David @ Tokyo
Perspective from Japan on whaling and whale meat, a spot of gourmet news, and monthly updates of whale meat stockpile statistics1/16/2006
IWC 2006: Ian Campbell tells it like it is
Quite a start to the year - first IWC 56's "Most tiresome speaker", the didactic Sir Geoffrey Palmer fronted up with an admission that Japan's research activities are legal.
This time from across the Tasman, Ian Campbell has come out with a surprisingly and uncharacteristically common sense statement that:
Putting oneself in a whale eating man or woman's shoes, I myself can state with absolute certainty that Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd aren't illuminating anything to me that would make me think that the whaling activity had passed its used by date. Quite the reverse in fact - these protest groups are showing only that they have already served whatever useful purpose that they may have had, and it's time that they were gone:
But don't Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd recognize this themselves? Surely they can't believe their actions are contributing constructively to the debate. If that is the case, what is their motivation for behaving in the manner that they are? Is it perhaps that their intended audience is in fact not the world's whaling communities, but a different market?
This time from across the Tasman, Ian Campbell has come out with a surprisingly and uncharacteristically common sense statement that:
"whaling will come to an end when the people of Norway and the people of Japan tell their governments unequivocally that the slaughter of whales - that the cold-blooded destruction of whales - needs to come to an end"Senator Campbell's language has always been full of guffaws and misleading descriptions, but on this occasion what he says has a strong semblance of good sense to it - it is the whaling peoples of the world that will decide if and when they bring their activities to an end.
Putting oneself in a whale eating man or woman's shoes, I myself can state with absolute certainty that Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd aren't illuminating anything to me that would make me think that the whaling activity had passed its used by date. Quite the reverse in fact - these protest groups are showing only that they have already served whatever useful purpose that they may have had, and it's time that they were gone:
"Senator Campbell warned if protests were not sensible, activists risked undoing Australia's work against whaling."Indeed.
But don't Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd recognize this themselves? Surely they can't believe their actions are contributing constructively to the debate. If that is the case, what is their motivation for behaving in the manner that they are? Is it perhaps that their intended audience is in fact not the world's whaling communities, but a different market?
Labels: Ian Campbell, Whaling
posted by David # 9:18 pm 
Comments:
<< Home
"Senator Campbell warned IF (my capitals) protests were not sensible, activists risked undoing Australia's work against whaling."
So IF environmentalists think the protests are sensible and David doesn't, no one is going to be unduly surprised.
Since Australia's 'work against whaling' should include enforcing the Southern Whale Sanctuary against whaling; Senator Camppbell needs to put in considerably more effort, IF the environmental movement is to feel he is pulling his weight. As it stands the current sensible protest is necessary.
So IF environmentalists think the protests are sensible and David doesn't, no one is going to be unduly surprised.
Since Australia's 'work against whaling' should include enforcing the Southern Whale Sanctuary against whaling; Senator Camppbell needs to put in considerably more effort, IF the environmental movement is to feel he is pulling his weight. As it stands the current sensible protest is necessary.
The current protest isn't acheiving anything. It's not going to change opinion in Japan - it's only going to harden resolve against it.
Research conducted by the independent firm Market and Opinion Research International (MORI), found that among Japanese:
55% held no opinion or were neutral in regard to commercial whaling - dispelling the wide-held belief that the Japanese public was a strong proponent of commercial whaling. While 14% opposed whaling outright, only 11% of those polled supported whaling. - MORI, 2000.
55% held no opinion or were neutral in regard to commercial whaling - dispelling the wide-held belief that the Japanese public was a strong proponent of commercial whaling. While 14% opposed whaling outright, only 11% of those polled supported whaling. - MORI, 2000.
My statements aren't based from the newspaper I read from my sofa on the other side of the world, they are based on real life interaction with real Japanese people. Not scientific for sure, but it does leave me with certainty about what people actually think, as opposed to having to trust polls for which the methodology hasn't been fully disclosed in the media etc.
Then again, since you are willing to accept research conducted by the "independent firm Market and Opinion Research International (MORI)" that was commissioned by IFAW and Greenpeace, surely you are also willing to accept similar opinion survey research conducted by the independent firm Responsive Management, commissioned by the World Conservation Trust, which is headed up by a former Secretary-General of CITES?
http://www.iwmc.org/whales/survey/minke02.htm
Being a balanced, reasonable and fair person, I'm sure you do.
(If you'd like to discuss other surveys about Japanese opinions in particular though, do let me know)
Then again, since you are willing to accept research conducted by the "independent firm Market and Opinion Research International (MORI)" that was commissioned by IFAW and Greenpeace, surely you are also willing to accept similar opinion survey research conducted by the independent firm Responsive Management, commissioned by the World Conservation Trust, which is headed up by a former Secretary-General of CITES?
http://www.iwmc.org/whales/survey/minke02.htm
Being a balanced, reasonable and fair person, I'm sure you do.
(If you'd like to discuss other surveys about Japanese opinions in particular though, do let me know)
'Not scientific for sure'
- David
Your words not mine, David.
The IWMC's president Eugene Lapointe is a former CITES dismissed Secrtetary General.
Lapointe, a French Canadian lawyer, was fired from CITES in 1990 after being found campaigning against a ban on the ivory trade.
He now advises Japan, Norway, China and Canada and many industries on how to legally avoid animal trade legislation.
His organisation actively supports whaling, sealing, bear-bile farming, ivory trade , shark finning, etc.
Lapointe admits that he has been at the forefront of resistance to eliminate the secret ballot in CITES.
MOST TIRESOME SPEAKER New Zealand's didactic Commissioner Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Blah blah blah.
-IWMC, 2004
IWMC intends to do its part to see that the obstructionist tactics of 'do-nothing' (my inverted commas) delegations and their NGO colleagues do not carry this or any other day.
- IWMC, 2003
The United States plan to research its bowhead stock structure, thereby delaying any tough decisions on its quota for years.
- IWMC, 2004
Clearly IWMC does not believe the US needs to conduct any scientific studies before setting quotas for 'sustainable' whaling....how very informative.
IWMC receives its funding from World Conservation Trust Foundation.
WCTF is a corporation registered in Colombia, South America?!
WCTF's President is...Eugene Lapointe.
- David
Your words not mine, David.
The IWMC's president Eugene Lapointe is a former CITES dismissed Secrtetary General.
Lapointe, a French Canadian lawyer, was fired from CITES in 1990 after being found campaigning against a ban on the ivory trade.
He now advises Japan, Norway, China and Canada and many industries on how to legally avoid animal trade legislation.
His organisation actively supports whaling, sealing, bear-bile farming, ivory trade , shark finning, etc.
Lapointe admits that he has been at the forefront of resistance to eliminate the secret ballot in CITES.
MOST TIRESOME SPEAKER New Zealand's didactic Commissioner Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Blah blah blah.
-IWMC, 2004
IWMC intends to do its part to see that the obstructionist tactics of 'do-nothing' (my inverted commas) delegations and their NGO colleagues do not carry this or any other day.
- IWMC, 2003
The United States plan to research its bowhead stock structure, thereby delaying any tough decisions on its quota for years.
- IWMC, 2004
Clearly IWMC does not believe the US needs to conduct any scientific studies before setting quotas for 'sustainable' whaling....how very informative.
IWMC receives its funding from World Conservation Trust Foundation.
WCTF is a corporation registered in Colombia, South America?!
WCTF's President is...Eugene Lapointe.
This guy Eugene Lapointe sure gets around!
He is also on the National Advisory Board of the National Wilderness Institute.
National Wilderness Institute Foundation Grants -
Mobile Foundation - $5000 - 1996
Monsanto Fund - $1000 - 1996
Mobile Foundation - $5000 - 1995
Monsanto Fund - $1000 - 1995
Mobile Foundation - $10,000 - 1995
National Wilderness Institute Corporate Grants -
Chevron - $5000 - 1996
ExxonMobil - $15000 - 1995
Chevron - $5000 - 1995
Chevron - $5000 - 1994
He is also on the National Advisory Board of the National Wilderness Institute.
National Wilderness Institute Foundation Grants -
Mobile Foundation - $5000 - 1996
Monsanto Fund - $1000 - 1996
Mobile Foundation - $5000 - 1995
Monsanto Fund - $1000 - 1995
Mobile Foundation - $10,000 - 1995
National Wilderness Institute Corporate Grants -
Chevron - $5000 - 1996
ExxonMobil - $15000 - 1995
Chevron - $5000 - 1995
Chevron - $5000 - 1994
Well, I hardly need to touch my keyboard - you've made my point for me!
Challenged on whether, given your belief that the IFAW commissioned opinion polls were fair and conducted in line with regular standards, you would also accept a poll commissioned by IWMC, a pro-sustainable use conservation outfit, your reponse is to rip into the IWMC?
Balanced, fair and reasonable? I think not.
Your argument against sustainable use and proponents of sustainable use amounts to "hey, those people are proponents of sustainable use! so of course they're going to say that! therefore they can't be trusted!"
If I am misinterpreting your arguments, I apologise and would welcome a correction, but that's constantly how you are coming across.
And since you've seen fit to drag Eugene Lapointe's name through the mud, in the interests of being fair, balanced and reasonable I have to note that:
- After his dimissal from his position of Secretary General of CITES, in 1993 that action was judged to have been "capricious and arbitrary" by a panel of judges of the UN, and Lapointe was unanimously vindicated, awarded financial compensation, and also received a letter from the SG of the UN stating that "Mr. Lapointe had fulfilled his duties and responsibilities in every way and in a highly satisfactory manner".
Lapointe was targetted - as you say yourself - because he does not believe blanket bans are appropriate conservation measures in every case. He committed no "crime" other than to act against the wished of "environmental" NGOs and certain countries which do not care for science.
In his book, "Embracing the Earth's Wild Resources" Lapointe himself notes British press reports of a high official of the USA State Department who, when questioned about the motivation for Lapointe's character assasination, said "Our actions were motivated by the necessity of protecting valuable species such as elephants, whales..."
This is just another case of people like you choosing to attack the persons who put up arguments (no matter HOW irrefutable) that you simply don't want to accept.
Your arguments have nothing to do with science and sustainability, and everything to do with your warped ideals of world that is aethestically pleasing to you, no matter how far detached you become from reality.
> Lapointe admits that he has been at the forefront of resistance to eliminate the secret ballot in CITES.
Where did you read those lies?
Lapointe clearly believes no such thing, and indeed has argued to the contrary:
"Much pressure could be removed from member States if they adopted Secret Ballots that could be used whenever the sovereignty of the Parties or the integrity of the Convetion appeared to be in jeopardy. The voting rights of people and nations should always remain sacred."
- that's also from straight out of his book.
> Clearly IWMC does not believe the US needs to conduct any scientific studies before setting quotas for 'sustainable' whaling....how very informative.
Well, if it weren't a bunch of lies like everything else you are dreaming up it might be.
IWMC of course supports sustainable use based on scientific understanding.
> WCTF is a corporation registered in Colombia, South America?!
This is a particularly telling lie - despite your knowledge of Lapointe as a French Canadian you choose to assume that WCTF is registered in South America!
Your arguments consist of nothing but ad hominem slanderous nonsense.
> WCTF's President is...Eugene Lapointe.
Well done Sherlock :-)
I could have told you that and saved you the bother.
> This guy Eugene Lapointe sure gets around!
That's because he is a doer - he didn't get to be SG of CITES, nor set up the IWMC by sitting in his armchair preaching to people about the way forward for humans and our conservation efforts. You ought to take note.
> He is also on the National Advisory Board of the National Wilderness Institute.
Indeed, he is!
And what can we see about NWI on their top page:
"Rather than unnecessarily scaring you by misrepresenting the facts about an issue, we try to appeal to your unique ability to think and reason and make up your own mind about what is right for our environment."
Readers might like to ask themselves "would Greenpeace or IFAW put such statements on their top pages?"
Their ability to misrepresent the facts is Greenpeace's greatest asset. You on the other hand need a lot more practice.
Post a Comment
Challenged on whether, given your belief that the IFAW commissioned opinion polls were fair and conducted in line with regular standards, you would also accept a poll commissioned by IWMC, a pro-sustainable use conservation outfit, your reponse is to rip into the IWMC?
Balanced, fair and reasonable? I think not.
Your argument against sustainable use and proponents of sustainable use amounts to "hey, those people are proponents of sustainable use! so of course they're going to say that! therefore they can't be trusted!"
If I am misinterpreting your arguments, I apologise and would welcome a correction, but that's constantly how you are coming across.
And since you've seen fit to drag Eugene Lapointe's name through the mud, in the interests of being fair, balanced and reasonable I have to note that:
- After his dimissal from his position of Secretary General of CITES, in 1993 that action was judged to have been "capricious and arbitrary" by a panel of judges of the UN, and Lapointe was unanimously vindicated, awarded financial compensation, and also received a letter from the SG of the UN stating that "Mr. Lapointe had fulfilled his duties and responsibilities in every way and in a highly satisfactory manner".
Lapointe was targetted - as you say yourself - because he does not believe blanket bans are appropriate conservation measures in every case. He committed no "crime" other than to act against the wished of "environmental" NGOs and certain countries which do not care for science.
In his book, "Embracing the Earth's Wild Resources" Lapointe himself notes British press reports of a high official of the USA State Department who, when questioned about the motivation for Lapointe's character assasination, said "Our actions were motivated by the necessity of protecting valuable species such as elephants, whales..."
This is just another case of people like you choosing to attack the persons who put up arguments (no matter HOW irrefutable) that you simply don't want to accept.
Your arguments have nothing to do with science and sustainability, and everything to do with your warped ideals of world that is aethestically pleasing to you, no matter how far detached you become from reality.
> Lapointe admits that he has been at the forefront of resistance to eliminate the secret ballot in CITES.
Where did you read those lies?
Lapointe clearly believes no such thing, and indeed has argued to the contrary:
"Much pressure could be removed from member States if they adopted Secret Ballots that could be used whenever the sovereignty of the Parties or the integrity of the Convetion appeared to be in jeopardy. The voting rights of people and nations should always remain sacred."
- that's also from straight out of his book.
> Clearly IWMC does not believe the US needs to conduct any scientific studies before setting quotas for 'sustainable' whaling....how very informative.
Well, if it weren't a bunch of lies like everything else you are dreaming up it might be.
IWMC of course supports sustainable use based on scientific understanding.
> WCTF is a corporation registered in Colombia, South America?!
This is a particularly telling lie - despite your knowledge of Lapointe as a French Canadian you choose to assume that WCTF is registered in South America!
Your arguments consist of nothing but ad hominem slanderous nonsense.
> WCTF's President is...Eugene Lapointe.
Well done Sherlock :-)
I could have told you that and saved you the bother.
> This guy Eugene Lapointe sure gets around!
That's because he is a doer - he didn't get to be SG of CITES, nor set up the IWMC by sitting in his armchair preaching to people about the way forward for humans and our conservation efforts. You ought to take note.
> He is also on the National Advisory Board of the National Wilderness Institute.
Indeed, he is!
And what can we see about NWI on their top page:
"Rather than unnecessarily scaring you by misrepresenting the facts about an issue, we try to appeal to your unique ability to think and reason and make up your own mind about what is right for our environment."
Readers might like to ask themselves "would Greenpeace or IFAW put such statements on their top pages?"
Their ability to misrepresent the facts is Greenpeace's greatest asset. You on the other hand need a lot more practice.
<< Home
Archives
June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 January 2010 February 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 February 2011 March 2011 May 2013 June 2013
