eyeonwarson comments

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ swisstoni

I disagree, but as the moderators have asked us to stay on topic, I`ll leave it at that ..

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ zichi

Also allowing the illegal imports of species which are listed has endangered or threatened.

The import of whale meat from Non endangered regional fin whales from Iceland is legal under CITES - look it up. Hvalur will export their 2013 catch to Japan under CITES

From the IUCN (< http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/2478/1>)

The IWC set catch limits to zero for fin whales in the North Pacific and Southern Hemisphere in 1976. Catch limits for all commercial whaling have been set at zero by the IWC since 1986. However, this moratorium does not apply to Iceland, Norway or the Russian Federation which have objected to this provision. Limited aboriginal subsistence whaling is permitted by the IWC for fin whales taken off West Greenland. Fin whales are listed on Appendix I of the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), but this does not apply to Iceland, Norway and Japan, who hold reservations. Fin whales are also listed on Appendices I and II of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS).

The Export by Iceland and Import by Japan of the legally hunted Fin whales by Hvalur is legal under the auspices of both the IWC and CITES - even the IUCN states this.

I suggest you stay on the topic of Hvalur and fin whales

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ Zichi

Individuals like Loftsson don't pay income taxes in two countries.

Really? I work in three countries and pay taxes in all of them.

I suggest people who actually live in Japan rather than someone who lives in Norway have better info on what is happening here.

I don`t live in Norway, I am not Norwegian or Icelandic or come from a whaling country and I live in the EU thanks, so wrong again :)

You have yet to supply any substantiated links to your sources - so as far as I ( and I am sure others ) are concerned, your claims remain your unsubstantiated opinions. Do your research and provide sources.

Last year there was public outrage about Tohoku reconstruction funds being diverted to Kyodo Senpaku.

The sunsidies went to the JFA & ICR as shown above - if they wish to give a for profit company contracts, then of course they will have to give them money - you claimed that the money went direct to Ks - which is untrue.

There are many business especially the privately owned ones like Misaka Shoji which may not be paying that much in business tax. Misaka Shoji isn't a corporation, its a privately owned company.

They are still paying taxes - you are ignoring this - the import and sale of Fin whale meat from Iceland contributes to reducing your tax burden via the taxes MS pay to Japan - the funding the JFA & ICR recieve from public funds is directly affected by the Seagooons interference - yet you remain silent on that increasing your tax burden .. where I come from, we call that hypocrisy - but be my guest.

Your claim that " The importing of whale meat from Iceland into Japan isn't just a straight forward kind of business transaction " has been proven wrong, bu feel free to keep digging ;)

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ swiss toni

I asked you if you we're intimating the stated countries were whaling commercially. You provided an evasive answer

I replied that they were all whaling and that WDCS thinks Greenlands aboriginal whaling is commercial.

You provided an evasive answer and then told me I should read more carefully

I`ll do it again, read my answer to the OP again - I was asking him a question...

My question was reasonable and you failed to respond properly

= I failed to respond how you wished me to respond to fit your agenda ...

and i suspect your feigned indignation is all that's left having been caught out.

What you suspect in your mind is your problem. It has nothing to do with reality - have a nice day

@ zichi

Loftsson does not pay a single yen in income tax on the $8 million he makes from selling his Fin whale meat in Japan.

Are you suggesting that Misaka Shoji will not pay Corporation taxes? Facinating ...

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

Zichi`s original posts :

While I, like millions of others pay taxes, which is also used to give massive subsidies to the whaling industry then I feel that I have a right to object how those taxes are misspent..

KS however is a private for profit company, who also pay taxes.

The importing of whale meat from Iceland into Japan isn't just a straight forward kind of business transaction.

It is as shown above.

The Fisheries Agency said it is channeling an additional Y2.28 billion, about $30 million, to support this year’s (2011-2012) whale hunting mission,....

So Y2.28 billion went to the JFA and ICR as subsidies - thanks for proving my point, it did`nt go as a subsidy to KS.

Last year Kyodo Senpaku received a ¥2.5 billion grant, not loan which was paid out of funds destined for the Tohoku reconstruction.

Nope, no sourced information that KS recieved a ¥2.5 billion grant yet .. ....

Loftsson does not pay a single yen in income tax on the $8 million he makes from selling his Fin whale meat in Japan.

Source for this unsubstantiated claim please

Whether his companies pays much in the way of business tax will depend on their profits which I would expect would be low after all their goings

Thankyou for confirming that his companies will Pay taxes in Japan, thus reducing your tax burden. I am still waiting for the complaints about Watson and his seagoons increasing your tax burden - if your taxes is your beef as it seems, then anything else is hypocritical.

Kyodo Senpaku only manages to stay in business because of gov't subsidies

Factually Incorrect as shown above.

The issue of Kyodo Senpaku receiving money from the Tohoku reconstruction funds was well discussed previously on this forum.

I am happy that you discussed it - however, it does not change tthe fact the KS did not recieve direct subsidies from the reconstruction funds as you claimed. JFA and the ICR are completely different stories - your claim is I`m afraid, wrong.

The government takes the money from the people and gives it to the icr, the icr takes the money and gives it to ks to run the boats.

Thankyou for confirming that JFA / ICR recieves the subsidies - and rents/ charters the boats from the tax paying for profit company KS.

Incidentally, Hvalur have taken another Fin whale, when it´s meat appears on your shelves in a few months or so, be sure to buy it and help reduce your taxes - every little bit helps :)

.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ swiss toni

The correct response to my question would have been, "No". Your response was "They are whaling", a clear attempt to derail the discussion.

How you interpret information placed at your disposal is of course, your choice - I made no claims - however it`s plain to see that grasping at straws is your strong point thankyou. So nice of you to tell me how I should be replying to your questions, facinating actually..

The money that has kept it afloat has been the funds for the JARPA programmes. Entirely taxpayer funded 'research' and distribution of the booty from the hunts. And recently more taxpayer funds wasted to refit the K.S. fleet.

Precisely - For profit - the vast majority of subsidies goes to the ICR so they can charter the ships from a for profit company. The facts are clear, despite disingenious attempts to paint them other wise. The Refit funding was a loan - which will be paid back :)

You're being disengenuous to suggest Sea Shepherds activities may cause a greater deficit.

On the contrary, anything that Watson & clowns do that reduces possible income to KS ends up costing the Japanese taxpaer money and means that you pay more taxes, plain and simple - I`m not surprised that anti whalers deny this seeing as logic seems not to be their strong point.

@ zichi

Last year Kyodo Senpaku received a ¥2.5 billion grant, not loan which was paid out of funds destined for the Tohoku reconstruction.

Show us the source of this claim please, otherwise, it`s simply an unsubstaiated claim

The money that has kept it afloat has been the funds for the JARPA programmes

Which goes to the ICR - the ICR charters the boats and pays for the program - not KS ... you seem to be having trouble understanding this.

Getting back to Hvalur and Icelandic whaling, once again, Misaka Shoji company pays taxes in Japan - be happy and buy fin whale meat from them - it reduces your taxes - as does Kyodo Senpaku when they make a profit.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ zichi

Japan’s scientific whaling company Kyodo Senpaku

Kyodo Senpaku is a for profit company - it has two ( now three ) main customers ). The ICR ( a non profit organisation ) and the Fisheries Agency.( JFA ) ( and now Misaka Shoji as well ) The Ships are chartered from Kyodo Senpaku by the ICR / JFA and Kyodo Senpaku handles the distribution of meat from the Permit hunts.

The ICR recieves subsidies from the JFA and the ICR conducts the research.

The only direct ( sort of ) subsidy that Kyodo Senpaku has recieved is when they applied for a loan of ¥2 billion to modernise /refit the Nisshin Maru - the loan was approved with the Japanese government paying 50 to 90% of the Companies operating Deficit for the next three years.

Which raises an interesting conundrum :)

If Kyodo Senpaku has a deficit in any of those three years, it will be in part due to the actions of that buffoon Watson and his clowns - so in fact, Watson will be costing the Japanese taxpayer money in that case.

I await with glee to see those who complain about Kyodo Senpaku show their righteous indignation against watson & co as they are costing the japanese taxpayer money - after all, thats your main complaint against Kyodo Senpaku isn`t it? that it comes from your taxes? :o)

Misaka Shoji (Misaka Trading). “This has given Loftsson the opportunity to sell hundreds of tonnes of Icelandic fin whale already, profiting a Japan-based import company he helped establish by as much as US$8m.

Misaka Shoji company pays taxes in Japan - be happy and buy fin whale meat from them - it reduces your taxes

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ swiss toni

They conduct aboriginal whaling, it's well recognised the commercial trade in aboriginal whale meat is illegal. Any more diversions?

you wrote

So eyeonwarson, are you intimating that Russia, USA, Greenland, Canada and all the rest are commercial whalers too?

I did not claim they were commercial whalig - I stated they were whaling ( albeit WDCS claims Greenland is commercial whaling )

Try reading again - it helps with comprehension :)

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ yabits

"The importing of whale meat from Iceland into Japan isn't just a straight forward kind of business transaction which is reflected the retail price of the whale meat sold on the Japanese market. That equally applies to the whale meat caught and sold by the Japanese. To keep the prices as low as possible and try and maintain some kind of market demand, the prices of whale meat are subsidized by the taxpayers living in the country."

This is a statement by zichi above ... it´s his opinion, nothing more...

My reply to him being :

*Business 101 - when you have a monopoly, you can pretty much charge what you like. When a second player comes into the market, they`ll undercut the monopoly = sell cheaper.

This isnt rocket science - its simple business ...*

Icelandic whale meat is not subsidised by japenese taxpayers - its exported to Japan by Hvalur, in Japan its distributed through a japanese holding / import company, Misaka Shoji, which was also set up with the help of financing by Hvalur. So, in fact, the holding / import company is contributing taxes to the Japanese government ... be happy ! - less taxes for you :o)

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ smithinjapan

Jun. 20, 2013 - 12:47PM JST For all the whiners out there claiming hypocrisy, rest assured each and every poster who is against Japan's whaling >programme is against what Finland and Iceland do as well

What about Russia, USA, Greenland,Canada and all the rest?

PS.. Finland Doesn`t hunt whales :)

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ zichi

As I pointed out earlier the high mercury levels may be in Dolphin meat - not whale meat.

Incidentally you need to name your source so that readers can judge for themselves the likley validity of the source )

A recent attempt to revive the Norwegian whale trade industry in 2008 suffered a setback. The Japanese government rejected company Myklebust Trading’s entire five-ton shipment of the Minke whale meat due to alleged contamination.

Bacterial contamination

Although a shipment of 5 tons of whale meat was exported to Japan in 2008, and cleared for sale in February of 2009, the meat was not sold due to bacterial contamination and high lactic acid levels.( source wdcs.org )

Myklebust Trading shipped another 14 tons this year

1 ( +4 / -4 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ Zichi

The importing of whale meat from Iceland into Japan isn't just a straight forward kind of business transaction which is reflected the retail price of the whale meat sold on the Japanese market.

Business 101 - when you have a monopoly, you can pretty much charge what you like. When a second player comes into the market, they`ll undercut the monopoly = sell cheaper.

This isnt rocket science - its simple business ...

0 ( +4 / -5 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ zichi

Japan remains concerned about the level of toxicity in whales caught by Norway.

Please back up that statement with facts ( links ) There was concern about toxicity levels in Blubber as far back as 2001 & concern about Dioxin levels in 2004. You state though that Mercury levels are higher than 10-12 times the allowable limit and then state that Norways whale meat is even more toxic, thus insinuating that the Mercury levels are even higher in Norwegian Whale meat. Which is, of course, verifiable as being a load of old rubbish - instead of making wild claims, back up your statements with verifiable studies please.

0 ( +4 / -5 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ Zichi

Greenpeace won't take any kind of direct action to prevent the Fin whale hunt.

The reason being they decided that direct actions in the North were counterproductive ( coincidentally enough, just after they had boats confisticated and sold and were fined a six figure sum )

Didn`stop them from continuing actions in the South though, I also had to laugh at that one - if anti whaling actions in the North were counterproductive, then what made them think that actions at the other end of the planet would be productive?

0 ( +4 / -5 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ zichi

Still, I believe the whale meat on sale in Norway is even more toxic than that sold in Japan.

Absolute scare mongering rubbish - the minke meat in Norway is regularly tested by the Mattilsynet & NIFES. Mercury concentrations are below recommended limits.

Even a Greenpeace independant study a few years back showed the same.

I really suggest you do some research on the subject

http://www.mattilsynet.no/

http://www.nifes.no

While I, like millions of others pay taxes, which is also used to give massive subsidies to the whaling industry then I feel that I have a right to object how those taxes are misspent.

Then you should be happy that Iceland is exporting to Japan as it`s a purely commercial operation without your taxes paying for any of it.

.

0 ( +5 / -6 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

All the better for Iceland and Norways commercial hunts to export to Japan then. Norways on track to take around 5-600 minkies this season and of course, Iceland have a max quota of 185 fins.

1 ( +6 / -6 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ zichi

I have been against whaling for more than 50 years, and see no reason to change course now. Probably longer than you have been alive. Before Greenpeace (1971), Friends of the Earth (1969), Save the Whales (1970), Sea Shepherd (1977). No I've been against whaling for a very long time.

Must be rather dissapointing then to realise that being against whaling all those years has been for nothing as it`s still going on. My sympathies..

Meanwhile, Iceland`s taken another couple of fins, so it seems like they are on schedule for taking a fair part of their quota.

0 ( +5 / -6 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

This post is about the hunting and killing of the Fin whale which is being exported to Japan.

Precisely, so what has the workers comments got to do with the sunject? Nothing,

The bottom line, its about Kristján Loftsson becoming a richer man.

By hunting up to 185 Non endangered Northern Fin whales in Iceland´s own territorial waters legally

Do try and keep on subject please.

-1 ( +5 / -7 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ zichi

In 1972, Iceland unilaterally declared an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Yes? so did large swathes of the rest of the world - your point being?

Fin whale migration patterns

and? if they are in Icelands EEZ they can be taken.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ zichi

Icelands EEZ ( Exclusive Economic zone ) extends 200NM from their coastline - they can hunt whatever they want within their EEZ. Iceland is harvesting the Fin whales in their EEZ - as they do with Mackrel ( which migrate in and out of their EEZ as well as Atlanto scandic Herring ) As long as they are within their international agreements and whaling license, they can take the full Quota if they feel it makes economic sense.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ Zichi

Once again, Fin whales in the Northern hemisphere are not endangered

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/2478/1

The Fin whale classification regionally ( where they are being hunted incidentally classifies them as being near threatened and not endangered.)

As for the rest, it`s legal trade under CITES

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ Cramp

its apparent that common sense and civilities cannot be understood by japan or iceland, very real sanctions need to be in place so as to inconvenience them enough to make them stick out like a painful wart if they're looked upon universally as pariahs, soon enough they'll comply

Whaling Countries

Iceland, Japan, Norway, Russia, USA, Greenland, Indonesia, St Vincent and Grenadines, Canada, etc etc etc

Do you suggest sanctioning them all and making those pariahs as well? If you want to be consistant - you`ll need to

2 ( +6 / -5 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

@ zichi

Fin whales are classified as endangered species by the CITES treaty. They are an ‘Appendix I species’ in CITES, meaning that they are “threatened with extinction” and international trade in their products is illegal.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/2478/1

The Fin whale classification regionally ( where they are being hunted classifies them as being near threatened and not endangered.

European regional assessment: Near Threatened (approaching A1d). The population and range are large enough that Criteria B and D do not apply. Does not meet Criterion C (even at Near Threatened) because although the number of mature individuals is fairly low, there is no evidence of continuing decline. Generally in the North Atlantic populations are either stable or increasing, or there is no quantitative data

The trade is legal because Japan and Iceland have registered exemptions to rules banning international trade in Fin whale products.

Nothing illegal in the slightest about it - those are the rules

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Posted in: Iceland kills first fin whales in controversial hunt See in context

All Fin whale populations worldwide remain listed as endangered species by the US National Marine Fisheries Service and the International Conservation Union Red List.

Actually, factually incorrect. THe IUCN European regional assessment classifies them as Near threatened

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/2478/1

Justification: European regional assessment: Near Threatened (approaching A1d). The population and range are large enough that Criteria B and D do not apply. Does not meet Criterion C (even at Near Threatened) because although the number of mature individuals is fairly low, there is no evidence of continuing decline. Generally in the North Atlantic populations are either stable or increasing, or there is no quantitative data.

The Fin whales being hunted by Iceland are not classified as endangered by the IUCN regionally

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@ Cleo

The report mentions only that the sighting surveys were planned according to the IWC survey guideline and were endorsed by the IWC SC. No mention of the survey or observers being paid by the IWC

Just to save you doing your own research, Page 2 Top table

http://archive.iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC62docs/62-10.pdf

There was no IWC/SOWER survey 2011/2012.

I`ve already told you why, yet you ignore it. I see no point in discussing it further

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@ Cleo

The report mentions only that the sighting surveys were planned according to the IWC survey guideline and were endorsed by the IWC SC. No mention of the survey or observers being paid by the IWC.

Why don`t you ask them as I did? The IWC pays the impartial observer Day rates / salaries. If you wish, look at the breakdown of the SOWER surveys costs and finances to find out who paid who. I know for a fact that the IWC pays the salaries of their obsevers and I also know that compared to comparable other surveys, the pay is low. Check it out, do some research.

Send them an email, apply for one of the jobs if you have the required knowledge or simply ask them - their email addy is on their homepage, Then report back here as to their answer

Please explain to the readers how taking a sample of 1000 will affect a population of 515,000 animals, I really look forward to this one

Answer the question..

Ignoring your opponents questions whilst demanding answers to your own? Cool ( albeit intellectually weak ) debating tactic, can I do that too? :-)

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@ Cleo

No, you are the one who does not understand the meaning of the word 'impartial'. The non-lethal survey observers were on a whaling ship, in the pay of the icr. How is that impartial?

Once again, incorrect, false, wrong. They are paid by the IWC ( and not a great day rate either ) Try and educate yourself so that you don`t spout such rubbish.

What? The whalers - not the non-lethal survey observers in the pay of the icr - claimed to have sighted 684 minke, of which they killed 266. That's 39% of all the minke they saw.

The IWC observers are not paid by the ICR. Do you understand this yet? sheeesh

It was the whalers' decision to abandon the non-lethal survey in favour of the harpoon party

I`ll repeat, as you really ignore this you can dance all you want, fact is, due to SSCS interference, Valuable non lethal population studies of crucial importance to the IWC were unable to be carried out due to the actions of SSCS

Interesting to note that even if they had killed every single minke they saw, they still would not have made their quota of 850 plus/minus 10%. Yet they claim they can take over 1000 without affecting the population?

Please explain to the readers how taking a sample of 1000 will affect a population of 515,000 animals, I really look forward to this one :-)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@cleo

And let's face it, if you're happy sitting on a whaling ship and happy to abandon your non-lethal sighting survey to try and ensure more whales killed, you're not treating both sides equally; you're throwing in your lot with the killers. Unless of course you can find any reference to these impartial scientists making a formal complaint about their work being made to take a back seat to the harpoon wallahs

Interesting that you see non interference on either side by the observers as being" throwing in your lot with the whale killers" but its perfectly clear you still do not understand the meaning of the word "impartial " No worries, I didnt expect anything less

And they killed nearly 40% of all minke sighted.

They were not on the Sightings survey then - at the time, they were a security ship - you can dance all you want, fact is, due to SSCS interference, Valuable non lethal population studies of crucial importance to the IWC were unable to be carried out due to the actions of SSCS

Hows that MODS? still off topic?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: Anti-whalers say Japanese fleet heading north See in context

@ Cleo

You can't accept money to go on a working harpoon ship, share space with people actively engaged in killing whales, do nothing to stop them, and claim to be impartial

The survey ship is not actively engaged in hunting whales, they are doing a non lethal survey, which part of this are you having trouble comprehending?

Incidentally, I think you should really look up the meaning of the word " impartial " Here`s the Miriam Webster definition : not partial or biased : treating or affecting all equally

English can be difficult sometimes :)

Sea Shepherd have their own rationale for what they do. I have no respect for anyone who kills animals for a living in a cruel, inhumane and painful way, wherever they do it.

uhuh.. So going by that logic, you shouldn`t have any problems with the 80% of Norwegian minkies hunted that die instantly.

Somehow though, I suspect that not to be the case :-)

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.