Dave Rideough comments

Posted in: Do you consider the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd to be eco-terrorists? See in context

The facts are: SSCS is in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary to protect that Sanctuary from the Japan Whalers. That is not eco-terrorists.

They ram, illegally board, and throw acid and flares at the whalers. That is eco-terrorism.

If Japan would stop illegally killing whales in that sanctuary, SSCS would then leave the area as well.

Japan is not killing whales illegally. There's no law against killing whales in the sanctuary. There are only IWC rules, which they are following.

If you are so adamant about getting rid of SSCS, then go back to your own polluted ports.

I know you're just being dramatic, but actually Japan is one of the cleanest, greenest countries in the world.

If Japan wants to 'save face' they better start doing it and soon.

Japan wouldn't have anything to "save face" from if Sea Shepherd wasn't libeling them.

Just my point of view.

You may want to have a little more information before you form your point of view next time....

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Do you consider the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd to be eco-terrorists? See in context

Anybody who'd like to read the accident report for yourself can download a copy at http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/AdyGil/.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Do you consider the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd to be eco-terrorists? See in context

Sharkb8, you apparently haven't read the report for yourself either.

96 is where Jason Stewart, the man who was piloting the Ady Gil at the time, explains his thoughts and actions in the moments leading up to the collision.

My concern got to such a level that I jumped out of the helm seat and went across to the port side and had a look outside the port side window, and at that stage I could see a Japanese whaling vessel ... just simply, you know, big bot with water cannons spraying out the front and I had a pretty strong reaction that he was going to hit us. I was very, very concerned for my own safety and for the safety of the rest of the crew when I could see this vessel, because I thought he was going to hit us, so I made a decision then to try and take evasive action. Given that I was already engaged in forward gears, albeit only in idle, I pushed both throttles to about 50 percent forward position ... we did start moving forward but it became clear to me that I was too late to fulfil the manoeuvre I wanted to do. I basically wanted to steer a port to starboard and accelerate away from the Shonan Maru to get ahead of them and to starboard of them.

... I then tried to reverse, to back out, from that position, being in front of the bearing or the course that the Shonan Maru had, which was to hit us. It was a collision course. ... I reverse engaged and we started moving backwards but not enough. We were only, we really only just got moving backwards and the next thing I can recall is that I am seeing steel, steel hull of a, of the Japanese whaler, ... going through the hull...

There you have it. In the helmsman's own words, he miscalculated and threw the Ady Gil into the Shonan Maru No. 2.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Posted in: American father wins custody of daughter taken to Japan See in context

This is great news and hopefully the Journal Sentinel is right and this will set a precedent. I love Japan, but I was floored when I read about the Savoie case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

Nitpick on the article: Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson is not a captain, even though he gets everyone to call him one.

He candidly admits to not having certification, joking "they can't revoke what I don't have to begin with".

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@Animux:

One reader suggests that Japan's ongoing whaling is done in accordance with the "Law of the Sea".

It's rude to address people in the third person.

However, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea states in Article 65:

"States shall cooperate with a view to the conservation of marine mammals and in the case of cetaceans shall in particular work through the appropriate international organizations for their conservation, management and study."

The appropriate international organization in this case is, of course, the International Whaling Commission which has prohibited all commercial whaling, listed nearly all large whales as "protection stocks", and repeatedly passed resolutions calling on Japan to stop killing whales.

Despite being constantly antagonized by the anti-whaling cabal hijacking the IWC, Japan remains in the organization, keeps it informed of its permits and quotas, and submits its research to it. I'd say that from a legal standpoint, that's more than enough to be considered "cooperation with other states" and "working through the appropriate international organizations".

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@Kirsten:

At one time Whaling was essential to living but those days are long gone by. Today we know how very highly evolved and intelligent whales and dolphins are. It is time for the entire world to stop killing these amazing beings and to embrace all they want to share with man. "Tradition" and "Culture" are every changing.

This point was already brought up (and rebutted) very early on.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@Spidapig24:

Nessie,

You can't say name countries that don't fish in international waters, then say excluding x and y... Pointless question, but let's see the Swiss would be another unless they are excluded too?

No, it's a perfectly valid rhetorical question, the point being that whales are not any more of a conservation concern than fish. In fact, today, fish are even more of a conservation concern than whales. Bluefin tuna, anybody?

@Animux:

1 & 2) The author goes to great lengths to imply anti-whaling protest is a cultural matter but fails to address the lack of cultural tradition or significance in modern Japanese whaling - ie: the protest is against whaling - not against Japanese culture.

Modern culture is to an extent the evolution of tradition. Whaling is part of the Japanese culture, period. Your argument that it is not is a distraction.

3) The IWC has, through democratic processes, established protections for just about every species of whale prior to the moratorium and a ban on factory ships - then the moratorium on commercial whaling and the southern ocean whale sanctuary - Japan has historically flouted IWC decisions and the legality of its current abuse of Article VIII is disputed. The IWC has repeatedly passed resolutions calling on Japan to stop killing whales.

We've already discussed how the IWC democracy is a farce.

Unfortunately, pro-whalers believe Japan can just kill as many whales as it likes regardless of how many international conventions prohibit the slaughter of whales or trade of whale products.

Unfortunately, anti-whalers believe that there's nothing wrong with emotionally motivated conventions lacking proper basis in conservation science.

4 & 5) Japan's whaling industry has a long and sordid history of violating and subverting internationally established whaling regulations -- this lack of respect for international regulations is exactly why so many whale species were driven to extinction and shows a pattern of criminal behavior that must be taken into consideration when evaluating Japan's current stance on whaling.

That's a blatant lie. Whale species were driven to extinction in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, before the ICRW, IWC and moratorium existed to be flouted by the Japanese. Americans and Europeans are to blame for the extinction of some species of whale, not the Japanese.

7) Japan kills 100 endangered Sei whales annually. Only a pro-whalers would call that a "handful". The decision to import endangered Fin whale meat from Iceland has resulted in 273 dead Fin whales just from 2009-2010... another "handful" in the eyes of pro-whalers I suppose... one endangered whale killed for commercial profit is one too many and prohibited by the IWC and by CITES.

As I've already told you, Japan and Iceland have the relevant reservations to IWC and CITES for the species they hunt and trade.

Sure, the size of the Japanese and Icelanders' sei and fin quotas is a bit of a cause for concern, but again, that's why a rational approach needs to be taken toward sustainable whaling, not this zero quota farce.

8) Unfortunately, pro-whalers believe whaling nations can simply ignore international conventions and kill as many whales as they like regardless of the democratic decisions of the international community.

Unfortunately, anti-whalers believe that there's nothing wrong with emotionally motivated conventions lacking proper basis in conservation science.

Finally, thousands of tons of the stuff IS just rotting in cold storage. As pointed out by Jun Morikawa, Japanese families stopped buying whale when they could afford other meat, even when whale was cheaper because whale meat was only ever a substitute meat during the post war recovery.

We're talking about the national stock of a country of 130 million that serves the stuff in school lunches. A few thousand tons is just a buffer stock.

Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd took on the Soviet Union, in Soviet waters and the North Pacific, as well as Iceland, Norway, and more. Unfortunately, some like to leave these details out when they demonize Sea Shepherd and falsely claim the group only focuses on Japanese whaling.

And after suffering the consequences of their vigilanteism in national waters - depth charges, being shot at, boardings, arrests and seizures, etc., they lost their spine. Most of the countries that Sea Shepherd has attacked still whale just as they did before Sea Shepherd arrived on the scene.

The fact of the matter is, Sea Shepherd only attacks Japan because they're an easy target, not because their whaling activities are especially bad.

The IWC has prohibited all whaling by democratic decision of two-thirds majority of its members in 1982 following a UN decision from 1972 also calling for a moratorium on commercial whaling. Unfortunately, pro-whalers have no respect for the democratic decisions of the international community.

We've already discussed plenty how the democracy in the IWC is a joke.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Posted in: Brigitte Bardot urges Japan to stop whaling See in context

@Aspara, the $27M is a complete non-point. $27M is pocket change to national governments.

The significant thing about the post-3/11 aid isn't the intrinsic dollar value, but rather that an accordingly large amount of supplies and volunteers were mobilized.

You be insulted if a friend treated you to something worth $5 and then complained about you spending $5 on something. Same thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@Animux:

1) The same could be said for a lot of other forms of hunting and isn't even an argument that can or should be addressed logically because it isn't based in logic. Japan's current whaling methods aren't traditional... so what?

2) Again, so what?

3) Yes, the IWC was given the authority to designate sanctuaries, etc. but it can't just wave a wand and do so. There are rules and procedures. These include resolutions being non-binding to member-states who lodge reservations to them, and sanctuaries requiring the consent of the Scientific Committee to be created. Of these two that I mention, the first is the main reason why it's perfectly legal for the Japanese to hunt in the SOWS, and the second is a large part of their moral justification.

4) This merits a big "so what!" When you make rules that are such an insult and a joke, they get treated as such.

6) The thing is, the world's whaling industries are not systematically wiping species out anymore. The whaling industry is something like 20x smaller than it used to be. It's just about a complete non-issue. At this point it's just a moneymaker for career activists like Watson.

7) Japan only kills a handful of endangered whales each year, and Antarctic Minke are NOT in decline according to the IUCN. The IUCN says they are apparently in decline, but stresses that it doesn't actually have any clue, because in the measurement timeframe conditions changed, observation effectiveness changed and the species was reclassified into different subspecies.

8) The Japan-Iceland whale trade is not prohibited by CITES. Both Japan and Iceland have lodged the necessary reservations to make it legal.

How is industrial whaling 'cultural' when the hunting methods and locations are foreign, the animals are killed to mass produce canned meat like any other product, and hardly anyone in the country actually eats the meat?

It's not like the stuff is just rotting in fridges. People do want to eat it, just like people still do want to hunt.

How are protests culturally biased when anti-whaling activists have carried out campaigns against western "white countries" too?

I admit I don't put much weight in the cultural motivation argument. I see it more as a matter of Sea Shepherd getting a lot of attention for the cause, and being too chicken @#$% to attack any other countries' more harmful coastal whaling operations because of fear of reprisal from their coast guards and navies.

How is a long pattern of subverting and violating international whaling regulations considered 'science' when so many scientists have openly criticized lethal research as unnecessary to manage whale stocks?

How long does a whaling commission subverted by an anti-whaling cabal need to carry on the farce of illegal and unnecessary protection?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@smithinjapan:

@nigelboy:

They do. Japan 's method of visual sighting counting is one of the best. But relying such method alone is just plain inefficient simply because whales are not census friendly so one has to estimate based on figuring out the population dynamics which include age distribution, diet, suceptible diseases, growth rate, etc. to achieve a more reliable data.

Glad their sighting method is one of the best -- hunters often do have pretty good vision, else they wouldn't be very good hunters. But according to logic, wouldn't they have to sight them first to kill them? If so how does killing them make them more 'consensus friendly' than simply spotting them if they have to spot them to kill them in the first place?

Oh c'mon, they don't kill every whale they spot. Some of the ships used in JARPA don't even have harpoons.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@Brandon LaBeet:

@ Dave They're violating the madrid protocol because Japan has failed to conduct an adequate environmental impact assessment before engaging in whaling as required by the Madrid Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty.

Says who, you?

There is a moratorium on whaling, that is what it is called.

There's a moratorium on commercial whaling. Research whaling is still permitted.

That's humpbacks. We're talking about minke.

Well you've made it painfully obvious that you're not actually reading what I'm writing. My population estimate concerning the 14-16 percent was in relation to humpbacks, not Antarctic minkes

Exactly my point. Wow, you really are confused.

My statement of a 60% decline is to do with Antarctic Minkes, of which Japan is hunting a vulnerable group.

Your 60% decline is misinformation in any case. The IUCN says there has been an apparent decline of 60% (from somewhere in the high hundreds of thousands if not the low millions, by the way). They stress that it's only an apparent decline, because over the measurement time frame, effectiveness of observation methods was reduced, the species was reclassified as two separate species and ice conditions changed. They also state that the current population is "clearly in the hundreds of thousands", which the Japanese's catch numbers - less than 1000 a year - do not significantly affect.

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

Lol "collusion"? Collusion is far far different from corruption. What the anti whaling side is doing is cooperation, Japan is conspiring in corruption. But it's funny how you so easily excuse such disgustingly illegal acts of manipulation of poor nations and the perpetuation of prostitution as a business negotiating point.

Wow, gotta love that hypocrisy on full display. If people are conspiring with you, it's "cooperation" but when they're conspiring against you, it's "corruption".

If you think there's something illegal about what Japan is doing, go ahead and quote me the laws.

And whatever bent you have against prostitutes, keep it out of this.

Lol, you're not connecting sea shepherd to political parties and corruption in the IWC? Oh really?

It isn't any different from what the anti-whaling cabal is doing.

And besides, if you think it's alright for Sea Shepherd to attack people because fighting "evil barbaric whaling" is a just cause" then surely you should accept a little collusion for the just cause of negating other collusion.

Sure as hell could of fooled me, you probably fooled yourself while you were at it.

I don't see me making any connection between Sea Shepherd and political parties there. I see me just bringing Sea Shepherd up because I associate you with them. I thought you're a Sea Shepherd fan because your name sounded familiar to me and your misinformation sounds like it came straight from them.

Haha, the biggest lie in the world. Japan doesn't hunt humpbacks? That's really funny. They just happen to have thee highest rate of ship strikes of humpbacks in the world, and they happen to also process them too right? There's humpback meat in the Japanese market, and it's not just because they hit them with their boats like they claim.

"The remains of a baby humpback whale, found by a GPF team at Kawana Harbor in Japan, 1981. Humpbacks had been officially "protected" since 1966, but it didn't help this baby. DNA testing shows fresh humpback meat still in Japan's markets today."

"Taking surreptitious samples from sushi restaurants and supermarket freezers two sleuthing New Zealand scientists have uncovered strong evidence of an international black market in whale meat in Japan and South Korea. Tests conducted by the University of revealed that a wide variety of whale meat is still on sale in despite a 12-year-old moratorium on whale-hunting. A piece of meat from a Japanese fish market, for example, was found to be from a type of humpback whale found only in Mexican coastal waters."

Here's a survey even done by the IWC in 2008 that showed humpback was on the Japanese menu

"ABSTRACT We report on species identification of whale-meat products purchased directly and via the Internet from commercial markets of Japan from early July 2008 to early April 2009. The total of 59 products included six species of baleen whales, humpback (n=1), fin (n=27), Bryde’s (n=1), sei (n=3), North Pacific minke (n=18) and Antarctic minke whales (n=6), and one species of beaked whale, Baird’s (n=1). The individual identity of market fin whales was considered by comparison to products purchased since scientific hunting of fin whales in the Antarctic was initiated in the austral season of 2005/06 as part of the JARPA II programme. Although only 13 fin whales have been reported in the JARPA II program with a further 2 reported as coastal bycatch, a minimum of 20 individual fin whales were represented by products on the market during this time. Only one of these individuals matched to the mtDNA sequence of a product that was purchased before 2005/06. The import of fin whales from Iceland, released from Japan customs October 2008, was excluded as a likely source of products in the survey based on date of purchase and sequence identity. To improve control of commercial whale-meat markets and estimation of illegal, unreported or undocumented (IUU) takes, we recommend that information from the Japanese and Icelandic DNA register be made available through the data availability procedure of the IWC Scientific Committee"

There you getting confused again, confabulating things. The important thing from that mass of text? : Scientists found a couple of samples of humpback (along with other whales which aren't part of this discussion) in Japanese businesses. Where did it come from? Who knows. Who knows.

The bit about Japan having the most humpback ship strikes is interesting, and I'd like to see the source, which, true to form, you didn't give up front.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVEN'T

Oh, sit down.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@WilliB:

Mr. Clancy falls for the red herring that labelling a whaling ship as a "research" vessel makes whaling research. Talk about being naive....

It isn't painting the word "research" on the ship that makes it a research vessel. It's the fact that it's been instrumental in dozens of research papers that makes it a research vessel.

Peer reviewed journal publications from the Antarctic expedition:

http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPA91paper.html

Peer reviewed journal publications from the North Pacific expedition:

http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPNpaper.html

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@Disillusioned:

'if' Japan starts commercial whaling in the southern oceans there is no reason for any other country (mostly Asian countries) with a so-called 'whaling culture' to start the practice again. This would result in the whales being slaughtered at huge rate and their numbers would diminish very quickly, once again.

Which is why the anti-whaling cabal needs to buckle down and do some actual science and number crunching to determine what level of hunting is sustainable, and let whaling nations hunt at that level. Because all there is right now is inane bickering - "we want to hunt whales" and "screw you, we don't want you hunting whales at all", which leaves pro-whaling countries carte blanche to make their own assessments and quotas. That doesn't work out well for the whales at all.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@Spidapig24:

l take it that by the aggressive response l must have hit a nerve, either that or you have no better argument and just resort to aggression schoolyard bully style. And the other thing your not going by a different username are you as your posts sound remarkably like david@tokyo. Same arguments, same aggression, same inability to see anyone elses point?

There's no aggression in my response. That comes just about entirely from you confabulating me with this other David.

Oh ok so l cant see it from the other side. If you read my point again l actually acknowledged that there have been some countries join the anti whaling camp recently that have no history of whaling as there have been several that have joined the pro whaling side. Its amusing though that some of those that have joined the pro whaling side openly admit doing so in response to aid from Japan. As for people not seeing it from the other side l think its you struggling there buddy if you actually read my posts.

The point remains that anti-whaling zealots have no room to complain about pro-whaling collusion in the IWC when there's just as obviously also anti-whaling collusion.

A so you say press release and l said japanese press oops my mistake. Just because a Japanese organisation puts out a press RELEASE then it must be 100% factual then its not like the group in question the JWA & ICR have a vested interest in telling their spin on the story true?

I think you've lost track of what we're talking about. We're talking about the ICR stating their own reason for cutting the season short. There's nothing to lie about there.

Why don't we break the windows of your car and throw some flares in and see how you like it.

Because Dave a car unlike a ships deck is flammable anyone with a shred of intellegence knows that. Steel decks on ships with no flammables and oh didnt they have high pressure hoses firing too at that time. Now thats a big difference to a car my friend, maybe pick a better analogy next time.

Okay, so for a better analogy, you're fine with me throwing lit flares on the hood, windshield, roof, trunk, etc. of your car? By your standards that's just fine, because I guess as long as I'm not completely destroying your car I'm not damaging it at all either. At least, that's what I gather. Your zealot logic is really tough to make sense of sometimes.

The whale sanctuary and EEZ claims are invalid. The whale sanctuary was created in violation of the ICRW and the Australian Antarctic Territory is not an actual territory per the Antarctic Treaty System. But you are partly right. It's easy to make people like yourself buy the EEZ and sanctuary canards and that would be the other part of Sea Shepherd's justification and strategy.

So the whale sanctuary is invalid hey? Did it pass a vote in the IWC? Yes. Is Japan a member of the IWC? Yes. Japan just doesnt like it.

[...] Oh and maybe you should read the IWC charter as it states that "The Commission may amend from time to time the provisions of the Schedule by adopting regulations with respect to the conservation and utilization of whale resources, fixing (a) protected and unprotected species; (b) open and closed seasons; (c) open and closed waters, including the designation of sanctuary areas" Notice the last part INCLUDING THE DESIGNATION OF SANCTUARY AREA'S and thats what they did.

You're missing a critical fact: A sanctuary can not just be created by a majority vote of IWC member-states. It must be done with the approval of the IWC scientific committee. Not only was the sanctuary created without said approval, it was done against them. Thus, it's invalid.

If there are as many whales as Japan claims then what is the harm of having a sanctuary?

The harm is obvious: You hurt the whaling industry when you pointlessly pick a particularly rich swath of ocean and try to mandate that no whaling should happen there.

As for the EEZ, Australia's claim predates the Antarctic Treaty by oh about 100 years and the ATS actually states if you care to read it that by signing it any claims that predate (as Australia's does) the ATS are not adversly affected by the signing and still stand.

You're confusing territorial claims with actual territory. Despite its age, Australia's territorial claim to part of Antarctica is just that: still just a claim. So the idea that they have an EEZ around it is dubious at the very best.

No, you understand: those are international waters, and the Japanese have every bit as much right to do what they want in them as the Australians do.

Actually part of them are a whale sanctuary as deemed by the IWC to which Japan is a signatory (not that treaties mean much as Japans history amply shows), also part is a claimed EEZ by a foreign country. Now Japan doesnt recognise that claim l agree just as China doesnt recognise Japans claim on the Senkaku's yet Japan demands that China abide by its EEZ and does so at gun point yet Japan freely tramples another countries claim and has the gaul to send a military vessel to assist with it illegal activities.

Senkaku and the AAT are different situations. Japan has a good case for the ownership of the Senkaku Islands. The ATS ensures that all land in the Antarctic retains the fuzzy status of "territorial claim" rather than ever becoming actual territory, so the concept of EEZs arguably just plain doesn't apply.

And they haven't sent a "military vessel" to assist the whalers. They may be sending a Coast Guard vessel. And again, Japan's Antarctic whaling is not illegal.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@iceshoecream:

The Japanese government gets furious when a Chinese (or just any other nation) fishing vessel gets into their waters and say "dame dame". But then it's OK for them to go somewhere else to fish and ask "why are we getting blocked?".

Japan hunts in international waters, not territorial waters. That's a big difference.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@Chris Jacques:

BOTTOM LINE IS THIS:

Japan set its quota at 850 minke whales and 10 fin whales. The IWC has agreed that an annual take of 2000 Antarctic minke whales for 100 years would “not adversely affect stocks.”

Japan is taking LESS THAN HALF of the amount that would still "NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT STOCKS".

Suck it.

Haha, your comment was downvoted to a rating of -4 when I read it. These people really hate seeing facts that don't jibe with their ideology.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@Brandon:

@Dave You can check the population estimates yourself for Humpback whales.

That's humpbacks. We're talking about minke.

Quote a law? Madrid protocol, Antarctic whale sanctuary, moratorium on whaling, hell they even lost ship registry once for illegal transportation of whale meat. Remember the Oriental blue bird?

Too vague, false, false and false.

Madrid Protocol: How do you think the whalers are violating it?

Antarctic Whale Sanctuary: Under the ICRW, member-states that lodge reservations to resolutions are not bound by them. Japan lodged a reservation to the creation of the Sanctuary w.r.t. minke.

Moratorium on whaling: There is no moratorium on whaling in general, only one on commercial whaling. Japan is conducting scientific whaling.

The Oriental Bluebird: Yeah, they had it registered in Panama, which technically put it in Panamanian jurisdiction instead of Japanese, and the Panamanians had a snit over it being used for whaling and threw the book at them.

Woo. Congratulations, you're one for four on a technicality.

Lol, you haven't done any homework, you just keep asking me things.

No, I have done my homework, and I don't have the time or the patience to figure out for myself where all your hare-brained speculation and misinformation comes from.

I brought up Japans corruption of the IWC, and you bring up sea shepherd for no apparent reason other then a political agenda, um, yeah you are.

Are you on crack? I never brought up Sea Shepherd. I brought up the notion of the IWC being unbalanced by an anti-whaling cabal.

Here are some fun things that the IWC scientific committee has said about Japans whaling program

"ALSO NOTING that some humpback whales which will be targeted by JARPA II belong to small, vulnerable breeding populations around small island States in the South Pacific and that even small takes could have a detrimental effect on the recovery and survival of such populations;"

Although Japan has a quota for humpbacks on paper, they haven't hunted any in decades. Who's not doing his homework again?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@SquidBert:

Read the article. Clancy says it pretty well: The killing is frankly not needed for the research, but it's a good enough excuse and payback for when the USA reneged on its deal to get Japan to play along with the 1980s moratorium.

From the article:

it is a political decision that is perhaps deceitful from the West's perspective; but a decision equal to that of political maneuvering in the application of the 1982 moratorium and more likely less deceitful than U.S. economic threats against Japan (which were never overturned once Japan eventually agreed to the moratorium).

Actually, maybe you should read the article and actually try to grasp what Clancy's saying, because it sounds like you haven't quite done so.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@Brandon LaBeet:

This was rejected by the IWC's scientific commity as a scientific impossibility.

Show me their statement to that effect.

Lol, you got to be S#$#ing me if you call the Japanese whalers researchers. They're as much researchers as seal clubbers in Canada.

Let me guess - you have something against the seal hunt too.

It is not a belief, Australia is taking Japan to court and the US has openly stated opposition to Japans activities.

Withot a legal leg to stand on, it's still nothing but a belief.

It's really very simple. If you think the whalers are breaking any laws, quote me the laws.

Here's an article citing the sunday times undercover investigation (I can't believe you're not competent enough to just look it up on your own) http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/06/japanese-officials-bribe-for-w.html

I can't believe you expect me to lend you any credibility when you want me to do your homework for you.

You're attaching sea shepherd to political parties, that's completely asinine

I'm doing no such thing.

Face it, the new face of the IWC is anti whaling,and it's going to stay that way. The IWC may have started for a different reason and objective, but it's going to stay anti whaling now.

Well then, that's too bad. They have no credibility that way.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@Spidapig24:

There has been countries that have joined that are anti whaling but there has been equally a number that have joined that are pro whaling including countries that dont even have a coastline. So your point is fairly mute there.

No, that is my point. You just refuse to see it from the other side.

See Dave thats were you lose the argument with a statement like "The Japanese Press" now there is a totally unbiased even reporting group if ever l have seen one. When has the Japanese media EVER painted whalers in a bad light? When have they ever written a fair and honest account of the events. They take the mindset of Japan being victimised and bullied by these evil SS people. Yet do they report the fact that most of the countries in the region they are whaling are opposed to their actions, do they report both sides of the argument? Have you ever seen an anti whaling article in a Japanese paper?

I wrote "press release". Press release. You know, those official statements that people and organizations put out for the media? God, is your reading comprehension really that bad that you directly quote me and still don't have any clue what you're reading?

Oh and when did SS try and set fire to a whaling ship and how. If you are refering to throwing a flare unless there is fuel spilt that will not cause a fire.

Why don't we break the windows of your car and throw some flares in and see how you like it.

Why do you think that SS and the countries in the region are so against the Japanese action in Antarctic waters and not in Japanese waters? Its not for the reasons you claim, maybe it has something to do with the Japanese whaling in a whale sanctuary. Maybe it has something to do with Japan whaling in another countries claimed EEZ.

The whale sanctuary and EEZ claims are invalid. The whale sanctuary was created in violation of the ICRW and the Australian Antarctic Territory is not an actual territory per the Antarctic Treaty System. But you are partly right. It's easy to make people like yourself buy the EEZ and sanctuary canards and that would be the other part of Sea Shepherd's justification and strategy.

But you hit the nail on the head Dave when you said "Japanese won't treat them with kid gloves in domestic waters like they do in the Antarctic" That is exactly right Japanese domestic waters are Japan's, the southern ocean is not Japans yet they want to treat it as their own and disrespect the wishes of the countries in that region. UNDERSTAND!

No, you understand: those are international waters, and the Japanese have every bit as much right to do what they want in them as the Australians do.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

Aw, you're downvoting my comments now? Talk about impotent rage....

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@Brandon Labeet:

No, they're killing whales, and making up statistics that suite their means (if you would of actually read what I wrote you'd know I went over that, you might think you were sounding smart, but you didn't read what I actually wrote).

Prove it.

Lets see, whale meat from Japan has showed up no more then 20 miles from where I live in california, it came from Japan, and has been frequently coming for years before being busted.

The whalers have about as much to do with the black market for whale meat as Apple does with the market for stolen iPhones.

Why are people so ignorant about the species japan hunts? JAPAN IS NOT HUNTING THE COMMON MINKE WHALE IN THE ANTARCTIC, there are two species, the common minke and the antarctic minke. The antarctic minke is DD and believed to be undergoing a decline of as much as 60% of the population.

They aren't separate species, they're subspecies. And frankly, nobody worth a damn gives a damn about beliefs about population numbers. Let's see some actual research - like the Japanese are doing.

It is the belief of the US, Australia, among other countries that Japan and Iceland are in fact breaking the law which has been stated many many times over.

Oh wow, belief again....

The Sunday Times.

Of where? What was the article name and date? "The Sunday Times" doesn't do anything for me.

It's not playing politics, it's breaking the system. They're buying votes, buying whores, threatening to pull "financial support" this is criminal extortion and manipulation at its finest. Bribery is illegal, extortion is illegal, and prostitution is illegal. We know the Japans fisheries is doing all of this.

It isn't any different from what the anti-whaling cabal is doing.

And besides, if you think it's alright for Sea Shepherd to attack people because fighting "evil barbaric whaling" is a just cause" then surely you should accept a little collusion for the just cause of negating other collusion.

You have proof that anti whaling nations are using bribery, threats, and prostitution? Or is this simply speculation?

Don't put words in my mouth. The fact that there's collusion on the anti-whaling side is obvious. Countries that are completely anti-whaling have no place in the IWC. They shouldn't be there in the first place. The simple fact that they're there, exercising power, is collusion enough. The IWC is about preserving whaling traditions, not abolishing them.

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@John Becker:

Commercial whaling is banned.

Wrong. Commercial whaling is not banned. It was under a moratorium, which was supposed to be lifted more than twenty years ago.

Please don't try to make statements of fact if you've neither read the article nor done any research on the topic....

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@NetteMarie:

I think I should also point out, that the reason Japan can't hunt whales in it's own waters any more is because they're all eaten.

Misinformation. There are still whales off of the coast of Japan, and they can and do hunt them there. But you'll never hear Sea Shepherd planning to do anything about it, because they know that the Japanese won't treat them with kid gloves in domestic waters like they do in the Antarctic. The Steve Irwin would get raided or sunk.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@cleo:

Wrong. Japan called off the hunt because with the SS literally sitting on the tail of the factory ship preventing carcasses being loaded for butchering the hunt came to a halt and there was no more profit to be made.

Wrong. The Japanese press release specifically cited dangerous Sea Shepherd attacks as the reason for halting the hunt, not successful peaceful intervention. Personally, I think the turning point was when Sea Shepherd started to try to set the whaling ships decks on fire with all hands still aboard.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@Spidapig24:

I see the one thing that JT forgot to mention in this little pro Japan, pro Whaling spiel by Mr Clancy is his pro whaling, pro dolphin hunt support. It seems Mr Clancy has written several pieces for media in Japan and in Australia pointing out the good points of both Japans Antarctic whaling and its annual dolphin slaughter. And true to form with those other articles he even uses the same analogies (pigs getting slaughtered) and cultural difference. He even goes so far as to say that animal cruelty is in the eye of the beholder. Well l guess we can chalk this article up to a pro whaling article l wonder when JT will actually run an opposing view.

I notice that not even once in that comment did you ever actually find fault with anything Clancy has ever said. You're just posturing.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

@Namabiru4me, SquidBert:

If the Japanese are whaling for scientific purposes, I wounder if and what they are publishing from their research. This would at least show some justification that they are not lying to the anti-whaling world.

-

I agree 100%, if Japan is taking a large cull of the international whale population for research purposes. Then the research motivating this should be published internationally. I have yet to see any research that motivates the killing of the animals.

~sigh~

They've published in international journals and with the IWC. You can find a list of publications on their website, http://www.icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

Posted in: Japanese whaling: Why the West is in the wrong See in context

Brandon, you might think you're sounding smart, but your mindset is exactly what Clancy's complaining about.

1)

It is plausible that Japan kills whales in conducting this research for two reasons—not just to carry out the research but also to prevent the collapse of the Japanese whaling industry (through the redundancy of whaling apparatus and political precedence).

[...]

Japan has been backed into a corner and it may be the case that it has been compelled into killing whales during its scientific research in an attempt to save its whaling industry from collapse.

If so, it is a political decision that is perhaps deceitful from the West's perspective; but a decision equal to that of political maneuvering in the application of the 1982 moratorium and more likely less deceitful than U.S. economic threats against Japan (which were never overturned once Japan eventually agreed to the moratorium).

2) It isn't necessarily illegal to sell whale meat internationally. Maybe you're thinking of endangered whales? Minke is not endangered, and even if its status with CITES changed in the near future, Japan and Iceland could lodge reservations and continue their trade.

3) I've never heard of this before. Can you show me your source of this supposed information?

4) It's only fair for Japan to play politics in the IWC. The mere fact that the IWC has been stacked with anti-whaling puppet states in the last couple of decades is reason enough.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.