.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

David @ Tokyo

Perspective from Japan on whaling and whale meat, a spot of gourmet news, and monthly updates of whale meat stockpile statistics



500th post

This is apparently the 500th post here on my blog. I hope that they are getting better. Many of those 500 are not actually published yet - I've got a whole load of draft posts waiting around, perhaps one day to be completed.

Here's a world map of my last 100 or so hits:

Obviously, most of the world doesn't care about what I have to say (indeed most of the world doesn't care about whaling), but it seems I have a special ability to excite the Europeans. Hello there, Europeans!

I hope that Sea Shepherd find the illegal whaling fleet and shut them down under authority of the UN Charter for Nature.
It is simple, whales will never be sustainable if 180 million people in Japan have the hunger for it.
It is also cruel, killing a massive, intelligent creature slowly with a exploding harpoon. If that doesn't kill it electric shocks are used.
What the world needs is more people like Capt Watson, who are willing to put their life on the line for a compassionate cause, protecting the treasures of the sea.
I will continue to support Sea Shepherd in the future regardless whether they are successful this time or not. They will be back next year
A supporter from Melbourne
Dave what is your major malfunction? Why do you enjoy sitting on the sidelines watching others do what you think is right? If you are really concerned that there are too many whales out there then go kill some yourself. Don't be a pussy. Go out and kill something! But I guess it is easier to post negative blogs about people who are risking their lives for their beliefs then to actually put your own neck on the line. You are a small man David, and I have noticed that small men need to take their insecurities out on other beings. And that is sad for you.
Gee a clueless Sea Shepherd groupie.
Still it must feel all warm and fuzzy to be that ignorant.
It's almost a shame to pop their bubble.
...if it weren't for the fact that such deluded groupies are one of the biggest environmental problems we face.
Such ignorance was excusable in the eighties but laughable today when there is so much information at your fingertips (as opposed to marketing propoganda from the likes of the Paul Watson self -promotion foundation).
Keep the good work up Dave even the willfully blind are finding it hard to deal with facts instead of emotive hype.
Sustainability first!
Congratulations on hitting your 500th post. Quite an accomplishment. Are you the author of "Whaling is a White Elephant" published in South Korea last week, by any chance? I was impressed with your analysis if so.
"Keep the good work up Dave even the willfully blind are finding it hard to deal with facts instead of emotive hype."

The fact is whales are intelligent, just read http://www.seashepherd.org/ocean_realm/ocean_realm_aut97.html
I believe emotions like compassion, and sympathy make us truly human, to not have those you might as well be a number cruncher robot.
If I go and kill a neighbours dog on the street that's sustainable isn't it?
And frankly, why would I trust a corporation like JWA to practice sustainability on endangered Fin and humpback whales??
It is well known now that Japan has secretly over fished tuna...
Go to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1765413.htm
We need a non for profit, all volunteer organisation like Sea Shepherd to enforce the law.
An organisation that doesn't spend money on advertising.
An organisation that in its 30 year history has never injured a single person.
It is our compassion and sympathy that have led humans to develop the fastest methods available of killing whales. Orcas that prey on grey whales off the coast of North America take between 4 and 6 hours to complete a kill. In the best cases, humans can kill whales instantaneously. In the average case we are talking 2 minutes. In a really bad case we may be talking 30 minutes. It is our compassion and sympathy that will see humans continue to strive to improve the efficiency of our hunts even further (it also makes economic sense to seek to do so). Personally I think there are far greater issues in terms of animal welfare for us to take an interest in today. Hundreds and thousands of tonnes of beef are exported by New Zealand, Australian and American farms each year. The quality of life for those animals can simply not match the life of freedom which whales enjoy. Those who complain about the killing method for whales, an animal that lives an otherwise free life and in most cases die of non-anthropogenic causes, would be taken more seriously were they to first campaign to have issues with farmed animals resolved first.

Of course, from a sustainability perspective, when utilising natural resources such as whales, respect must be paid to the uncertainties that are inherent in management. Where a herd of cows is concerned, managers can easily measure the abundance and productivity of the stock, and even influence the productivity to an extent (through artificial insemination). Where whales are concerned, it's not so easy to precisely determine abundance or estimate productivity, and currently it is not possible to artificially inseminate them. But it is not impossible to gain estimates of abundance and productivity (with an investment in research). With those estimates, providing they are interpreted with appropriate consideration given to the statistical uncertainty associated with them, management is possible. This concept is foreign to people from cultures where agriculture has been the primary means of producing animal protein, and this is possibly why many such people believe that whales should not be hunted if they cannot be farmed.

If you kill your neighbour's dog, you infringed on your neighbours rights. On the other hand, the international community has largely recognised that whales, as highly migratory species, do not "belong" to any person or nation. Today more than 70 nations with an interest have adhered to an agreement which recognises the need to conserve these whale resources as well recognise the potential of robust, healthy stocks of whales to sustain harvests in support of whaling industry. If one has a problem with this agreement (the ICRW), I suggest one should write to representatives of every one of those nations that have adhered to it and request them to withdraw (as is their right under Article XI).

No one is being asked to trust "a corporation like JWA" (sic). There is industry, and there is government. The role of government in the management of natural resources is to effectively regulate industry. Under the IWC framework, the requirements of the government of each state in this capacity can be determined by the IWC. However as it stands, the IWC has failed to reach agreement on a reasonable and effective regulatory scheme, and hence today whaling is essentially unregulated by the international community. Each government regulates whaling as it see's fit.

Regarding the southern bluefin tuna overfishing, Japan recognised the failure of it's former regulatory framework to ensure that it's industry did not exceed Japan's quota and responded by overhauling it's management scheme. They abolished the former olympic system, which saw vessels racing each other until the quota was reached (in practice, exceeded). Now each vessel has an individual quota allocated to it, every tuna caught must be tagged, and there is a limited number of ports at which landing must take place. WWF Japan and Australian officials both commended the Japanese authorities on the move (in fact WWF Japan criticised Australia for not also taking measures in relation to it's own fishing industry). The lesson is that a good policy requires good implementation to be successful. However, bad implementation does not imply bad policy. This is a lesson that was learned long long ago at the IWC. Whale species such as the Humpback and Blue were first protected in the 1960's. By the 1970's a quota setting procedure based on biological features of whale stocks had been introduced (see estimates of abundance and productivity above), and in 1982, the FAO's observer to the IWC noted that "Where commercial whaling is still being carried on, the catches are, by and large, within the productive capacity of the stock and should be sustainable indefinitely". A further improved "revised management procedure" was subsequently designed, which took scientific uncertainties explicitly into account. Scientifically, management of whale resources is highly advanced. Even in the regulatory realm, technology such as DNA sampling each whale legally put on the market is now employed to allow monitoring for product legality. Due to the highly politicised nature of the issue, any future commercial whaling under the auspices of the IWC will be more effectively regulated than ever in the past.

As for Sea Shepherd, is not enforcing the law, it's just making a lot of noise, and burning up fuel in the Antarctic to the detriment of the environment for no gain. All whaling nations today are acting in accordance with relevent international law. On the other hand, by this time next week Sea Shepherd will be sailing two unregistered vessels on the high seas. One does not require a law degree to realize who's side the law is on.
To a supporter from Melbourne

To love whales is wonderful.
I can share the feeling with
each other even if I am a Japanese
whale eater.No one wants to watch
the killed whales in front of
our eyes.

However, I do not hope you will
support SSCS because their behavior is that of terrorists.
To save whales,they need not
Can Openner or they need not
to make the vessels rammed.

Please think again.
No one in the world wants the
terrorists alike him.

>I hope that Sea Shepherd find the >illegal whaling fleet

Whether or not it is illagal
is disscussed so far.
Japanese government shows our
basic position below URL.
Please see and judge if it is illegal or not.
And if have some time, I suggest
you look into IWC'S web site.
Especially David-san's blog is
the best way to understand the
whole issue of whaling.


>It is simple, whales will never
>be in Japan have the hunger >for ... slowly with a exploding >harpoon. If that doesn't kill it >electric shocks are used.

Please remember ,for our food, there are a large number of animals killed every day in many ways.Some people say whaling should be banned because they are the wild animals untouchable to human beings.Then, how do you explain there are many countries supporting whalings of the world?

And for my part,Bullfighting
of Spain is more cruel than whaling
because it is a big killing show
for humanbeing's entertainment.
What about this?
It is diffcult for us to tell
bullfighting is the exception.

>What the world needs is more >people like Capt Watson,

Please not be kidding!
All the world knows Watson is insane.

>I will continue to support Sea
>Shepherd in the future regardless >whether they are successful this >time or not. They will be back >next year

Ok, please do as you like.
Also please remember all
the world do NOT overlook
their crazy behaviors.

Hi, David!

It is not the compassion and sympathy of those humans that hunt whales that have led to develop faster killing methods. I'm not familiar with any whaler, but hunters and farmers whom I talked to bear great resemblance to them in terms of how they view the animal being killed by their hands. For the most part, they see money. Under this condition your compare of humans and orcas falls to the ground --- no wildlife creature hunts any other for fun or money, but for survival, which is a whaling basis only for aboriginals in some countries.

One of the major reasons why faster killing methods are adopted is the 'whine' of anti-whalers, who are looking forward for a complete stop of whaling or even ban, but can't get it now. While some nations don't want to give up whaling, but nevertheless care about their worldwide image, they go with an effort to ease a tension and show a pretense of good move, but it is not a sign of whalers' mercy towards whales. It's give-and-take, not care for animal welfare. Not the compassion and sympathy.

As for Sea Shepherd, they have a UN Charter for Nature and other international laws on their side. They are contradicting with ICRW with regard to specifically whaling, but that laws are their serious backing, which can be confirmed with the fact that Paul Watson has never been charged for any kind of felony as well as the fact there was no law found that could be used to indict him. Also I'd like to underscore here that Sea Shepherd is not anti-whaling only, but fighting with 'sustainable harvest of renewable bio resources' on a number of issues. Among them is seal hunting in Canada. Recently Belgium has adopted a ban of all seal products with an unanimous vote of parliamentarians; and I've seen somewhere on the web that Germany has the same debates these days, which is a signal for the whole EU. It's an undoubted victory of Sea Shepherd (other organizations as well and I respect them for their part too, but it's about Sea Shepherd here), which shows that animal rights and welfare rhetoric is not stupid rubbish as it is tried to be depicted sometimes. This movement is growing, attracting new supporters that all do good for Sea Shepherd and its public image, while the image of Japanese and particularly whalers is being ruined these days not without your help as you paint this nation which is not yours with colors of ignorance and indifference towards other than Japan world society opinion over the issue how animals which do not belong to their country are treated.

In the end, I want to say some words about my view on numerous arguments that there is no difference in hunting wildlife and using domesticated animals for food; while the latter are used, why not harvesting the former? If you are really compassionate about how domesticated animals are treated, you should be an advocate for animal welfare on farms, but not an advocate for whaling in revenge to farmers. If you are really compassionate about this, then you should seek a chance to treat domesticated animals as we are trying to treat whales now, not vice versa - not we should treat whales the same way as we treat cows now.


Sea Shepherd's announced intentions and past actions are most certainly not fully in accordance with relevant international law. Please do not waste my readers' time by attempting to dispute this point. If you seriously don't know about the relevant law, please take the initiative to read up on it in your own time. I'm not running a "Whaling Issue 101" class here.

Your comments regarding the motivations of improvements in the welfare statistics of the hunt are nothing more than wishful thinking. Greenpeace by their own words and actions illustrate that they either a) don't care at all b) are ignorant of welfare issues in relation to the hunt c) too darn self-righteous to be able to admit any negative side-effects of their actions. I like to give Greenpeace the benefit of the doubt, and hence I believe that only b) and c) apply.

Your comments to the effect that aboriginal subsistence hunts are "for survival" also makes me wonder how much (or probably more efficiently, how little) you actually know about the nature of those activities. Considering whether citizens of the world's wealthiest nation truly need to hunt whales "for survival", and whether Nuuk supermarkets stock whale meat "for survival" should provide you with some useful starting points.

Finally, please do not waste my time by twisting my comments in relation to whaling versus farming. My suggestion is that people who wish to complain about whale welfare statistics of whaling (such as the British government and the voters they represent) is that they should first tidy up their own backyard before whinging like hypocrits to the whaling peoples.
"It is our compassion and sympathy that have led humans to develop the fastest methods available of killing whales."

Dear Captain Malfunction,

Japan has absolutely so interest in the humane and compassionate killing of marine animals. But of course you do not like to hear or read any evidence of this. It is much easier for you to throw out ad hominem such as eco-terrorist then it is to debate the truth.

Prove yourself David. Watch these videos and tell me how caring and understanding about wildlife these Japanese whalers are.



David, you know that the same money behind the Taiji slaughter is the same 'reasearching' whales in the Antartic. This is whaling Japan style. This is the reason why the world looks so shamfully towards Japan.
I have no time for anyone who believes that Sea Shepherd should not be held accountable for their own behaviour and the consequences of it.
By the way "anonymous", do you have some videos to show us of how they kill the animals in the area where you live?
"I have no time for anyone who believes that Sea Shepherd should not be held accountable for their own behaviour and the consequences of it."

What is the matter David? Is the picture worth too many words for you to write. Or is it just easier to walk away from your losing argument?

Thank you David. You proved my point and put a smile on my face.

I'm not about to waste my time arguing arguments that have already been won with people who don't have enough sense to know it, Andre.
>As for Sea Shepherd, they have a
>UN Charter for Nature and other >international laws on their side.

Sorry.in order to save whales,it does not seem to me the UN Charter requests to use Can Openner or the vessels to ram with...

And there is nobody to use
the UN Charter as a way of
terrorism, except the crazy SSCS.

>you know that the same money >behind the Taiji slaughter is the >same 'researching' whales in the >Antartic.


Taiji whalers are proud of
their job.They gain money
,catching whales and selling
the meat.

Watson is gaining donations,doing
terrorism and making many people misled.

I would like to ask the world
which is better.

>Or is it just easier to walk
>away from your losing argument?















Look clowns,

Its obvious that you two like being on the losing side of arguments. So I will indulge.

The Taiji whalers are an insult and a disgrace to the Japan. This is not an empty insult but the truth. The proof? Japan does not want anyone to see these videos.



They will not allow filming of the hunt. To film the "hunt" will lead to arrest. It is called a coverup.

David, please give an explanation for the Taiji hunt. Especially its meathodology. Show me the compassion and sympathy that you brag about so much. Or will you again just run away from the debate?

David you have 500 posts here on this site, what do you hope to achieve out of it, other than helping the Japanese Whaling Association and the IWC resume full scale commercial whaling? Sorry, “scientific” whaling…

David just to let you know I went on a free tour of the Farley Mowat, in Melbourne Docklands in November last year. The Farley Mowat is a very old, small cramped ship, with only the basic living facilities. The only reason people would bother living in that 1957 dump is for compassion of whales.

David, put yourself in the shoes of the hard working, 50 international volunteer workers of Sea Shepherd, all other options of stopping whaling with peaceful protesting, has achieved very little. There are simply no other ways of saving whales other than ramming and disabling ships. It's only though the Sea Shepherd that whalers have been kept on the edge.

The welfare issue: If compassion and sympathy are really with you, you would not support this slaughter. It sometimes takes 30 minutes before a whale stops struggling in the water. That doesn't mean it's dead because it's stopped struggling, it might have resigned to the fact that it's stuck and will try again later. However it’s too late when it gets dragged on the ship. Whales may be still alive when they get carved up and skinned...just download footage...

Whales must have very sensitive skin to know when to breathe when the blowhole comes to the surface, therefore it’s safe to assume that they must be able to feel pain easily.

The Minke whales are one of the smallest whales. The Minke whale weighs in at 8 tonnes while, the Fin whale weighs in at 45-75 tonnes making it the second largest mammal in the world, next to the Blue whale. How the hell do you kill a creature of that magnitude humanely?
You can't, unless you use some kind of anaesthetic, but JWA will never go that far.

Why would JWA even care about the welfare of these mammals, if the only knowledge and respect they have of them is to call them "cockroaches of the sea" as they did last year? For them whales are a statistic, a number, a $$$$$ and have no value.

Comparing to whaling to orcas killing whales is just a scapegoat, orcas didn’t drive the whales to near extinction last century. Have you got any evidence to back that orcas kill whales at all?

" Personally I think there are far greater issues in terms of animal welfare for us to take an interest in today. Hundreds and thousands of tonnes of beef are exported by New Zealand, Australian and American farms each year. The quality of life for those animals can simply not match the life of freedom which whales enjoy"

Look, I understand where your coming from David, that some animals bred in captivity are living in hell. We here in Australia have massive welfare issues, when it comes to caged pigs and chickens. They are kept in cages so small the can't turn around. Kangaroos are called "sustainable" yet they are a multi million dollar industry exporting to the world. Since when has killing wildlife saved anything? But this is a topic for another day...

This is just another reason why the Sea Shepherd crew are vegetarian.

This is not only a battle to save whales for future generations, but it is an epic battle to save the planet.

Polar ice caps are melting, the world is overpopulated, and we have doubled our population since 1950 from 3 billion to 6 billion. Forests are being destroyed, species are being wiped out, and the oceans will run out of fish by 2048. Yet if you do care about the future of our planet and the miracle of life, you are called a terrorist. I think it's more extreme for people have apathy about these issues.

To all the Sea Shepherd critics including Y/H(Japan) : If Sea Shepherd are terrorists, why wasn’t Paul Watson put in prison after he sank half the Iceland whaling fleet in 1986??

“Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit in the United States, and a registered Stichting in The Netherlands. Gifts are deductible to the full extent of the law. “

go to www.seashepherd.org to find out

"...As for Sea Shepherd, is not enforcing the law, it's just making a lot of noise, and burning up fuel in the Antarctic to the detriment of the environment for no gain."

The whaling crew would have a much higher ecological footprint than the Sea Shepherd crew because they're vegetarian. Vegetarians have a smaller ecological footprint than regular meat eaters. Plus the Robert Hunter and Farley Mowat are smaller ships.
This is fact, go to www.epa.vic.gov.au and do the test David! I’d like to know how you would score!

To only talk goodness is not good enough David. Only to do it is.

A supporter from Melbourne, Australia

I am under no illusions about the realities of hunts of wild animals. There are certainly cases in which hunting efficiency could be improved, and we should seek to improve. I would hope that you recognise that the same can be said of the way farmed animals are slaughtered. In terms of animal welfare, there are much bigger questions surrounding the way farmed animals are born into human captivity, raised in human captivity, fattened in human captivity, before finally being sent to the slaughterhouses, than there are with respect to the harvesting of natural resources such as whales. Besides welfare considerations, there are big question marks over this in terms of environmental impact as well.

To my mind, the farming of animals while demanding that nature's surplus not be exploited is completely irrational. The suggestion that no humans should kill animals at all is even more extreme, and reeks of arrogance.
> If Shepherd are terrorists, why >wasn’t Paul Watson put in prison >after he sank half the Iceland >whaling fleet in 1986??

Sorry,Watson was arrested
many times.In Taiji of Japan,
one of his members was arrested,
being in prison for 20 days.

--I lost the URL,but below is
one part of the articles.

Note we are not misled.

>>>Trial followed arrest in March 1983 when “Sea Shepherd” vessel boarded by Canadian police. “Sea
Shepherd” fortified including electric barbed wire around the deck’s edges. Seventeen crew
arrested. Watson and three others flee across ice to Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, but caught and
arrested. Watson charged additionally with piloting a ship in a dangerous manner,intimidation ofthe sealers and being unlawfully within a half mile of the seal hunt ? a violation of the Seal
Protection Regulations. Watson sentenced to 15 months imprisonment.<<<


We are living in the time of Internet.Coverup is unnecessary.
In anytime,as you know,you see a lot of cruelty,don't you?


However,except some anti-whaling NGOs,there is nobody who likes
to let many people know the real
slaughter scenery.

You say Taiji whalers are an
insult to Japan - this is wrong.
We really thank them for the nice meat delivered to department stores
every day.They are doing nice job!

You should know it is the real insult that some groups like you discharge the cruel scenery to the pudlic without any hesitation.

I do not believe Japanese government allows to show the cruel scene in public.
It is the normal idea,isnt it?

Or,would you like to reveal the cruel sense intentionally?
If so,go and check your mental condition,please.










I don't get you, David, and your Japanese friend, Y/H, trying to compare harvesting farmed animals and hunting wildlife. The main reasons are:

* once the wildlife creatures gone, they are gone. There is no method to bring them back to life. Japanese are lucky in a way in helping to bring species to extinction while hunting endangered fin whales. This can't be said about farmed animals. No environmental issues here.

* Y/H says (s)he doesn't like to watch "bullfighting", but ok to watch Taiji slaughter. Here comes the argument of not guilty - it appears that Taiji butchers are proud of their job and that's the way to earn money. Well, "bullfighting" is about earning money too. Where has your animal welfare conscience gone away in the case of Taiju? Who else can be justified by 'earning money'? May be, serial killers? Yakudza? Perhaps, Sea Shepherd's activites are controversial, but they are intended to save life, not kill. In case you would like to talk about Sea Shepherd efforts to mislead someone again, you should learn about Taiji case a little more at first. Instead of implementing real animal welfare, they go with prohibiting photography, trying to conceal the facts. That's what I call misleading!

* There is no need to post pictures of horses, dogs, cats being abused at farms. Nearly everyone who is against whaling is familiar with slaughtering at farms and is against it as well. But I'm gonna repeat myself here --- if you are against slaughtering at farms, you should be an advocate for animal welfare or animal rights at farms, not an advocate for killing whalers in revenge to farmers! You should constrict a number of cases when animals suffer abuse, not enlarge it with a start of whaling! How are you helping animals at farms that way? What's the neccesity of efforts to accuse some countries in hypocrisy? Perhaps it so, but I'm not officially representing any country here, I'm on my own. I'm not a farmer so that you could call me a hypocrite either. I'm against slaughtering as much as against whaling.

In the end, Y/H, your efforts to blame Sea Shepherd for their member being arrested over the case of Taiji are rubbish. Arrest and indictment for a felony are not the same! A guy was arrested for 24 hours while he was simply trying to harshly argue with a cop about wrong turn. Does it make him a terrorist? No!

Jeepers anonymous; stop foaming at the mouth and ranting. It's obvious you haven't bothered to read much on this factual and well presented blog, preferring instead to repeat the usual animal protest industry drivel.
Your arguments are fallacious and pointless.
People eat whales just as much as they do deer, dogs, lambs and birds of all sorts of feathers.
That's diversity.
Live with it.

In the meantime, David, if you get the time and inclination, there's a strange debate happening on the Sea Shepherd talk page of Wikipedia on the "legality" of Japanese Whaling. It appears that Japanese whaling is illegal because Paul Watson says it is.
Do you have a good set of sources and comments to finally put that one to bed on Wikipedia?

Thanks for a great and informative blog. You're the way of the future David.
"To my mind, the farming of animals while demanding that nature's surplus not be exploited is completely irrational."

I have to admit I like your website. Reading anti whaling websites is preaching to the converted. I like your website because it is a one stop shopping of all the pro whaling arguments for me to analyze (in english to boot!). But statements like the above show some serious lack of understanding on your part. To say that the ocean is "nature's surplus" indicates to be you are lacking in knowledge of the current oceans eco-system. Nature's surplus is GONE. To think that the ocean can sustain a portion of the 6 billion (and growing) human population is naivety. Name one fishery that is yielding historical norms. It is not the cod off the grand banks. It is not pacific tuna. And it certainly would not be true with whaling. We, as a species, took on the oceans bounty and we won. It is time to give the seas a rest.

Actually, I’ve been reading this blog since… I can’t remember since when, but believe me I’m familiar with principal David’s points in favor of whaling!

Despite the fact that David’s favorite tactics is to set various anti-whaling NGOs and governments of Australia and New Zealand on each other and the fact that I’m an anti-whaler, I like this blog as a well presented blog and factual as you say. Actually, it is nearly factual - David is used to selective quoting, but it’s a rare case I must admit. :)

For your information, I’m not a vegetarian and perhaps will never be because of some medical concerns. I’m not an animal rights activist as well, though I’m against unnecessary violence towards animals to the most possible extent, which is appropriate for any sane man (what’s the reason for any unnecessary violence?). My main point is that hunting wildlife and using farmed animals are not the same due to conservation and environmental concerns at first. Why I come up with ethics here is the fact that it is widely used by David and actually he is the one who first asked the question as why not hunt whales, while we use cows, and that anti-whaling side is based on animal welfare, not conservation, which can transformed into question that looks like why care about welfare of whales, while there is no welfare for farmed animals who are animals as well as whales. While the first question (why not hunt whales, while we use cows) can be answered in terms of conservation, the second question is not a question indeed, since the answer is very simple – if you’re not happy about animal welfare at farms, you should be an advocate for animal welfare at farms and not an advocate for whaling in revenge to farmers! I’m repeating myself, but you don’t seem to get my point, which is a pure logic!


Thanks for your comments.

I have a quote from Ian Campbell on the legality here:

"New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom have all looked at legal options and we have all independently come to the same conclusion – at the moment it is not likely to be successful. Indeed it could be counterproductive and may even backfire."

If people want to argue that it's illegal on the basis of Paul Watson's assertions, I reckon that they can simply be safely ignored.

Do some more reading. Please. You are welcome to be gullible but should not expect the same of others.


You have a lot of things backwards. I suggest you need to think things through some more, rather than repeat the same old nonsense.

I realize that you simply don't have much time to reply to each post here...

Meanwhile, I'm looking forward for your comments on Sea Shepherd's luck - finally they have found Japanese whaling fleet.

"My main point is that hunting wildlife and using farmed animals are not the same due to conservation and environmental concerns at first."

In light of the environmental nightmare that agriculture has become, that has to be the most stupid statement I've yet read on whaling.

People sustainably eat wild foods all over the world.
Indeed, the FAO is freaking out because we've restricted our food consumption to a dozen crops and four animal species with disastrous results for biodiversity.
Please my friend this is not the 80s any more. You have much more information at your fingertips. You only have to choose to read it and you have to choose to stay away from guys like Watson who are trying to sell you something.
Do your own research, you'll feel better for it.

iceclass, I would like to watch you collecting an appropriate number of wild lives which can substitute billions of animals that die every year at farms.

The exception is fishery. Its sustainability is rare case.

Despite all said, agriculture is a nightmare I agree. But its issues should be solved with no regard to whaling, which increases number of environmental impacts instead of decreasing.

There are no environmental concerns around sustainable whaling and wild foods are an addition to agri-produce, not a replacement.
Post a Comment

<< Home


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  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?