national

Japanese whalers under new attack by Sea Shepherd

125 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

125 Comments
Login to comment

More silliness from both sides. What huge waste of money all in the name of nationalistic pride. Japan will never win any friends from it's hardheadedness and SS will never get the whalers to give up by coercion.

3 ( +6 / -6 )

The institute has urged the Netherlands—where the Steve Irwin is registered—to take action against the campaigners

Meanwhile in the Netherlands - While the Sea Shepherd ships were engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with the Japanese whalers down in the Southern Ocean, the yearly Goed Geld Gala (Good Money Gala) of the Dutch National Postcode Lottery was held again Thursday at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. Geert Vons and Laurens de Groot were there on behalf of Sea Shepherd, and received a cheque for 900,000 Euros (almost 1.2 million USD)

http://beachcarolina.com/2012/02/22/sea-shepherd-receives-e-900000-from-dutch-national-postcode-lottery/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+beachcarolina+%28Beach+Carolina+Magazine%29

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

I admire the restraint shown by the whalers. If some stinky hippie tried to prevent ME from making a living and feeding my family, I wouldn't limit my response to just a water cannon.

SS needs to grow up, and those who fund it need to as well. There are myriad legitimate ways to protest without endangering others. But I guess they just aren't as edgy, and don't give enough of a sense of childish satisfaction to the protestors.

-5 ( +13 / -18 )

prevent ME from making a living and feeding my family,

Seriously, the whole operation is a government hand out, there is no profit motive involved. No ones livelihood is at stake here.

There are myriad legitimate ways to make a living without traveling 12,000 kms to kill whales.

Wise words my man.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

^you sure are a grouchy gaijin lol.

I think you need to research what a hippy is...you sound like someone who would call another person a goth because they decided to wear a trench coat out? The people that join up with green peace and SS (and other similar organizations) aren't hippies at all. They are forward thinking activists with a sense of duty to a planet that we have no right to abuse. We belong to the planet, not the other way around.

Im not arguing that the whalers have a lot of restraint.. I can sympathize with you and them in terms of it being a job. If someone came into my office throwing stink bombs at me I would want to punch them in the face. Still though.. what the SS is doing is not childish. People wouldn't donate millions of $$$ if it was.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

One man's "stinky hippie" is another man's "forward thinking activist".

People often donate millions of $$$ to childish and stupid activities that happen to have good PR, or make the news. We've all seen cases where human suffering goes unnoticed, but animals get donations. SS is one case. The whales being hunted are not endangered. IF SS wanted to really make a difference, they would set up a training programme for the whalers to allow them to make a living in a different way. But they don't, because it wouldn't be as glamorous.

As long as one child is starving, then giving money to freaks like SS is immoral and wasteful.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

The whales being hunted are not endangered.

The species may not be endangered (not enough valid data, so hard to say either way). The whales that get exploding harpoons shot into them end up dead, and on an individual basis there's no more endangered than that.

IF SS wanted to really make a difference, they would set up a training programme for the whalers to allow them to make a living in a different way.

This argument has been done to death before. These people, we are told, are 'mariners' and well able to get jobs on other fishing boats that don't take them to the opposite side of the world to work in a dead industry that only government subsidies prevent from falling over, away from their families for months on end and they don't need any alternative training, Thank You Very Much. My take is that if they're happy doing that, they're probably too dumb to be trained for any kind of worthwhile work. Then again, according to Greenpeace they make so much money selling on the whalemeat the company 'gifts' to them, they'd be stupid to stop in favour of legitimate work. Either way, they're not going to take up any training offers put forward by Sea Shepherd, glamorous or otherwise.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

so your saying Captain Paul Watson (the man who runs SS) is a hippie?

He has major in communications and linguistics and was a professor for a while as well. He's been on the cover of time as environmental hero of the year along with a myriad of other awards and educational jargon that I can't be bothered typing....

What im getting at is you think this man is a hippie? You're out of touch sir. You shouldn't so boldly stereotype people.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Readers, no more "hippie" references please.

As long as one person is starving in Tohoku, then giving tax payer money to hunt whales in Antartica is immoral and wasteful.

Send those words to the Japanese Government and at the same time ask them how paying for sports events is moral and wasteful.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

These Sea Shepherd idiots need to knock it off before someone dies.

Tired of reading these articles.

-6 ( +11 / -17 )

Give em hell SS!

3 ( +14 / -9 )

3 on dinghies before also fired paint pellets, stink bombs and smoke flares

actually sounds kinda fun

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Grouchy Gaijin - " As long as one child is starving, giving money to freaks like SS is immoral and wasteful ".. Well, how about this buddy - As long as J-govt says it can,t provide kids in Fukushima with free health checks , as long as those kids don,t have safe playgrounds to enjoy, as long as the people who lost jobs in the earthquake affected areas are not entitled to unemployment benefits anymore , as long as so much damaged infrastructure remains unrepaired ( which i see on daily basis driving to / from work ) - giving J- govt money ( read our taxes ) that could be used for all those things to the whalers hunting in declared sanctuaries half way around the world - THAT in my book is WAY MORE immoral and wasteful!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Good job Sea Shepherd. Keep it up.!!!

6 ( +16 / -9 )

If "drawing attention" is the point, then they are successful. If solving the issue and coming to an agreement is the point, then they are abject failures.

What am I doing? I help people. Not animals. I give to charities that support humanity- HOPE International, for example. If you want to make a difference, do the same. They are an amazing organization.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Tohoku relief and rebuilding fund in action, ladies and gentlemen!

3 ( +8 / -4 )

Moderator - totally unfair to remove my comment - what is irrelevant about a comment reply stating that Jgovt funds subsidizing the current hunt instead of using it for Fukushima kids / Tohoku is wasteful and immoral?...most readers that are in Japan would agree...don,t you?

Moderator: The two issues are separate.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Let the whalers whale. Let the market decide if whale meat is a viable source of revenue. End the subsidies, and end the farcical charade of "scientific whaling".

1 ( +11 / -10 )

Go for it, SS!

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Grouchy .... you realise one of the reasons SS do what they is cause conventional means aren't reliable. The Australian government do not want to disturb the waters (pun intended) with japan. It's in our news here just as much as it is in Japanese news if not more. As a whole id say nearly 70-80% of Australians don't want the japanese in our waters killing whales.. The other 20% of the people just dont care enough to voice an opinion. The whales provide lots of tourism for us on the costal sea towns. Do you really think they haven't tried coming to an agreement a million times before?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

As a whole id say nearly 70-80% of Australians don't want the japanese in our waters killing whales..

Nice to see how Australia considers Antarctica "their water"

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Jessie, both sides are being silly. The waters in question dont belong to anyone, least of all Australia. I say simply let the market decide. There is no moral argument on either side. Whales are animals like any other. If they are endangered, then don't hunt them, like any other endangered species.

Making this an issue either of morality or culture is equally wrong. It should be a matter of economics.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

^

here you go... they migrate between these areas... australia has many islands far off its coast that are considered australian land and waters. http://www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/annual-report/06-07/images/diag-whale-sanctuary-map.gif

We don't really like when the whales never return 'home'

0 ( +5 / -5 )

they migrate between these areas... australia has many islands far off its coast that are considered australian land and waters. http://www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/annual-report/06-07/images/diag-whale-sanctuary-map.gif

and where are the Japanese hunting the Whales? Yes, no where near your whale sanctuary.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

^ urgh do some research.. its our territory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Antarctic_Territory

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Japan definitely not being one of them.

yeah well obviously -_- .. its not exactly in their best interest is it.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

^ urgh do some research.. its our territory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AustralianAntarcticTerritory

A small handful of countries acknowledge Australia's claim.

Japan definitely not being one of them.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

"The institute has urged the Netherlands—where the Steve Irwin is registered—to take action against the campaigners. It has also issued similar calls to authorities in Australia and New Zealand, which Sea Shepherd uses to dock its ships."

Going against the opinion of pretty much every nation in the world, and then asking for their help when you illegally set foot in their waters, is NOT going to garner much sympathy. But once again, Japan considers itself the victim in this issue.

Go Sea Shepherd!!!

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

smithinjapan, we agree on something. In Okinawa we watch whales and not kill them.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Personally not really against whaling, since not all whales are in danger of extinction. One whale, provided it's meat could be made actually tasty, would free a lot of land for farming. The fat and bones are also valuable resources.

But Japan has entered on it's own free will into an international anti-whaling treaty, but constantly uses loopholes to twist and thwart the spirit of it. Japan openly insults the world by using ridiculous and transparent excuses and lies, produces no results even remotely resembling it's promises and doesn't even try to hide it's constitutional unreliability.

Everybody knows the Japanese are lying and cheating. The world is much more polite than Japan for not constantly pointing it out (Go Australia, Go!"). I always snort when my Japanese colleagues express distrust towards Chinese - "Seriously? Like you're one to talk!"

-1 ( +8 / -8 )

One whale, provided it's meat could be made actually tasty

I had some seared whale in Tokyo. It was delicious.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

i get what your saying peanut.. the reasons though that SS and japan are constantly in the news is cause japan are the main offenders of whaling in australian waters / territory. With Australia being somewhat iconic for whaling watching... this confrontation will always make the headlines more than other whaling news.

As for banning the rest of the countries.. well they are banned.. just like the rest of the world. just like japan. However japan use various loopholes etc. (probably like the others do as well)

I doubt it comes down to race -_- ... like.. really? You can bet there would be even some japanese people that donate to SS. That's a rather broad and bold statement my friend.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I think we are missing the point of the article. Let's not get bogged down in a rehash of the whole whaling issue, and concentrate on the central point- the tactics used by Sea Shephard.

Is it acceptable to use destruction of property to advance your cause? Is is an acceptable form of protest against perceived injustice?

If so, then those who support SS in this case should be consistent. If, for example, a radical anti-abortion group decided to use broken glass to pop the tires of an abortion doctor's car as he drives to an abortion clinic, the SS folks should support it as a valid protest. The doctor wouldn't be hurt, after all.

Or, if a group of pro-whaling people threw ropes at the propellors of SS ships, that would be OK too. As would shooting at them with paint guns.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@Greapper1

I've tried some fried whale - not to my taste but I'd eat if I had to. Maybe it was the species or the process. I'd have to try a few different species and ways of cooking before I could decide.

Good to see the meat was appreciated by you though. I'm wondering if Japan will change policy sometime and recommence commercial whaling. With more ships, SS would have a busy time keeping up and hopefully give up and annoy somebody else.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

@Grouchy Although I don't like hypotheticals, i think we might agree on something. That being SS are radical in what they do. But then again so are the whalers. Last year they rammed and sunk a mulit million dollar SS vessal. In saying that who was in the wrong their is very debatable.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

^Which have little to no effect on adults when consumed occasionally.

More whale meat for me. :D

1 ( +5 / -4 )

"also fired... stink bombs"

The Spencer Husselmeyers of the sea.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Readers, how whale meat tastes is irrelevant to the discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jesse, I agree. If the whalers had sought out and tried to ram a SS ship, they would be in the wrong. However, if SS put themselves in a dangerous position, then they share the blame.

The tactics are the key. Do people support destruction in general, or only if they believe the cause is just, or don't support it at all?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

protecting whales is probably the last reason that makes sea shepered do what they do. why don't they go take their attention mongering tv show and go bother the icelanders and the norwegians. those two european countries actually hunt whale commercially.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Probably because there is a far higher likelihood of getting their arses kicked by Olaf and Lars and Erik than by Taro and Shun and Daiki...

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The whole thing is rediculous. I think that whaling should just be legalized and make it so the yearly catches are small and sustainable with heavy penalties for over hunting. All countriees will be given the option to hunt whales and can apply for a hunting permit. That way, Japan can still do their research/food processing and other countries could also join in. Then Sea Sheperd could use their services to make sure that the hunts are sustainable and can bring to justice thos who are going against the law.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Then Sea Sheperd could use their services to make sure that the hunts are sustainable and can bring to justice thos who are going against the law.

I'm sure the SS would prefer to remain as they are. Lawless pirates.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Anti-whaling campaigners Sea Shepherd ATTACKED a Japanese whaling ship in the Antarctic Ocean by firing paint bombs at it and trying to jam its propeller with ropes......

Activists from the group’s main ship, the Steve Irwin, on Wednesday approached the Yushin Maru No. 3 on dinghies before also fired paint pellets, stink bombs and smoke flares

Those "stink bombs" are actually glass bottles of buyteric acid.

I'm surprised that the eco-terrorist SS were able to find the YM3. Did the eco-terrorists use the drone, the heliocopter, or did they just look over their stern? At least the eco-terrorists were able to film more of their mindless violence for an episode of whale wars and maybe a private viewing by a judge.

I'm surprised that the Netherlands supports the violence of the eco-terrorist SS. Maybe they are just reliving the good olde days when Dutch pirates ruled the high seas? Or maybe Princess Maxima has the hots for Paul? It just seems so sad.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

If this sea sheperd mob were that concerned with the enviroment would they be burning up copious amounts of fossill fuels chasing the whalers around creating more carbon and green house gases? Gotta ask yourself ! Or would they be using Sail boats ?

Whole thing is a sham ! Come on people wake up.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

sunhawk.

Russia just upped their annual limit beyond the "Japanese Research Hunt", other countries also upped their limits. It was over 1.200+ whales for this season for Russia.

Korea is very keen to resume whaling as they also have a history of hunting/eating them.

And I agree SS would open up a full can of whoop-ass on themselves if they tried anything with other countries or Russia.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

DoLittleBeLate,

But Japan has entered on it's own free will into an international anti-whaling treaty, but constantly uses loopholes to twist and thwart the spirit of it.

I have never heard of an international anti-whaling treaty. I suppose you have been misled by the evil anti-whaling businesses to think so.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

'it's ME' makes an interesting point. There are many other countries whaling and wanting to start whaling. Japan joined the IWC voluntarily and now thwarts its regulations under the guise of research to fill an already overflowing coffer of a meat that very few people are interested in eating. If there was no IWC and no SS there would be no whales. That is the point!

Oh, and the statement about the southern ocean being Australian and NZ territory is true. Just because few countries decide it's not doesn't mean anything. Whose navies are called in when someone gets in the shit? One third of Antarctica is also Australian territory. When you include the 200k economic zone and the international whale sanctuary there is very little water left to fish in.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

As far as I know SSCS couln't catch up the whalers' mother factory vessel yet, due to Yushin Maru No. 3 relentless tailing on the Steve Irvin. Maybe they are trying to get rid of Yushin Maru No. 3 . I don't know actually that apart from the skirmish and the damage they inflicted on one another they could protect a single whale from being killed this year.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

One third of Antarctica is also Australian territory.

Not true. Australia claims it as being so but that does not make it so. As signatory to the Antarctic Treaty, their claim, while not disputed, is also not recognized. No one has sovereignty over Antarctic territory. People living there in the temporary quarters are generally subject to the laws of the nation controlling the outpost where an event happens.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I'm surprised that the eco-terrorist SS were able to find the YM3

They didn't. The YM3 has been on the SI's tail from shortly after it left Australia after escorting the Brigit Bardot into port for repairs. The YM3 even chased the SI into a World Heritage area off Macquarie Island and was warned by Australia to get out of undisputed Australian territorial waters.

The harpoon ships are tailing the SS ships and relaying their position to the mother ship, which is accompanied by one free harpoon ship and moving fast to keep ahead of the SS. This means the whalers are working at most at one-third strength, if that - but are unfortunately still probably taking some whales.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Oh, and the statement about the southern ocean being Australian and NZ territory is true. Just because few countries decide it's not doesn't mean anything.

A "few countries" ? Every single country on the planet with the exception of 5 or 6 does not exactly mean "few"

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This again?!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

What an incredible waste of time, resources and money for everyone involved.

Imagine if all this effort was put into something positive.

Japan is still looking for bodies just a few hundred KMs north of the capital and dealing with a very public and badly managed nuclear disaster.. a year later. I think there are far better uses for the money used to sponsor these expensive, divisive and clearly controversial fishing trips.

I tend to think that if the Japanese really want to hunt whales perhaps they should do it a little closer to home and be more honest about what they are doing. If its for tradition, well head on down to antarctica in some traditional Japanese boats and using traditional methods and see how you go..

As for the SS crew, I don't think they are going to get any action doing things the way they are, to change anything they need the support of a vocal majority of the Japanese public, however I can absolutely guarantee the current course of action will almost certainly have the opposite effect.

No country will react well to some if its citizens being harassed or attacked no matter the reasoning or the blame. There has to be a better way to get the point across.

(cue tongue in cheek comment) Now, if they could get a bunch of quasi-celebs to cry in a classic picture in picture moment on a variety show to video of a mother whale being separated from its calf then "processed" while sakana-kun is explaining that whales are extremely intelligent and perhaps have similar cognitive ability to humans and co-operate in large family groups..

0 ( +1 / -1 )

ihope2eatwhales,

I have never heard of an international anti-whaling treaty.

Calling http://tinyurl.com/2cux45t as "anti-whaling" was my own personal input. Enjoy!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The Sea Shepherd has just been granted 900,000euros from the Dutch National Lottery, which it receives regularly. Holland's stand on whaling is quite clear,so the whalers should not even think about trying to play the sympathy game with the Dutch. And to add, it is well-documented what weaponry the whalers have - more than just a water cannon.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@sakurala

The whole thing is rediculous. I think that whaling should just be legalized and make it so the yearly catches are small and sustainable with heavy penalties for over hunting. All countriees will be given the option to hunt whales and can apply for a hunting permit. That way, Japan can still do their research/food processing and other countries could also join in. Then Sea Sheperd could use their services to make sure that the hunts are sustainable and can bring to justice thos who are going against the law.

This is the most sensible solution I have seen by far. Have some doubts about SS playing ball though. Even if they did cooperate, they would get tired of the lack of media attention and bug someone else. But it's posssible, they quit and get a real job. Wonders never cease.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Is it acceptable to use destruction of property to advance your cause? Is is an acceptable form of protest against perceived injustice?

Good stuff, Grouchy. It's the "old end justifies the means" question.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

NZ2011 -I agree with most of what you say , but it would be absolutely impossible for the SS to get " support of a vocal majority of Japanese public " no matter what they did instead of actively trying to disrupt the whalers. Reason being is that there is no such thing as "vocal majority of Japanese public " - Even after the worst nuclear disaster in decades there has been pathetic little response by most J-public to it. Ditto for whaling ...Unless they are seriously affected by the issue on a personal level your average Taro & Keiko are just going to shrug shoulders, mumble the standard "shouganai" and allow those higher up the food chain to carry on as before.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

i read attacks and was expecting, Kalashnikovs and RPG's but paint bombs and ropes? i hope they are bio degradable

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Almost all countries have stopped whaling, adhering to this international treaty. Even Korea, where it has also been "tradition" to hunt these mammals, stopped doing it. So it is possible, and the Japanese should not argue with tradition anymore.

If Japanese politics does not stop this stupidity, then I definitely support any action by Sea Shepherd against it (indeed I spent some money and will continue to do so each and every year).

0 ( +3 / -3 )

First of all, whale meat is delicious, and it is our traditional sustenance from many a long time ago in history. This is the representative food of Japan and we all love it. Hopefully we can get Sea Shepherd stopped in International Courts of Justics.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Sea Shepherd: even the name is smug - how could whales in the wild be "shepherded" ? Anyone who gives money to support these reckless, self-righteous pirates should be ashamed of themselves. I get an overwhelming feeling that if it wasn't a glamourous "cause" to save the whale, they wouldn't have the slightest interest in going to the Southern Ocean to threaten the safety of other seafarers and generally cause a nuisance.

Whatever you think about whaling, Sea Shepherd's motives are undoubtedly about self-glorification rather than any great concern for animal welfare, or their fellow man. While I don't dispute that Japan has bent the rules, the whales being killed are from a species which is known from other research to be abundant, and only a sustainable number are taken each year.

It's obvious that this isn't going to dissuade the Japanese from whaling, so Sea Shepherd should concentrate on a political campaign, or turn their hand to a more just and environmentally credible protest. Save the tuna, perhaps? Now THAT's a real issue of concern. Nobody would be interested in that though, tuna aren't cuddly, and besides it's much more fun to zip around in speedboats and boast about your moral superiority over the "nasty" Japanese.

Presumably when, due to their own stupidity, someone gets killed by getting run over after deliberately ramming a whaling ship, the family will have the brass neck to try and sue the Japanese as well. But then they'll be a martyr, so at least being shredded by a ship's propeller will have been worthwhile.

Ludicrous.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

God these Sea Shepherd extremists are idiots. Would be great if we could interview the whales to get their opinion on all this.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@ japanFTW ...you can eat all the whale you like im not going to stop you... just don't take the whales in our territory and oceans. Australians love whales, they bring tourists for whale watching. My gripe isn't with japan wanting to eat whales.. its where they get their whales from. Most Australians have a deep sense of national pride when it comes to our marine life. We are coastal people. We simply love the ocean and just about everything in it (except blue bottles, they suck).

I hope that can give you an insight as to why Australian don't like having our marine life killed and why certain groups of people go to such (even radical) lengths to protect it. Im not saying what Sea Shepard is doing is correct. But i hope you can see why they have so many people backing them. Especially Australians and New Zealanders.

I love japan and its rich culture / history, I wouldn't live here if I didn't. I respect the fact that whale is a traditional source of food for japan. HOWEVER, you do need to respect the wishes of other nations as well.

This will be forever an ongoing problem until both the Australian gov and Japanese gov can pull their fingers out and actually create a resolve.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

jessebaybay

My gripe isn't with japan wanting to eat whales.. its where they get their whales from. Most Australians have a deep sense of national pride when it comes to our marine life. I respect the fact that whale is a traditional source of food for japan. HOWEVER, you do need to respect the wishes of other nations as well.

These comments that you made are spot on. As an Australian living in Japan l can understand that Japan does indeed have a tradition of whaling and eating whale meat. While l dont like the methods used l can understand whaling in Japans home waters or even in the region and could live with that. What l cant live with is Japan and Japanese saying they have a culture and tradition of whaling as they sail to the other end of the earth and do it in our backyard and in waters we see as our own.

What the pro whaling posters need to realise is that if Japan stuck to whaling in its own region most Australians would not raise an eyebrow and would lose interest, the reason it is such a passionate debate in Australia is where the Japanese do their whaling and claim their tradition (a tradition that doesnt exist). So maybe before pointing their fingers accusing us Australians of this and that maybe they should pull out a map and look where the whalers actually whale unless they believe Japanese rights extend to the entire world? And to the pro whalers ask yourself this, when was the last time you heard of SS harassing Japanese whaling in the Northern hemisphere afterall they do this every year too. Why do they only target you in the Southern ocean?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Close the loophole and everybody go home. Leave the poor whales alone. And yes, while you're at it, leave all the chemically force-fed chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cows alone too. Oh, yeah, leave all the tuna alone for at least 100 years and any and all sea creatures that we have overfished. Sushi is a non-sustainable form of nutrition consumption. And I don't care if people say because it is a part of one's cultural, then it's acceptable. Eating whale is just plain wrong and the meat is filled with poisons. Tradition and culture do not necessarily mean that something is right. That is something many Japanese will never understand. It's called provincialism. Look it up.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Protest if you like if you don't agree with whaling. However attempting to jam up the props of ships in one of the most dangerous oceans? Lets see when the day comes that they succeed and one of the whaling ships comes into difficulty resulting in a death. The crew of that ship and Watson would have a nice little manslaughter charge coming their way.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

'...part of one's culture,....'

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@kariharuka ... if any deaths come from SS vs Whailers ... it will be one of the SS crew most likely. Sea Shepard know they would lose all credibility and backing if they truly harmed or nearly killed one of the whaling crew. As sad is it sounds, a death within either crew has potential to end all this nonsense. As it will force the governments into action.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Cletus, you managed to contradict yourself in the very same message! that has to be a record.... First, you said;

"l can understand that Japan does indeed have a tradition of whaling and eating whale meat."

One paragraph later you said;

"the reason it is such a passionate debate in Australia is where the Japanese do their whaling and claim their tradition (a tradition that doesnt exist)"

Can't have it both ways, my friend.

And PS, the Japanese ARE hunting in their waters. They are internional waters, free to all to use as they see fit. If Aussies want to fish the same distance off the coast of Japan, they would be welcome to do so. You may SEE the waters as your own, but the rest of the world (and maritime law) do not.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Cletus, I get your point, but you obviously have scant understanding about the concept of international waters. Australia has every right to control what goes on in its own territorial waters - as does Japan and every other littoral country - but in international waters they do not. I dare say that if the whales were abundant close to Japan, they would not be going down to the Southern Ocean to hunt them, but it's still not Australian territory, I'm afraid.

Sea 'Shepherd', meanwhile, would be idiots wherever they operated and whatever the nationality of the people involved.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Grouchy Gaijin

Cletus, you managed to contradict yourself in the very same message! that has to be a record.... First, you said; "l can understand that Japan does indeed have a tradition of whaling and eating whale meat." One paragraph later you said; "the reason it is such a passionate debate in Australia is where the Japanese do their whaling and claim their tradition (a tradition that doesnt exist)" Can't have it both ways, my friend.

Sorry l didnt realise l would have to spell it out for everyone. My point was Japan has a tradition and culture of coastal whaling. The do not have a culture or tradition of whaling in the Southern ocean.

And PS, the Japanese ARE hunting in their waters. They are internional waters, free to all to use as they see fit. If Aussies want to fish the same distance off the coast of Japan, they would be welcome to do so. You may SEE the waters as your own, but the rest of the world (and maritime law) do not.

Now who's contradicting, you say that these waters arnt Australian waters and while Australia does claim the waters l do agree that they are international waters. But you say while they are not Australia's waters they are Japans! HUH...

But yes being international waters the Japanese can exploit them legally, just as the Australians or any other nation or group can protest this. And given that its Australia's region and Australia's maritime rescue zone that the Japanese are whaling in (and a internationally declared whale sanctuary) then l would say Australia and the other nations that neighbor the area should have a say in what happens there.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

frontandcentre

Cletus, I get your point, but you obviously have scant understanding about the concept of international waters. Australia has every right to control what goes on in its own territorial waters - as does Japan and every other littoral country - but in international waters they do not.

I do understand the concept of international waters. Do you understand the concept of an internationally declared whale sanctuary that was voted into existence by the IWC of whom Japan is a member? Do you understand the concept of Australia's claimed EEZ in the Southern Ocean and while not recognised (much like Japan's claimed eez around certain islands the Japanese enforce that with their military)? But yes lets call them international waters to make you happy and as international waters Japan can whale there and as international waters people can protest Japans whaling. And as these international waters are closer to Australia than Japan by oh about 10,000 km l would say that Australia (and every other nation in the area) has a great deal of interest in what happens in these waters especially when they are responsible for any rescues that may be needed. Oh and interestingly EVERY single nation that borders this region have all said the same thing. They do not want the Japanese there whaling and many have passed laws to make it as difficult as possible for the Japanese.

I dare say that if the whales were abundant close to Japan, they would not be going down to the Southern Ocean to hunt them, but it's still not Australian territory, I'm afraid.

I dare say you are correct but as they are unable to limit themselves to not over fishing areas they have had to move to better fishing grounds. Much like cockroaches chasing food they will over fish one area before moving to new grounds.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Regardless of the debate.. you do not have to kill, to understand a population. Neither is tradition, a basis for the continual hunting of whales. Though Whaling has played a key factor in Japanese history.. on occasions, i see no point in the political, social, let alone economic basis of whaling in this day and age.. anymore then eating Minke whale kebabs in down town Reykjavík (capital of Iceland), especially when there is other varieties, such as monkfish (アンコウ).

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Damn terrorists...

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Anyway, the point of the article was the choice of tactics used by SS. If they use violence and destruction, they cant complain when the same techniques are used against them. They choose publicity over substance.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Sea Shepherd should concentrate on a political campaign, or turn their hand to a more just and environmentally credible protest. Save the tuna, perhaps? Now THAT's a real issue of concern. Nobody would be interested in that though, tuna aren't cuddly

Front, never heard of Operation Blue Rage? Where do you think the Steve Irwin was last summer?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

cleo - The harpoon ships are tailing the SS ships and relaying their position to the mother ship, which is accompanied by one free harpoon ship and moving fast to keep ahead of the SS. This means the whalers are working at most at one-third strength, if that - but are unfortunately still probably taking some whales.

Hahahaha. Yes the YM3 has been following the eco-terrorist SS. Whenever the eco-terrorist Watson gets bored or needs some additional video footage for his fund raising efforts, he dispatches a dingy full of morons to throw glass bottles of acid at the whalers.

Your assumption of what the factory ship is doing must be based on the eco-terrorist Watson's delusional rants. The eco-terrorist Watson has absolutely NO IDEA where the factory ship is or what is happening there. The eco-terrorist Watson seems to have completely fooled you.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Cletus - Now who's contradicting, you say that these waters arnt Australian waters and while Australia does claim the waters l do agree that they are international waters. But you say while they are not Australia's waters they are Japans! HUH...

But yes being international waters the Japanese can exploit them legally, just as the Australians or any other nation or group can protest this. And given that its Australia's region and Australia's maritime rescue zone that the Japanese are whaling in (and a internationally declared whale sanctuary) then l would say Australia and the other nations that neighbor the area should have a say in what happens there.

You can say anything you want to, of course, but the government of Australia disagrees with you. Australia knows what is international water and where the Australian EEZ is located. Whaling is not a major concern of any nation. They all have far better things to do than worry about what the eco-terrorist Watson does or does not like.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Dear Activists: Many people do support Japan's right to kill whales. Despite your disapproval, it remains true.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"Scientific whaling" in the Antarctic sea for research purposes is a loophole to internationally agreed moratoria on whaling--and a disgrace to Japanese science. If they'd just whale there straight up, without pretense, I would respect them for it! (But they wouldn't last a day!)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Arrestpaul...geez, you trying to set some kind of a record for repeat usage of the phrase "eco-terrorist " in your posts, ? Calm down mate,,repeating your propaganda lines is getting tiring. Anyway - eco- terrorist to you ...a guy willing to stand up for what he believes in to others.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Sea Shepherd receives € 900,000, from Dutch National Postcode Lottery great they should be able to buy another boat for next season keep up the good work SS, @Greapper1 you go and enjoy that whale meat Ill donate anothe $50 to SS to make sure that whale meat stays the expensive fat it is . LOL

0 ( +2 / -2 )

cleoFeb. 24, 2012 - 08:52AM JST "The whales being hunted are not endangered." The species may not be endangered (not enough valid data, so hard to say either way).

False. In 1991 the IWC Scientific Committee stated that Minkes totalled some 876000 worldwide and an annual take of 2000 per year would not affect stocks. The anti-whaling nations ignored this finding in order to ensure that the Moiratorium would not be lifted. Even though IWC rules make it clear that all decisions on Moratoriums, Sanctuaries, Catch limits are to be based on IWC Scientific Committee opinion. The 1986 Moratoriu,m itself was voted in against the IWC's ownbrules as well and Canada quit the IWC in protest and the head of the IWC SCientific Committee quit in disgust.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

arrestpaul, "Whaling is not a major concern of any nation"

Sadly youre wrong there. Expressed diplomatically and vocally by the nations surrounding Antarctica every time the ICR sends its whalers south.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

In 1991 the IWC Scientific Committee stated that Minkes totalled some 876000 worldwide

And in 2010 the IWC stated with regard to minke whales in the southern hemisphere that The Commission is unable to to provide reliable estimates at the present time. A major review is underway by the Scientific Committee.

http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm

As of 2008 the IUCN Red List category for southern minke was 'data deficient'.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/2480/0

Two bodies who presumably know what they're talking about, agreeing that there is not enough valid data to make a call either way.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

SwissToni - Sadly youre wrong there. Expressed diplomatically and vocally by the nations surrounding Antarctica every time the ICR sends its whalers south.

Various governments also issue statements honoring their various sports teams. Lots and lots of talk. No nation considers whales or whaling in international water to be a "show stopper" when it comes to international trade or domestic policy.

These diplomatic exchanges have every bit as much force and determination behind them as an old man yelling, "Hey you kids, get off my lawn" when it's not actually "his" lawn.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The result of the anti-whaling faction's continuous hindering of any possibility of lifting the moratorium. It should have been liftted in 1991. Note that other later estimates are not in question, only the contentious "antarctic" minkes. Why do you think the IWC itself proposed allowing Japan et al to take Minkes in their 2010 proposal, which incidentally the hard-core anti-whaling factions destroyed. Minke whales are not an ESA-listed species, meaning they are not classified as endangered or threatened

"Minke whales are the most abundant rorqual in the world, and their population status is considered stable throughout almost all of its range (especially when compared to other species of large whales). There are an estimated 185,000 minke whales in the Atlantic, and 510,000-1,400,000 in the Southern Hemisphere. "

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/minkewhale.htm

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Qaueckernaeck - "Scientific whaling" in the Antarctic sea for research purposes is a loophole to internationally agreed moratoria on whaling--and a disgrace to Japanese science. If they'd just whale there straight up, without pretense, I would respect them for it! (But they wouldn't last a day!)

You use the term "loophole" like it's a bad thing. The same organization that agreed to the "moratoria on whaling" is the same organization that allows the loophole to exist. The whalers are operating legally and within the rules of the IWC. On the other hand, the eco-terrorist SS has been banned by the IWC from attending their meetings. Apparently, the eco-terrorist SS continued use of violence and rhetoric isn't welcome there.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

marcelito - geez, you trying to set some kind of a record for repeat usage of the phrase "eco-terrorist " in your posts, ? Calm down mate,,repeating your propaganda lines is getting tiring. Anyway - eco- terrorist to you ...a guy willing to stand up for what he believes in to others.

The eco-terrorist SS continually resort to violence to force others to do their bidding. It's you're choice if you're pro-violence or not. It's you're choice if you wish to support violence as a way of making others do what you want.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Norway, Iceland, India, Brazil ,Madagascar, and Zimbabwe, and Thailand all are whale hunting countries and combined hunt more whales than Japan. If you are going to ban Japan from whaling, then you should ban all the rest of the countries whaling. Why do the Sea Shepard's target only Japan? If you watch the TV show "Whale Wars" they RARELY target other countries. Why is that?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Peanut cos maybe they are anti japanese?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Arrestpaul- unfortunately no amount of diplomatic / official requests and representations on this issue had worked over the years,,,hence all that is now left to pursue are these confrontations every year as the whalers go down to do their " research" and continue their " cultural tradition". As much as you and your employer would like to shake them off the SS are obviously not going to give up on this....and good on them for that.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Ossan - from your link -

Minke whales, like all marine mammals, are protected under the MMPA.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN's) Red List of Threatened Species considers the ....Antarctic minke whale to be "Lower Risk Conservation Dependent."

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I hate sea shepard....they should go back to doing what they do best and that is street sweeping...uneducated twits

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Only ONE side is BLATENTY violating INTERNATIONAL LAW, the SS with their terrorist activities. The fact that many people/countries dont LIKE what Japan is doing it is NOT against the law due to the loophole.

Simply put, these damn countries should enforce the laws being violated and then work on a solution. And the wacko EU cant try to force Japan to stop when they have much more whaling activity in their backyard. Clean the dog poo out of your yard before looking over my fence to see what I am doing.

And good ole OZ claiming the Souther Sea and Antartica as "theirs" is just classic. Guess the have a little Great Briton class envy going? ;) They will have a real big problem WHEN (not if) something serious happens and life is lost. And if it is Japanese they will be hell to pay since the OZ team with the declared (self imposed or not) right and responsibility to monitor adn control the area has NOT been enforcing maritime laws that go back CENTURIES!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

cleoFeb. 25, 2012 - 12:05PM JST Ossan - from your link - Minke whales, like all marine mammals, are protected under the MMPA.

The MMPA applies ONLY to US waters.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

marcelito - unfortunately no amount of diplomatic / official requests and representations on this issue had worked over the years,,,hence ALL THAT IS NOW LEFT TO PURSUE ARE THESE CONFRONTATIONS every year as the whalers go down to do their " research" and continue their " cultural tradition".

What are you saying? That violence is the answer? That violence is the only option left to the eco-terrorist SS and that you fully support their repeated acts of violence?

The whalers are operating legally. The eco-terrorist SS hove NO legal authority to sink or ram other vessels. The eco-terrorist SS has NO legal authority to throw glass bottles of acid or shoot red phosphorus flares at anyone.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The MMPA applies ONLY to US waters.

The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S.

Do you think marine mammals are any less dead if they're killed by Japanese instead of Americans?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The US MMPA while prohibiting the taking of Marine Mammals allows certain exceptions such as Section 104. Permits 16 U.S.C. 1374. So when you argue that the IWC has a Moratorium in place on Commercial Whaling, understand that it too has a exception under Article VIII. If a party is acting under an exception to a rule or regulation, that doesb;t male whgat they are doing illegal or dumb.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Ossan, you're talking in circles. You put forward an argument based on estimated populations. I pointed out that the IWC and the IUCN both state that there is not enough data available to provide accurate estimates. Moratoriums, loopholes and permits do not change that fact.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

No cleo I am not talkling in circles.Sufficient evidence that the global Minke supply is andundant enough to harvest has been in existence for several decades.. The Scientific Committee made that clear back in 1991. The Anti-Whaling faction refuse to recognize the Committee's findigs and refused to lift the Moratorium, and have since continued to engage in an agenda of obstructing any possible lifting of the Moratorium by debating data and methods for the sole purpose of perpetually maintaining the moratorium. The IWC rules make it clear that the Scientifioc Committees position is to guide decisions on this type yet the anti-whaling faction has used votes to overide this; why? Because they want an end to all whaling period. Let's be honest ok? Japan and other whaking nations, as well as those who are thinking of resuming wha,ing, have no qualms about being honest and saying that they would like to see a return to commercial whaling.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

So what you're saying, Ossan, is that the IWC is right when it makes the decisions you like ('Let's review the moratorium in 1991') and wrong when it makes decisions you don't like ('Let's not lift the moratorium because the population data is dodgy').

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

No cleo, what I am saying, and I have said this numerous times, is that the IWC was founded and exists to regulate the Whaling Industry and their conservation agenda is to ensure healthy stocks for the pupose of "whaling". Their conservation agevda is not to eliminate all wehalking because they are magnificent or cute and cuddly. The IWC since the 1970s has become a disfunctional organization because the members are split between those who wish to adhere to the original charter and raison-d'etre of the organization, and those who have an agenda to eliiminate all whaling of any kind. That's fine, but those countries are at odds with the purpose of the IWC itself and have no business continuing to be members. Why those countries do not all resign from the IWC and form an International Anti-Whaling Organization is beyond me. Instead they remain members of IWC thwarting the organization's very purpose. The population data on Minkes is not dodgy at all, it has been made to appear dodgy by the anti-whaling faction whose agenda to is to eliminate all whaling of any kind and ensure no return to commercial whaling is ever achived. The evidence of this lies in the 2010 negotiations wherein the IWC proposed a compromise that would have allowed Japan et al, to resume limited commercial whaling, with annually declining take numbers, strict record keeping, and, get this - eliminate the Scientific Permit Whaling. Objectively speakling, it would have reduced the number of whales killed immedisately, and over time down to nothing. The anti-whaling natioms opf New Zealand and the United States supported this compromise. Austrailia on the other hand literally wrecked the negotiation by adhereing to a "no whales must nbe killed at all right now" position, and that any compromise may "lead to the revival of commercial whaling". Clearly, these points are at odds with the very IWC Charter itself. This is what I mean by the anti-whaling nations not being honest and remaining in the IWC in bad faith.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Cleo to answer your question specificallty, YES, the IWC was right to review the Moratorium in 1991 because that was the condition upon which the Moratorium went into effect in 1986. And YES, the IWC was wrong to not lift the Moratorium in 1991 because the IWC regulations call for such decisions to be based on the opinions of the IWC SCientific Committee, something that was ignored.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The IWC sets the standards. Norway, Iceland, India, Brazil ,Madagascar, and Zimbabwe, and Thailand all are whale hunting countries and combined hunt more whales than Japan. If you are going to ban Japan from whaling, then you should ban all the rest of the countries whaling. Why do the Sea Shepard's target only Japan? If you watch the TV show "Whale Wars" they RARELY target other countries. Why is that?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"Japanese whalers under new attack by Sea Shepherd" could have been retitled "Sea Shepherd attempts to save Antarctic whales from Japanese killing spree". This title would have helped expend the mind of some easily influenced readers like Grouchy Gaijin who fall for the Institute of Cetacean Research propaganda.

Come on! Who call themselves the Institute of Cetacean Research when their only aim is to kill 1000s of whales per year and sell the meat in various forms? A more appropriate name would be the Japan Whaling Administration, specialised in hightech whaling, distribution, and best practices for monetizing the meat.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

jonjon, What information are you soleley privy to that allows you to be so certain that ICR is not conducting research? I mean apart from the mobs simply crying that they aren't? ICR conducts research whaling under the authorization of IWC Regulation Article VIII which allows them to ignore Moratoriums and Sanctuaries. The same regulation REQUIRES that the whale meat be CONSUMED. That means eaten. To date the IWC Scientific Committee has never rejected data submitted by ICR as being invalid or fraudulent. And you are very wrong in saying that "their only aim is to kill 1000s of whales per year". Their aim is to provide sufficient data to the IWC in order to lift the 1986 Moratorium on commercial whaling. Talking about appropriate names, I trust you are aware that the IWC is the International Whaling Commission, created to regulate the WHALING INDUSTRY, and conservation measures are for the pupose of maintaining sufficient stocks so that WHALING can be conducted. So...why aren't anti-whalers protesting against the IWC instead of Japan? Why haven't the anti-whaling nations like Australia quit the IWC since they are against the IWC's stated purpose?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

OssanAmerica, "Austrailia on the other hand literally wrecked the negotiation by adhereing to a "no whales must nbe killed at all right now" position"

You missed a key point there, deliberately or not I wouldnt like to say. The Australians wanted no more whales killed in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. Japan wouldnt agree to that.

You bang on about the IWCs original charter and how every country that doesn't agree should just leave. Why? Do organisations have to maintain the status quo in the face of a changing world? I'd argue that the countries wanting to change the IWC into a purely conservation organisation have the planets future closer to their heart. Perhaps they are more in touch with the world as it is, not as it was? Splitting the organisation into two would simply create more direct conflict. Perhaps you like that?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

SwissToni - You missed a key point there, deliberately or not I wouldnt like to say. The Australians wanted no more whales killed in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. Japan wouldnt agree to that.

What did Australia accomplish by taking such a hardline approach to the negotiations? Australia refused to even consider a possible compromise and they came away with nothing. No change, no reduction. The old rules and regulations stayed in place. If Australia's goal was to maintain the status quo - then they won big.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

SwissToni - You bang on about the IWCs original charter and how every country that doesn't agree should just leave. Why? Do organisations have to maintain the status quo in the face of a changing world? I'd argue that the countries wanting to change the IWC into a purely conservation organisation have the planets future closer to their heart. Perhaps they are more in touch with the world as it is, not as it was? Splitting the organisation into two would simply create more direct conflict. Perhaps you like that?

Only the supporters of the eco-terrorist SS are demanding MORE direct conflict. Currently, the IWC is at an impasse. The status que is that there will be no more agreement on anything. Members show up, have lunch, and go home.

The IWC is a "whaling" organization. The animal-rights zealots wanted all whaling stopped and were willing to stack the deck in their favor. Now they're stuck in limbo. Whaling can't be decreased. What the animal-rights zealots don't seem to understand is that member nations can still set their own limits. Overall, whaling can still increase and there is nothing the IWC can do about that because they can't/won't agree on anything. Checkmate.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

SwissToniMar. 01, 2012 - 12:33AM JST "OssanAmerica, "Austrailia on the other hand literally wrecked the negotiation by adhereing to a "no whales must nbe killed at all right now" position"" You missed a key point there, deliberately or not I wouldnt like to say. The Australians wanted no more whales killed >in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. Japan wouldnt agree to that.

No swisstoni I haven't missed any point here. But thank you for hjighlighting this point. Antu-whaling nations such as the United States and New Zealand were willing to compromise in order to achieve their goals. Austrralia was hard-headed and refused to budge. The Southern Ocean Sanctuary means nothing in that the current IWC Scientific Permit system allows a permit issuer to ignore any sanctuaries. The IWC propsed compromise would have elimated the Scientiic Penmoit whaling. Put bluntly, Australia bit off it'ls nose to spite it's face. Why? Nothing but a latent nationalist agenda over controlling the Southern Oceans which are international waters.

You bang on about the IWCs original charter and how every country that doesn't agree should just leave. Why? Do >organisations have to maintain the status quo in the face of a changing world? I'd argue that the countries wanting to >change the IWC into a purely conservation organisation have the planets future closer to their heart. Perhaps they >are more in touch with the world as it is, not as it was?

You are misinformed as top the meaning of Conservation, which happens to incude culling (killing) as well as protection in order to properly manage a population. What tyou and the Anti-Whaling nations are advocating is not Conservation, it's Preservation.

Splitting the organisation into two would simply create more direct conflict. Perhaps you like that?

Considering that I am the one who is adamantly against Sea Shepherd's violence and eco-terrorism, why would you even ask such a question?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

pity Australia is not able to look after it's own livestock, perhaps Sea Shepherd could become a Land Shepherd http://www.animalsaustralia.org/take_action/indonesia-new-evidence-2012

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope al those who argue that "whales" are somehow killed any less humanely than other animals get a good look at that video,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmerica, "The IWC propsed compromise would have elimated the Scientiic Penmoit whaling. Put bluntly, Australia bit off it'ls nose to spite it's face"

Eliminated Japans 'scientific permit' whaling in favour of commercial whaling. So in practice, no change there then, other than to allow Japan's whalers to come clean. You can argue black is white if you like but youre only fooling yourself. The failure to compromise was Japans whalers, if they had agreed not to hunt in the Southern ocean Australia may well have backed off and withdrawn the ICJ action.

"Considering that I am the one who is adamantly against Sea Shepherd's violence and eco-terrorism, why would you even ask such a question?"

Because there are no authorities that agree Sea Shepherd are terrorists. All the bile and bluster comes from you, the whalers and the Uyoku. All exploiting the issue for fun where there is none, to maintain an industry long past its sell by date and for meagre political gains in some last bastion of belligerance in Japans foreign policy. I ask because your arguments are always circular. Youre right, you are adamant, theres no compromise detectable in anything you write on this issue.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

ToniMar. 02, 2012 - 01:22AM JST "OssanAmerica, "The IWC propsed compromise would have elimated the Scientiic Penmoit whaling. Put bluntly, Australia bit off it'ls nose to spite it's face" Eliminated Japans 'scientific permit' whaling in favour of commercial whaling. So in practice, no change there then, >other than to allow Japan's whalers to come clean.

Totally wrong there. It would have Eliminated Scientific Permit whaling in favor of limited Commercial Whaling with strict take numbers, tight monitoring and the take numbers would be reduced over time dowjn to ZERO. Yes, that's right, ZERO WHALES. Now if your goal was truly to "preserve" whales, which would you pick?

You can argue black is white if you like but youre only fooling yourself. The failure to compromise was Japans >whalers, if they had agreed not to hunt in the Southern ocean Australia may well have backed off and withdrawn the >ICJ action.

No it''s you who is fooling yourself because Japan is not at all worried about Australia's ICJ claim. Why? Because Australia's claim has two major hurdles, first to somehow prove that IWC Regulation Article VIII somehow doesn't apply and secondly, that Australia has any special territorial rights or sovereignty over the area in question, something that only four countries on the planet recognize, and even the United States does not.

"Considering that I am the one who is adamantly against Sea Shepherd's violence and eco-terrorism, why would you even ask such a question?"

Because there are no authorities that agree Sea Shepherd are terrorists.

No the FBI considers SSCS to be Eco-Terrorists., That is different to the bomb-strapped-to-my-body Terrorists.

"Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe. The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature." http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-threat-of-eco-terrorism

All the bile and bluster comes from you, the whalers and the Uyoku. All exploiting the issue for fun where there is >none, to maintain an industry long past its sell by date and for >meagre political gains in some last bastion of >belligerance in Japans foreign policy. I ask because your >arguments are always circular. Youre right, you are >adamant, theres no compromise detectable in anything you >write on this issue.

You re the one who can't compromise. I have proven to you how Australia's refusal to compromise is killing whales and will continue to kill whales. Yet, all you are capable of is continuing your hatred towards the whalers, and obviously anyone supports law and order and is against vigilantism. The only beligerence is from SSCS and their supporters.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

JOIN AND HELP JAPAN TO BE THE STRONGEST NATION IN EREPUBLIK!! http://www.erepublik.com/en/referrer/El+Nikola

.......

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

SwissToni,

Eliminated Japans 'scientific permit' whaling in favour of commercial whaling. So in practice, no change there then, other than to allow Japan's whalers to come clean.

Japan's whalers are clean. They have the research permit from the Government of Japan.

The failure to compromise was Japans whalers, if they had agreed not to hunt in the Southern ocean Australia may well have backed off and withdrawn the ICJ action.

Japan welcomes Australia's ICJ action. You should read it in the Wikileaks.

Maybe you do not know it, but there is no serious person in Australia who believes they can win the ICJ action. They say zero whales is enough for research! It's crazy! Every child knows that at least one whale can provide useful scientific data. But Australia does not request Japan decrease it's scientific catch to one whale at the ICJ. They request zero whales!

Japan will win the ICJ case very easily. Australia has taken the action for their ego. They will have egg all over their faces. You too!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I'd argue that the countries wanting to change the IWC into a purely conservation organisation have the planets future closer to their heart.

Conservation with no whaling is not proper conservation. It is redefining the meaning of conservation to fit a different agenda. Just be honest if you don't want conservation, but protection only. Can't you just admit it?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Ossan: "No the FBI considers SSCS to be Eco-Terrorists., That is different to the bomb-strapped-to-my-body Terrorists."

Your FBI definition again, after the brutal comments cleo slapped you with the last time? And as I said, the very definition given by the FBI could also apply to the whalers -- the TRUE eco-terrorists (BTW SS isn't hurting the ecology by comparison, only blocking Japan doing so).

0 ( +2 / -2 )

smithinjapan - Your FBI definition again,? And as I said, the very definition given by the FBI could also apply to the whalers -- the TRUE eco-terrorists (BTW SS isn't hurting the ecology by comparison, only blocking Japan doing so).

It's the constant use of violence by the eco-terrorist SS that drew the FBI's attention in the first place. You're trying to justify the continued violence of the eco-terrorist SS but the eco-terrorist SS have NO LEGAL authority that justifies their sinking and ramming of any vessel. The eco-terrorist SS have NO authority to be launching glass bottles of acid or firing red phosphorous flares at any vessel. The eco-terrorist SS have no authority to be illegally boarding any other vessel.

Everyone is entitled to DEFEND THEMSELVES from attack. The whalers are being forced - by the repeated violent actions of the eco-terrorist SS - to DEFEND themselves.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

arrestpaul

The eco-terrorist SS have NO authority to be launching glass bottles of acid or firing red phosphorous flares at any vessel.

Just as the Japanese have no authority other than their own for being in the area they are.

The eco-terrorist SS have no authority to be illegally boarding any other vessel.

Just like the Japanese had no authority to enter Australian waters back in January, breaking Australian law in the process and ignoring requests from the Australian government not to enter the waters.

Everyone is entitled to DEFEND THEMSELVES from attack. The whalers are being forced - by the repeated violent actions of the eco-terrorist SS - to DEFEND themselves.

Yes ramming vessels, launching military style concussion grenades, pointing LRAD devices at aircraft. Now that is what you consider justifiable response to someone throwing some bottles at you. Get real arrestpaul, your bias is blinding but with a username like ARRESTPAUL one can only assume a one sided, blinded argument.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Cletus - Just as the Japanese have no authority other than their own for being in the area they are.

And the IWC. The eco-terrorist Watson only represents the eco-terrorist Watson.

Just like the Japanese had no authority to enter Australian waters back in January, breaking Australian law in the process and ignoring requests from the Australian government not to enter the waters.

Are you saying that the Australian government doesn't know or enforce it's own laws?

Yes ramming vessels, launching military style concussion grenades, pointing LRAD devices at aircraft. Now that is what you consider justifiable response to someone throwing some bottles at you.

I see you are still trying to justify the repeated acts of violence being committed by the eco-terrorist SS. How dare the whalers DEFEND themselves against the psychopathic attacks of eco-terrorists.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites