David @ Tokyo

"violence against the ICR research fleet in the Antarctic by groups such as Greenpeace" ?????????
Greenpeace is a peacefull organisation and will never resort to the use of violence.
 

Greenpeace recklessly rammed the nose of their ship into the side of the Nisshin Maru in January this year.
See a picture of their ship here

See videos of the incident here.

Greenpeace may claim to be non-violent, but their actions do not reflect this.
 

What we need is a collective will to stand against violence against harmless and beautiful sea creatures. That is where the focus should be - from both Australia and Japan. Lets see some courage from people from both countries on this topic and not get sidetracked by debates about racism. This is about whalism ...
 

yeah - the real violence is happening in the ocean not on Australian beaches. Australia is one of the most peaceful, least racist countries on the planet. Being Aussie these days means you could come from anywhere - including from Japan. Lets not start another fear campaign - there are better places to put the energy man - like on saving whales. What are you doing about that David?
 

You are correct in so far as the anti-whaling campaigners in Australia and New Zealand should focus their efforts on the real issue and not sideshows showing Japanese people with harpoons passed through their bodies.

However, given that "beautiful sea creatures" are harvested by people in both those nations they ought to take a long hard look at their anti-whaling campaign and the real reasons for it.

New Zealand and Australian politicians talk a lot about sustainable development, but they are not true to the prinicple.
 

damo,

Violence in on oceans such as what we saw from Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd last year is unacceptable. Japan's actions are perfectly in accordance with international agreements such as UNCLOS and the ICRW.

> Australia is one of the most peaceful, least racist countries on the planet.

As I noted in my original article, just last year massive race-related riots occured on Australian beaches. I think it is unwise to ignore this fact.

> there are better places to put the energy man - like on saving whales.

Whaling is not a whale conservation issue these days. Researchers from the University of Tasmania agree.

On the other hand, sustainable whaling is consistent with international accepted principles such as sustainable development.

There is nothing wrong with sustainable use of natural resources, on the contrary, we should be looking to encourage and positively publicise successful applications of the principle of sustainable use.
 

Racism is to discriminate against someone (people) due to their race background. It has nothing to do with criticising a countries policies against whale hunting. The commercial, in my opinion, brings to the views to a clear preception of what japanese are doing to the whales, regardless of the fact they are japenese.
 

Racism is to discriminate against someone (people) due to their race background. It has nothing to do with criticising a countries policies against whale hunting. The commercial, in my opinion, brings to the views to a clear preception of what japanese are doing to the whales, regardless of the fact they are japenese.
 

i reakon those dudes knew what they were doing . you cant change the world without controversy. its getting us talking Same as climate change there was nothing but fringe dwelling hippie herbal mumbo jumbo for years until some big dude like Gore or Branson gets onto it and then its all happening
 

Hi daniel,

Why do you think a Japanese person was selected to be portrayed with a harpoon through his body, rather than someone of a different race?

That aside, do you think it would be appropriate if people made commercials showing white Australian people having their heads cut off, reminiscent of the manner in which some Australian livestock is slaughtered?
 

maybe at some point in the future we should look at the way we slaughter all and any animals. The level of consciousness on the planet hasn't evolved to that level yet. But in the meantime there is a distinction that needs to be drawn here - unless we choose to be vegetarian, we kill and eat sheep for nutrition and survival. In my experience, the method of killing them is as humane as possible. If we were needlessly and ruthlessly slaughtering them and they were on the brink of extinction that might be a different matter. And if Aussies were doing that and a typical Aussie farmer was depicted in a campaign calling for us to stop the brutality, that would not be racist in my opinion.
 

Davos right that commercial is friggin sick - who made with it should be locked up or beaten up i like piss but i wont drink something coz its gonna save a whale u rock davo
 

David - the guy in the ad is Japanese because Japan is one of only three countries in the world that disregards the International Whaling Convention. Japanese commercial whalers hunt in the Southern Ocean - and illegally slaughter 1000 whales 60% of which are pregnant in Australian territory..For the first time this year their "research quota" includes 50 Humpback whales. The other two countries in contravention of the IWC are Norway and Iceland. David without meaning to you have just helped the cause of Sea Shepherd and their anti-whaling campaign. The ad was developed to stimulate debate and bring the whaling cowards out from behind the ice sheet. They are cowards breaking the law. Please keep up your anti-whaling activitism
 

vivien,

Sure, maybe there will come a day when humans will "look at the way we slaughter all and any animals".

The fact is at the current time there is no such consistency of desire. It's completely hypocritical of Australia, at the government level, to complain about the "humaneness" of whaling, given that the way in which kangaroos are culled there (more than 5 million of them a year, as well).

As for "humane killing", like Joanne Massiah, I believe this to be an oxymoron. What's worse is that it leads people into the false thought of thinking that we succeed in animal welfare if we kill animals quickly. What about the lives of the animals, up until the point in time where we take the to the slaughterhouse to die with all of their mates?
Wild animals live free lives - we therefore do a far better job in terms of animal welfare by harvesting nature's surplus.

You talk about "brink of extinction". The whales being killed by whalers today are of species that are in no realistic threat of extinction at all. The minke whale numbers in the hundreds of thousands, no matter which ocean you care to talk about, and the fin whales in the Antarctic are recognised to be recovering strongly from past over-exploitation. Taking 10 of them (50 next year) will hardly slow their robust recovery.

You talk about "needless and ruthless" slaughter, when you yourself recognise that people eat sheep for nutrition and survival. The exact same thing applies to whales.

I'm glad that you think that this campaign is not about to incite racially motivated violence against Japanese people in Australia - I hope that you are right.

"voice of reason",

Japan's actions are in complete accordance with the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

Japan's whaling in the Southern Ocean is not commercial. Prior to the commercial whaling moratorium, Japan and Russia were killing between 6,000 and 8,000 minke whales a year (which scientists such as the late John Gulland recognised at the time to be sustainable). Today the figure is less than 900.

Japan does not recognise "Australia's territory" in the Antarctic - hardly any nation except Australia does.

> "slaughter 1000 whales 60% of which are pregnant"

You have your facts wrong, you should check them.

> For the first time this year their "research quota" includes 50 Humpback whales.

Incorrect, again. Japan will not take any Humpback whales in the 2006/2007 season. Check your facts.

> The other two countries in contravention of the IWC are Norway and Iceland.

Both Norway and Iceland are also acting fully in accordance with the convention, check the FAQ.

I would not be surprised if the extremism of this commercial and the Sea Shepherd group that it supports results in a re-examination of Australia's hysterical anti-whaling stance in the near future. Australians will sooner or later start thinking about how such emotional campaigns in support of terrorist groups effects their reputation internationally.
 

hmmm ... you seem extremely defensive, almost hysterical, about this topic David.
 

David, to label groups like Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd as terrorist organisations is somewhat ridiculous, considering the times we live in and the fact that their aim is simply to conserve and protect our marine eco-systems and species, with no view to harming any living thing. Surely there are more ‘extreme’ groups such as Al Queada and Jemah Islamiah that would fit the terrorist group label more accurately, don’t you agree?
A majority of Australian livestock are bred for the specific purpose of feeding the population, and in all fairness, I don’t think you can compare this practice to the senseless whale poaching that is currently being undertaken by Japanese whalers.
I have seen footage of this in practice, and I would hope that after seeing such horrendous images that you would be similarly shocked to see what really goes on.
 

Anonymous,

Unfortunately due to the tragic events of 9/11 and other mass attacks on innocent people, many people, you included it seems, have forgotten what terrorism means.

I suggest that yourefresh your memory.

For example: "the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear"

Acts and threats of violence are *completely unacceptable in civilized human society*, regardless of the degree of violence in question. They are unacceptable in relation to ideological disagreements about whether natural resources such as animals may be utilised on a sustainable basis by humans or not.

The whale species that are being targeted in this operation are well conserved. Japan is taking extremely small numbers of whales relevant to their overall abundance, as it the case in Norway, Iceland, and other whaling nations around the world. As I linked to earlier, whaling is not a significant conservation threat. Please check the link. Here it is again.

The fact that "A majority of Australian livestock are bred for the specific purpose of feeding the population" is no excuse.

You talk about "senseless whale poaching". Japan's whaling in the Antarctic is entirely rational - they are laying the scientific foundations for the sustainable harvest of whale resources to provide food for the population of Japan, and they are doing so in accordance with relevant international agreements.

I have seen footage of Japan's whaling. Have you seen footage from inside slaughterhouses where Australia's farmed animals are killed?

If you want to discuss animal welfare, let's discuss it fairly by considering the kind of life that each animal leads. Whales on the one hand live free lives in the oceans, many dying of natural causes. Farmed animals on the other hand often live a miserable existence after being born (without choice) into human captivity, and they never experience a natural existence until the day that they are taken to slaughterhouses to die with all of their mates.

Is this the way you sugegst that we respect life?
Would you rather be reborn as a whale or a farmed animal in Australia?
Simple question. Obvious answer, although it challenges the existence of what are regarded as standard and acceptable practices within Australia.
 

We would all do well to take a page from another David's book ... As David Attenborough has repeatedly said:
"There is no humane way to kill a whale at sea." Whales are often still alive an hour after the harpoon has torn apart its flesh from within. I don't think that's comparable. This is a silly debate - I don't think there is anyone "humane" who could seriously support the techniques employed to kill whales. And I don't think anyone sensible will support the fact that our oceans are being disturbed by excess fishing. Thats a problem the world shares - we all need to play our part.
 

vivien darl you need a drink i know a good pub if ur in brisbane
 

vivien,

As I noted above, talking about "humane killing" is an oxymoron. Whales are treated far more humanely than farmed animals when you take a step back an consider the relative existences that these different animals are able to lead.

You talk about whales still being alive an hour after the harpoon has struck. Such instances are very rare where modern explosive harpoons are employed.

You say: "This is a silly debate - I don't think there is anyone "humane" who could seriously support the techniques employed to kill whales."

On the contrary, whales are treated far better by humans than other animals when you take a look at the entire lives which various animals are able to lead.

Excessive fishing is a completely different topic. Today, the whales that are hunted are those of stocks that are being conserved very well. There are hundreds of thousands of minke whales in the Antarctic, and the fin whale species is also recovering strongly (Japan is taking just 10).

You say: "we all need to play our part"

I believe that we all need to recognise that use of natural resources to meet human needs is rational and inevitable, and our responsibility is to ensure that our use of these resources is sustainable so that future generations may also enjoy the same options that we today have available.
 

Where did all of you guys find my blog, anyway? I'm curious as to why there are so many people here commenting all of a sudden.
 

you might like to read a few recent news reports David like the one below. There are people who care about whales who follow this debate to keep it honest.

U.S. Protests Japan's return to whaling in the Antarctic

The United States views the current Japanese research plan as unnecessary for whale management. Most research objectives can be achieved by using non-lethal techniques.

The United States expressed deep regrets that Japan's whaling fleet departed on November 15th to continue a controversial hunt for research purposes in the Antarctic. Japan intends to kill up to 935 minke whales and ten fin whales under a special provision of the International Whaling Commission that many nations believe is a loophole for banned commercial whaling.

Source: Editorial Staff
 

David - an example of independent evidence that the Japanese Government's efforts to exploit the IWC loophole is about to be exposed.

Japan's whaling program put to science review

AM - Thursday, 7 December , 2006 08:24:00
Reporter: Karen Barlow
TONY EASTLEY: It's never washed with anti-whaling nations, but for the past two decades Japan has invoked science as the justification for its modern-day whale hunts.

Now Japan's scientific whaling program is under review.

An International Whaling Commission delegation is in Tokyo assessing the results of Japan's 18-year whaling program, known as JARPA.

The IWC wants to know whether Japanese whale researchers could've garnered their information through non-lethal means.

One of the IWC delegates is Dr Nick Gales from the Australian Antarctic Division. He's speaking here with AM's Karen Barlow.

NICK GALES: We're faced with a fairly large number of papers that they'll bring to us which will describe the science they've done, and most of those papers are supposed to synthesise the work they've been doing over the last 18 years.

So we go through each and every one of those papers in fairly close detail, and we're supposed to then come to some conclusion about especially whether or not the original objectives, or the modified objectives through the 18 years have been fulfilled, and whether that's actually of any use to the IWC.

KAREN BARLOW: Because the Japanese have been saying all along that this is necessary for the management of the whales, and it will help them in the long-term, in their long-term survival?

NICK GALES: That's exactly right. The... you know, the Government of Japan have argued very solidly that this science is required, and the only way to achieve this information is to kill whatever number of whales it is that they put their permit in for. The 18 years of JARPA have killed about almost 6,800 whales over that period, minke whales.

KAREN BARLOW: The Australian Government has taken a very firm position against Japan. Does that in any way influence the work you're doing as part of this IWC delegation?

NICK GALES: No, my role is, as a scientist, to come in and assess the science and then to advise the Australian Government and the policy component of the Government about what that science says.

And if the science says… if it was to turn out that this was all terrific and important science, I'd be informing them of that, but if our conclusion is that the science was not necessary, and that the quality of the science was not up to scratch, then I'd equally be reporting that.

KAREN BARLOW: This report, if it does find that the lethal research undertaken by Japan is not necessary, could any action be taken of a permanent nature?

NICK GALES: No, the rules under the Article 8, under which scientific whaling is conducted, means that even if… even if there was a consensus that none of this was necessary it would still not compel the Government of Japan to actually change anything, because they don't have to respond to it. All they have do is be a part of the review and conduct the review.

KAREN BARLOW: So if that's the case, why are you going through this process?

NICK GALES: Well, it's still incredibly important to have a very clear and publicly accessible comment on the review. And it is frustrating, I guess, from many people's point of view, including perhaps my own that, you know, there isn't a direct consequence within the way they're doing their work to our review, but it's very important to have it clearly stated and clearly evaluated.

MARK COLVIN: Dr Nick Gales from the Australian Antarctic Division speaking there with Karen Barlow.
 

more to the point mate why does your website exist??? you seem to be hell bent on promoting whale slaughter.
 

"voice of reason",

Perhaps you might care to read my blog before re-posting articles that I have myself posted comment on, just yesterday:

http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/12/aussie-media-interest-in-jarpa-review.html

Thank you.

damo,

I am convinced that sustainable development based on the sustainable use of natural resources is a good thing for both humans and true conservation efforts.
 

vivien, "voice of reason", damo,

How many of you are the same person? Please post using one alias, or otherwise remain anonymous.
 

I am only one person..there are quite a few people (globally) who believe that whaling is heinous
 

I'm looking at my logs, and know that there are fewer real people commenting here than aliases being used.

"voice of reason", like I said, please read at least some of my other comments on my blog before posting off topic stuff in this thread.

I'm still curious as to where you all found my blog.
 

here here 'voice of reason'- I am one person who is totally against the slaughter of whales for supposed 'research' purposes.
 

One of you is in Florida, the other is in NSW. Only one alias please, or post anonymously.
 

I found the blog through Google - I have been researching this topic since seeing recent coverage in the area
 

Welcome. Please have a good read of my blog. There are many topics covered.
 

Dont be so narrow minded as to imagine that there are only a handful of people who care about these topics and not to underestimate the strength of the conviction of the anti-whaling community
 

I found your blog because I follow debates on whaling issues and Sea Shepherd and have seen the commercial so when I googled the topic your blog came out on the second or third page.
 

Marko,

I don't doubt that there are many strongly minded people in New South Wales who are anti-whaling.

I just hope that they are intelligent and civilized enough not to allow commercials depicting human beings with harpoons through their bodies spill over into violent hate attacks.

What I do hope is that the people of NSW have a long hard think about why they are "anti-whaling", by calmly and rationally reviewing the facts and looking at the way animals are treated by Australians.

As the researchers from Tasmania noted, whaling is not a conservation threat to whales today.
 

David I can assure you I exist - and I am a different person to anyone else engaged in this debate. However, I am happy to now exit this space and spend my energy on another site that needs attention on this important topic. Good luck with your campaign and your site.
 

Where can I view the commercial? I would be interested to take a look, to see if it is at all humourous or tasteful.
 

Vivien,

Thanks for visiting. I do urge you to challenge yourself and what you have been led to believe.

Knowledge is Power.

Thanks for the good luck. Best wishes to you as well.
 

David, are you telling me you haven't even seen the commercial and are forming opinions based on one still frame?
 

Yes.

It's a human being with a harpoon through his chest...
 

Viewed out of context - You should definaltelty check out the whole ad.
 

Like I said, where? Is it on the web?
 

It featured on some of the major Australian news sites about a week ago - you can probably find it in the archives if you search.
 

We have seen reactionary behaviour of this type before - remember the nuclear testing in the South Pacific by the French and our boycott of Champagne? The testing stopped.

If the beer advertisements is truely a reaction to Japanese whaling, then it shows how passionate some of us are about rare animals in our regional ecosystems. Maybe the whaling will stop too if the right people see the advertisements. But I would suggest that a boycott of Sake, sushi, and rice crackers may have a more meaningful effect without the need for social conflict.
 

Japan needs Australia much less than Australia needs Japan.

"In the field of economic relations, Japan is Australia's largest trading partner and the third largest source of direct investment in Australia in terms of the cumulative total."
(MOFA)

Australia stands to damage it's international reputation quite seriously if Australians take their arrogance much further.

Japan isn't about to change it's whaling policy just because some hysterical Australians voice their hypocrisy. Japan will continue catching whales in accordance with international agreements for at least as long as Australians continue to hunt critically endangered species and sell these products to the Japanese market, as well as kill more than 5 million kangaroos every year.

---
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2006/2006-01-16-03.asp
In Canberra, Australian Environment Minister Senator Ian Campbell said today, "My own strong feeling is that if the activities of protestors become not sensible, then it risks putting what we're both trying to achieve - Greenpeace and the Australian government - backwards.

"I don't think people are going to have respect for tactics that are going to put human life at risk. You don't want to bring the whole cause of whale conservation into disrepute," Campbell said.

---
http://www.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,13369,1676507,00.html
Ian Campbell, said that Sea Shepherd's threats to attack the fleet "risk setting back the cause of whale conservation many years"

---

Japan is a modern, civilized nation. There are very few areas in which Japan and Australia disagree. Australians ought to consider whether their "NO WHALING!" stance is still appropriate today, given that conservationists and even researchers in Australia recognise that whaling is not threatening species with extinction.
 

Brave individuals have always been the ones that change the course of history. And bullies always stand in the path of change. Just because its not economically convenient to change a disgusting practice - and considered dangerous to debate it - won't dissuade people who have spine from standing up for their convictions.
 

"voice of reason",

Regarding your off-topic post in another thread:

I don't claim to have no opinion on the whaling issue. If you disagree with my interpretation of the facts I present, state that, rather than make silly statements about my objectivity.

The fact that you quote a statement from the ICRW indicates clearly that characterizing it as a "loophole" is nonsense. A loophole is an omission from an agreement, not something that is explicitly written into one. The biggest loophole in the ICRW is that Australia and other nations with no interest in contributing towards the objectives of the treaty are able to adhere to the convention, attend committee meetings and generally obstruct the efforts of those who adhered to the agreement in good faith.

Whether the whale slaughter is for research purposes or not is something that you can try to understand and judge for yourself. Here is the IWC homepage, with some reports based on JARPA results. I have written more about the review here.

The fact that so many minke whales are pregnant is a positive sign for the long-term health of the Antarctic minke whale.
 

so really, what this boils down to then David, is that you are suggesting that its Australians who should "take care" in Japan - not the other way around???
 

"rights for all",

Brave individuals are those who have the guts to challenge their pre-conceived ideas.

There is nothing disgusting about whaling, which is just an example of one way of utilising natural resources - something which many Australians are involved in, and make tremendous amounts of money out of.

Instead of getting all hysterical about whaling, why not sit down, and have a long hard think about why you are opposed to whaling. Search on the Internet to find good, unbiased sources of information that support your point of view.

Best of luck.
 

Anonymous,

No, I am suggesting that Australians are foolish if they think that an economic boycott would work more in their favour than it would against them.

Japanese people are not that desperate to eat Australias vegemite imports.
 

Apologies, the link to the JARPA review workshop homepage, with several papers resulting from the JARPA research, is available by clicking on this link.

Knowledge is Power, people. Read the research papers for yourself. Try to understand what the research is all about.
 

The post that David is responding to for transparencies sake...

David - I am not sure whether sending me to your blog to verify facts contradicting an Australian Government minister is classified as an independent objective source....

However you do reference the loophole the Japanese Government exploits;

"Continuous collection and analysis of biological data in connection with the operations of factory ships and land stations are indispensable to sound and constructive management of the whale fisheries, the Contracting Governments will take all practicable measures to obtain such data."

You work in investment banking - so clearly you have strong analytical skills;

1) Do you honestly believe the whale slaughter is for research purposes? If yes, what independent evidenc can you offer?

2) The Japanese whaling vessels have RESEARCH in large letters printed down the side of the ships. Interesting it is only in English - who are they trying to convince?

3) A large % of which are pregnant - I won't haggle between my 60% or your 30% - 1% is heinous - do you agree?

I am all for healthy, unbiased debate, but I think that includes sending correspondents to independent, objective links - not to your own blog...I think that could be called "flogging".

10:52 AM

My apologies for posting off-site - that was inappropriate I agree. My link wasn't letting me post and I thought you had blocked me - perhaps a bit of paranoia on my part.
 

"voice of reason",

Thank you for reposting here. I will delete the other comment from the other thread later today. My response to your comments and questions is further above.
 

As if I haven't had 'a good hard think' about why I am opposed to whaling. What a bizarre thing to say. Also, as if I'm going to be persuaded by economically-driven arguments when it comes to animal or human rights issues. If we took that view, we'd all still be claiming global warming was beyond our control.
 

In the interests of productivity, I wonder if when posting further comments those here who disagree with whaling can:

1) State the rationale behind their anti-whaling stance
2) Provide any related factual evidence in support of their rationale
3) Explain why they think that the rationale should appeal to the people of Japan and other nations where cetaceans are regarded as a form of food

A little rationale in favour of a whaling-tolerant stance is as follows:
1) Whaling is in accordance with international agreements such as the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and UNCLOS (Australia is also party to these agreements)
2) Whaling is consistent with the principle of sustainable development, in that whales are a naturally renewable resource that can be harvested on a sustainable basis indefinitely, providing that catch limits are set conservatively in accordance with the best scientific advice, and governments responsible for issuing catch permits effectively regulate their whaling industry
 

David its all there - my views are well represented by www.earthtrust.org or www.seashepherd.com I've seen the footage of what happens. Animal cruelty is not an option - think back to beauty without cruelty - if they hadn't taken a stance we'd still be sticking toxins into rabbits eyes to test our makeup. Thankfully, individuals like me said no and many products no longer use that testing.

You can argue the toss for whomever you represent as long as you like. Your intellectual arguments don't move me one bit - they are "head" arguments, the heart is missing. It's easy to remain blind to the obvious when there's much at risk.

Afterall, our Prime Minister was still debating whether global warming was real (to protect the coal industry) until a couple of months ago in the face of much evidence to the contrary. Naturally, this is your blog, so if you're uncomfortable with our views I agree there's little point continuing. So long and thanks for all the fish - as the dolphins said in Douglas Adams book before they vacated the planet.
 

"rights for all",

Sea Shepherd is a lying, racist, violent fringe organization. Your support for that group will help contribute to the downfall of the irrational anti-whaling movement.

It is well known that the "IWC and all its members ardently condemn Sea Shepherd's acts of terrorism".

Comments from Sea Shepherd supporters are thus accepted, as they deserved to be publicised, then mocked and denounced.
 

Could you provide some specific examples to support your claim.
And what are your views on earthtrust?
 

I'm more than happy to remind readers of Sea Shepherd's extremism:

Here
Here

Thank you for asking.

I know little of Earthtrust.
 

That's kind of like accusing david of being mean to Goliath isn't it David? Do you honestly believe, I mean truly in your heart of hearts, that the Japanese "research" ships are conducting "research"? Do you honestly believe the governments who lack spine will stand up to an economic force that could cripple them, or will bend over and endorse a report for the sake of expediency? Just like the superpowers, as well as Australia, endorsed the "research" into weapons of mass destruction ... citizens are waking up David. You should too.
 

> Do you honestly believe, I mean truly in your heart of hearts, that the Japanese "research" ships are conducting "research"?

Yes.

I have actually read about the results of the research.

Have you?

I posted the link to the JARPA review homepage earlier.

Read the documents for yourself.

Knowledge is power. Knowledge is not scary.

Here is the LINK again. Click it.

Read the papers there. Ask yourself why a paper from Louise Burt of the University of St. Andrews in Scotland would be included amongst the review papers. What are the possible reason for foreign scientists working together with Japanese scientists on these issues?

I'll tell you what I think: As you are against whaling, irregardless of how good the research being conducted is, you WANT to believe that it is a sham. You are searching for excuses to maintain an irrational anti-whaling stance, which deep down in the bottom of your heart, you know is deeply flawed.

The foreign scientists who are collaborating with Japanese scientists on issues of improving our scientific knowledge of whale stocks do not have such pre-conceived notions, or are professional enough to be able to put them aside, for the benefit of conservation of whale resources.
 

Hello David,

You seem to be quite busy with a lot of sentimentalist people here. I don't think you'll be able to convince them of anything as they have been thoroughly brainwashed by Greenpeace and Co propaganda, and are reacting with their feelings - which is not a good thing for thinking calmly.

I agree with you on the problems this commercial pose. Now, I'm pretty sure that Singleton doesn't care at all for whales and sees in the whaling issue a good way to make himself famous. The idea of giving 1$ to SSCS for every beer case sold is also a good occasion for business. Everybody knows that Watson's childish pirates won't be able to "save" the whales.

The anti-whaling movement is showing its lack of respect for life, its lack of deontology. Only people who have been brainwashed by too much stupid TV shows can continue to believe in this so called "environmentalist" claptrap.
 

Hi isanatori,

Hope you got my message with my email addy. Yes, there are times when I realise that "hey, I shouldn't have indulged myself in a discussion with that bunch". 'twas a busy day indeed, time for a bit of a break this weekend :-)
 

Hi David, yes I have read the articles you reference. Why is it that you assume that anyone who supports anti-whaling is somehow lacking information, curiosity or intellectual rigour?
Knowledge is indeed power, and power also tilts the way that people prodcue informtion. I think you're the one that' been brainwashed.
I produce reports - including research reports - for a living and I know how little it takes for reports to end up the way the power that be would like them to read.
We only have to look back over the past couple of years with "reports" on the Iraq situation to see how much politicians, their employees and the media are willing to distort things to their own ends. Wouldn't you agree?
Why don't you open your own mind and ask yourself who has the most to gain in this situation and the most to protect? A group of people who dedicate themselves to a cause of protecting animals, or a commercial organisation or a government needing to wield economic power?
Since, for some curious reason you take so much ownership over this topic, would you ever consider actually going out on a "research" boat to see for yourself? Or are you prepared to trust the "knowledge" that comes your way third hand?
 

curious,

> Why is it that you assume that anyone who supports anti-whaling is somehow lacking information, curiosity or intellectual rigour?

Your words, not mine. Sticking to the topic at hand:

> are you prepared to trust the "knowledge" that comes your way third hand?

I'm happy to accept the results of the JARPA review that was conducted by the IWC / SC this week.

I recognise that the steering committee for the review consisted of scientists from across the spectrum, including Dr. Nick Gales who has frequently entered into the political side of the debate about scientific whaling, yet we also know that the review team included impartial expert Invited Participants from many places around the world (USA, South Africa, UK, Australia, etc).

I've also aware of the processes through which the IWC / SC reviews scientific papers.

If you have any reason to suggest why the review might not be fair, I suggest you state it clearly.
 

David-san、

一寸日本語で失礼しますね。

しかし・・・オーストラリア
は一体何を考えているのか理解に
苦しみます。

ビールのコマーシャルとは言え、

「日本人は鯨を銛でついているのだから
日本人が銛でつかれればどのような気持ち？
やめなさい。」

とアピールしたいのでしょうが結局日本人にとっては　効果は全く逆効果で

・鯨と人間と一緒にするな
・カンガルーを銃で撃って食べるお前はそうな　のか？
・人種差別の問題に言及するこことになる


などなど・・感情的なひどい結果が出るだけ
と思いますね。オーストラリアの肉を食べてはいるけど別にたべなくても良いし、鯨の肉をたべれば良いし他にも売り手はたくさんあるから困りません。


日本のＴＶでもこのコマーシャル公開
すれば面白いでしょうね。

そりゃすごいことになりますけど。


Y/H(Japan)
 

Ad in question
 

しかし　グロテスクなＣＭですね。

趣味悪い。もっとオージーはスマートで
賢明と思っていたが・・・

あれじゃ・・・タコですわ。


オージービーフは買わないように
友達に進言し、ついでにオージー
の趣味の悪さを広めたいと思います。


ついでに首相官邸やその他の関係先に
オーストラリアに対して抗議を要請する
ようにいたします。


Ｙ／Ｈ（ＪＡＰＡＮ）
 

Open your eyes and see our
situation.>AUSIES
No need of response.

http://www.sydney.au.emb-japan.go.jp/Whaling%20English.pdf

Y/H(Japan)
 

This ad never aired.
 

David, I guess if their numbers in the wild improve there needn't be any proscription on the slaughter and consumption of gorilla, chimp and other higher primates either?

I think it's hair to say that there are certain animals we can rationally draw the line at.
 

I propose we allow the Japanese, Norwegians and others to continue whaling given they consider it to be a 'tradition' if only they abandon their giant factory ships and return to the tradition methods employed by coastal villages.

What do you think?
 

I've never thought AUSSIE is so cruel.
 

横レス失礼
>Y/Hさん
趣味が悪いのは間違いありませんが、コマーシャルとしては成功なのでは？ そのビールは日本人に売ってる訳ではないんですから。

I found what's really disgusting is not the ad itself, but the comments some posters made here. Yeah, they should really care about protecting endangered species (which are not endangered at all) in their ecosystem (where no one but themselves recognize as their territory), ignoring they do kill tons of other animals on land. Very civilized discussion indeed.
 

かつて、日本人旅行者にとってオーストラリアはとても人気がある国でした。今では嫌いな国の上位候補です。韓国、中国、オーストラリアの順番です。もっとネガティブキャンペーンやって下さい。何も知らずにオーストラリアへ行って嫌な思いをする日本人が増えていますから。オーストラリア旅行を何人かやめさせる事に成功しました。まぁオーストラリアは日本にとってどうでもいい国だけど。どんどんバカみたいに暴れて下さいw
 

かつて、日本人旅行者にとってオーストラリアはとても人気がある国でした。今では嫌いな国の上位候補です。韓国、中国、オーストラリアの順番です。もっとネガティブキャンペーンやって下さい。何も知らずにオーストラリアへ行って嫌な思いをする日本人が増えていますから。オーストラリア旅行を何人かやめさせる事に成功しました。まぁオーストラリアは日本にとってどうでもいい国だけど。どんどんバカみたいに暴れて下さいw
 

Seriously, Australians are a funny bunch. Australia was a whaling nation until the 1970's, barely 30 years ago. And somehow they have this righteousness that allows them to bash Japanese. Please, "Australians aren't racist"? I was in Sydney when the race riots happened (though admittedly I was pretty pissed at those rapists that triggered the whole meltdown). And as for the whaling issue itself, I don't understand the appeal of whale meat from Norwegians, Japanese, and Icelanders, but how many of us here consume meat? I would argue a good percentage of posters here do. And for those that are vegan, well good for you! However, the Japanese have been whaling for centuries. Whale meat became more widespread for Japanese consumption due to the scarcity of meat in the post-WW2 era. Hence, some of the Japanese populace developed a taste for whale meat. Should the Japanese follow international regulation of whaling? Of course. Do I agree with this crappy commercial that's supposedly not racist, but "whalist" according to the distributor. How about more Australians utilize that "Save a Whale, Harpoon a Jap" tag. I mean, if a significant amount of Australians want to protest against Japanese whaling (and not Norwegian and Icelandic), then by all means go ahead. Have a nice day Australia until you get swamped by non-European immigrants that'll put you in your place.
 

your fears are one hundred percent misplaced. i would go so far as to say you have no idea what you are talking about.

'The combination of alcohol and the hysteria in Australia surrounding the whaling issue makes me extremely fearful of the possibility of racially motivated violence being born out of this situation.'

i live in Australia, i am in the CBD every day, and this 'hysteria' just isnt happening.

way to judge the state of a culture by one beer campaign.
 

What has not been raised yet in this blog is that Japanese whalers are fishing in Australian Antarctic Territorial Waters, threatening an endangered species, polluting the waters with garbage from the ships and threatening the antarctic ecosystems.
 

That has not raised yet because whalers are not fishing in waters that are recognized as Australian Antarctic Territorial Waters.

Nor are they hunting endangered species, nor are they polluting the waters with garbage from the ships or threatening the antarctic ecosystems. Sea Shepherd is though.

That is why those points have not yet appeared, because it is nonsense.
 

It's a waste of time talking to anti-whaling advocates who are nothing more than eco-terrorists. Whales are so holy to them that they feel they have the right to murder anyone who disagrees with them. I'd bet my money on it that if they could have their way they'd nuke Japan, Norway and anyone else who kills their precious creatures.
They are a pathetic bunch of people who pretend to be conservationists and pretend to be scientific when they are not, as some whales are not even endangered.
If these fools want to talk about cruelty to animals they should talk to those vegans who force their cats and dogs to eat vegan food.
 

This advertisement was stupid it sends the wrong message although i do understand the sentiment of anti-whaling. The argument that eating any meat is the same as eating whale meat is wrong chickens and cows aren't endangered like whales are. I do concede there are certain whales that are no longer endangered as the article on the university of Tasmania states there are still many species that are hunted that are endangered, also have we not learnt from past mistakes that if we hunt them again it will be inevitable that they will be pushed to the brink of extinction. Just stop whaling its simple it isn't sustainable and a dangerous practice. And whilst there is some hypocrisy in regards to the hunting of whales by Australia and New Zealand they have stopped this so that argument is mute. As to Australia being racist no more than any other country is.
 

The argument that eating any meat is the same as eating whale meat is not wrong.

Some whales are not endangered.

That is the point. (What is an isn't endangered is a debate in itself.)

For these whale species there is no difference between eating them and cows and chickens in terms of conservation.

How many years do whalers have to keep catching whales before you will realise that it is sustainable? They can't do it indefinitely otherwise.

You certainly can't tell me the year by which whales will be extinct if whaling continues, can you?

We have learnt from past mistakes - the mistakes were not hunting of whales per se, but unsustainable hunting. Over-exploitation leads to depletion and potentially extinction. That is a mistake.

Sustainable exploitation is by definition not unsustainable exploitation.

It is not a "simple solution" to ban things far in excess of what is required to correct a problem. It is "simple", yes, but not a solution. The majority of Japanese people have some degree of interest in eating whales, and to the extent that this can be done in a sustainable manner it ought be tolerated by chicken and cow eaters.
 

People are not concerned with the actual eating of whales it is their endangered status as well as the method of their killing, cows and chickens are killed and (as far as science can tell) painlessly where as whales are shot with explosive harpoons and on many occasions do not die from this initial hit and get dragged on board in immense pain. Also can you provide a sustainable way to whaling? because Japan obviously hasn't in the eyes of the international community. Also there is no way of telling how long it will take for whales to be extinct if whaling is continued without knowing how thorough, how fast and whether whalers do actually push them to extinction. what is known is that whale reproduction does take a long time and that numbers wouldn't be replenished if whaling was legalised. But why take the chance so a couple of guys can enjoy whale? Also there is no doubt that some whales aren't endangered but once again why take the risk?
 

Glad we have settled it that there are whales that are not endangered. I am personally in favour of Blue whales being protected for the time being. So we have some grounds for agreement.

At the same time there are hundreds of thousands of minke whales, which is enough for sustainable exploitation. This is the area of disagreement.

As for the "method of their killing", I would question why you have opted to focus on the *killing* aspect of our treatment of these animals, which are essentially killed by humans to obtain food. Why focus on the *killing* alone?

I think it's necessary to take a holistic approach, that also includes the vast majority of the animal's life, before it's final moments when we take it's life to help sustain and enrich our own. I argue that whales live far better lives than farmed animals.

(As an aside, a google search for slaughterhouse video footage will illustrate that the methods of animal slaughter aren't all that they are made out to be.)

> can you provide a sustainable way to whaling?

The International Whaling Commission's scientific committee has developed just such a method (The Revised Management Procedure). That is simply, it is possible to state with certainty that if x number of whales are caught each year, then they will not go extinct or even be put on a track to be over-depleted (this is a total over-simplification, but that's the essential gist).

> there is no way of telling how long it will take for whales to be extinct if whaling is continued without knowing how thorough, how fast and whether whalers do actually push them to extinction.

The whole idea of regulating whaling is to ensure that we do know how many whales are caught each year so as to avoid such a thing from happening. But you are right that there are currently no estimates from anyone about when whales being hunted by whalers at current levels (for both scientific research and commercial whaling operations) will go extinct, I believe this is because current whaling (unlike whaling prior to the 1970's) is quite modest and sustainable, when you consider the math.
 

> what is known is that whale reproduction does take a long time

Whales taking a long time to reproduce just means that the harvest levels have to be reduced accordingly, not prevented entirely. This is all taken into account in the Revised Management Procedure for sustainable whaling. They aren't breeding as fast as rabbits do, but if they increase by 100 a year for example you couldn't seriously believe that catching 1 whale a year would be inappropriate in terms of conservation.

It's all about balance. In the past, whaling was poorly regulated, and too many whales were taken. This was bad. What you are suggesting is that the pendulum be swung wildly to the opposite. This too would be bad, because there is no need for such drastic measures to be taken. The solution is the middle ground - modest harvests which satisfy the appetite for whales while also being compatible with conservation objectives.

> numbers wouldn't be replenished if whaling was legalised.

This is untrue. Under the IWC Scientific Committee's Revised Management Procedure for commercial whaling, over-depleted whale stocks will continue to be protected, and thus naturally will increase, just as they do now. Only those stocks that are healthy and robust levels would be subject to sustainable harvests. And it's in the long term interests of whale consumers and industry to ensure that whale numbers are kept high, so as to continue to provide the largest, optimal harvests on a consistent basis. Seeing whale numbers crash is the last thing that anybody, most of all the beneficiaries of whale consumption, would like to see happen.

> But why take the chance so a couple of guys can enjoy whale?

More than 50 million people have a degree of interest in eating whales, according to a recent poll conducted in Japan. It's not just a couple of guys.

But one must always consider both sides of the risk/reward trade-off. If you personally have no interest in eating whales, then perhaps it's difficult for you to see this, but consider that there do exist millions of your fellow human beings who would like to have a little whale every now and then. If the associated conservation risks can be virtually eliminated by any rational measure, then why not? People fly in airplanes every day despite the risk that the plane may crash and lead to their deaths. People willingly accept such risk with their own lives, I find it strange that they could be against a sustainable whaling.
 

I never said there weren't whales with safe populations merely that many (or at least some i don't know specific figures) of those being hunted were endangered. I understand the rebuttal of my killing argument but it is important if the animal is to be killed why make it suffer? Also as in any industry many rules are broken particularly in countries where laws aren't so stringently followed. But for the most part these rules are followed. And whilst they do live a better life why should they die more painfully? Ok so there may be a method whaling can be sustainably committed i have not read up on it but there is always the chance that with 50 million people wanting whale meat that there will be people whom break the rules to make profit. No i don't believe killing one whale a year is dangerous but i do believe that the risk is too great. Your next argument is that whale numbers would replenish even being hunted if sustainably at best you could hope for a maintaining of number because only animals with fast reproduction have ever been successfully hunted and grew in numbers. While i'm all for freedom there has to be some limits people can't just go around killing each other and they can't eat whale and risk exterminating for the sake of enjoying a meal. Finally your last remark makes no sense there is a difference between risking your own life and risking an entire species or anything else's life, i hope this was simply a mistake. I will stop comment because it is obvious that neither of us will change our stances on this topic. I hope you never have to find out what will happen if whaling is legalised.
 

As I said, the whole discussion about which whales are "endangered" is a debate in itself. As for the whales that are being hunted, those that are being hunted are not being hunted in such large numbers as to seriously threaten their existence, in my opinion.

One standard that some anti-whalers like to refer to is the IUCN Red List. It lists some species being hunted as "Endangered" (by the criteria for listing that they use). Japan is catching a few of these whales on average each year. Personally I don't think this argument floats, because Australia is hunting species on a commercial basis that are listed not as "Endangered", but as "Critically Endangered".

I've taken a look at this issue and my conclusion is that the IUCN Red List was not designed to be used as a criteria for determining whether controlled harvests of a given species should be permitted or not - rather it appears to have been designed to act as a red flag for species which are not given the same degree of attention as species such as whales are. If my analysis is wrong, then at least the anti-whalers should be demanding that Australia ceases it's commercial exploitation of "Critically Endangered" species louder than the demands made of Japan for it's exploratory exploitation of certain "Endangered" whale species

The methods employed by whalers are not designed to make the animals suffer. Killing animals is never going to be a precise science, particularly not with those that have had the distinct benefit of living a free life in the wild. What we can realistically do is seek to make continual improvements over time as our technology advances.

> And whilst they do live a better life why should they die more painfully?

I can flip that question around - whilst you may believe they die less painfully, why should they live less free lives than the whales and other wild animals?

It's not a competition. I think whales have it better, but that's not to say I deny the farming of animals. Each animal and it's circumstances are different. We can but do the best we can in each situation.

> there is always the chance that with 50 million people wanting whale meat that there will be people whom break the rules to make profit.

Firstly, the main reason why anyone does anything in our society is indeed to make profit. The same goes with the people farming animals and slaughtering them "painlessly". I would not go to work every weekday (and weekends sometimes) were it not for my profit motive in wanting to make a salary - so that I can live my life.

Secondly, you are absolutely right - some people may be willing, for whatever reasons, to break the rules and, for example, take more whales than they are allowed. That is precisely why we need an effective regulatory body to make sure that this sort of thing is minimised. We do have an International Whaling Commission which was essentially set up for that purpose, but unfortunately, instead of allowing the IWC act in that purpose, some nations such as Australia are seeking to deny any IWC sanctioned whaling activities - despite overseeing whaling activities being the express purpose for which the IWC was established. This now results in whaling nations being unhappy with the IWC, and considering whether to leave it and catch whales independently, without IWC oversight. Ironically, this is exactly what we do not want to happen... Yet because of nations such as Australia who have official policies that seek to deny the rights of others, this may yet be what comes to pass.
 

> No i don't believe killing one whale a year is dangerous but i do believe that the risk is too great.

I think then, that you are greatly over-estimating the risk.

> Your next argument is that whale numbers would replenish even being hunted if sustainably at best you could hope for a maintaining of number

It depends on the time. If you have an increasing population, and you take some of the increase this year, then overall by next year the total numbers will have gone up. The situation you are talking about is the point at which the population is so large that it is unable to add new numbers to its count because of the natural carrying capacity of the environment in which that population lives. At this point, harvesting some whales will reduce the numbers. However the way it works is that as those numbers are reduced, it frees up resources for the remainder, which can then once more increase their productivity, which creates further numbers. This is essentially the idea behind the RMP.

> because only animals with fast reproduction have ever been successfully hunted and grew in numbers.

There are two sides to the equation. Reproduction adds, hunting subtracts. So long as the hunting is less than the reproduction, then the numbers can increase - it doesn't matter about the absolute speed of reproduction, it's the balance between reproduction and hunting that counts.

> While i'm all for freedom there has to be some limits

I agree. But "zero whales" is not a sensible limit.

> people can't just go around killing each other

No one is suggesting we do that...

> and they can't eat whale and risk exterminating for the sake of enjoying a meal.

I agree - but modest harvests are not going to run a serious risk of exterminating the whales. If you disagree then I'd like you to quantify the risk for me - because I just can't see how it isn't miniscule. My biggest fear is that the IWC collapses, and we have whaling happening outside of the IWC. It is the anti-whaling nations, who by refusing to tolerate any freedom for whaling cultures, are precipitating it's decline.
 

> Finally your last remark makes no sense there is a difference between risking your own life and risking an entire species or anything else's life, i hope this was simply a mistake.

No, it wasn't a mistake... People know that when they fly in airplanes, it may crash and take their life. But they choose to fly anyway. No one wants to die. But what people do is weigh up the risk/reward trade-off. Flying has some serious benefits, whereas the risk of dying in a plane crash is quite small. If people are prepared to risk their own lifes in this way, it is impossible to understand why they can not accept a similar risk/reward trade-off being evaluated with respect to whales.

And think about this as well - if your airplane does crash, you are almost certainly dead. No second chances. However with whaling under a regime like the RMP, what they will actually do is monitor the impact of those ongoing harvests over-time. If it turns out that the whale numbers are surpringly decreasing, it's not the end of the game immediately like with an airplane crash. No - what happens at that point is people say "hey these whales are decreasing in numbers, unlike what we expected - let's ease off on the hunting or stop it entirely until we figure out why".

But still, people continue to "risk" their lives flying in airplanes, but refuse to tolerate the arguably much smaller risk of eventual depletion of whale numbers in a carefully monitored harvest.

> I will stop comment because it is obvious that neither of us will change our stances on this topic. I hope you never have to find out what will happen if whaling is legalised.

Well it already is legal in some places... And it continues despite your worst fears. I think the world has more serious issues to worry about than this one.

But thank you for taking the time to try to understand where the other side of this debate is coming from.