David @ Tokyo

If Anti-whalers 'don't have a legal leg to stand on' how come the Pro-whalers are so reluctant to prosecute environmentalists for what they describe as allegedly 'illegal' protests in international waters?

If the Pro-whaling nations think their legal position is strong enough for a legal battle over whaling let them prove it, bring it on!
 

Errrrrrr... It's Sir Geoffrey Palmer of *New Zealand's IWC obstruction team* saying that Japan's activities are legal - he's agreeing with the Japanese.

As you may not know who he is, I can tell you that he's about as anti-whaling as you can get, prompting the IWMC to judge him "MOST TIRESOME SPEAKER" at IWC 56 (http://www.iwmc.org/whales/iwc56/040722-special-01.htm)

The Australian politicians have also stated last year that they do not think they would win a case if they were to take one against Japan. Go back through my blog archive if you are interested.

So, just get over it. Japan's whaling is legal. Accept it.
 

If Anti-whalers 'don't have a legal leg to stand on' how come the Pro-whalers are so reluctant to prosecute environmentalists for what they describe as allegedly 'illegal' protests in international waters? If the Pro-whaling nations think their legal position is strong enough for a legal battle over whaling let them prove it, bring it on!

Norway ( a Pro whaling country ) has prosecuted both Greenpeace and sea shepherd in the past.
Indeed, as a result of the Kato incident in 1999, a number of activists were fined, the Greenpeace boat Sirius was arrested ( released after paying a $23,500 bond )and Greenpeace inflatables confisticated. Total value of Inflatables and fines were estimated at $130,000 US. Paul Watson spent 80 days of a 120 day sentance in a Dutch Jail after a Norwegian Interpol warrant was served on him on arrival at Schiphol Airport Amsterdam on April 2nd 1997, he was released Friday, June 20th 1997.


Bring it on indeed, we will be happy to oblige prosecuting those who break the law both in Norway and Norwegian territorial waters :O)
 

Hi JM,

You forgot to sign that last post. :-)

I notice you were unable to provide a response to any of the issues I raised in my response to your last comments to me on the 'Censored by Greenpeace' thread. I do hope that isn't why your latest post is anonymous.

I also notice that once again your amusement when other people quote events, studies etc. that are more than a year old, do not apply to your own contributions.

Stockpiles and Faroe islands JM, stockpiles and Faroes islands.
 

Hi David,

I understood that your standpoint was that the Japanese fleet was 'legally' allowed to conduct 'scientific research'.
You now state that 'japanese whaling' is legal?
Not under the moratorium it isn't, and killing protected species next year isn't going to be legal either.

So, just get over it. There is a whaling moratorium. Accept it.
 

>I understood that your standpoint was that the Japanese fleet was 'legally' allowed to conduct 'scientific research'.

That would be your position to, were you to read and comprehend the relevant section of the ICRW. It seems you'd rather close your eyes to it.

> You now state that 'japanese whaling' is legal?

Errr, same thing - read. That's what Palmer was talking about.

> Not under the moratorium it isn't,

Even Sir Geoff Palmer is on my side in saying that you wrong

> So, just get over it. There is a whaling moratorium.

Until such a point as you have demonstrated an understanding of the ICRW, there's little point in continuing this with you.
 

I understand the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling perfectly, David.

Its one of those conventions with big enough holes in it to sail the Nisshin Maru through, which is the only reason why the Japanese government signed it.

The ICRW was signed in 1946 and came into force in 1948.
The ICRW established the International Whaling Commission (IWC) as the implementing body.

International whale stocks crashed between 1948 and the moratorium in 1982.

So rather than concentrating on the obfuscation of legal terminology in a deeply, flawed document; I prefer to deal with the situation in the real world. Which is that Japan is commercially whaling under the guise of 'scientific study' and will include protected species in that commercial whaling for the first time next year.

Whale species completely protected by the ICRW include the following:
▪ Bowhead Whales
▪ Northern Hemisphere Minke Whales
▪ Southern Hemisphere Minke Whales
▪ Fin Whales
▪ Gray Whales
▪ North Atlantic Right Whales
▪ North Pacific Right Whales
▪ Southern Right Whales
▪ Sperm Whales
▪ Sei Whales
▪ Bryde's Whales
▪ Humpback Whales
▪ Blue Whales

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/international/icrw.htm
 

LN, as you know, I sign my posts JM, most disingenious of you to suggest otherwise.
The anon poster BTW did´nt mention the Senet incident where Greenpeace were also prosecuted and fined ;)

As for your other comments, ( assuming they were directed at me of course ) All in my own good time old chap... all in my own good time ;)

JM
 

"I understand the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling perfectly, David."

You haven't demonstrated any understanding, as far as I have seen, and what you have done here is prance in here, copy and paste some text you found, and pretend that you know what you are talking about. You seem to think that your misinterpretation of the ICRW is correct, and yet you have the opinion of distinguished people such as Dr Ray Gambell OBE against you!

You may not have knowledge, but you do have some nerve, I'll grant you that.

You are the one saying that there are "big holes" in the convention. Even Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who would dearly love to be able to pin the Japanese against the wall on the issue, has admitted that the Japanese are well within their rights. Do you know what his credentials in law are? Do you think yours can compare?

Who supports your position? Paul Watson!? John Frizell? But of course!

It's already well established that the research venture has been losing money for the duration of the JARPA program - the program has probably cost the Japanese government several hundred millions of yen, yet you again wheel out the tired old Greenpeace propaganda for fools that it's "commercial whaling in disguise".

Maybe you would be such a stupid business person, but I've certainly not seen evidence that the Japanese government is so foolish.

It's totally clear that the scientific research programmes are an investment for the future of commercial whaling in the Antarctic. You, like Greenpeace, seem happy to declare that scientific research is thus "commercial whaling" by association.

If you wish to think so - fine - but you'll be sorely mistaken if you think the position has a lot of support, at a time when even politicians in fiercely anti-whaling countries are conceeding that at least in terms of the law, Japan is right.
 

'pretend that you know what you are talking about.' - David

Is that so David? And your qualifications are?.......

'I am a software engineer in a totally unrelated industry.' - David


So to sum up the reason that David insists that unlike him, I have no possible chance of understanding whaling is because.....he is a software engineer for a merchant bank! :-)

Decades of 'smoking is not linked to cancer' propaganda promoted by scientists and 'distinguished people' funded by the tobacco industry (to give just one example), means the international public does not have to accept Pro-whaling propaganda at face value either.


'the program has probably cost the Japanese government several hundred millions of yen.....Maybe you would be such a stupid business person'


Closing down or mothballing industries costs money as does speculating for the future. Its merely a case of annually reviewing the figures.
I have only to open the Financial Times to get an update on all the companies refinancing their debt and governments juggling their deficits.

International banks are providing credit cards in developing countries with no expectation of making any money for years - The Economist, Jan 12th 2006

You work in the banking industry David, so of course you already know all this; why are you presenting it as something 'foolish'or 'stupid'?



'You, like Greenpeace, seem happy to declare that scientific research is thus "commercial whaling" by association.'

Completely untrue, much of the science does not need to be fatal and the numbers being commercially whaled now and in the projected 'scientific' whaling quotas for next year bear no relation to the much smaller numbers required by genuine scientific studies.
Unfortunately the origional convention failed to stipulate any numerical limits, a loophole the Japanese commercial whaling industry is now ruthlessly exploiting.
 

lamna nasus -

I did not claim you have "no possible chance of understanding whaling" I claimed that you have demonstrated no understanding of the ICRW.

Why do you misquote me?
Why is it that you resort to such feeble argumentation tactics?
Why can't you put up a strong argument and let it talk for itself?

You go on to imply that Dr Ray Gambell's opinion is "pro-whaling propaganda" - yet provide no basis for such an assertion other than to talk of the unrelated tobacco industry. Argumentum ad hominem to a tee! To anyone who knows, your characterisation of Ray Gambell so ridiculous that it deserves no further attention. Readers are more than capable of finding out who he is, and what he has contributed over the years. And readers will likely come to the conclusion that you are emptily dismissing him (like John Frizell) because you simply don't wish to accept what he says. Despite this it was only a few days ago that you quoted ECO to me, a publication once banned from the IWC for it's racist and offensive content.

Not a good look, but that's for you to wear.

No need also to ask why you didn't post the link to the Economist article. I'm glad you didn't, because it saves me from pointing out the context that you've so obviously omitted.

"Unfortunately the origional convention failed to stipulate any numerical limits, a loophole the Japanese"

Unfortunately despite the ICRW's clear stipulation that amendments to the schedule should be made based on science, a global moratorium was imposed (ironically "overkill" is an apt description for this measure), as well as a sanctuary without scientific basis, making the current situation what it is today.

With regards to numeric limits, that is clearly a scientific issue, not a legal one. There is no reason why it should have been stipulated in the ICRW, just as there was no reason to stipulate commercial limits in the ICRW.
If you had read anything about the IWC you'd also know that the IWC/SC reviews the research permits. Japan has consistently noted that it is open to constructive criticism.

"... commercial whaling industry is now ruthlessly exploiting."

A "commercial" "industry" that consists of the ICR's research vessels and runs at a financial loss.

Well done - that's two oxymoron's in one hit. For that reason and that reason alone, was this comment worth responding to.

You are starting to bore me - you are recycling arguments that I've already addressed. If you've nothing original to say, why not save us both the bother.
 

Ref the ICRW.

In the 31 years prior to the introduction of the commercial whaling moratorium, only 840 whales were killed globally by Japan for scientific research. More than 6,800 Antarctic Minke Whales have already been killed in Antarctic waters under the 18 years of the Japanese Whale Research Programme.

Research recorded in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that the slaughter of over half a million whales in the north Pacific between 1946 and 1979 caused such a fall in their numbers that the killer whales that used to prey on them turned their attention to other creatures, such as seals, sea lions and otters, whose numbers have been severly affected. Whale stocks have recovered a bit, but stand at approximately 14% of their former levels.

Japanese delegates to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) constantly refer to a 1990 estimate of the Antarctic minke population of 760,000. But that figure was withdrawn by the IWC in 2000 because recent surveys found far fewer minkes than the older ones. The new estimates are half the old in every area that has been resurveyed. The IWC’s scientists do not understand the reasons for this and so far have not been able to agree a new estimate.

The blue whales of the Antarctic are at less than 1 percent of their original abundance, despite 40 years of complete protection; and despite the IWC scientists estimating that it would take 40 years for the blue whale population to recover, when it was origionally given complete protection.

Indeed the Blue whale is almost as rare as peer reviewed and accepted research by the Institute for Cetacean Research.

There are large numbers of commercial businesses that run at a loss for extended periods of time for a variety of reasons; as anyone who opens the business section of the papers, works in the banking industry, and David knows. So why start waffling about oxymorons?

I'll let readers decide the significance ot those facts.

Its very unwise for someone who thinks the world needs to know what he had for lunch and whether he went to the gym (not to mention computer programming) to be accusing others of being boring. :-)
 

Well I've responded to your regurgitated Greenpeace argument in a new post.

Your comments about the IWC/SC and the minke stock estimate is a typical misinterpretation of what they actually said, but I can't frankly be bothered illustrating why just now - especially not since there is sumo on TV - sorry wasting time on you doesn't rank so high.

> The blue whales of the Antarctic

are not being targetted by hunting so I don't know why you are bringing them up.

> are at less than 1 percent of their original abundance, despite 40 years of complete protection;

Yup - looks like blanket protection alone hasn't helped them, has it? This is an issue of environmental concern - do you still propose a "do nothing" approach to solving it, despite 40 years of failure?
(That's a rhetorical question - I know you do despite the fallacy of it all)

> Indeed the Blue whale is almost as rare as peer reviewed and accepted research by the Institute for Cetacean Research.

For anyone who bothers to look there is a huge amount of just such data. To imply that it does not exist only proves that you are either
a) ignorant of it or
b) a liar

I get the impression based on the way you ignore everything else that you don't want to see that b) is the case. Maybe another day I'll get around to showing how wrong you are on this point as well. Unless someone else beats me to it.

> There are large numbers of commercial businesses that run at a loss for extended periods of time for a variety of reasons;

Tell us why you think the Japanese having been flushing money down the drain on their research programmes then. Should be good for a laugh! How do you think they're going to turn it into a winner, given that you claim it's not valid research?

> I'll let readers decide the significance ot those facts.

Facts?! hahaha :-)

> Its very unwise for someone who thinks the world needs to know what

It's silly of trolls like you to come to my personal blog which was never intended to be high-profile and start pretending that my intended audience is "the world", and resort to childish insult.

I recall that even the good people running the Greenpeace Ocean Defenders site saw fit to censor your comments for being inappropriate, where as they were kind enough to put mine up on their top page, and have their representative at the IWC respond directly to them.

You even had the gall to accuse me of censorship when it was your own stupidity was at fault - not everyone can be a computer scientist I suppose.

Anyway - someone needs to learn some manners. That you fail to demonstrate any indicates the poor quality of your argument. You may have seen a much more polite gentleman and myself having an adult discussion on the topic in a previous post - you need to think about why it is that you are not able to achieve the same level of quality discussion.

> to be accusing others of being boring.

This post too was another example of regurgitated Greenpeace propanganda - it is boring having people say "oh but but but! Greenpeace says..." after several years.

You ought to try thinking for yourself sometime - I assure you that it's enlightening.
 

'my personal blog which was never intended to be high-profile' -

Which is of course why you posted a link to it on the very low profile and difficult to find, Greenpeace International Website! :-) :-) :-)



'You ought to try thinking for yourself sometime - I assure you that it's enlightening.' -

Really? Is that why you are 'regurgitating' IWMC propaganda?
 

Yes, I thought that woud be the best you could do.

Well done, troll!