+ A deliberate attempt to repeat last season's ramming of Ady Gil? On Friday in the Sthrn Ocean Whale Sanctuary, the Japanese harpoon ship Yushin Maru 3 deliberately tried to run down Sea Shepherd’s Gojira: G avoided collision by only 3m! And one of the Delta boat crew narrowly avoided being injured when a whaler threw a bamboo spear down into the boat. SS has some of these dangerous bamboo spears (and video evidence of the spearthrowing is on its website).
G and the small boats from Bob Barker successfully ran interference, to break YM3's stalking of BB. BB is now free to hunt the Nisshin Maru factory ship.
 |
| The sharp end of the business... |
+ ...meanwhile Steve Irwin is refueling in Wellington, NZ...
+ ...and in Tokyo, whalers called for greater govt.help to protect the fleet and stop falling sales of whale meat. Fisheries newspaper Minato Shinbun quoted the CEO of the fleet's management company as saying sales fell 30% in the first half of the financial year. Executives are now saying that covering "research" costs by selling whale meat as a by-product no longer works. They are struggling to find any consumer appetite, and are implying they want more subsidies. But it now seems the Fisheries Agency of Japan wants to distance itself from the whaling.
 |
| Get you next time, grasshopper! |
Since the fake "under attack" distress calls from Yushin Maru 3 and Sea Shepherd's prompt answers (as monitored by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority), there has been no reply from the Japanese. However YM3 is now dead in the water and has not moved for 48 hours. In accordance with maritime law and protocol, Gojira stayed with YM3 to offer any help...but still no word from the nasty Nippons about the nature of their "distress".
Finally the Australian Maritime Safety Authority contacted G and said that YM3 was not in distress and did not require assistance, so G left to search for the whaling vessels. YM3 is no longer tailing Bob Barker, and is also not killing whales. Reason? The nasty Nippons are now claiming SS deployed ten wire rope "prop foulers" around the YM3 and that two tangled around its propellers.
16 comments:
"As BB steamed away, YM3 issued an international distress signal saying they were under attack by BB and G!! BB was over seven miles away when the distress signal was sent!! SS responded to the distress call three times in Japanese and in English..."
The ICR press release states:
"The G and two zodiac boats sent from the BB repeatedly approached the YS3 and deployed multiple
wire ropes (propeller foulers) in front of the YS3 course and threw multiple projectiles. At about
0910JST at least two of the wire ropes entangled in the YS3’s propeller."
Zodiac boats sent FROM the BB clearly constitute an attack BY the BB.
Throwing and/or firing projectiles and deploying prop foulers definitely qualifies as an "attack".
So the people attacking them(SS)answers their distress call. And HOW does SS respond to their distress call? They stop attacking? Of course not! They CONTINUE attacking them!
Dear Mick,
Thanx for your response...three months AFTER the event.
There is no doubt that SS was harrassing YM3. That's always their goal.
But YM3's mis-use of an international distress call was a serious matter, which no maritime authority ever followed up.
I don't know how long it would take for zodiacs to cover 7 miles, but I doubt they'd want to be left that far away from their mother ship in such hostile waters. Thus, logic says that the YM3's call was a carefully thought-out response long AFTER the zodiacs and BB had departed.
Bear in mind too that you've quoted the press release from ICR: that same group that does not conduct ANY commercial whaling in the Sthrn.Ocean, that does NOT kill any endangered whale species, that does NOT sell whale meat on the open market...food for thought.
Dear WOTPSNZ,
Thank you for your prompt response.
I only recently came across your blog.
"There is no doubt that SS was harrassing YM3."
Oh? Is THAT what you call it? Harassment??? If you consider SS's actions to be harrassment, then what exactly do you consider to be an attack?
"Thus, logic says that the YM3's call was a carefully thought-out response long AFTER the zodiacs and BB had departed."
Oh, of course! The ONLY logical explanation is that the ICR is lying. There's no way that SS would lie, right? It should be noted that you are relying on information provided by a admitted liar who advocates lying in one of his books.
The ICR doesn't conduct any commercial whaling in the SO. That's a fact. Claims to the contrary are just that: Claims. To date, there has not been any international court ruling declaring the ICR's scientific whaling program to be illegal.
When has the ICR ever claimed that it did not kill some endangered whale species?
When has the ICR ever claimed that the whale meat obtained from their research program was not sold? Quite the contrary. They clearly state on their website that the meat is sold, per IWC regulations, in order to recoup some of the research costs.
Mick:
I consider ICR's claim to be "over-the-top". They were inside a rock-solid metal whaling ship but, get splattered with rancid butter or paint, and they screamed "under attack"! The Australians who monitered the distress call will no doubt have GPS co-ords to prove the distance between both parties (perhaps you can confirm with them).
The Japanese play "semantics" and, ONLY because the ICR have chosen to call it something else, they argue they're NOT undertaking commercial whaling as such but merely killing whales and then selling the meat...for "scientific research". If you buy into that, you may as well help them eat their massive stockpile of whalemeat, becoz the entire world can see EXACTLY what ICR is doing.
A policy statement from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated that Japan does NOT kill endangered species...yet it clearly lists endangered antarctic fin, southern minke and Bryde's whales in its annual stats.
Ah, but that's right - they're NOT killing them: they're RESEARCHING them!!
WOTPSNZ,
"They were inside a rock-solid metal whaling ship but, get splattered with rancid butter or paint, and they screamed "under attack"!"
Thank you for your vague, nonsensical, evasive and emotional non-answer. Do you consider throwing/launching beer bottles, flares and smoke bombs at people an attack or not? Do you consider disabling a ship at sea as an attack or not? Do you consider shining lasers at people in an attempt to blind them, even temporarily, an attack or not?
"The Australians who monitered the distress call will no doubt have GPS co-ords to prove the distance between both parties"
Perhaps they do and perhaps they do not.
According to the ICR: "At about 0910JST at least two of the wire ropes entangled in the YS3’s propeller.
At 0928JST the YS3 sent a Mayday signal. The attack continued for a number of hours despite the
mayday call."
The YM3 sent a Mayday 18 minutes after prop foulers deployed by the BB zodiacs entangled and disabled the YM3's props. For the BB to be 7 miles away at that time would mean that they recovered two zodiac boats and sailed 7 miles in 18 minutes. Riiiight.
Now, According to SS: "The Gojira and the small boats from the Bob Barker were harassing the Yushin Maru No. 3 with stink and paint bombs in an attempt to keep the whaler from tailing Sea Shepherd’s vessel the Bob Barker. The operation was a success."
SS was going to prevent a "rock-solid metal whaling ship" from following them by throwing so-called "stink and paint bombs" at them??? Notice the GLARING omission of prop foulers in SS's account. With the exception of that omission, SS's account basically supports the ICR's account.
"The Japanese play "semantics" and, ONLY because the ICR have chosen to call it something else, they argue they're NOT undertaking commercial whaling as such but merely killing whales and then selling the meat...for "scientific research""
So you CLAIM. And all you have are claims. Not facts. Whether you believe it or not the ICR is definately doing research and not just "killing whales". It's also a fact that there has been no international court ruling declaring that the ICR is violating the law. What you believe is irrelevant.
"A policy statement from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated that Japan does NOT kill endangered species"
If that is so, then he is clearly mis-informed. Would you happen to have a link to that statement?
By the way, Minke whales are not endangered.
Mick:
As you requested, try [ http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/q_a/faq6.html ]. But allow me to quote from The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs' policy paper, “The Position of the Japanese Government on Research Whaling” (31.10.2010):
“Japan strongly supports the international protection of endangered whale species such as blue whales. Regarding Japan's whale research (as of 2002), it is true that it involves an annual maximum sampling of 590 minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales, 50 Sei whales and 10 sperm whales. However, this level of sampling does not pose any risk to the current status of whale stocks...they are by no means endangered.”
“By no means endangered”, says the policy statement...based on 8yr. old data? Meanwhile the info below is fresh from the IUCN Red List Of Threatened Species.
Antarctic minke: 1996-lower risk/conservation dependent; 2008-data deficient. (The data analyzed by standard methods suggest a 60% reduction between 1978–2004, the apparent decline is still under investigation. If the decline is real, the species would qualify as Endangered.)
Bryde's: S.Hemisphere stocks have not been re-assessed during the past 25 years, and the estimates at the time were not based on currently accepted methods of survey design and analysis. The IWC has set the classification to “zero catch limit pending a satisfactory estimate of stock size”.
Sei: 1994-vulnerable; 1996-endangered; 2008-endangered. The global mature population is estimated to have declined by about 80% over the last three generations.
Sperm: 1996-vulnerable; 2008-vulnerable.
Fin: 1994-vulnerable; 1996-endangered; 2008-endangered.
In 2002, the World Wildlife Fund published an open letter to Japan in NY Times signed by a group of international scientists, stating that "Japan's whale 'research' program fails to meet minimum standards for credible science". They accused Japan of "using the pretense of scientific research to evade its commitments to the world community".
In the journal Bio Science, members of the Scientific Committee of IWC confirmed "that the signers of the open letter correctly summarized criticisms made by researchers very familiar with Japanese scientific whaling", and that "so little of any significance to IWC management can be obtained only from whaling catches that it is impossible to justify killing animals on this basis".
WOTPSNZ,
"I consider ICR's claim to be "over-the-top"."
You certainly have a right to your beliefs. I believe otherwise. My belief that SS's actions constitute an illegal attack is based on the fact that in most civilised countries hurling beer bottles of acid at people is considered to be assault and is illegal. As well as the fact that damaging property is considered to be vandalism and is also illegal. Not to mention the fact that last year a member of SS was convicted of assault, amongst other things, for launching a beer bottle of butryic acid at an ICR ship which caused 3 crewmembers to be injured.
"becoz the entire world can see EXACTLY what ICR is doing."
Once again, that is simply your belief. The fact remains that there has been no international court ruling declaring the ICR's research program to be illegal. It is also a fact that the ICR isn't "merely killing whales". They are undoubtably spending a great deal of time and money on whale research and obtaining research data on whales.
"the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated that Japan does NOT kill endangered species...yet it clearly lists endangered antarctic fin, southern minke and Bryde's whales in its annual stats."
If he did make such a statement, he is clearly mistaken. Do a you have a link to his statement? By the way, Minke whales are not endangered.
By the way. I have eaten whale meat and it is quite delicious. You can buy whale meat at the local grocery store. I would eat it more often but, unfortunately, the store only gets some in stock once every 3 months or so. And when they get some in, it sells out fast. Usually the same day.
Dear Mick:
You too have a right to your beliefs.
You believe what SS says is mere claims: there's an overwhelming number of others globally who feel exactly the same about ICR. The limited amount of
"research" information (and its banality) that's come from ICR over the decades adds much to the opposition's belief that this is merely a smokescreen for commercial whaling.
As requested, here is a link to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' policy statement:
[ http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/q_a/faq6.html ].
"Regarding Japan's whale research (as of 2002), it is true that it involves an annual max.sampling of 590 minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales, 50 Sei whales and 10 sperm whales...they are by no means endangered."
To counter that MoFA claim, refer to the IUCN Red List [
http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/mammals ]:
Minke: 1996-lower risk / conservation dependent; 2008-data deficient [the data suggests a pop.reduction of approx.60% between 1978–2004. If the decline is real, the species would qualify as Endangered].
Bryde's: 1996-data deficient; 2008-data deficient.
Sperm: 1996-vulnerable; 2008-vulnerable.
Sei: 1996-endangered; 2008-endangered [the global mature pop.is estimated to have declined about 80% over the last three generations].
Fin: 1996-endangered; 2008-endangered [the global population has declined by more than 70% over the last three generations].
I doubt if many would agree with you, that "assault with rancid butter" justifies an international distress signal indicating a ship is "threatened by grave and imminent danger" and needs immediate assistance. Let's get real here.
As for eating whalemeat, is this a case of "When in Rome...?" Do you enjoy a bit of casseroled corgi now and then as well?
WOTPSNZ,
"there's an overwhelming number of others globally who feel exactly the same about ICR."
I doubt there is an "overwhelming number". However, I'm sure that there are many people who share your belief about the ICR. A belief does not constitute a fact. For instance, many people believe in alien abductions. Their belief doesn't make it true.
Thank you for the MOFA link. You skipped over the reasons given for the statement, "they are by no means endangered." The complete statement was:
"Regarding Japan's whale research (as of 2002), it is true that it involves an annual maximum sampling of 590 minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales, 50 Sei whales and 10 sperm whales. However, this level of sampling does not pose any risk to the current status of whale stocks. According to the evaluation of IWC (International Whaling Commission) Scientific Committee in 1990, minke whales have a population of 761,000 in the Antarctic Ocean. Also, in the Western North-Pacific ocean, they have a population of 25,000. Bryde's whales, sperm whales and Sei whales have populations of 22,000, 102,000 and 28,000 respectively. Thus, they are by no means endangered."" Obviously, he was saying that those SPECIFIC populations of whales are not endangered. The MOFA did NOT say, "that Japan does NOT kill endangered species", as you claimed earlier. The ICR did not begin taking Fin whales until 2005. So, this statement does not apply to them.
According to the information you provided. The ICUN lists Minke and Byrd's whales as "data-deficient" and Sperm whales as "vulnerable"; not "endangered".
"I doubt if many would agree with you, that "assault with rancid butter" justifies an international distress signal"
No, I don't think that any reasonable person would believe that hurling "rancid butter" would warrant or necessitate a distress signal. Even SS is not moronic enough to believe that they could stop a ship simply by throwing "rancid butter" at it. Which is why SS used prop foulers to disable the YM3, attacked the crew of the YM3 with beer bottles of butryic acid and launched flares and paint at the YM3 in an attempt to damage the ship. In an attack that lasted for hours. An attack which would and did warrant and necessitate a distress signal.
Before you go any farther with the "rancid butter" claim. It should be noted that a court has already determined that:
1)SS uses butryic acid, not "rancid butter".
2)Butryic acid can injure people, not to mention the beer bottles it is contained in.
3)ICR crewmembers were injured by butryic acid launched by SS.
"As for eating whalemeat, is this a case of "When in Rome...?" Do you enjoy a bit of casseroled corgi now and then as well?"
A case of "when in Rome.."? Not in the least. "Casseroled corgi"???
No, Is that a New Zealand specialty?
Mick:
I doubt there's an "overwhelming number" of Japanese supporting the commerical whaling industry either...opps, sorry, ICR scientific "research". Their country cannot afford the multi-million dollar annual bailout, esp.with its current problems. Record stockpiles of frozen whale indicate low appetite for the research by-product. It looks as if you'll have to eat quite a bit more, Mick, to help out the economy!
There's a fine line between fact and belief/claim. You agree (as does Japan) that it kills fin. Yet you believe/claim Japan does not kill endangered species. Thus you're saying fin are not endangered. The internationally-recognised Red List calls fin "endangered" (and I noted from the Red List their assessments of the other species hunted by Japan). Sooner or later you have to side with SOME source of information. If you stay along-side ICR, you'll maintain they don't KILL fin: they merely research them - lethally. And THEN they sell the meat.
The MoFA policy statement (abridged for reasons of space) was deliberately ambiguous. Because you believe/claim it was saying "those SPECIFIC populations of whales are not endangered" does not make it fact. I believe/claim it was making a generalisation of all populations to justify its continued hunts. And pray, why would this MoFA statement "not apply" to endangered fin that began to be taken in 2005?
SS's red paint throwing has always been to symbolise whaleblood. No-one can rationally claim it was "an attempt to damage the ship", likewise the flares (which in several of the ICR-released videos are seen to merely tangle and/or deflect from the nets erected by the whalers for this very purpose). I am not privy to what containers held the rancid butter and (unless you're parroting an ICR line) I doubt you have first-hand knowledge either, but you're welcome to believe their claim. I've also seen the video where bamboo spears are hurled down at SS from the whalers. Annoyance? Harrassment? Attempted murder? Belief? Claim?
SS constantly states its intention is to harrass, delay, turn back the whalers - never to injure or kill anyone.
"In an attack that lasted for hours": again, for whence came that timeframe? ICR belief/claim/fact? Is this the same source that claimed SS continued to "attack" even after the distress call was made? I'm extremely interested to see PROOF of that timeline (and the GPS co-ords) - not an ICR claim.
Yes, SS has successfully used a prop fouler: they make no bones about it. That is why the fleet has rope cutters on their props (and you thought they sent divers into Antarctic waters to free the props? Think again.). Using prop foulers is an attempt to slow the fleet down and distract them from their hunt...er..."research". Does that constitute "imminent danger" and thus an international distress call? Probably not. A better example of an "Imminent danger"/distress call situation would be...hmmm, I know...what about a whaler deliberately altering course to starboard THREE TIMES in order to either near-miss or hit a stationery vessel, thus slicing off its bows and rendering it unsalvagable...
"A court has already determined that SS uses butryic acid, not "rancid butter"." This would be, what, a JAPANESE court? In the pocket of the whalemeat industry or the Japanese govt.? The same judiciary that, instead of penalising those who stole whalemeat and sold it for their own benefit, instead pinged two Greenpeace activists (for theft) who'd acquired a box of whalemeat as proof! The same judiciary that wanted to jail Bethune for terrorism and piracy? Riiiiiiiight.
LOL The closest NZ comes to cooked dogmeat is via our Islander neighbours, though I believe it features on many Japanese restaurant menus.
WOTPSNZ,
"Yet you believe/claim Japan does not kill endangered species."
I made no such claim. For you to say that I did is simply a 'straw man' argument on your part.
"Because you believe/claim it was saying "those SPECIFIC populations of whales are not endangered" does not make it fact."
I do not "believe" or "claim" any such thing. The MOFA statement specifically mentions those specific species of whales and their populations. There is nothing "ambiguous" about it.
"And pray, why would this MoFA statement "not apply" to endangered fin that began to be taken in 2005?"
Because it clearly states, in parenthesis, that it applies to their whale research "as of 2002". Three years BEFORE the ICR began taking Fin whales.
"SS's red paint throwing has always been to symbolise whaleblood. No-one can rationally claim it was "an attempt to damage the ship", likewise the flares.."
Regardless of the symbolism that may be intended, throwing paint on something causes damage to it. For example, anti-fur protesters throw red paint on fur coats to symbolise animal blood which also damages the coat. If a protester throws paint on your car for symbolic purposes, it would still cause damage to your car.
If paint symbolises whaleblood, then what do the flares symbolise? While the flares may not have caused damage, they most certainly had the potential to do so.
"I am not privy to what containers held the rancid butter.."
The ICR website has many pictures showing the beer bottles that contained the butryic acid that SS hurled onto their ships.
"I've also seen the video where bamboo spears are hurled down at SS from the whalers."
Bamboo SPEARS, you say? I've seen that video, too. There was only ONE "alleged" SPEAR.
""In an attack that lasted for hours": again, for whence came that timeframe?"
From the ICR press release, obviously.
"I'm extremely interested to see PROOF of that timeline (and the GPS co-ords) - not an ICR claim."
What exactly would you consider to be "proof"? By the way, you keep mentioning "GPS co-ords". Which GPS co-ords are you refering to? The BB? The YM3? And what exactly are the GPS co-ords supposed to prove?
"Using prop foulers is an attempt to slow the fleet down and distract them from their hunt...er..."research". Does that constitute "imminent danger" and thus an international distress call?"
When those prop foulers disable your ship and prevent it from manoeuvering in the middle of the Southern Ocean with the only nearby assistence being the people who were responsible for disabling your ship. Then yes, I believe a distress call is warranted.
"This would be, what, a JAPANESE court?"
A court in Japan, yes. A court where the accused member of SS had a defence attorney and the opportunity to present evidence in his behalf. However, SS itself admits they use butryic acid and not "rancid butter". Check out these two pictures.
http://www.endecoterrorism.com/components/com_agora/img/members/18/butyric.JPG
http://www.endecoterrorism.com/components/com_agora/img/members/4/SS%20Holding%20Butyric%20Acid.png
"instead pinged two Greenpeace activists"
The two GP members illegally entered a warehouse of a private shipping company and took a package that did not belong to them. The shipping company lodged a complaint with the police. The two GP members were subsequently arrested, charged and convicted of trespassing and theft. Like SS, they also had the benefit of defence lawyers and the opportunity to present evidence in their behalf.
"though I believe it features on many Japanese restaurant menus."
I'm afraid you are mistaken. Dogs are not commonly eaten in Japan. However, it is my understanding that some Korean resturants in Japan do serve dogmeat.
"Straw man argument"? I think once again, you're veering off-subject and into semantics.
To stay on-target, see [ http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-110204-1.html ] Feb.04 2011: "...Delta boat operator ...narrowly avoided being injured when...whalers threw a bamboo spear at the boat crew. SS recovered a few of these potentially lethal bamboo spears." ONE spear is clearly seen in the video: A FEW SPEARS were said to have been recovered.
Me: Why would this MoFA statement "not apply" to endangered fin that began to be taken in 2005?
You: Because it clearly states, in parenthesis, that it applies to their whale research "as of 2002". Three years BEFORE the ICR began taking Fin.
I refer you to that MoFA site which clearly shows that particular policy as having been updated in 2010. The statement still contains the info I quoted and therefore it applies.
You talk of paint and flares, but do not mention the Jap.high-pressure water cannons, used to try and blow a helicopter off its landing pad and into the ocean. You have not mentioned the same water cannon which continued to be blasted down onto the Ady Gil boat after the whaler had sliced through it. (Neither have you mentioned the whaler not stopping to offer rescue assistance.) You have not mentioned the Jap.use of an LRAD, Long Range Acoustical Device, a military-class weapon emitting a high-frequency sound higher than the normal human pain threshold. At max.level, it can permanently damage hearing and cause nausea and disorientation. LRADs were designed for war zones, yet the whalers used this against an airborne helicopter in Antarctica! The pilot was extremely lucky to have been able to land.
I queried: "In an attack that lasted for hours": again, for whence came that timeframe?
You: From the ICR press release.
Me (knowing about the NZ PR guy who writes the ICR material): I'm extremely interested to see PROOF of that timeline (and the GPS co-ords) - not an ICR claim.
You: What exactly would you consider to be "proof"? By the way, you keep mentioning "GPS co-ords". Which GPS co-ords are you refering to? The BB? The YM3? And what exactly are the GPS co-ords supposed to prove?
I refer to any info held by the Australians who monitored the SOS. They also monitored SS's response. They will have the GPS co-ords of both vessels, which will prove the locations/disprove ICR claims that SS continued attacking AFTER the distress call.
Regarding the trial of the two G'peace activists: they stole a box of whalemeat, in the public interest, to highlight embezzlement in Japan's whaling programme. Their "deep throat" told them his fellow crew were stealing boxes of whale meat, often mislabelled as personal belongings. They acquired a box labelled "cardboard and vinyl" filled with whale meat, and gave it to police, but THEY were arrested and had their homes raided! THEY were interrogated three times a day strapped to chairs without lawyers present. The Jap.legal system went for THEIR throats becoz they were activists - UN Human Rights Council ruled their human rights were breached by the Jap.govt.
The two were convicted of theft and trespass, sentenced to one-year suspended jail terms. I may be mistaken...but I don't recall any WHALERS being treated thus or going to trial for company theft. So again, I question the impartiality of a Jap.court.
Interesting photo. I won't accept the 1st screenprint as valid becoz (1) the web address seen won't open, and (2) that was supposedly a PUBLIC forum where ANYone could say ANYthing.
The 2nd photo is more relevant - of course, if you biffing bottles, the stuff wouldn't be in a PLASTIC bottle which would just bounce off, now would it?
Again, the two parties are in a battle of wills so far removed from someone throwing paint at your car, that that particular analogy is heading back towards your "straw man" point.
Regards.
Hi, guys:
May I just add to your discussion here.
In 2002, the World Wildlife Fund published an open letter to Japan in NY Times signed by a group of international scientists, stating that "Japan's whale 'research' program fails to meet minimum standards for credible science". They accused Japan of "using the pretense of scientific research to evade its commitments to the world community".
In the journal Bio Science, members of the Scientific Committee of IWC confirmed "that the signers of the open letter correctly summarized criticisms made by researchers very familiar with Japanese scientific whaling", and that "so little of any significance to IWC management can be obtained only from whaling catches that it is impossible to justify killing animals on this basis".
As Mick seems to be defending the research, perhaps he will respond?
PK, Ontario
"As Mick seems to be defending the research, perhaps he will respond?"
Hello! I am not a scientist, so I cannot say if their accusations are valid or not. If they have legitimate concerns they should bring those concerns to court, like civillized people. Which is why I am pleased that Australia is taking this matter to the ICJ, so it can be settled once and for all.
In regards to the scientists accusations. In my experience scientists never agree with each other on anything. Pick pretty much any issue and you can find equally qualified scientists who disagree with each other. I have read some IWC scientific committee reports and I've noticed that anti-whaling scientists often claim that non-lethal methods are equally or more effective than lethal methods. This may be true. However, it is clearly not practical. For example, Australia's much vaunted non-lethal whale research last year failed to obtain any data of any kind on Minke whales.
In regards to scientific whaling. You have misunderstood my position. I'm not defending the ICR's research. I'm defending the ICR's right to conduct legal research without being attacked by self-righteous jerks who feel they have the right to attack anyone they disagree with. The fact is that, to date, there has been no international court ruling that the ICR's research is illegal. Therefore the ICR is operating legally and there is no legal basis for anyone to attack them.
In regards to whaling in general. There is only one relevant question: Can some species of whales be hunted safely and sustainably? I'm convinced the answer to that question is: yes. In my opinion, there are more than enough Minke whales to justify a resumption of limited commercial whaling in the SO and I see no reason not to do so.
Hello! I posted two comments earlier this week and I've noticed that they haven't shown up yet. Is there a problem? Do I need to re-post?
Thanks!
I'd like to add my penny's worth: Mick was emailing from Obihiro in Hokkaido, Japan.
That city is home to the Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, which (like many universities) has among its divisions a Dept of Food Production Science and a Dept of Veterinary Anatomy. But unlike many universities, both of these depts undertake "scientific research" which is either funded by the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) or regularly cites ICR material as references.
This may explain Mick's adamant pro-whaling stance.
On-line are many research documents from this university with ICR associations. There's also a grievance from an Obihiro University researcher (Yutaka Fukui), complaining that research projects are not being published overseas because of their association with whaling.
While the researchers have nothing directly to do with the killing of whales, the impact of their affiliation has not gone unnoticed. Perhaps, to gain international recognition, they may prefer a more socially acceptable research subject.
Post a Comment