David @ Tokyo

The ICR, Jananese Whaling Association and Kyodo Senpaku should spend some time in Iraq before disingenuously, emotively and erroneously making use of the phrase 'terrorist acts' while taking less than optimal shots with explosive devices and thus irresponsibly putting the precious lives of other human beings at risk in the harsh Antarctic environment of a whale sanctuary.

There is also absolutely no truth in the allegation that Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd were 'working in concert together'.

Looks like the ICR are not happy with the majority of the worlds media coverage failing to support their claims that their work is 'scientific'.
Perhaps if more of their work was published for scientific peer review they would look less like poodles of the Japanese fishing industry, and no David, presenting 'data' at meetings of the IWC is not rigorous scientific peer review, neither are the meetings of the Society for the Breeding of the Domestic Animals.

No surprise that commercial organisations Kyodo Senpaku and the Japanese Whaling Association are furious that revenue streams have been withdrawn and they have had to set up a new organisation to seek new funding from the Japanese government and private enterprise.
Armchair whalers will have the opportunity to put their money where their mouths are, rather than just write letters.
Indeed I'm surprised that David demeaned himself by signing a mass mailing rather than painstakingly re-inventing the wheel, given his diatribes on environmental groups' mass mailing campaigns. How are the mighty fallen! Or perhaps he is now as busy as the rest of us and noticed that most of the replies he received to his time consumingly, self composed letters were either formulaic or mass mailed responses themselves. :-)

Well done Greenpeace, contrary to David's assertions that Greenpeace made no difference to this years whaling in the Southern Ocean's Whale Sanctuary, the number of whales killed is not the only benchmark and the whalers didn't succeed in killing their optimum number of whales either.
 

lamna nasus -

http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea-img.htm

OK, simple yes or no question for you to establish whether you have any honesty at all within you:

Is trying to sabotage a vessel at sea, a terrorist act, or is it not?

Let's give you a hand:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

Of course, any rational human can read the dictionary, consider the evidence and reach the obvious conclusion that the answer is yes, regardless of whether one agrees with lethal research whaling or not.

Of course, the ICR would be the first to admit that this behaviour is no 9-11. But that is not a comparison being drawn. The scale of the terrorist act does not change the nature of it. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to use this argument as an excuse. Or do you think we should be more tolerate of low level terrorism in light of recent bombings around the world?

And of course, any rational human can tell that it was the foolish Greenpeace activists putting themselves at risk.
http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea-img-9.htm

Any rational human can see that no one forced this clown to grab on to this rope and eventually fall into the water.

Even Greenpeace themselves openly acknowledged that they were worried about how dangerous their behavior was, and at one stage admitted that some of them were chickening out.

> presenting 'data' at meetings of the IWC is not rigorous scientific peer review,

This is why you have no credibility whatsoever on this issue. Repeating the same nonsense over and over again does appear to work for Greenpeace when directing them propaganda at people who couldn't care less, but for any rational human being who cares to do an honest intellectual assessment of the topic, it's clear that you are ignoring realities.
http://www.icrwhale.org/FAQ.htm#33
Besides the IWC to which whale management science is of direcdt relevance, international bodies related to resource management have also included ICR scientist papers in their lists of documents. You can ignore it all you like, but it *does not change reality*.

> they have had to set up a new organisation to seek new funding from the Japanese government and private enterprise.

Errrr, care to share what you are blabbering about? Which new organization is this that you claim has been set up to seek new funding from the "government and private enterprise", and where are your facts?

> David demeaned himself by signing a mass mailing

I was proud to put add my name to list of signatures to protest against the terrorist acts that the research vessels had to endure. And also, I again have to point out another of your hallucinations.

Did you receive a request in your mailbox to sign this? I didn't. This is not a "mass mailing".

The document is at the ICR's homepage, and anyone who happens to wander past their Japanese website may find it.

And also unlike the childish mass mailings of the like that Forest and Bird NZ produce, the document is to be sent back to the ICR, not spammed towards the Prime Minister of Japan or some other nation.

> Well done Greenpeace, contrary to David's assertions that Greenpeace made no difference to this years whaling in the Southern Ocean's Whale Sanctuary, the number of whales killed is not the only benchmark and the whalers didn't succeed in killing their optimum number of whales either.

But of course they did. The plan submitted to the IWC last year was for 850 minkes, plus or minus 10% (
i.e, 765 - 935), in addition to 10 fin whales. They had to take 853 minkes instead of 850 in the end - hopefully the 3 extra weren't required because of activist obstruction - who knows.
Saving whales? The ICR killed almost 2 times as many this year as last, and next year they plan to kill even more, including humpbacks.

Since you are keen to talk about this, would you care to elucidate on exactly what benchmark you believe Greenpeace's actions were a success?

We know that the ICR met it's sample requirements.

Other than guzzle up lots of gas, inhumanely contribute to increased time to deaths for whales, and a reduced instantaneous death ratio, what did Greenpeace's trip achieve?

Is running their finances in to the ground?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19118926-2702,00.html
Quite amazing considering that Greenpeace Australia Pacific alone rakes in 17 million a year.

What are the metrics by which you believe Greenpeace's actions were a success?

Whales - none saved
Money - wasted
Gas - guzzled

Greenpeace are a shambles - they are falling to pieces. Their actions are having no effect. They aren't saving whales. The pro-conservation & sustainable use bloc at the IWC looks set to gain a simple majority this year - what on earth does Greenpeace have to say for itself? People are giving Greenpeace money, for what?

For what's it's worth, I'm sure the Greenpeace activists had a great time and I'm sure that they really felt they were making a difference. And afterall, it is the thought that counts :-)
 

>the phrase 'terrorist acts' while taking less than optimal shots with explosive devices and thus irresponsibly putting the precious lives of other human beings at risk in the harsh Antarctic environment of a whale sanctuary.

NASUS? QUITE OLD MAN alike
MAN-WHICH.
You should be a normal person.
Be NOT CRAZY MAN.

GP& SSCS ,both of them are
terroists to us.No matter how
storongly you point out,
the fact is the truth.
ICR & KYODOSENPAKU are correct.

WE NEVER SUPPORT GP & SSCS OF
TERROISTS!!!

Y/H
 

DAVID-SAN

>You should be ashamed of yourself >for trying to use this argument >as an excuse.

VERY GOOD!!!! FANTASTIC!!!!
 

Y/H-san,

Thank you :-)

lamna nasusちゃんは、見抜きやすい、くだらないナンセンスを書く嫌いがあります。作り話も決して少なくありません。

それに今回、馬鹿な（あるいは、うっかりしてるだけかな？）テロの行為を支援するような発言まではすると思いませんでした。

とてもかっこ悪いですね。
 

Hi David,

Oriental Bluebird was repeatedly asked to leave the International Whale Sanctuary, her captain chose to ignore those requests.


OK, simple yes or no questions for you to establish whether you have any honesty at all within you:

Is whaling in an International Whale Sanctuary illegal whether one agrees with International Whale Sanctuaries or not?

Are Humpback whales an internationally protected species whether one agrees with internationally protecting species or not?

Is there an International moratorium on whaling whether you registered an objection to moratoriums on whaling or not?

Of course, any rational human can reach the obvious conclusion that the answer is yes.



'Errrr, care to share what you are blabbering about? Which new organization is this'

To be specific 'public interest corporations' -

http://www.eia-international.org/cgi/news/news.cgi?t=template&a=302




Repeating the same nonsense over and over again, it's clear that you are ignoring realities. The ICR is NOT the International Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee and the IWCSC has regularly criticised the ICR's 'science'.


Metrics by which Greenpeace's actions were a success -

935 possible dead whales minus 853 actual dead whales = 82 Minke whales saved

Nippon Suisan Kaisha, Ltd. (‘Nissui’), Kyokuyo Co., Ltd, Taiyo A&F Co., Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Maruha Group) and Delmar Co Ltd. Nissui and Kyokuyo own around 32% each of Kyodo Senpaku, with 19% and 16% owned by Taiyo A&F and Delmar respectively, persuaded that they have to transfer their shares to 'public interest corporations' including the ICR.

Nissui has stated that it also intends to stop its canning and sale of whalemeat.


'thanks for pointing this out to me, Y/H-san - I missed it.......Did you receive a request in your mailbox to sign this? I didn't.......the document is to be sent back to the ICR'

How did Y/H san draw your attention to the letter? Osmosis? :-)
Your letter will of course never be shown to anyone or used for any lobbying purposes whatsoever but solely as part of unpublished ICR scientific research hidden in a cupboard under the stairs? :-)


If I or any other environmentalist adds comments to and signs an email I have read and agreed with; it is no more spam than your contribtion to the ICR.
To suggest otherwise is as disingenuous as your frankly unpleasant intimation that private citizens are not important enough to be allowed to write to politicians direct, whatever their nationality.
 

> Oriental Bluebird was repeatedly asked to leave the International Whale Sanctuary, her captain chose to ignore those requests.

Why wouldn't she?

> Is whaling in an International Whale Sanctuary illegal whether one agrees with International Whale Sanctuaries or not?

Bzzzt, dishonest question.

Is commercial whaling in a sanctuary illegal? Yes
Is whaling under special permit in a sanctuary illegal? No - and even anti-whaling proponents accept it. Why don't you? You're being left behind in the dirt. The argument moved on already.

> Are Humpback whales an internationally protected species whether one agrees with internationally protecting species or not?

Yes, currently they are, even though one might also disagree that their current conservation status demands their protection.

> Is there an International moratorium on whaling whether you registered an objection to moratoriums on whaling or not?

"International moratorium on whaling" is a layman term for what there really is. What there really is is in Para 10 (e) of the IWC's schedule, and all of that is of course subject to IWC rules about objections. Or in short, dishonest question :)

> Of course, any rational human can reach the obvious conclusion that the answer is yes.

And yet, your silly questions only go to show that you do not recognise a range of realities.

Living in your own dreamworld is not the way to convince others of your arguments.

> The ICR is NOT the International Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee

I never said it was, fool.

> and the IWCSC has regularly criticised the ICR's 'science'.

Name the documents, and show them to me :)
As I have IWC SC documentation which evaluates the ICR research very highly.
Come on - I'm waiting :)

> 935 possible dead whales minus 853 actual dead whales = 82 Minke whales saved

Bzzzzzzzt, the target was never 935.
The target was 850 +/- 10%
The only people who thought the target was 935 was the stupid western media who bought Greenpeace's propaganda to the effect.
Go read the JARPA II research plan, and weep. Greenpeace did not save any whales.

> ... persuaded that they have to transfer their shares to 'public interest corporations' including the ICR.

And this is why supporters of "saving the whale" should be happy?

Well, if you lie :)

> Nissui has stated that it also intends to stop its canning and sale of whalemeat.

Why does Greenpeace give a shit about Nissui?
Why should Greenpeace supporters be happy about this?
It's not stopping the suppy of whale meat in Japan.

> How did Y/H san draw your attention to the letter?

Can you read the Japanese on the discussion board at the JFA's whaling section homepage?

Someone's imagination kicked into over-drive again!

> Osmosis? :-)

Bzzzt! You are even getting the simple things wrong :)

> If I or any other environmentalist adds comments to and signs an email I have read and agreed with; it is no more spam than your contribtion to the ICR.

Do I now have to tell you what spam is as well?

Think man, think!
You need to calm down and think before you post here, as your wasting your time!

> To suggest otherwise is as disingenuous as your frankly unpleasant intimation that private citizens are not important enough to be allowed to write to politicians direct, whatever their nationality.

Don't be silly - people signing and firing off emails to the Japanese PM and then sending the same pre-formatted email to their friends is not "writing to politicians" but spamming them.

But, if you want to argue about such unimportant things such as that, you are welcome to continue to do so.
 

Hi David,

'Name the documents'


You can start your research with:

“The Ethics of Scientific Whaling” (Appendix 1)

and then move on to:

Concerns Regarding Scientific Permits” (Appendix 2)
 

Ummmmmmm, you said that the "IWC Scientific Committee" has regularly criticised ICR's research.

The first article you mention was written by anti-whaling scientist Scott Baker and Phil Clapham.

The second article was again written by these two, amongst other anti-whaling scientists, including other paid up shills such as Mark "We have heard many arguments from Japan over the years about why whaling is necessary to them but they have never stated that they needed to kill whales to feed their dogs!”Simmonds, from WDCS.

That is, neither of these articles were the opinion of the IWC Scientific Committee, only the political opinions of the scientists recommended to the IWC SC by anti-whaling ICRW signatories and those belonging to anti-whaling groups.

They are entitled to their opinion, but their opinion is not that of the full IWC SC.

What the full IWC Scientific Committee has had to say is summarized here (I do believe I've shown you this before but I can only assume you closed your eyes to it):

http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm#jarpa

You can see that "there was some disagreement over the necessity for the use of lethal research methods to address stock identity questions" which is essentially the voice of the shill scientists you refer to.

I note that you'll happily accept whatever they tell you, but fail to recognise that:
- The Committee also noted that the programme is contributing useful information...
- ...the programme could be said to have set the stage to answer many questions about long-term population changes.
- ... JARPA results ... had the potential to improve [the RMP]

Do you stand by your statement that the IWC SC has regularly criticised ICR's research, inspite of the evidence I present here?

Let's see your integrity!
 

DAVID-SAN

>とてもかっこ悪いですね

かっこ悪いし　ボケ老人　て感じ。

さて　英語でカウンターパンチ攻撃

しますね。

Y/H
 

David-san,

After reading after Nasus' comments,
I am confused to judge which is older, I or he?
At least ,l look younger than he.
But obviously he is old ,quite out-of-date.
The man of fossils.

To the old man, without any computer, living in a big house
with a small poodle in his hands would be nice.
It is the way the not-crazy normal old man does.

He is out of the normal world.

>Oriental Bluebird was repeatedly asked to leave the International
>Whale Sanctuary, her captain chose to ignore those requests.

The answer is simple.
Who requested? The terrorists? If so,
there was no need to leave.
The captain is brave. I am proud of him.

>Is whaling in an International Whale Sanctuary illegal whether
>one agrees with International Whale Sanctuaries or not?

The answer is also simple :not illegal,
so long as it is research. That is all.

>Are Humpback whales an internationally protected species whether
> one agrees with internationally protecting species or not?

The old man is too old to remember the important fact:
IWC is not the conference which demands to stop whaling.
The number of Humpback is enough -the ICR concluded it
after the long analysis based on our high technology.
The ICR does Scientific Research.



The research is not "Monkey Play "alike the one G P did
last year. The members of ICR & vessels are SAMURAIs.
Do not look down Japan !

>it's clear that you are ignoring realities. The ICR is NOT the International Whaling
>Commission's Scientific Committee and the IWCSC has regularly
>criticised the ICR's 'science'.

The old man is ignoring the realities; the ICR is one of our government's
organizations which decides the quota of whaling, authorized by IWC .

>thanks for pointing this out to me, Y/H-san -

The man looks too old to keep his sight...narrow sight.
He should change his spectacles and look into
other BBS of Japan.

>private citizens are not important enough to be
>allowed to write to politicians direct.

WOW. Is he living in the age of the steam-locomotive?
Ok. it clearly shows how old he is .

By E-mail,as a citizen,I sent to a opinion to the site
of our Prime Minister Koizumi: the enrichment of Whaling.

David-san, thank you. I enjoyed very very much.
Y/H
 

DAVID-san,

Thank you for fighting against the MAN-WITCH.

> the IWCSC has regularly criticised the ICR's 'science'.

The old man ,because of the lack of intelligence, intends to
repeat one thing again and again.
Typical type of the syndrome of old illness.

>Name the documents, and show them to me :)
>As I have IWC SC documentation which evaluates the ICR research
>very highly.
>Come on - I'm waiting :)

GREAT ! FANTASTIC! I will be a slave to DAVID-SAN.

>The target was 850 +/- 10%

That is quite right. I also know the programme.

>Greenpeace did not save any whales.

Greenpeace tormented the whales much last year.

>It's not stopping the supply of whale meat in Japan.

OK! The other day my wife went to a supermarket and found
whale meat, sold with reasonable price.My family enjoyed it very much. We will buy it again
and again.

>Can you read the Japanese on the discussion board at the JFA's
> whaling section homepage?

The old man does not seem to be well-learned .
I use both English and Japanese ,though I am
poor speaker of English.

David-san seems a very fluent speaker of Japanese.
Your level to handle Japanese is very high; most
of Japanese people should imitate your texts!

Especilay BENIO=KUJIRA777 seen in JAF BBS.

Many thanks.

Y/H
 

Hi David,

Let's see your integrity. :-)

The real reason you don't want to discuss IWC Scientific Committee document, The Ethics of Scientific Whaling (Appendix I) is because it raises the following issues.

The commercial sale of products from scientific whaling creates a conflict of interest potentially biasing management advice provided by the member nation and its contracted scientific institute.

Continued commercial sale of products from the Japanese program acts as a cover for illegal or unregulated exploitation of other species.

The primary scientific objectives of the programs are not required for the effective management of whales under the goals of the International Convention for the Regulation
of Whaling


The reason you do not wish to discuss the IWC Scientific Committee document, Concerns Regarding Scientific Permits (Appendix 2) is because -

Despite your disingenuous attempts to suggest only a few anti-whaling scientists were involved, as you well know 40 scientists questioned the increasingly frequent abuse of Article VIII of the ICRW by some member nations. Thats forty, not two and a few 'shills'.

You also neglected to mention that these forty scientists noted that -

Member governments that promote poorly conceived research whaling
programmes place their scientists in the untenable position of having to defend these proposals in order to support the agendas of their governments. In turn, this causes unnecessary conflict between SC members (as has occurred at the last
several SC meetings), damages the credibility of the SC as a whole, and undermines the agreed basis by which the IWC manages stocks of whales.

So what we find is that you wish to believe the ICR data because you are pro whaling and I wish to disagree with it because its veracity has been questioned by other recognised scientists on the IWC Scientific Committee and it is consistently shielded from rigorous peer review outside of the IWC.

Every scientist receives a paycheck from someone, so rigorous peer review of properly published data is the only sure test.
Which is why you and the shill ICR are so averse to it. If ICR data and methodology is irreproachable, they can publish it and prove it.

Readers can draw their own conclusions.
 

LN

Hmmm, you refuse to retract your statement that the IWC SC has criticised the ICR research.

No credibility, as I suspected.

1) Whether the aims of the research are required to address current management needs of the IWC are irrelevant. The ICRW says that the goal is to achieve the optimal use of whale resources. This implies that if the existing management procedure can be improved upon, signatory nations should seek to do so. The IWC SC has recognised that the JARPA research has just such potential.

The claims of illegal meat on the market have never been substatiated by reputable scientists. Baker tried to show this in one of his anti-whaling escapades, but his efforts were blankly rejected. But you can read about that yourself (and ignore it, like you always do)

2) 40 shill scientists or 4 shill scientists, it makes little difference since their criticism are totally unjustified. In fact, I think around 60 of them refused to review the JARPA II proposal last year. Each of them was delegated from either a hard core anti-whaling signatory or has links with anti-whaling NGOs. Is that just a strange coincidence? You probably want to believe it is.

You ought to read the recent paper by Dan Goodman and some other guy - I forget who it was but they covered the recent trend of anti-whaling scientists seeking to gather as many signatures from anti-whaling scientists as possible in an effort to make it appear as if their criticism have credibility.

Of course, the majority of the IWC SC has not been corrupted in this manner as of yet.

Otherwise your comments just parrot the same nonsense as those of the shill scientists.

Again, facts:

The full IWC SC committee has highly evaluated ICR's research, and their evaluation confirms that the research is contributing towards the goals of the ICRW.

You can not run away for this, or try to hide this by merely highlighting the political statements made by scientists appointed by anti-whaling nations and those with links to anti-whaling NGOs.

That you choose to do so confirms that you have no integrity.

----------------------------------
Y/H-san,

Thank you for your appraisal of my Japanese ability :)
 

I am an American who just finished watching a marathon of the Discovery show, "Whale Wars". I am not a conservationist, nor am I an idiot. I could quickly tell this show was tainted with Greenpeace views, and it says right in the credits that Greenpeace funded and helped with the production of the show. I hate greenpeace, I like meat. Although, I do like animals, and endangered animals should be protected. My question for David and everyone else here simply is how they can explain the IRC's whaling within protected waters? The Terrorist (by definition) acts by the Sea Shepard I do not condone, but the internationally protected waters SHOULD be policed, reguardless of any scientific benfit to us. Obviously not by the Sea Shepard, but a international organization set in place. Whales are animals just like any other. We eat animals, and protect those who are near extinction. But laws to protect animals should be adhered to, reguardless of which country you come from.

A friendly RATIONAL response from everyone would be appriciated!
- Jon
 

Hi Jon,

> I do like animals, and endangered animals should be protected.

People who are in favour of sustainable whaling feel exactly the same way.

It is only unsustainable whaling that would put whale species in danger of extinction - not whaling perse.

> how they can explain the IRC's whaling within protected waters?

The Japanese government permits the ICR to conduct research in the waters they do in accordance with the 8th article of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.
While you may have the impression from the western media that there is a "ban" on whaling, and that the Southern Ocean waters are a "sanctuary", the reality is that the IWC never banned whaling under research permit, and it cannot really do so.

The other side of this is the question of whether its neccessary to have a "ban" on whaling in the first place. People in favour of sustainable whaling today generally argue that it is not.

Finally, note that you posted a comment to a very old post - other than myself, the only other people likely to read this now are people who come here via a search engine or something :)

Regards,