world. The Koreans are sick of 'morally superior' westerners harassing them for eating dog. The Chinese are sick of us telling them they can't skin minks. The Canadians are sick ignorant Americans telling them they can't kill seals. How much do you think the rest of the world cares what we think, other than for something to laugh at?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/why-allow-whaling.html#embarrassing-ourselves

---

Anti-whalers could board Japanese ships

http://news.smh.com.au/antiwhalers-could-board-japanese-ships/20080224-1ucy.html

Anti-whaling campaigners chasing down the Japanese whaling fleet in Antarctic waters "were ready to be hauled back to Japan if that's what it took", protest leader Paul Watson said.

Seventeen Australian volunteers are among a crew of 33 on board the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) vessel Steve Irwin, which is tailing Japanese harpoon vessels 3,630km south of Fremantle, WA.

Captain Watson said on Sunday the Japanese had successfully been chased out of Australian Antarctic territorial waters and a boarding party was again being prepared to deliver new protest papers to the Japanese crew of the Yushin Maru No 2.

"We have succeeded in chasing them out of Australian territorial waters and as long as we continue to stay on their tail they will not be able to kill any more whales, which is exactly why we're down here," Capt Watson told AAP via satellite phone.

"We will continue to keep on chasing them for the next three weeks - we have enough fuel and food to be able to stay the distance.

"Before long, they will have to call it a day and head back to Japan, certainly by mid-March as the sea and weather conditions will be too bad by then."

---

Anti-whaling push gets one million nods

http://news.smh.com.au/antiwhaling-push-gets-one-million-nods/20080225-1umo.html

A Victorian man has collected one million signatures on his online anti-whaling petition.

Patrick Bonello reached this target on Saturday, exactly two years after starting up the Whales Revenge website in 2006.

---

Japan's whalers on the run: activists

http://news.smh.com.au/japans-whalers-on-the-run-activists/20080225-1uky.html

Japan's whaling fleet is on the run and desperate to avoid any international legal problems, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) says.

The anti-whaling group's main protest ship, the Steve Irwin, is continuing to chase the seven-vessel Japanese fleet through squally seas 200 nautical miles (370km) north of Australian Antarctic territorial waters, about 3,200km south of Western Australia.

Captain Paul Watson, master of the Steve Irwin, said he was confident the Japanese would fail to meet even half their quota before having to return home by mid-March.

"I'd be surprised if they have taken more than 400 whales by the time they return home.

"I think they're also a bit worried about the legality of staying in Australian waters to harpoon whales, especially if they tried to detain our people or take them back to Japan."

---

Whalers move back into Australian waters

http://news.smh.com.au/whalers-move-back-into-australian-waters/20080226-1utc.html

The Japanese whaling fleet has moved back into Australian territorial waters, sparking a call from the anti-whaling protest ship, Steve Irwin, for the Australian government to move in.

The captain of the Steve Irwin, Paul Watson, says the Japanese have moved back into the "Australian economic zone" but have not taken any whales for the past four days.

---

Activists have 'bugged' whaling ships

http://news.smh.com.au/activists-have-bugged-whaling-ships/20080226-1utc.html

Anti-whaling activists say they've bugged "several" Japanese whaling ships, allowing them to track the fleet's location for at least another year.

Activists from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) claim to have hidden devices on a number of whaling vessels, including the harpoon vessel Yushin Maru 2 which was boarded by two protesters last month.

Sea Shepherd leader Paul Watson said only that the bug was planted when the two men climbed aboard the ship to deliver a protest letter, not that they had personally stashed the device.

Other bugs - of the type normally used to track migrating animals in the wild - were aboard other vessels in the whaling fleet, Watson said.

The bugs had already been used to lead the Sea Shepherd's protest vessel, the Steve Irwin, back to the whalers after a refuelling stop in Melbourne, he said.

"The batteries are good for another year," Watson said.

Whaling monitoring ship heading home

http://news.smh.com.au/whaling-monitoring-ship-heading-home/20080227-1v62.html

The Australian Customs ship that monitored Japanese whaling activity in the Southern Ocean and helped resolve a standoff between whalers and protesters returns to port on Thursday.

The Oceanic Viking will dock in Fremantle early on Thursday morning armed with video and photographic evidence of the whaling for potential legal action against Japan by the federal government.

Quote:

How seriously do you expect other cultures to oppose Japan's right to eat whatever animals it wants? They have more to fear that we will arbitrarily object to something they do. The Indians would never consider imposing their taboo on beef on the rest of the world. The Koreans are sick of 'morally superior' westerners harassing them for eating dog. The Chinese are sick of us telling them they can't skin minks. The Canadians are sick ignorant Americans telling them they can't kill seals. How much do you think the rest of the world cares what we think, other than for something to laugh at?

It would depend on your attitude towards animals.  Obviously most countries use inhumane methods of cultivating (if that's the right word) and killing animals for food and no doubt much of the population couldn't be bothered thinking about it too much.  Unfortunately with whales - they are intelligent mammals and suffer greatly through the killing process through their sheer size alone.  You could kill a chicken in a split second, but whales can suffer for up to an hour before death.

In Asia you can see a dozen dogs of all shapes and sizes squashed any which way like sardines in a small wire cage.  Our pigs are kept in tiny concrete pens with no room to move for months and they are also intelligent.  In China people have complained about the screaming of dogs and cats as they are skinned alive to make toys for export and so it goes on.

Surely by 2008 - we can find more humane ways of growing and killing animals for food.  But then we let a million or so children die each year through disease and starvation or even slavery - so the general consensus is - why bother about animal rights?

Unfortunately with whales - they are intelligent mammals and suffer greatly through the killing process through their sheer size alone.

Pigs are more intelligent and most suffer far more. But white people eat them.

so the general consensus is - why bother about animal rights?

Animal rights is an odd term. They have no legal rights. There is nothing to the natural life of most animals that sets a meaningful standard - the only 'natural right' they have is to be eaten, usually before they reach any kind of maturity.

Quote:

Animal rights is an odd term. They have no legal rights

Fortunately (or unfortunately) - some domestic animals now do have legal rights and there is protection for some of our native animals and endangered species.  

A few years ago if a cat was on your property, you could trap it and take it up to the local vet to be euthanased - no questions asked.  Now you have to lodge 3 complaints with council, regardless of how many native animals it has killed before it can be confiscated from the owner.  

So a cat has a right to some paperwork before being killed? Isn't that more of an owner's right than the animal's right?

Quote:

So a cat has a right to some paperwork before being killed? Isn't that more of an owner's right than the animal's right?

Yes - that's true if you look at it from that perspective.  I didn't look at it that way.  But the cat has a representative - the owner.  The same can be said for protected species.  If they are deliberately captured, maimed or killed, then the perpetrator is prosecuted by a government agency.  It would also be the same for a child.  Children have legal rights - yet they need a representative to act on their behalf.

Protecting something is not the same thing as granting it rights.

Quote:

Protecting something is not the same thing as granting it rights

True - but a blue tongue lizard has the right to walk through your backyard and if you are caught hurting it - you are prosecuted.  A cat has the right to get caught twice killing native animals and be reprieved although the third time means death.

So yes from my point of view - a protected animal is one which has been granted rights.

So I am not allowed to prevent a bluetongue from walking through my yard?

Quote:

So I am not allowed to prevent a bluetongue from walking through my yard?

Definitely no - unless it was going to be put in danger - maybe a couple of aggressive dogs or cats who want a new toy.  They are protected - which means you have the responsibility to take all reasonable care so that it has a safe trip through your yard to wherever it's going.  Well that's my view anyway- but I'm sure National Parks & Wildlife would agree with me.

I don't think they would. I have no responsibility whatsoever. My dog or cat could eat it and there is nothing they could do. I could put up all sorts of obstacles to prevent the bluetongue from using my yard as a thoroughfare and there is nothing they could do. That is the difference between a right and a protection against a very limited set of actions.

Quote:

My dog or cat could eat it and there is nothing they could do

Yes there is.  If there was a witness to the fact that your cat or dog ate the lizard and it was reported - you would be visited by a ranger and given a warning in regard to your pet.

You would be warned a second time, if the same incident occurred and it was witnessed and reported, but the third time - the ranger would have the right to impound your pet.

Has that ever happened, or do the bluetongues wise up first?

---

Australia to propose closing 'scientific' whaling loophole

http://news.smh.com.au/australia-to-propose-closing-scientific-whaling-loophole/20080301-1w3q.html

Australia said Saturday it hoped to close a loophole in International Whaling Commission (IWC) rules that allows Japan to conduct whaling as long as it is carried out for scientific research.

Environment Minister Peter Garrett said Australia would present a proposal to an IWC meeting in London next week setting out new rules for scientific programmes carried out under commission rules.

He said the new rules would favour non-lethal methods and strengthen IWC supervision of whale research, making it a collaborative international effort rather than having individual countries carry out their own programmes.

---

Govt 'to send envoy to Japan on whaling'

http://news.smh.com.au/govt-to-send-envoy-to-japan-on-whaling/20080301-1w2b.html

Australia will send an envoy to Japan and propose the International Whaling Commission (IWC) closes loopholes that allow Japan to continue whaling, Environment Minister Peter Garrett says.

---

Whales protected from US navy sonars

http://news.smh.com.au/whales-protected-from-us-navy-sonars/20080302-1w6i.html

A federal appeals court has rejected White House efforts to exempt the US Navy from laws intended to protect endangered whales and other marine mammals by curbing the use of sonar off the California coast.

A three-judge panel Saturday (AEDT)upheld a lower court order requiring the navy to take precautions during the sonar training to minimise harm to marine life.

The navy has 30 days to file an appeal to the US Supreme Court, during which time it must comply with the bulk of the precautions.

---

For the first time on the news last night, hte hippies were portrayed as pirates. They even used a pirate flag image, though I'm not sure if it's one that sea shepherd actually uses.

Australia condemns anti-whaling protest

http://news.smh.com.au/australia-condemns-antiwhaling-protest/20080303-1whu.html

The federal government has protesters for pelting a Japanese whaling ship in Australia's Antarctic waters with foul-smelling acid and "slippery" powder.

The Japanese government says four crew members of the Nisshin Maru were hurt in Monday's clash, the latest between anti-whaling protesters from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Japanese whaling vessels.

Sea Shepherd denied anyone had been injured.

Japan told the Australian embassy in Tokyo that three or four crew members were being treated by the ship's doctors.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith condemned the actions of the protesters, wary of the potential for the incident to escalate.

"I absolutely condemn actions by crew members of any vessel that cause injury - or have the potential to cause injury - to anyone on the high seas," he said in a statement.

---

Diplomats summoned after whaling protest

http://news.smh.com.au/diplomats-summoned-after-whaling-protest/20080304-1wpl.html

Japan has called in the Australian and Dutch ambassadors in Tokyo to urge them to rein in anti-whaling protesters.

---

Garrett aggressive: Japan whaling chief

http://news.smh.com.au/garrett-aggressive-japan-whaling-chief/20080305-1x3i.html

Japan's whaling chief has accused Australian Environment Minister Peter Garrett of being aggressive and undiplomatic.

Section chief of whaling at Japan's Fishery Agency, Hideki Moronuki, said Garrett's recent proposal to modernise the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was flawed.

"When I was a high school student I used to listen to Midnight Oil. When I was a high school student I liked his music. Now I don't."

---

Anti-whalers laugh off report of lawsuit

http://news.smh.com.au/antiwhalers-laugh-off-report-of-lawsuit/20080306-1xdo.html

Anti-whaling protesters in the Southern Ocean have laughed off reports a Japanese shipping company is preparing to sue them.

Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd, which has a contract with the Japanese government to conduct the whaling, is studying video footage of the activists to identify them with the intention of suing them.

---

Push for whale protection to be debated

http://news.smh.com.au/push-for-whale-protection-to-be-debated/20080306-1xbp.html

Australia's push for new protections and research rules for the world's whales will be debated at a three-day meeting starting on Thursday (2100 AEDT) in London.

Australia has sent five delegates to the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) forum, organised in the hope it can modernise its operations which have been stymied by bitter divisions between member nations.

Japan urging other countries to jump on whaling bandwagon

http://www.greendaily.com/2008/03/04/japan-urging-other-countries-to-jump-on-whaling-bandwagon/

Have you been having a hankering for a big juicy whaleburger lately that your local Arby's can't seem to fill? Well, if pro-whaling nations get their way, blubber could be back on the menu around the globe.

Not content with achieving international pariah status for the annual dolphin slaughter , Japan is looking to shore up the legitimacy of its whaling industry by encouraging other countries to climb aboard.

Japan and several other nations, including Norway and Iceland, have long lobbied to reverse the opinion of much of the planet that the current moratorium on whaling should be maintained. Now, tired of fighting with Western whale-huggers, the cetecean-slaughtering nations are seeking new allies in the war on our closest maritime cousins.

Prior to the meeting of the International Whaling Commission in London this week, the Japanese delegation is hosting seminars on the concept of sustainable whaling for 12 countries, including Angola, Eritrea, and Micronesia .

Why do we care what Micronesians think about whaling? Well, the implications could be serious, in fact downright fatal if you happen to weigh 50 tons and live underwater - at present anti-whaling nations are the larger voting bloc in the IWC, but if more pro-whaling countries were to join, a vote in favour of renewed killing of whales could be passed.

The whalers argument is that that the anti-whaling movement is simply a cultural artifact unique to certain Western countries, and should have no bearing on what is a legitimate food source. By that logic whales are simply another animal, and harpooning a whale is pretty much the same as killing a chicken (although requiring more specialized tools).

---

Dolphin slaughter brings charges from both sides

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/11/japan.dolphins/?iref=mpstoryview&source=cmailer

TAIJI, Japan (CNN) -- Mention a dolphin to someone in the United States and they'll think about a trip to Sea World or the 1960s-era TV program "Flipper."

Talk about a dolphin in rural Japan and some people think of dinner.

Fishermen hunt dolphins about every day in Taiji, a town of about 3,000 in southwestern Japan that juts into the Pacific Ocean.

Locals know they offend Western sensibilities by eating dolphins, but they say it's a tradition hundreds of years old. And they say outsiders have no more right to tell them to stop eating dolphins than they would have to demand that Westerners stop slaughtering, say, chickens or cows.  Watch fishermen catch dolphins »

"I know there are many different ways of thinking in different societies, but for us who've been eating this for a long time ... it's an awkward thing to be criticized for," says Kayoko Tanaka, a retired middle school teacher. "I either fry dolphin meat or turn it into a stew."

---

Japan denies Sea Shepherd claims

http://news.smh.com.au/japan-denies-sea-shepherd-claims/20080307-1xv6.html

Japan has dismissed as a lie claims by the captain of an anti-whaling ship he was shot at during the latest confrontation with a whaling vessel in the Southern Ocean.

Paul Watson, captain of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society protest ship the Steve Irwin, said he felt a thud and found a bullet lodged in his bulletproof vest during a clash between the two vessels.

He said crew members on the Steve Irwin were throwing stink bombs at the whaling ship the Nisshin Maru when Japanese coast guards responded by throwing flash grenades.

The anti-whaling group said besides Mr Watson, two other crew members, both Australians, were hurt in the incident.

Ralph Lowe, 33, from Melbourne, had a bruised back after a flash grenade exploded behind him and Ashley Dunn, 35, from Launceston, suffered a hip injury when he tried to get out of the way of the explosions.

---

Govt mulls action against Japan whaling

http://news.smh.com.au/govt-mulls-action-against-japan-whaling/20080307-1xv1.html

The federal government is still considering whether it should pursue legal action against Japan over its whaling program.

Australia also wants the IWC to protect whales from a host of threats including climate change, pollution, collisions with ships and fisheries activities.

Quote:

AN official scientific review of Japan's bizarre experiments with test-tube minke babies and attempts at cross-breeding cows with whales has exploded the claim whale slaughter is "research". Scientists have analysed the 43 research papers produced by Japan after 18 years of killing whales and concluded they are useless, strange and esoteric. Some of the experiments involved injecting dead minke sperm into cow eggs, others attempt to produce test-tube whale babies and thawing frozen whale sperm to see if it remained fertile. Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research also injected cow and pig egg cells with minke cells as part of its whaling program. Australian delegates to this weekend's London meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) will argue the "scientific research" loophole in the world-wide ban on commercial whaling that allows Japan to hunt the sea giants should be closed. The head of Australia's scientific delegation to the IWC, Dr Nick Gales, said the research not only lacks credibility - it is downright strange. "(The research involves) really bizarre and very strange experiments with sheep and pigs and eggs. It's totally esoteric, very strange research," he said from London. Dr Gales also said the number of papers the lethal "research" produced - a mere 43 over 18 years - was incredibly small for a government-funded organisation. "It was an incredibly low publication rate," he said. More than half of the papers were dedicated to establishing whale mortality rates, but failed to do so. "The amount of variability on these estimates means that the mortality rate remains unknown," Dr Gales said. The findings of Australia's review show research objectives for the second phase of Japan's scientific whaling program, known as JARPA II, were unachievable, he said. "They haven't changed any of the methodologies, Dr Gales said. Environment Minister Peter Garrett said the scrutiny of Japan's research proved its whale hunt was about money. "I challenge anyone to look at this sort of research and say it's necessary, to say it requires killing over 7000 whales," he said. "This is why we say what is happening is not science, it's not necessary - it's commercial whaling." This will form part of Australia's argument at the main IWC meeting in Chile later this year that killing whales is not generating any useful science. Japan has slaughtered more than 7000 whales over the life of 18-year "research" program. http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23336678-5001021,00.html

mantra - yes, I feel it is quite well known the scientific research on whales is a farce.
As one person put it, the experiment result is  :-  
"Look, we chop its head off and it dies. same as the last 3000."