Sea Shepherd Building A Robot Army?

by Michael dEstries March 4, 2010
Categories: Animals, Causes.

Furthering the tools at their disposal to combat illegal whaling and fishing, Sea Shepherd is apparently looking to invest in robotically-controlled flying cameras.

According to news reports, the firm behind the “Octocopter” is readying a future demonstration of their technology for U.S. representatives of the anti-whaling organization. From the article,

“Developed over two years, the machine features state-of-the art electronic GPS wizardry and video and still cameras. The ‘octocopter’ – so called because of its eight propellers – is ‘flown’ like a helicopter and can be kept in the air for up to 30 minutes before batteries have to be recharged.”

Obviously, such a device would aide in filming illegal fishing vessels — but is limited by both battery and range to close encounters only. Depending on price, however, I wouldn’t be surprised if a small army of “eyes in the sky” were dispatched to be yet another thorn in the side of whaling vessels.

Check out more info on the Octocopter here.

via Sea Shepherd Forum

About Michael dEstries

Michael has been blogging since 2005 on issues such as sustainability, renewable energy, philanthropy, and healthy living. He regularly contributes to a slew of publications, as well as consulting with companies looking to make an impact using the web and social media. He lives in Ithaca, NY with his family on an apple farm.

View all posts by Michael dEstries →

emancipator

they should have them drop buteryic acid on the boats to taint the whale meat!!!!!!!!!
- sidwinder
  
  The meat is already tainted with mercury, but that does not stop the Japanese govt stuffing it down the throats of its youngest and its eldest in a desperate bid to artificially stimulate demand in a dying industry. What is new? I would not expect much less from the Govt and its PR arm of the ICR.
  
  Pathetic really. All in the name of selfish pride disguised as ‘Research’. If you ask me, the Japanese are beyond childish here…
ddpalmer

With a 30 minute flight time I believe there use would be very limited. And I don’t think they would survive a water cannon. I might make a nice stunt but they are really pretty useless for anything more than a camera platform.
- emancipator
  
  With all the close confrontations that SSCS and the illegal japanese whalers have it would be very useful especially if it would drop bottles of Butyric acid
  - ddpalmer
    
    I don’t know what illegal whalers you are talking about. But they would never get close enough to drop anything.
  - From MN, with hope…
    
    uh, ddp, do you know anything about Sea Shepherd? They do get close to the whalers ship. Very close. Close enough that they can throw butyric acid onto the Nisshin Maru, so I am pretty sure that they can at least deploy a robot to get over the Nisshin deck, and drop butyric acid.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Do you watch the show. Ever see the big streams of water. Imagine what those would do to an RC helicopter?
    
    And if they get close enough to throw the bottles then why waste money on RC helicopters?
  - From MN, with hope…
    
    Yes, I do watch the show. I also see the photos, and I have devised this from it: they can go ABOVE the water cannons reach. Going up, and dropping the butyric acid would be much more reliable, and safer, than getting close, and throwing them. Not sure what difference the slingshots and t-shirt cannons make, but an ‘air attack’ would be a certain hit.
  - ddpalmer
    
    And they could accurately target these bottles, because they are non violent and make sure they don’t throw where there are people. Except when the can’t even see the deck because it is 20 feet above them, but really they don’t throw were there are people.
    
    An RC helicopter would maybe make one trip. You think they could fly them above the range of a heavy caliber rifle designed to penetrate a whale skull? I doubt it and with no person to worry about I bet the whalers would have fun with target practice.
  - From MN, with hope…
    
    Dude, chill out! You dont need to get all sarcastic and angry! Just fly off the handle with some totally unrelated argument because you dont have a good comback for something about an rc helicopter. All I am saying, is calm down. Obviously you are starting to lose your temper over this little matter about how maybe Sea Shepherd is going to get some robots to film the decks of the whaler ships, and about how I brought up a hypothetical.
    
    They dont try to aim for the people, but when they cant see, they cant see. You should know about lack of vision on that boat in the Great Lakes, with all the fog, storms, and blind spots on a ship. All you can do, is make a best guess. They probably wouldnt go for the main living areas, they would go for the main deck, where the whale gets processed for the market. Sure, its not too efficient, but they could load the ‘copter with several bottles, but I am talking(typing) about reliability of dropping bottles from an rc helicopter compared to using a slingshot, t-shirt cannon, or just throwing them. And I’m sure that a gun is the proper way to respond to some activists throwing the equivalent of rotten butter.
  - Tom Thumb
    
    ddpalmers usual spin and diatribe. Ignore the propaganda puppet.
  - ddpalmer
    
    So the SSCS doesn’t care if they throw at people. That’s all I am saying and you seem to agree.
    
    “And I’m sure that a gun is the proper way to respond to some activists throwing the equivalent of rotten butter.”
    
    Are you even capable of reading what someone writes or do you just twist everything to say what you want it to say? I specifically said shooting at the RC helicopter not anybody throwing bottles of acid.
    
    Then you go and lie with that BS rotten butter crap.
  - From MN, with hope…
    
    Uh can you read? I said EQUIVALENT of rotten butter. I didnt agree with you on that in any about if they did or didnt care if they got it near the whalers. I said they did care, but when they cant see whatever happens happens. I was using what you implied, not twisting it(like you have done countless times). You said ‘You think they could fly them above the range of a heavy caliber rifle designed to penetrate a whale skull? I doubt it and with no person to worry about I bet the whalers would have fun with target practice.’ And my reply was entirely appropriate. Why would they shoot a tool that the SSCS uses, then resist shooting the people on board the Steve Irwin or Bob Barker?
  - imforthewhales
    
    RC helicopter would maybe make one trip. You think they could fly them above the range of a heavy caliber rifle designed to penetrate a whale skull? I doubt it and with no person to worry about I bet the whalers would have fun with target practice.
    
    ************************************************
    
    Maybe if the helicopters hover way above the japanese ship, the japanese whalers can try to shoot it. That would be fun wouldnt it? They can shoot straight up using that big old elephant gun and then what do you think might happen? The bullet might drop out of the sky and the japanese therefore would be shooting themselves. In the foot or otherwise.
    
    From what i have seen, the Japanese illegal whalers are not very good with a gun.So the chances of this happenning are very slim ( although technically it is possible, just as its possible that Japanese whalers might go home and leave the whales in peace)
    
    From what i have seen and heard, they often take up to 10 shots to kill a whale. This of course is after it has already suffered at the hands of the illegal Japanese whalers, having had a harpoon rip into it and possibly explode, shredding its guts. If the harpoon works, which it often doesn’t. Then they get the gun out and if that doesn’t work then they get out the electricity and shoot it up with 40,000 volts. This, I believe, is what the japanese call” the full whale experience”. There is a video of it on u tube, if you care to look it up.
    of course if this doesn’t work then they try to drown the whale and if that doesn’t work then they just get it on board that stinking factory ship and carve it up, possibly while it is still alive.
    
    So i don’t think any RC helicopters are going to be in too much danger, considering what bad shots the illegal japanese whalers truly are.
- sidwinder
  
  just as useless as your comments, wouldn’t you say ddplamer?
  - http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin
    
    quote DDPalmer : ” i dont know what kind of illegal whalers you are talking about”
    
    can’t argue with a guy like that !
  - Imforthewhales
    
    I’ll never understand how people can sell their souls to big destructive corporations that kill and maim for profit.
    
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
- ddpalmer
  
  “can’t argue with a guy like that!”
  
  herwin thanks for agreeing that there is no argument about the fact that the Japanese whaling is legal. I get so tired of people claiming that there some unknown law that they can’t name but they know exists, that the Japanese are somehow breaking.
  - http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin
    
    you are twisting words like you always do, i like it ! i refered to the fact that you act like a silly billy for denying to know whom is being refered to when people speak about illegal whalers.
    furthermore, thanks for agreeing that japan is indeed whaling. according to the japanese themself they are not whaling but conducting “scientific research”. they play that little game because they know that whaling is ilegal and are loopholing the scientific research exeption.
    thats at least one point you agree with “us” and disagree with “them”.
    question, you get paid by the hour or by the words ?
  - ddpalmer
    
    Does the SSCS pay you with donated money or does Paul Watson pay you with his own money?
  - imforthewhales
    
    You should try looking up the moratorium on commercial whaling, IWC DD palmer. while you are at it, look up the Australian high court decision regarding japanese illegal whaling. Oh and what part of whale sanctuary dont you understand? There are several whale sanctuaries in the Antartic…perhaps Japan has never heard of them? Oh I forgot, the CITES convention, which deems it illegal to trade in endangered species..and of course, the UN charter for nature which means Sea Sheperd and her crew will be back to give the illegal japanese whalers another whipping next year.
    
    And BTW, there is a good video of what the Russians do to illegal japanese poachers. Wanna see it?
  - ddpalmer
    
    You mean the Australian FEDERAL court decision where the judge said that his ruling has no effect because the whalers aren’t in recognized Australian waters.
    
    Well the IWC sanctuary doesn’t apply to the Japanese because the objected to it when it was implemented.
    
    CITES as you say deals with the trade in endangered species and the “I” stands for International. Japan doesn’t trade whales internationally. Also Japan has filed reservations against many whale species in CITES.
    
    Paul Watson knows the UN WCfN doesn’t give him any powers. He learned this when he tried to use that in the 90s. Canada convicted him of a felony anyways.
    
    The Russians gave the Japanese permission to fish around the disputed Kuril Island, but much as the US lied to the Japanese to get them to sign the moratorium, obviously the Russians have decided to violate the agreement they signed with the Japanese.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Well the IWC sanctuary doesn’t apply to the Japanese because the objected to it when it was implemented.
    
    Ha ha the Japanese always ignore things that they don’t like.
    
    Tuna ban? no problem,,well keep fishing tuna even though Blue Fin tuna is almost on the verge of extinction.
    
    Catch limits? Lie!
    
    Whaling ban? Well call it research.
    
    Whale sanctuary? What whale sanctuary?
    
    Geneva convention? Were not signing that!
    
    Australian whale sanctuary? We don’t like the idea of that, lets ignore it.
    
    Australian court order? Forget it.
    
    Cites? lets keep buying endangered whale meat from Norway.
    
    No whale meat in USA retaraunts? No problem…we can arrange it!
    
    One thing that the Japanese do pay attention though is the ban on Japanese whaling ships in all Australian ports. For good reason…I think their ships would be sunk very quickly if they dared to come here. Of course there is the problem that they might have if they did come here with being arrested.
  - ddpalmer
    
    So the Japanese are evil because they follow the treaties and agreements that they have signed? I don’t quite see the connection you are trying to make. They sign what is essentially a contract and they live up to their part of that contract.
    
    Why would they want to stop in Australian ports? Is there some reason they need or want to stop there? They don’t pull into US ports either, so what.
    
    If you have facts that you want to discuss fine but this wild flailing you are engaged in seems pretty pointless.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    So the Japanese are evil because they follow the treaties and agreements that they have signed? I don’t quite see the connection you are trying to make.
    
    Thats because you are ignoring what the Japanese are up to. They sign things but it is all meaningless, they go ahead and do what they want anyway, such as spilling blood and guts into Antartic waters ( violation of the (Antartic treaty) refueling their ships where they aren’t supposed to be refueling their ships ( ditto) ..the trade in endangered species ( Cites) the list goes on and on.
    
    If they Japanese don’t like the rules they either ignore them or they flaunt them.
    
    Maybe you think this is all OK DD palmer? But thats just the kind of guy you are.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Why would they want to stop in Australian ports? Is there some reason they need or want to stop there? They don’t pull into US ports either, so what.
    
    **************************************************
    
    Japanese whaling ships are always having problems.
    
    Im surprised yo havnt been flowing the news, isn’t this what you are paid to do?
    
    Japanese crews getting sick…problems with the ships after they have rammed the SS ships ( props and so forth) ..whenever something happens to their ships what to do they do? Limp home or head north and hope that somewhere like Indonesia will help them.
    
    So what you say? let me spell it out to you D palmer and I’ll very hard to use small words. If you look carefully on your map of the world DD palmer you will see Australia is fairly close to Antartica. Obviously it would be more convenient for the whalers to call into Australian ports or New Zealand ports whenever they suffer a major problem…( fire, damaged props etc) as they seem to do every campaign.
    
    They seem to keep having fires on board their ships, losing people overboard, you get the picture.
    
    Calling into Australia would cost them less money for fuel/ parts/ services and save themselves several weeks worth of shipping time.
    
    I fail to see what the USA has to do with anything as it is not even remotely close to Antartica???
    
    I don’t think Japan has used USA as a port of call in the past? Whats your angle?
    
    I really think that you are losing it DD palmer.
    perhaps your employers need to give you some much needed stress leave.
  - ddpalmer
    
    No Australia is close to one section of Antarctica. But most of the Antarctic is closer to other countries like South Africa, Chile and Argentina. Also Australia will allow the whalers into Australia in an emergency so I guess it is another fail for you.
    
    “…such as spilling blood and guts into Antartic waters ( violation of the (Antartic treaty) refueling their ships where they aren’t supposed to be refueling their ships ( ditto) ..the trade in endangered species ( Cites) the list goes on and on.”
    
    You have been shown how none of these things are against the treaties you reference.
    
    “If they Japanese don’t like the rules they either ignore them or they flaunt them.”
    
    No they follow the rules to the letter. If the countries that wrote the treaty put in language allowing research or allowing a member to file objections/reservations they must have done it so those parts of the treaty could be used. I mean why would you put an exception into a treaty if you didn’t expect countries to use it?
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Also Australia will allow the whalers into Australia in an emergency so I guess it is another fail for you
    
    sorry DD thats a fail for YOU…as you asked the Q , did u not …..
    
    “Why would they want to stop in Australian ports? Is there some reason they need or want to stop there? They don’t pull into US ports either, so what”.
    
    so it seems that now you are answering your own questions which is nice.
    
    Now we know although i think you forgot to add the bit about life in danger etc etc. They are still not welcome in Australia and if they ever tried then their ships would be going down in a hurry.
    
    Japan is a country that wants others to follow the rules but breaks them themselves.
    
    Anyone with any intelligence can see through their charade DD palmer, its really sad and pathetic that you are going to so much trouble to even bother trying to defend them.
    
    Japan picks and chooses which rules it will follow from one day to the next.
    
    Governments turning a blind eye to the various infringements of Japan is on the rise, but ultimately their transgressions will be paid for.
    
    Because the people of the world are realizing what is at stake and will not be letting Japan get away with it for too much longer,.
- ddpalmer
  
  So they care about trying not to hit people but if they can’t see whether there are people there or not they still throw bottles. So they don’t care because if they did they wouldn’t throw bottles when they can’t see where the bottle will land.
  
  But it is not EQUIVALENT to rotten butter and you know it so you are lying. I could say an atom bomb is EQUIVALENT to a block of granite becuase granite has uranium in it but no one with an ounce of integrity would agree with calling an atom bomb equivalent to a block of granite and nobody with any integrity would call butyric acid equivalent to rotten butter.
  
  Police use stop sticks to flatten the tires of fleeing suspects, so by your thought process; Why would they destroy a tool that the suspect uses, then resist just shooting the suspect?
  - From MN, with hope…
    
    Its the equivalent because of the butyric acid in teh rotted butter. Granite is a rock, nothing near a bomb. Y’know what, just forget it. Your so closed minded its almost useless, but to humor you, I shall continue.
    
    They throw them because they are passionate about saving whales, and they know that the acid is harmless to people.
    
    Police only shoot people (with real bullets) in case they have a gun, and are about to, or have, shot(maybe killed) someone, not just because the guy is running because he stole some gas. They would try to stop him in a way that wouldnt hurt him, just stop him, so they can get him into custody. The police shoot suspects as a last resort. More likely, they use tazers, bean bags, and pepper spray. This is what I understand. Its because police officers uphold law and order, and have very good self control and resistance. The whalers on the other hand think they can get away with anything, and they dont have the kind of self control others do, and dont follow the law. They wouldnt bring out a gun to shoot down an RC helicopter, or the octocopter robot that Sea Shepherd is allegedly interested in. They havent brought out the gun they use to murder the whales with (I am sketchy on the incident where Paul was shot, but the whalers called them warning shots, so maybe a slow, low caliber gun was fired at the SI) to use against Sea Shepherd, nor will they. That would lead to an indefinite shut down if whaling.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    The Japanese are now using military weapons against SS. Is this not a violation of the Antartic treaty?
  - ddpalmer
    
    No it is not against the Antarctic treaty to have and use military weapons.
    
    Sorry try again.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Its funny how the japanese hate rotten butter so much and whinge and cry and then shoot themselves in the face with pepper spray.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Any proof for that statement other.
- ddpalmer
  
  I’ll use simple words for you herwin.
  
  First yes the Japanese are whaling any idiot knows that. What kind of whaling are they doing? Legal research whaling as opposed to legal commercial whaling like Iceland and Norway.
  
  Now you continue to claim that the Japanese whaling is illegal. Then tell me what law specifically they are breaking.
  - http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin
    
    i suggest you do the reverse and specifically tell and show us which law gives them the legal right for whaling.
  - http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin
    
    and you dont have to become rude by the way, chill out.
    there are enough pro whaling types and websites that in fact DENY that Japan is whaling and call it instead “scientific research”.
    here is one of these websites (full of laughable misstakes) , one of their topics is “if whaling is allowed again”. that says enough, that even your pro whaling friends admit that at this moment whaling isnt allowed anywhere.
    http://www.whaling.jp/english/qa.html
    
    their level of reasoning is laughable.
    They state that no whales were ever hunted to extinction only to say one line below that some species were OVERhunted to VERY low population level and are now recovered because of “decades” long of protection.
    
    In other words, the whalers almost whiped them out, but they were rescued from being whiped out of thsi planet by environmentalists. Whaling country Japan never ever even stopped killing whales, even when whale levels were VERY low populations, they continued to kill endangered whales.
    
    http://www.whaling.jp/english/qa.html
  - ddpalmer
    
    It is hard to believe that someone who is interested in whaling, whether pro or con, wouldn’t have read the ICWR which is the international agreement that regulates whaling.
    
    ICWR Article VIII
    
    “1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has granted.
    
    2) Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.
    
    3) Each Contracting Government shall transmit to such body as may be designated by the Commission, in so far as practicable, and at intervals of not more than one year, scientific information available to that Government with respect to whales and whaling, including the results of research conducted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and to Article IV.
    
    4) Recognizing that 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.”
    
    http://www.icrwhale.org/responsibility.htm
    
    “From its inception, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) recognized that research was essential to the proper conservation and management of the whale resources. To that end, the framers of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) devoted two of its 11 Articles to provisions that would supply a growing body of knowledge about whales, whaling, and the effects of whaling upon the resources.
    
    Article IV empowered the IWC to commission or undertake research studies independently or in collaboration with member governments or research organizations, and to collect and analyze data, and disseminate the information.
    
    Article VIII provided the authority to IWC member nations to conduct scientific research on whales under their own programs.
    
    Scientific research is such an integral part of the conservation and management of whales that the ICRW requires that all changes in the IWC’s regulations “shall be based on scientific findings.” (Article V, ICRW)”
  - WildChildPt
    
    If the whaling that the Japanese do is legal, then I suppose that what the SSCS are doing should be considered illegal, and can also be considered as a terrorist act…however to my knowledge neither Capt. Paul Watson nor the SSCS has ever been prosecuted for any such thing. The SSCS have openly stated that they have ramed and even sunken ships in the past with no charges being brought against them…from that I can only assume that the ones commiting illegal acts are the whalers, who do not (can not) bring charges against the SSCS for they are the ones in the wrong!
    Having said that, I am sure that any international convention will jump at anyperson/organisation that is sabotaging a LEGAL operation, and throw a heavy book of law at them! Especially if they are causing huge profit cuts as they are in the case of sabotaging whaling! Do you think that the SSCS would not get charged if they rammed a normal fishing vessel that is operating under the “law”?? or if they pulled up along an oil container and launched butyric acid on to their deck?? how long do you think it would take for them to get arrested and charged?
  - imforthewhales
    
    Japanese are commercial whaling.
    
    The claims of scientific research are laughable.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Japan is meeting all requirements of Article VIII and are doing research whaling.
    
    Continue lies by those being paid by the SSCS are laughable.
From MN, with hope…

I think a remote controlled helicopter might prove more useful, but whatever works! It would be nice if they would rig it to drop butyric acid!
- whiplash
  
  ahh, the more tools the SSCS has the better. These damn whalers and their military grade weapons is just getting ridiculous. Not to mention the attempted murder and destruction of the Ady Gil.
  
  If I had my way, I’d arm the ships with torpedoes and take out that Nisshin Maru. Or even better, hire a couple of french spies to do the job.
- enola gay
  
  If the Japanese just left the sanctuary like they should, this sort of action would not be needed.
  
  Lets not forget the brutal slaughter of dolphins ,whales etc that they do every year. Now they are carrying about the proposed Blue-Fin tuna bans. Will they ever stop crying?
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Poor Japanese …they have no idea about the real world outside of their cement jungle. I’m sure that 99 per cent of the population think that the environment can handle anything that they throw at it. Very sad.
http://www.eyeinthesky.net.au Simon

Some very different comments there, I just want to clarify some points made. Firstly it is not a RC Helicopter, it has 8 motors. It is called a Octocopter. It very stable, in fact it is so stable if you took a hammer whilst it was flying and hit it as hard as you could at one of the motors, nothing would happen, nothing at all. Maybe a motor might stop or a prop would break, that would be fine, it has eight motors. You would have to stop 5 motors to bring it down!

I fly using a pair of digital glasses, which is controlled by a head tracker. I see everything, watching those water cannons from the air would be more like fun than dangerous. I really hope it all goes ahead, i am very confident that i can pilot the Aerobot over the whaling ship and get some great HD footage. Lastly it’s waterproof and carries a waterproof camera. So hitting the ocean wouldn’t be such a bad thing.
Those Japanese whalers are really starting to hiss me off !! It has to stop NOW !!!

Simon
- http://blog.babyganics.com Evan
  
  Ecological extremism is getting a lot more modern these days. While whaling in Japan is legal, we have to take note that it doesn’t eliminate the possibility of an illegal market there. What needs to be done is to impose tighter measures against the whale meat black market- or face the mechanized wrath of the Sea Sheperd.
- ddpalmer
  
  And the proposal to allow limited commercial whaling would help limit the black market as it would require a DNA sample from each whale taken with the data sent to the IWC. Then periodic and random sampling of whale meat for sale would have to match one of the submitted DNA samples or it would obviously be an illegal catch. Also independant inspectors would be required on all whaling vessels with direct day by day reports of catches directly to the IWC.
  - imforthewhales
    
    Too little too late.
    
    The Japanese are well known throughout the world for lying about their catches and catch limits etc
    
    In short they cannot be trusted.
    
    The Japanese are already supposed to be reporting all their catches and where it ends up. But DNA testing of the whale meat in Japanese fish markets shows many endangered whales are bing caught. Plus recently it was found that whale meat was being sold in the USA at a japanese sushi restaurant. Illegaly.
    
    So much for Japanese control!
  - ddpalmer
    
    “The Japanese are already supposed to be reporting all their catches and where it ends up.”
    
    Whose ass did you pull this gem out of?
    
    “But DNA testing of the whale meat in Japanese fish markets shows many endangered whales are bing caught.”
    
    Yes and Japan has issued special permits for many endangered whales, there is also the issue of bycatch.
    
    “Plus recently it was found that whale meat was being sold in the USA at a japanese sushi restaurant. Illegaly.”
    
    And this has what to do with the Japanese whalers? Firstly where is any proof that the whale meat came from Japan? Secondly if someone legally buys whale meat in Japan then illegally imports it to the US how is that the whalers fault?
    
    So much for another batch of silly arguments.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    ….. and Japan has issued special permits for many endangered whales, there is also the issue of bycatch.
    
    Glad that you brought this up DD palmer. Can you explain to me how Japan gets away with issuing ” special permits” for whales that are needed to repopulate?
    
    ************************************************
    
    ‘Bycatch’ Whaling A Growing Threat To Coastal Whales
    
    Special permits as you call them can never overcome the deep immoral/ unethical practices of the Japanese whalers. Its just another example of Japan bending the rules to suit themselves. This is just another reason why Japan needs to keep its greedy hands off the whales.
    
    However apart from the ” special permits” for endangered whales, there are also other types of highly endangered and protected whales turning up in Japanese fish markets…whales that just shouldn’t be there.
    
    Just another example of the Japanese greed…another example of them thumbing their noses at the rest of the world.
    
    As to bycatch…everyone here knows that since the bycatch rules have been on place there has been a massive increase in “bycatch” of whales. Some would suggest that this bycatch as you put it is just a loophole for Japanese whalers to continue whaling..but this time with nets and so forth.
    
    It is a highly corrupt industry this whaling business isn’t it?
    
    ScienceDaily (June 29, 2009) — Scientists are warning that a new form of unregulated whaling has emerged along the coastlines of Japan and South Korea, where the commercial sale of whales killed as fisheries “bycatch” is threatening coastal stocks of minke whales and other protected species
    
    Scott Baker, associate director of the Marine Mammal Institute at Oregon State University, says DNA analysis of whale-meat products sold in Japanese markets suggests that the number of whales actually killed through this “bycatch whaling” may be equal to that killed through Japan’s scientific whaling program – about 150 annually from each source.
    
    Baker, a cetacean expert, and Vimoksalehi Lukoscheck of the University of California-Irvine presented their findings at the recent scientific meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in Portugal. Their study found that nearly 46 percent of the minke whale products they examined in Japanese markets originated from a coastal population, which has distinct genetic characteristics, and is protected by international agreements.
    
    Their conclusion: As many as 150 whales came from the coastal population through commercial bycatch whaling, and another 150 were taken from an open ocean population through Japan’s scientific whaling. In some past years, Japan only reported about 19 minke whales killed through bycatch, though that number has increased recently as new regulations governing commercial bycatch have been adopted, Baker said.
    
    Japan is now seeking IWC agreement to initiate a small coastal whaling program, a proposal which Baker says should be scrutinized carefully because of the uncertainty of the actual catch and the need to determine appropriate population counts to sustain the distinct stocks.
    
    Whales are occasionally killed in entanglements with fishing nets and the deaths of large whales are reported by most member nations of the IWC. Japan and South Korea are the only countries that allow the commercial sale of products killed as “incidental bycatch.” The sheer number of whales represented by whale-meat products on the market suggests that both countries have an inordinate amount of bycatch, Baker said.
    
    “The sale of bycatch alone supports a lucrative trade in whale meat at markets in some Korean coastal cities, where the wholesale price of an adult minke whale can reach as high as $100,000,” Baker said. “Given these financial incentives, you have to wonder how many of these whales are, in fact, killed intentionally.”
    
    In Japan, whale-meat products enter into the commercial supply chain that supports the nationwide distribution of whale and dolphin products for human consumption, including products from scientific whaling. However, Baker and his colleagues have developed genetic methods for identifying the species of whale-meat products and determining how many individual whales may actually have been killed.
    
    Baker said bycatch whaling also serves as a cover for illegal hunting, but the level at which it occurs is unknown. In January 2008, Korean police launched an investigation into organized illegal whaling in the port town of Ulsan, he said, reportedly seizing 50 tons of minke whale meat.
    
    Other protected species of large whales detected in market surveys include humpbacks whales, fin whales, Bryde’s whales and critically endangered western gray whales. The entanglement and death of western or Asian gray whales is of particular concern given the extremely small size of this endangered populations, which is estimated at only 100 individuals.
    
    It will be published in a forthcoming issue of the journal Animal Conservation.
    
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090623120846.htm
    
    Do you not find this disgusting DD palmer?
  - ddpalmer
    
    If bycatch is being used as a way around the regulations then it should be dealt with. Although the problem seems to be most severe in Korea.
    
    “Glad that you brought this up DD palmer. Can you explain to me how Japan gets away with issuing ” special permits” for whales that are needed to repopulate? ”
    
    Easy, special permits is what the ICWR calls research whaling. So Article VIII allows any IWC member to issue special permits for any whale species.
Kimitake Hiraoka

Why not just build another multi million dollar stealth trimaran? Worked wonders last time. haa haa

Suckers.
- From MN, with hope…
  
  They are, but the whalers rightfully need to throw some cash in because it was obviously their fault. But thats not the topic, so if its not pertaining to this, than drop it.
  
  But hey, the Ady Gil wouldnt have been needed anyways because the whalers were running scared at the first sight of the Bob Barker. Haa Haa.
  
  Again, say hi to Glenn for me.
- Kimitake Hiraoka
  
  So that sleazy pimp Ady Gil has coughed up some more of his dirty cash for another expensive wreck to pollute the Antarctic waters eh?
  
  Well hopefully for Sea Shepherd won’t park the next one under the bow of the Shonan Maru. Or get its captain arrested for trespass and piracy.
  
  Paul Watson really has some answering to do when you think about it. He’s been exploiting the whaling non-issue for millions upon millions of dollars in donations and untold publicity, and yet he has failed miserably to stop the research programme. In fact, it seems like commercial whaling in the Antarctic is about to be resumed.
  
  It would seem only reasonable for Paul Watson to start refunding the donations and to apologise for misleading his deluded followers all these years. Perhaps he could also apologise to Greenpeace for sabotaging the true anti-whaling campaign in the name of feed his own ego.
  
  Then he should turn himself over to the Japanese to face criminal prosecution like his henchman, Pete Bethune. Paul Watson is no stranger to criminal convictions – after all he was charged with a violent criminal offence in Norway in 1997.
  - From MN, with hope…
    
    Ady Gil is a respected producer, but whatever he has done is his issue, not Sea Shepherds. Actually no. Sea Shepherd has received a little bit from him, and the donations are pouring in, especially after the fundraiser they had. They may or may not have enough to build another stealth trimaran, but they will. And are you stupid enough to think that? It is BEYOND obvious that the Shonan Maru 2 rammed the Ady Gil. Prove to me that the Ady Gil parked in front of the Ady Gil. Pete was acting under a law that allowed him to commit a citizens arrest. To many whaling is an issue, me included. Greenpeace is not effective in any way. They hang banners, and get all the credit in the world. Then there you go again with the ‘violent criminal’ crap again. Paul was unjustly accused after the Norwegian coast guard ship pulled in front of his ship, and they collided. If you call that violent, than how can you live in your day to day life?
  - Imforthewhales
    
    I think our little Kimitake ( who BTW i dont think is a real Japanese person, just another ICR hack or bored teenager) just loves stirring the pot. He has gone to some trouble to reverse the way any reasonable person would see things.Which suggests that he knows the truth but is doing the opposite to feed his ego in the form of attention. Mummys boy?
http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin

“Photo Shopping, Art or Hobby ?”
emancipator

I am going to list three reasons why the Japanese are illegal and should be stopped

1.They are braking the moratorium on commercial whaling because you can find whale meat at their markets

2.They are hunting endangered Humpback and Fin whales

3. They are hunting in a whale sanctuary
- ddpalmer
  
  1. The moratorium doesn’t apply to whaling under Article VIII and that same article directs that the whales be process.
  
  2. And this is allowed under Article VIII
  
  3. And this is allowed under Article VIII
emancipator

What the heck is articleviii
- ddpalmer
  
  It is hard to believe that someone who is interested in whaling, whether pro or con, wouldn’t have read the ICWR which is the international agreement that regulates whaling.
  
  ICWR Article VIII
  
  “1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has granted.
  
  2) Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.
  
  3) Each Contracting Government shall transmit to such body as may be designated by the Commission, in so far as practicable, and at intervals of not more than one year, scientific information available to that Government with respect to whales and whaling, including the results of research conducted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and to Article IV.
  
  4) Recognizing that 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.”
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Which part of that do you think the whales agree with DD palmer?
  - ddpalmer
    
    I don’t think whales would understand the concept of a treaty. But if they could I don’t imaging they would agree with any of it.
    
    But since they aren’t people and have no legal standing any opinions they may have are irrelevant.
- Imforthewhales
  
  They might not know and understand the treaty DD palmer word for word but they sure know the consequences of it.
  
  Just because whales cannot read is no reason to go shooting them in the back with an explosive harpoon and then electrocute them, cutting off their life force.
  
  “But since they aren’t people and have no legal standing any opinions they may have are irrelevant”.
  
  Maybe they cant walk into a court of law and sue japan for wrongful death. But just because they are not human does not mean that they are any less special int he world order. After all, if you were to die DD Palmer , the word will spin quite happily without you. In fact the world would be better off. So i wouldn’t be getting my rocks off it i were you thinking that you were anything special or superior. It is more important to the world that it is full of bees and flowers than humans. Because bees and flowers create life and help support other life forms.
  
  Although to be fair you may be helping other life forms survive…especially if you havn’t taken your worm pills lately or cleaned your mattress of bedbugs.
  - ddpalmer
    
    JAFA
GoodSheperd

It’s too bad when international laws are created to prevent things like this and they leave loopholes big enough to drive a truck through. It is clear that the intent was to stop whaling but still allow for “real” research. It is also clear that the Japanese are exploiting this law for their own profits. Anybody that tries to say otherwise, is not worth arguing with because they are too ignorant to see these simple facts or just want to hide behind them.
- ddpalmer
  
  “It is clear that the intent was to stop whaling but still allow for “real” research.”
  
  Sorry GoodShepherd but you are way off.
  
  The ICWR was enacted in 1949 when whaling for oil was still at full tilt and Article VIII was in that original document. So it was definitely not intended to stop whaling.
  
  Try a little research of your own before you make statements that are so obviously wrong.
  - Tom Thumb
    
    ahh mr facts. what would we do without you? Good thing you have too much time on your hands you PR puppet. ddpalmer is a icr Troll
  - ddpalmer
    
    You would continue telling lies.
  - GoodSheperd
    
    DDP, are you honestly going to take the position that the Japanese whaling fleet is truly doing research work on the number of whales they kill every year? I’m simply saying that it is a loophole that the Japanese are clearly taking advantage of. They have even stated such in interviews about various incidents with the Sea Shepherds.
    
    Your comments prove my point: “Anybody that tries to say otherwise, is not worth arguing with because they are too ignorant to see these simple facts or just want to hide behind them”.
    
    Based on many of your comments, you seem to be taking the comments of others VERY personally. why is that? What is your connection to this?
  - ddpalmer
    
    Let’s stick with your incorrect statement that Article VIII was intended to stop whaling but still allow research. How can we have a discussion when you don’t even understand the legal framework behind the whole whaling situation.
  - GoodShepherd
    
    I concede, you are absolutely right. I am not a lawyer and I do not know the “legal framework”. That being said, please answer the question – Do you deny that Japan is falsely using the cover of research, to get away with commercial whaling practices? I am not trying to be confrontational, I would like to know your position. Japan has openly come out stating that they are whaling down there yet you seem to be claiming that what they are doing is legitimate. If thats true, why do all of their ships have “Research” painted all over them.
    
    Trust me, I have no ties to either side. I saw a few episodes of Whale Wars this weekend and started poking around for more info and stumbled upon this site. I’m just trying to get information. Enlighten us.
  - http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin
    
    since you are defending and explaining about the whalers, its you who should ask the japanese about RESEARCH painted on their ship. You seem to know everything else, right, like why they arent illegal, etc.
    
    “some of then data they coillect cant be collected with non lethal”
    thanks for agreeing that at least some other data is sollected that very well can be collected with non lethal methods.
    
    agreeing that some data cannot collected without killing them, doesnt mean that that collected data would be useful. the IWC says specifically that collecting data with lethal methods ONLY can be done if the collected data would be absolutely necesary and vital. That is not the case.
    
    please support your vague claim and give us more data about the “well respected scientific journals” in which results and research from the japanese illegal whalers have been published. name magazine, date, and possible a link, thank you.
- ddpalmer
  
  You would have to ask the Japanese why they have ‘Research’ painted on the sides of their vessels. Maybe it is similar to the reason the Sea Shepherds paint flags with ‘SUNK’ and ‘RAMMED’ on the sides of their vessels.
  
  To answer your other question.
  
  Yes they are doing research. They have been producing data which they provide to the IWC and which the IWC uses to make some of their decisions. And they have published peer-reviewed papers in well respected science journals. As to the number of whales they take every year, if you look at even the low population estimate of 300,000 Minke whales the statistics say to get a representative sample requires 600-1000 subjects depending on the confidence level you desire. And some of the data they collect can’t be collected with non-lethal methods, a point to which the IWC agrees.
  
  So for their data to actually be useful requires a large number of individual samples. That is the way statistical sampling works.
  - http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin
    
    since you are defending and explaining about the whalers, its you who should ask the japanese about RESEARCH painted on their ship. You seem to know everything else, right, like why they arent illegal, etc.
    
    “some of then data they coillect cant be collected with non lethal”
    thanks for agreeing that at least some other data is sollected that very well can be collected with non lethal methods.
    
    agreeing that some data cannot collected without killing them, doesnt mean that that collected data would be useful. the IWC says specifically that collecting data with lethal methods ONLY can be done if the collected data would be absolutely necesary and vital. That is not the case.
    
    please support your vague claim and give us more data about the “well respected scientific journals” in which results and research from the japanese illegal whalers have been published. name magazine, date, and possible a link, thank you.
  - From MN, with hope…
    
    Peer-reviewed is the world all propaganda puppets use. All their latest paper (released a long time back, I might add) said, was that whales ate fish. Wow, some paper. I personally did more research on alternative energies recently than the whalers have done to work on their ‘peer-reviewed’ papers. If you are truly dumb enough to believe that it is legitimate research, than mr.facts-a-lot needs to look at the obvious: non-lethal research is much better research than lethal research, yet they have no desire for non-lethal research. If they wish to know more about whales, how about they stop killing whales? If its research, than why stop the data collection for commercial whaling? Does painting ‘RESEARCH’ on the side of a boat make it research? mr facts-a-lot need to look at the facts himself: It isn’t research. Dont bother replying, because I wont argue with a closed-minded prick who is stupid enough to think its research.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Nikaido, M., Hamilton, H., Makino, H., Sasaki, T., Takahashi, K., Goto, M., Kanda, N., Pastene, L.A. and Okada, N. 2006. Baleen whale phylogeny and a past extensive radiation event revealed by SINE insertion analysis. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23(5): 866-873.
    
    Of course this doesn’t actually meet your request because this came from legal Japanese whaling, there is no illegal Japanese whaling that I know of. How many more do you want me to post?
    
    The Japanese have always said that some data can be collected non-lethally. Which is why they have the largest non-lethal research program in the world. But it is kind of hard to take liver samples from a living whale, or take blubber thickness samples from the same place on every whale when they are alive.
    
    They are not going to stop collecting data and doing research even if they are allowed to start commercial whaling. Just like Iceland and Norway are doing research even though they are legally commercial whaling.
  - http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin
    
    nice try DDP, but that article you mention simple isnt research that is about whaling, healthy whale polulations, feeding activities, health, population of whales, etc. its an article about phylogeny which has to do with evolution, and nothing to do with research that would remotely be interesting for the IWC.
    Mentionting this article proofs what a pseudo intelectual sounding nonsense you post, and hoping that at least some people will buy your crap.
    the other “articles” you mention in another post are without any reference where they have been published. you forgot or too dificult ?
  - http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin
    
    the magazine, as anyone can know from the title “moleculair biology and evolution” is about evolution, just as the article itself. its unrelated and not of any interest for anyone who is interested in current whale ecology. Its excatly this kind of nonsense research that everybody says the whole research project of the japanese is just bogus. thanks for bringing up this article as part of your defense.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Lets see it is research on whales. Where is it written that they have to only do research on current whale ecology?
  - http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin
    
    isnt the research supposed to know more about whale populations, research that should give a better view on the current state of whales and if whaling could resume ? (the wet dream of the japanese whalers)
    evolution research is just useles information for the IWC or related real research that could answer any question. one might as well “research” the diferent whale songs and use that as an excuse for lethal research methods. “we have to kill them to study their vocal chords”.
    Thanks again, aparantly you are stuck with this article, a perfect example why everybody calls the japanese research BOGUS.
  - imforthewhales
    
    The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan adds that the “research employs both lethal and non-lethal research methods and is carefully designed by scientists to study the whale populations and ecological roles.” Though they undertake non-lethal methods – so they say – they still need to get their hands on almost 600 whale carcases per year. This is to research populations? I guess they just prefer to do their counting with a harpoon rather than a pointer. If the demand for whale meat wasn’t so great, I wonder if they would kill so many.
  - sick monkey
    
    You would have to ask the Japanese why they have ‘Research’ painted on the sides of their vessels
    
    Japanese paint the research on ships cause they trying hard to fool the world.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Painting ” RESEARCH ” in big white bold letters on the side of the illegal Japanese whaling ships is done in English for a very good reason. They don’t paint it in Japanese because the Japanese know what the real reasons are for the whaling ships heading to Antartica .They don’t need fooling.
    
    They know that the ships are going down there to provide whale meat to expensive Japanese restaraunts.
    
    They paint it in English for all the world to see because they are trying to fool the world into thinking that what they are doing really is research. As if anyone believes this outrageous lie?
    
    It is akin to the Nazis putting ” Arbeit Macht Frei” above the entrances to their concentration camps.
    
    All designed to fool and cajole. But their intentions are very deadly and highly dangerous.
  - ddpalmer
    
    “Imforthewhales, March 13, 2010 at 11:49 pm
    
    Why then do they turn part of the whale meat into pet food?”
    
    So which is it are they only selling whale meat in expensive restaurants or is it so cheap that they use it for pet food?
http://groundsearow.blogspot.com/ GSR

Like the idea of spy cams being used against illegal whalers… makes a change for surveillance to be doing some genuine good for a change.
WhaleLover

I just think people should stop whaling and we wouldn’t be having this problem. And I was watching Whale Wars one day, and the whale intestines were floating in the water and I was wondering, wasn’t that supposed to be the “research” they are collecting?
If they are really whaling for research, they would be collecting the tissue and intestines. Think about that…
billy jean is my lover

It is pretty obvious DD likes to stir things up. We call them serial pests / attention whore$ / forum trolls / Propaganda puppets etc
- http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin
  
  dont forget “forum wreckers” and please not a bad word about DDP he isnt an idiot, he is just doing his low paid job for the whaling industry with posting his inteligent sounding nonsense. at highest one could rightfully say the guy is a sicko by working for, and defending an industry that almost whiped out the biggest creatures that ever lived on this planet. I hope he doesnt have children who he has to explain about his job.
  He is simply mentally and emotionally not capable of understanding we are closely linked with everything around us, including the environment and all animals that live here.
  - ddpalmer
    
    herwin how much does the SSCS pay you? Do they use donated money for your salary?
    
    “He is simply mentally and emotionally not capable of understanding we are closely linked with everything around us, including the environment and all animals that live here.” Is there a point here? If this is true then aren’t we linked with the plants too? Yet we have to eat something don’t we? And are all the carnivores and omnivores in nature aren’t connected with their environments or just humans?
  - gorilla
    
    We all get what this means, but people like you never will.
    
    Stay in ignorance DD palmer. Its the best you will ever get.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Well said Herwin. People like DD Palmer will never understand the connection. They will walk outside and fail to see the blue sky or feel the wind in their faces. All they are looking at is that Merc parked in
    the driveway. Thats all they care about. They sold their soul a long long time ago.
    
    Having a connection with the world is much more important. Sadly DD palmer will never know what thats like.
From MN, with hope…

I think ddpalmer just wants attention, so I think its a case of ‘if you ignore it, it will go away’ and I think we should try to do some ‘research’ to see if that is in any way correct.
- ddpalmer
  
  So how is that research going? Any peer reviewed papers yet?
  - From MN, with hope…
    
    Several of my peers have indeed looked at my idea, and they want me to give it a good go, so yes.
    
    The only reason those papers are peer=reviewed to begin with is because they state the obvious. Whales eat fish. Wow, big news! The world needs to know about this!
- ddpalmer
  
  “Ultrastructural Changes during Maturation and Cryopreservation of Follicular Oosytes of Antarctic Minke Whales”
  
  “Past and present distribution, densities and movements of blue whales in the Southern Hemisphere and adjacent waters”
  
  “Patterns of genetic variation in southern hemisphere blue whales, and the use of assignment test to detect mixing on the feeding grounds”
  
  “Follicle Size-Dependent Changes in Follicular Fluid Components and Oocyte Diameter in Antarctic Minke Whales”
  
  “Phylogenetic Relationships Among Cetaceans Revealed by Y-Chromosome Sequences”
  
  “Sequence Variation in the Tbx4 Gene in Marine Mammals”
  
  “Radiation and speciation of pelagic organisms during periods of global warming: the case of the common minke whale”
  
  “Comparative Experiment of Whaling Grenades in the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit”
  
  “Decline in energy storage in the Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) in the Southern Ocean”
  
  “Chemical Properties of Epidermal Lipids, Especially Sphingolipids, of the Antarctic Minke Whale”
  
  Hmmm. Not a single one in the last 2 years has anything to do with what whales eat. So explain again the only reason these pesearch papers are peer-reviewed?
  - From MN, with hope…
    
    Show me where you get your crap, and STILL I will NEVER believe that this senseless murder of whales is research. Normally people get smarter, and come to see the obvious, that it isnt whaling, but with you its different. You have gotten much dumber, down to the level where you believe this illusion of research.
    
    Now than, I am initiating my research, so dont expect me to reply for a while.
  - ddpalmer
    
    If you will never believe facts then why would I show you where I got it from?
  - From MN, with Hope…
    
    To support your point. Since you are avoiding that, and have avoided posting links/citations, I will assume you got it from the whalers themselves, and are getting paid to be on here.
    
    Peer reviewed means that they try to dispute it, but its hard to dispute common cetacean knowledge performed in nonlethal ways. Also, why would you shoot a grenade into your research specimen, possibly destroying the intestines, which you are trying to perform research on?
    
    (typo in my last post, where I said ‘… that it isnt whaling…’ but I meant to say ‘…that it isnt research…’ Sorry if this caused confusion to anyone)
ddpalmer

Lets see herwin you said; “please support your vague claim and give us more data about the “well respected scientific journals” in which results and research from the japanese illegal whalers have been published.”

I supplied that and now you want to change the goal posts?

“the other “articles” you mention in another post are without any reference where they have been published. you forgot or too dificult ?”

No that person asked for different data than you did.

But I will supply what you seem to want although it will be fairly large. Here is the list from JARPA and JARPA II.

Kato, H., Hiroyama, H., Fujise, Y. and Ono, K. 1989. Preliminary report of the 1987/88 Japanese feasibility study of the special permit proposal for Southern Hemisphere minke whales. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39: 235-248.
Nakamura, T., Ohnishi, S. and Matsumiya, Y. 1989. A Bayesian cohort model for catch-at-age data obtained from research takes of whales. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39: 375-382.

Butterworth, D. S. and Punt, A. E. 1990. Some preliminary examinations of the potential information content of age-structure data from Antarctic minke whale research catches. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 40: 301-315.

Ichii, T. 1990. Distribution of Antarctic krill concentrations exploited by Japanese krill trawlers and minke whales. Proceedings of the NIPR Symposium on Polar Biology 3: 36-56.

Itoh, S., Takenaga, F. and Tsuyuki, H. 1990. Studies on lipids of the Antarctic minke whale. I. The fatty acid compositions of the minke whale blubber oils caught on 1987/88 season. Yukagaku 39 (7): 486-90. (in Japanese).

Kasamatsu, F., Kishino, H. and Hiroyama, H. 1990. Estimation of the number of minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) schools and individuals based on the 1987/88 Japanese feasibility study data. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 40: 239-247.

Kato, H., Fujise, Y., Yoshida, H., Nakagawa, S., Ishida, M. and Tanifuji, S. 1990. Cruise report and preliminary analysis of the 1988/89 Japanese feasibility study of the special permit proposal for southern hemisphere minke whales. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 40: 289-300.

Kato, H., Kishino, H. and Fujise, Y. 1990. Some analyses on age composition and segregation of southern minke whales using samples obtained by the Japanese feasibility study in 1987/88. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 40: 249-256.

Nagasaki, F. 1990. The Case for Scientific Whaling. Nature 334: 189-190.

Tanaka, S. 1990. Estimation of natural mortality coefficient of whales from the estimates of abundance and age composition data obtained from research catches. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 40: 531-536.

Bergh, M. O., Butterworth, D. S. and Punt, A. E. 1991. Further examination of the potential information content of age-structure data from Antarctic minke whale research catches. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41: 349-361.
Ichii, T. and Kato, H. 1991. Food and daily food consumption of southern minke whales in the Antarctic. Polar Biology 11: 479-487.

Kasamatsu, F., Kishino, H. and Taga, Y. 1991. Estimation of southern minke whale abundance and school size composition based on the 1988/89 Japanese feasibility study data. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41: 293-301.

Kato, H., Fujise, Y. and Kishino, H. 1991. Age structure and segregation of southern minke whales by the data obtained during Japanese research take in 1988/89. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41: 287-292.

Kato, H. and Miyashita, T. 1991. Migration strategy of southern minke whales in relation to reproductive cycles estimated from foetal lengths. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41: 363-369.

Kato, H., Zenitani, R. and Nakamura, T. 1991. Inter-reader calibration in age readings of earplugs from southern minke whale, with some notes of age readability. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41: 339-343.

Kishino, H., Kato, H., Kasamatsu, F. and Fujise, Y. 1991. Detection of heterogeneity and estimation of population characteristics from the field survey data: 1987/88 Japanese feasibility study of the Southern Hemisphere minke whales. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematic 43(3): 435-453.

Nakamura, T. 1991. A new look at a Bayesian cohort model for time-series data obtained from research takes of whales. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41: 345-348.

Wada, S., Kobayashi, T. and Numachi, K. 1991. Genetic Variability and Differentiation of Mitochondrial DNA in Minke Whales. Rep. int. Whal. Commn (special issue 13): 203-215.

Nakamura, T. 1992. Simulation trials of a Bayesian cohort model for time-series data obtained from research takes of whales. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 42: 421-427.

Tanaka, S., Kasamatsu, F. and Fujise, Y. 1992. Likely precision of estimates of natural mortality rates from Japanese research data for Southern Hemisphere minke whales. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 42: 413-420.

Fujise, Y., Ishikawa, H., Saino, S., Nagano, M., Ishii, K., Kawaguchi, S., Tanifuji, S., Kawashima, S. and Miyakoshi H. 1993. Cruise report of the 1991/92 Japanese research in Area IV under the special permit for Southern Hemisphere minke whales. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43: 357-371.

Hasunuma, R., Ogawa, T., Fujise, Y. and Kawanishi, Y. 1993. Analysis of selenium metabolites in urine samples of minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) using ion exchange chromatography. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 104C (1): 87-89.

Itoh, S., Takenaga, F. and Tsuyuki, H. 1993. Studies on lipids of the Antarctic minke whale. II. The fatty acid compositions of the blubber oils of minke whale and dwarf minke whale caught on 1988/89 and 1989/90 seasons. Yukagaku 42(12): 1007-1011. (in Japanese).

Iwata, H., Tanabe, S., Sakai, N., and Tatsukawa, R. 1993. Distribution of persistent organochlorines in the oceanic air and surface seawater and the role of ocean on their global transport and fate. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27: 1080-1098.

Kasamatsu, F., Yamamoto, Y., Zenitani, R., Ishikawa, H., Ishibashi, T., Sato, H., Takashima, K. and Tanifuji, S. 1993. Report of the 1990/91 southern minke whale research cruise under scientific permit in Area V. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43: 505-522.

Nakamura, T. 1993. Two-stage Bayesian cohort model for time-series data to reduce bias in the estimate of mean natural mortality rate. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43: 343-348.

Pastene, L.A., Kobayashi, T., Fujise, Y. and Numachi, K. 1993b. Mitochondrial DNA differentiation in Antarctic minke whales. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43: 349-355.

Kimoto, H., Endo, Y. and Fujimoto, K. 1994. Influence of interesterification on the oxidative stability of marine oil triacylglycerols. Journal of American Oil Chemists Society 71(5): 469-473.

Pastene, L.A., Fujise, Y. and Numachi, K. 1994. Differentiation of mitochondrial DNA between ordinary and dwarf forms of southern minke whale. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 44: 277-281.

Yoshioka, M., Okumura, T., Aida, K . and Fujise, Y. 1994. A proposed technique for quantifying muscle progesterone content in the minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Canadian Journal of Zoology 72: 368-370.

Fukui, Y., Mogoe, T., Terawaki, Y., Ishikawa, H., Fujise, Y. and Ohsumi, S. 1995. Relationship between physiological status and serum constituent values in minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Journal of Reproduction and Development 41(3): 203-208.

Ishikawa,H., Amasaki,H. 1995. Development and Physiological Degradation of Tooth Buds and Development of Rudiment of Baleen Plate in Southern Minke Whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata. The Journal of Veterinary Medical Science: 665-670.

Kasamatsu, F., Nishiwaki,S. and Ishikawa,H. 1995. Breeding areas and southbound migrations of southern minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata. Mar. Ecol. Preg. Ser. 119:1-10.

Bakke, I. Johansen, S., Bakke, O. and El-Gewely, M.R. 1996. Lack of population subdivision among the minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) from Icelandic and Norwegian waters based on mitochondrial DNA sequences. Marine Biology 125: 1-9.

Butterworth, D. S. and Geromont, H. F. 1996. On the provision of advice on the effect on stock(s) of scientific permit catches, with particular reference to proposed research catches of minke whales from Antarctic Area IV. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 46: 653-655.

Butterworth, D. S., Punt, A. E., Geromont, H. F., Kato, H. and Miyashita, T. 1996. An adapt approach to the analysis of catch-at-age information for Southern Hemisphere minke whales. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 46: 349-359.

Fukui, Y., Mogoe, T., Jung, Y.G., Terawaki, Y., Miyamoto, A., Ishikawa, H., Fujise, Y. and Ohsumi, S. 1996. Relationships among morphological status, steroid hormones, and post-thawing viability of frozen spermatozoa of male minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Marine Mammal Science 12(1): 28-37.

Iga, K., Fukui, Y., Miyamoto, A., Ishikawa, H. and Ohsumi, S. 1996. Endocrinological observations of female minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Marine Mammal Science 12(2): 296-301.

Matsuoka, K., Fujise, Y. and Pastene, L.A. 1996. A sighting of a large school of the pygmy right whale, Caperea marginata in the southeast Indian Ocean. Marine Mammal Science 12(4): 594-597.

Pastene, L.A., Goto, M., Itoh, S. and Numachi, K. 1996. Spatial and temporal patterns of mitochondrial DNA variation in minke whale from Antarctic Areas IV and V. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 46: 305-314.

Aono, S., Tanabe, S., Fujise, Y., Kato, H. and Tatsukawa, R. 1997. Persistent organochlorines in minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) and their prey species from the Antarctic and the North Pacific. Environmental Pollution 98: 81-89.

Fukui, Y., Mogoe, T., Ishikawa, H. and Ohsumi, S. 1997a. Factors affecting in vitro maturation of minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) follicular oocytes. Biology of Reproduction 56: 523-528.

Fukui, Y., Mogoe, T., Ishikawa, H. and Ohsumi S. 1997b. In Vitro Fertilization of in Vitro Matured Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Follicular Oocytes. Marine Mammal Science 13(3): 395-404.

Ichii, T., Shinohara, N., Fujise, Y., Nishiwaki, S. and Matsuoka, K. 1998. Interannual changes in body fat condition index of minke whales in the Antarctic. Marine Ecology Progress Series 175: 1-12.

Ito, S., Takenaga, F. and Tsuyuki, H. 1998. Lipids in Antarctic Minke Whales III. Site and Sexual Differences of Muscle Lipids. J. Jpn. Oil Chem. Soc. 47(2): 191-194.

Kida, M.Y. 1998. Morphology of the Tracheobronchial Tree and the Route of the Pulmonary Artery in the Fetal Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Okajimas Folia Anat. Jpn.75(5): 251-258.

Mogoe, T., Fukui, Y., Ishikawa, H. and Ohsumi, S. 1998a. Morphological Observations of Frozen-Thawed Spermatozoa of Southen Minke Whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Journal of Reproduction and Development 44(1): 95-100.

Mogoe, T., Fukui, Y., Ishikawa, H. and Ohsumi S. 1998b. Effects of Diluent Composition and Temperature on Motility and Viability After Liquid Storage and cryopreservation of Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Spermatozoa. Marine Mammal Science 14(4): 854-860.

Nagasawa, K., Yamada, T.K. and Ishikawa, H. 1998. Measurements of the skeleton of a minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) from the Antarctic Ocean. Bulletin of the Yamagata Prefectural Museum 20: 1-19.

Terabayashi, T. and Kawanishi, Y. 1998. Natrally occurring ganglioside lactones in Minke whale brain. Carbohydrate Research 307(1998): 281-290.

Bannister, J.L., Pastene, L.A. and Burnell, S.R. 1999. First record of movement of a southern right whale (Eubalaena australis) between warm water breeding grounds and the Antarctic ocean, South of 60°S. Marine Mammal Science 15(4): 1337-1342.

Butterworth, D. S., Punt, A. E. Geromont, H. F., Kato, H. and Fujise, Y. 1999. Inferences on the dynamics of Southern Hemisphere minke whales from ADAPT analyses of catch-at-age information. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 1(1): 11-32.

Ishikawa, H., Amasaki, H., Dohguchi, H., Furuya, A. and Suzuki, K. 1999. Immunohistological distributions of fibronectin, tenascin, type I, III and IV collagens, and laminin during tooth development and degeneration in fetuses of minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata. The Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 61(3): 227-232.

Asada, M., Horii, M., Mogoe, T., Fukui, Y., Ishikawa, H. and Ohsumi, S. 2000. In Vitro Maturation and Ultrastructural Observation of Cryopreserved Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Follicular Oocytes. Biology of Reproduction 62(2): 253-259.

Kasamatsu, F., Matsuoka, K. and Hakamada, T. 2000. Interspecific relationships in density among the whale community in the Antarctic. Polar Biol. (2000) 23: 466-473.

Mogoe, T., Suzuki, T., Asada, M., Fukui, Y., Ishikawa, H. and Ohsumi, S. 2000. Functional reduction of the Southern minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) testis during the feeding season. Marine Mammal Science 16(3): 559-569.

Rosenbaum, H.C., Brownell JR,R.L., Brown,M.W., Schaeff,C., Portway,V., White,B.N., Malik,S., Pastene,L.A., Pateneude,N.J., Baker,C.S., Goto,M., Best,P.B., Clapham,P.J., Hamilton,P., Moore,M., Payne,R., Rowntree,V., Tynan,C.T., Bannister,J.L., DeSalle,R. 2000: World-wide genetic differentiation of Eubalaena: questioning the number of right whale species. Molecular Ecology 9:1793-1802.

Wei, H., and Fukui, Y. 2000. Fertilizability of ovine, bovine or minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) spermatozoa intracytoplasmically injected into bovine oocytes. Zygote 8(3): 267-274.

Asada, M., Tetsuka, M., Ishikawa, H., Ohsumi, S. and Fukui, Y. 2001. Improvement on in Vitro Maturation, Fertilization and Development of Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) Oocytes. Theriogenology 56: 521-533.

Asada, M., Wei, H., Nagayama, R., Tetsuka, M., Ishikawa, H., Ohsumi, S. and Fukui, Y. 2001. An attempt at intracytoplasmic sperm injection of frozen-thawed minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) oocytes. Zygote 9 (November): 299-307.

Suzuki, T., Mogoe, T., Asada, M., Miyamoto, A., Tetsuka, M., Ishikawa, H., Ohsumi, S., Fukui, Y. 2001. Plasma and pituitary concentrations of gonadotropins (FSH and LH) in minke whales(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) during the feeding season. Theriogenology 55(5): 1127-1141.

Abe, H. and Goto, M. 2002. The Application of Microsatellite DNA for Determining Population Structure of Minke Whale. pp. 109-113. In: Nishimura, A. ed. Technical Reports of the Hokkaido National Fisheries Research Institute No.5. pp.113. Hokkaido National Fisheries Research Institute, Hokkaido.

Kunito, T., Watanabe, I., Yasunaga, G., Fujise, Y. and Tanabe, S. 2002. Using trace elements in skin to discriminate the populations of minke whale in southern hemisphere. Marine Environmental Research 53: 175-197.

Murase, H., Matsuoka, K., Ichii, T. and Nishiwaki, S. 2002. Relationship between the distribution of euphausiids and baleen whales in the Antarctic (35°E-145°W). Polar Biol 25: 135-145.

Pastene, L.A., Goto, M. and Kanda, N. 2002. The utility of DNA analysis for the management and conservation of large whales. Fisheries Science 68 (Supp. I): 286-289. (Proceedings of International Commemorative Symposium, 70th Anniversary of the Japanese Society of Fisheries Science).

Suzuki, M., Ishikawa, H., Otani, S., Tobayama, T., Katsumata, E., Ueda, K., Uchida, S., Yoshioka, M. and Aida, K. 2002. The characteristics of adrenal glands and its hormones in cetacean. Fisheries Science 68 (Supp. I): 272-275.

Urashima, T., Sato, H., Munakata, J., Nakamura, T., Arai, I., Saito, T., Tetsuka, M., Fukui, Y., Ishikawa, H., Lyndersen, C. and Kovacs, K. M. 2002. Chemical characterization of the oligosaccharides in beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) and Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) milk. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B 132: 611-624.

Hayashi, K., Nishida, S., Yoshida, H., Goto, M., Pastene, L.A. and Koike, H. 2003. Sequence variation of the DQB allele in the cetacean MHC. Mammal Study 28: 89-96.

Nishida, S., Hayashi, K., Pastene, L.A., Goto, M., Kanda, N. and Koike, H. 2003. Polymorphic analysis of cetacean MHC – A case study on the minke whales -. Mammalian Science 3: 75-78.

Nishida, S., Pastene, L.A., Goto, M. and Kanda, N. 2003. SRY gene structure and phylogeny in the cetacean species. Mammal Study 28: 57-66.

Ohishi, K., Zenitani, R., Bando, T., Goto, Y., Uchida, K., Maruyama, T., Yamamoto, S., Miyazaki, N. and Fujise, Y. 2003. Pathological and serological evidence of Brucella-infection in baleen whales (Mysticeti) in the western North Pacific. Comparative Immunology Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 26: 125-136.

Amemiya, K., Iwanami, Y., Kobayashi, T., Terao, T., Fukui, Y., Ishikawa, H., Ohsumi, S., Hirabayashi, M. and Hochi, S. 2004. Acquirement of Oocyte-activating Factor in Antarctic Minke Whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) Spermatogenic Cells, Assessed by Meiosis Resumption of Microinseminated Mouse Oocytes. J. Mamm. Ova Res. 21: 149-156.

Fujihira, T., Kinoshita, M., Sasaki, M., Ohnishi, M., Ishikawa, H., Ohsumi, S. and Fukui, Y. 2004. Comparative Studies on Lipid Analysis and Ultrastructure in Porcine and Southern Minke Whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) Oocytes. Journal of Reproduction and Development 50(5): 525-532.

Fukui, Y., Togawa, M., Abe, N., Takano, Y., Asada, M., Okada, A., Iida, K., Ishikawa, H. and Ohsumi, S. 2004. Validation of the Sperm Quality Analyzer and the Hypo-osmotic Swelling Test for Frozen-thawed Ram and Minke Whale (Balaenoptera bonarensis) Spermatozoa. Journal of Reproduction and Development 50(1): 147-154.

Ikumi, S., Sawai, K., Takeuchi, Y., Iwayama, H., Ishikawa, H., Ohsumi, S. and Fukui, Y. 2004. Interspecies Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer for In Vitro Production of Antarctic Minke Whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) Embryos. Cloning and Stem Cells 6(3): 284-293.

Iwayama, H., Hochi, S., Kato, M., Hirabayashi, M., Kuwayama, M., Ishikawa, H., Ohsumi, S. and Fukui, Y. 2004. Effects of cryodevice type and donor’s sexual maturity on vitrification of minke whale(Balaenoptera bonaerensis) oocytes at germinal vesicle-stage. Zygote 12(4): 333-338.

Muranishi, Y., Sasaki, M., Hayashi, K., Abe, N., Fujihira, T., Ishikawa, H., Ohsumi, S., Miyamoto, A. and Fukui, Y. 2004. Relationship between the appearance of preantral follicles in the fetal ovary of Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) and hormone concentrations in the fetal heart, umbilical cord and maternal blood. Zygote 12: 125-132.

Tetsuka, M., Asada, M., Mogoe, T., Fukui, Y., Ishikawa, H. and Ohsumi, S. 2004. The Pattern of Ovarian Development in the Prepubertal Antarctic Minke Whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis). Journal of Reproduction and Development 50(4): 381-389.

Watanabe, H., Mogoe, T., Asada, M., Hayashi, K., Fujise, Y., Ishikawa, H., Ohsumi, S., Miyamoto, A. and Fukui, Y. 2004. Relationship between Serum Sex Hormone Concentrations and Histology of Seminiferous Tubules of Captured Baleen Whales in the Western North Pacific during the Feeding Season. Journal of Reproduction and Development 50(4): 419-427.

Ishikawa, H. and Shigemune, H. 2005. Improvements in More Humane Killing Methods of Antarctic Minke Whales, Balaenoptera bonaerensis, in the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic Sea (JARPA). Jpn. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 10(1): 27-34.

Iwayama, H., Ishikawa, H., Ohsumi, S. and Fukui, Y. 2005. Attempt at In Vitro Maturation of Minke Whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) Oocytes Using a Portable CO2 Incubator. Journal of Reproduction and Development 51(1): 69-75.

Matsuoka, K., Pitman, R. and Marques, F. 2005. A note on a pigmy right whale (Caperea marginata) sighting in the southwestern Pacific Ocean. J.Cetacean Res.Manage 7(1): 71-73.

Matsuoka, K., Hakamada, T., Kiwada, H., Murase, H. and Nishiwaki, S. 2005. Abundance Increases of Large Baleen Whales in the Antarctic based on the Sighting Survey during Japanese Whale Research Program (JARPA). Global Environmental Research 9(2): 105-115.

Nikaido, M., Sasaki, T., Makino, H., Goto, M., Kanda, N., Pastene, L.A. and Okada, N. 2005. Phylogenetic reconstruction of baleen whales and detection of their past extensive radiation event by the SINE insertion analysis. Fossils 77: 22-28

Sasaki, T., Nikaido, M., Hamilton, H., Goto, M., Kato, H., Kanda, N., Pastene, L.A., Cao, Y., Fordyce, R.E., Hasegawa, M. and Okada, N. 2005. Mitochondrial Phylogenetics and Evolution of Mysticete Whales. Systematic Biology 54(1): 77-90.

Fujihira, T., Kobayashi, M., Hochi, S., Hirabayashi, M., Ishikawa, H., Ohsumi, S. and Fukui, Y. 2006. Developmental capacity of Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) vitrified oocytes following in vitro maturation, and parthenogenetic activation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Zygote 14: 89-95.

Honda, K., Aoki, M. and Fujise, Y. 2006. Ecochemical Approach Using Mercury Accumulation of Antarctic Minke Whale, Balaenoptera bonaerensis, as Tracer of Historical Change of Antarctic Marine Ecosystem During 1980-1999. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 76: 140-147.

Iwanami, K., Mita, H., Yamamoto, Y., Fujise, Y., Yamada, T. and Suzuki, T. 2006. cDNA-derived amino acid sequences of myoglobins from nine species of whales and dolphins. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 145:249-56.

Kobayashi, T., Amemiya, K., Takeuchi, K., Tsujioka, T., Tominaga, K., Hirabayashi, M., Ishikawa, H., Fukui, Y. and Hochi, S. 2006. Contribution of spermatozoal centrosomes to the microtubule-organizing centre in Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis). Zygote 14(1): 45-51.

Konishi, K. 2006. Characteristics of blubber distribution and body condition indicators for Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis). Mammal Study 31: 15-22.

Mori, M. and Butterworth, D.S. 2006. A first step towards modelling the krill-predator dynamics of the Antarctic ecosystem. CCAMLR Science 13: 217-277.

Nikaido, M., Hamilton, H., Makino, H., Sasaki, T., Takahashi, K., Goto, M., Kanda, N., Pastene, L.A. and Okada, N. 2006. Baleen whale phylogeny and a past extensive radiation event revealed by SINE insertion analysis. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23(5): 866-873.

Yabuki, T., Suga, T., Hanawa, K., Matsuoka, K., Kiwada, H. and Watanabe, T. 2006. Possible Source of the Antarctic Bottom Water in the Prydz Bay Region. Journal of Oceanography 62(5): 649-655.

Asada, M., Tetsuka, M., Ishikawa, H., Ohsumi, S. and Fukui, Y. 2007. Ultrastructural Changes during Maturation and Cryopreservation of Follicular Oosytes of Antarctic Minke Whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis). Japanese Journal of Zoo Wildlife and Medicine 12(1): 51-66.

Branch, T.A., Stafford, K.M., Palacios, D.M., Allison, C., Bannister, J.L., Burton, C.L.K., Cabrera, E., Carlson, C.A., Galletti Vernazzani, B., Gill, P.C., Hucke-Gaete, R., Jenner, K.C.S., Jenner, Mn. M., Matsuoka, K., Mikhalev, Y.A., Miyashita, T., Morrice, M.G., Nishiwaki, S., Sturrock, V.J., Tormosov, D., Anderson, R.C., Baker, A.N., Best, P.B., Borsa, P., Brownell Jr, R.L., Childerhouse, S., Findlay, K.P., Gerrodette, T., Ilangakoon, A.D., Joergensen, M., Kahn, B., Ljungblad, D.K., Maughan, B., Mccauley, R.D., Mckay, S., Norris, T.F., Oman Whale and Dolphin Research Group, Rankin, S., Samaran, F., Thiele, D., Van Waerebeek, K. and Warneke, R.M. 2007. Past and present distribution, densities and movements of blue whales in the Southern Hemisphere and adjacent waters. Mammal Rev 37(2): 116-175.

LeDuc, R.G., Dizon, A.E., Goto, M., Pastene, L.A., Kato, H., Nishiwaki, S. and Brownell, R.L. 2007. Patterns of genetic variation in southern hemisphere blue whales, and the use of assignment test to detect mixing on the feeding grounds. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 9(1): 73-80.

Nagai, H., Mogoe, T., Ishikawa, H., Hochi, S., Ohsumi, S. and Fukui, Y. 2007. Follicle Size-Dependent Changes in Follicular Fluid Components and Oocyte Diameter in Antarctic Minke Whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis). Journal of Reproduction and Development 53(6): 1265-1272.

Nishida, S., Goto, M., Pastene, L.A., Kanda, N. and Koike, H. 2007. Phylogenetic Relationships Among Cetaceans Revealed by Y-Chromosome Sequences.Zoological Science 24(7): 723-732.

Onbe, K. Nishida, S., Sone, E., Kanda, N., Goto, M., Pastene, L.A., Tanabe, S. and Koike, H. 2007. Sequence Variation in the Tbx4 Gene in Marine Mammals?E?EI>Zoological Science 24(5): 449-464.

Pastene, L.A., Goto, M., Kanda, N., Zerbini, A.N., Kerem, D., Watanabe, K., Bessho, Y., Hasegawa, M., Nielsen, R., Larsen, F. and PalsbA?ll, P.J. 2007. Radiation and speciation of pelagic organisms during periods of global warming: the case of the common minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata. Molecular Ecology 16: 1481-1495.

Ishikawa, H. and Shigemune, H. 2008. Comparative Experiment of Whaling Grenades in the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit (JARPA and JARPN). Jpn. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 13(1): 21-28.

Konishi, K., Tamura, T., Zenitani, R., Bando, T., Kato, H. and WallA?e, L. 2008. Decline in energy storage in the Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) in the Southern Ocean. Polar Biol: 31: 1509-1520.

Yunoki, K., Ishikawa, H., Fukui, Y. and Ohnishi, M. 2008. Chemical Properties of Epidermal Lipids, Especially Sphingolipids, of the Antarctic Minke Whale. Lipids (2008) 43: 151-159.

Do you want me to post the list from JARPN and JARPN II also?
- http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin
  
  you are obviously going for the overload of information strategy so that its kinda dificult to give a serious reply to each of these articles.
  many art
  many if not most articles arent just about whale research that is related to whaling or whale polulation management.
  
  Fujise, Y., Ishikawa, H., Saino, S., Nagano, M., Ishii, K., Kawaguchi, S., Tanifuji, S., Kawashima, S. and Miyakoshi H. 1993. Cruise report of the 1991/92 Japanese research in Area IV under the special permit for Southern Hemisphere minke whales. Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43: 357-371
  
  my comment : this is not a research article, simply a nice story what the whalers did, a “cruise story”
  
  Nagasaki, F. 1990. The Case for Scientific Whaling. Nature 334: 189-190.
  
  ??? you mention an article in a populair magazine (Nature) that only debates in favor of whaling but has nothing to do with the lethal whaling research data ?
  what next ? You will mention an article in MAD Magazine ?
  
  Suzuki, M., Ishikawa, H., Otani, S., Tobayama, T., Katsumata, E., Ueda, K., Uchida, S., Yoshioka, M. and Aida, K. 2002. The characteristics of adrenal glands and its hormones in cetacean. Fisheries Science 68 (Supp. I): 272-275.
  
  my comment : hormone research. Please xplain how this is so important for understanding whale populations that it justifies lethal methods.
  the IWC specifically only tolerates lethal methods if the data only can be obtained this way AND if the data is so importnat that it justifies killing whales.
  
  Matsuoka, K., Pitman, R. and Marques, F. 2005. A note on a pigmy right whale (Caperea marginata) sighting in the southwestern Pacific Ocean. J.Cetacean Res.Manage 7(1): 71-73.
  
  my comment : this article is about a sighting of a whale species, this isnt data collected from lethal whaling methods.
  
  Kunito, T., Watanabe, I., Yasunaga, G., Fujise, Y. and Tanabe, S. 2002. Using trace elements in skin to discriminate the populations of minke whale in southern hemisphere. Marine Environmental Research 53: 175-197.
  
  my comment : this seems data that can be important to know more about populations of whales. However this data from skin research can be easily obtained from non lethal methods.
  
  Iwata, H., Tanabe, S., Sakai, N., and Tatsukawa, R. 1993. Distribution of persistent organochlorines in the oceanic air and surface seawater and the role of ocean on their global transport and fate. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27: 1080-1098.
  
  my comment : this isnt even whale research !!!
  
  Kasamatsu, F., Nishiwaki,S. and Ishikawa,H. 1995. Breeding areas and southbound migrations of southern minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata. Mar. Ecol. Preg. Ser. 119:1-10.
  
  my comment : this isnt lethal research !! they simply study the whales in their natural habitat (as it should, no need killing them)
  
  Matsuoka, K., Hakamada, T., Kiwada, H., Murase, H. and Nishiwaki, S. 2005. Abundance Increases of Large Baleen Whales in the Antarctic based on the Sighting Survey during Japanese Whale Research Program (JARPA). Global Environmental Research 9(2): 105-115.
  
  my comment : another piece of research done with non lethal methods (method : sightings)
  in other words, while they were killing whales (without producing any relevant resaerch data only producing yummy whale meat) on deck they collected interesting and valuable data from NON LETHAL methods.
  
  these articles that you mentioned and which are conducted with non lethal methods only prove our point that the lethal methods are just an excuse for commercially whaling and hardly if any generates valuable and respected data.
  
  in short, you want to impres by pasting and copying an overload of interesting looking text and just hope that at least some people will be impressed by it and dont read it too critically, right ?
  
  since its your paid to be a forum wrecker you can post your comments all day, me and others however have a real job and cant spend all out waking time to comment on your pseudo intelctual but devoid from any substance.
  in short, just about anything you say here, is wrong or very twisted.
  unlike you say, the IWC only supports lethal methods if the possible data would be of high scientific value and could be not obtained in any other method. its there on the IWC website, where they discuss about the controversity of whaling. anyone can find it there.
  - http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin
    
    http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm :
    
    “While the Commission cannot interfere with the right of a member nation to issue a permit, it can comment on the permit, after receiving the report of the Scientific Committee. In recent years, the Commission has passed a number of Resolutions asking governments to refrain from issuing specific permits.”
    
    the last sentence is very clear for anyone who can read :
    
    “ASKING GOVERNEMENTS TO REFRAIN FROM ISSUING SPECIFIC PERMITS”
    
    thats polite language, in normal language it means : “STOP USING RESEARCH AS AN EXCUSE FOR WHALING AND ILLEGALY KILLING WHALES !!!
    
    took me ten seconds to find, this info.
  - http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin
    
    in short, DDPalmer, you still fail to prove that the japanese whaling is nothing more than commercial whaling under the disguise of “research”
    
    copying and pasting a long list of articles, including articles in populair non scientific magazines, including MANY research articles that are based on NON lethal whale research, including articles about non practical and non related aspects of whale populations and “whale managament” (nice word for whaling) such as articles about evolution of whales, isnt a proper way to defend your case, its just an “overload” tactic.
    
    articles to support the claim that the japanese are doing legitimate, useful and respected legal whale research and not commercial whaling with some bogus resaecth excuse, should at least :
    -the topic should be about relevant whale research
    -it should be obtained by lethal methods
    -it shouldnt be possible to get the data by non lethal methods.
    -it should be published in a respected non japanese scientific journal. (MAD Magazine doesnt count)
    
    since the japanese are conducting this “research” for many years and kill thousands of whales, it shouldnt be dificult to give at least 10 proper articles. (lets stick to ten articles so i can comment on them, okay ?)
    good luck.
  - ddpalmer
    
    herwin I know you think you are very important but the Japanese don’t have to justify their research to you.
    
    In fact if they wanted to research whether or not all whales have the same number of ribs they could do that. There is no limit on what they can research, they don’t have to submit their research to anybody and they can do lethal research even if they could get the data non-lethally.
    
    And the best part is it would still all be legal.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Thats quite funny DD palmer…everyone thinks all this research is crappola. We know its crap and you know its crap. Pity you posted half a ton of rubbish to try and support your weak claims.
    
    I would bet London to a brick on that you havn’t read one of these papers?
    
    Posting all these useless papers reminds me of a little boy hiding behind his mummys skirts.
  - ddpalmer
    
    herwin asked for the research the Japanese had done, so I obliged him.
    
    Why would I have read any of them?
    
    Obviously everyone doesn’t think it is crap. The editors of the journals that published it obviously thought it had merit.
ddpalmer

So because they are not researching what you think they should be researching it must be bogus? When were you appointed the Head of world whaling research?

I would think you would be happy that they are getting as much information as possible from the whales. I mean if all they did was measure them, weight them and determine the age and sex I bet you would complain that they are killing them for such a small amount of data.

The main aim of the Japanese research is to show the population levels, reproduction levels, age distribution and the health of the population; which is the info the IWC says they need. But that doesn’t mean they can’t research other topics. And research under Article VIII does not say it is only for info that is useful to the IWC, the research can be on anything the nation doing the whaling wants. They could research the coloration patterns on the skin and it would still be covered by Article VIII and would still be legal. Yuou approval of the research topics is not needed. In fact IWC approval isn’t needed. I know that just burns you up, but as they say ‘lifes a b**ch and then you die.’

And no comment on the whole list I posted for you? Do you want the JARPAN and JARPAN II list or not?
- Imforthewhales
  
  How about you post the actual papers one by one instead of just a useless list? How many of these papers have you read yourself DD Palmer???
  - Imforthewhales
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CSA0WuQzmQ
    
    Anyone who thinks that Japan is actually doing research, perhaps they should take a look at this program aired on the ABC..where the reporters go through the ” science” of scientific whaling.
    
    If link doesn’t work check out
    
    ***********************************************
    
    Japan – Whale Science…. on u tube
    
    click here to watch
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CSA0WuQzmQ
    
    ************************************************
  - ddpalmer
    
    How many times are you going to post the same questions?
    
    Does Paul pay you by the post?
  - Imforthewhales
    
    ddpalmer, March 6, 2010 at 7:14 pm
    It is hard to believe that someone who is interested in whaling, whether pro or con, wouldn’t have read the ICWR which is the international agreement that regulates whaling.
    
    *********************************************
    
    One would expect you to have read the whole list seeing as you seem so intent on filling the pages here with a list of so called ” peer reviewed” scientific papers. If you go to the trouble of publishing the entire list of 20 years or more of Japanese lethal research ” scientific” papers then a reasonable person would have expected you to have read them.
    
    You appear to be vouching for their authenticity and relevance, but if you haven’t read them, how do you truly know what they contain?
    
    If you haven’t read them then you are just going by what your puppet masters are telling you.
    
    One would assume that you have read them, after all, you post above that you find it hard to believe that people haven’t read the ICR crappola, one would assume that you have read your own…the very papers that you are basing your misguided arguments on.
    
    I think that is a perfectly reasonable assumption?
    
    Unlike your good self DD palmer i am not on any payroll. I just find it hard to believe why anyone could support an eco-terrorist organisation such as the ICR and the whole Japanese illegal whaling industry. How much did they pay you to sell your soul DD palmer?
    
    You are very passionate about destroying whales DD palmer, but i feel that unless you know and understand the industry that you are supporting then you are just a load of hot gas?
  - ddpalmer
    
    The list came from the ICR. The ICWR is a completely different thing.
    
    No I don’t vouch for them. The editors of the journals that published them are supposed to do that before they publish them
    
    And as I have said a number of times. The Japanese could research the number of ribs that whales have and never publish any data, peer reviewed or not, and it would still be legal.
    
    “Unlike your good self DD palmer i am not on any payroll.”
    
    Oh so you are unemployed living of the taxes of the people who actually do work. Well I guess that keeps you carbon footprint down.
    
    “…but i feel that unless you know and understand the industry that you are supporting then you are just a load of hot gas?”
    
    Well first off I really couldn’t care less what you feel. And second none of those papers deal with the whaling industry, so just another red herring.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene

Japan used to state on the deck of the whaling ship that they were doing the research for the IWC so that commercial whaling could resume, the IWC has asked them to halt as they did NOT need the data or the research that Japan’s ICR was conducting. Article VIII was a pretense for a resuming of commercial whaling masked as “research” it was and always has been a sham.
- ddpalmer
  
  No some members of the IWC have asked them to stop. And yes the IWC takes and uses the data that Japan provides to them. And yes Japan has produced over 200 peer-reviewed papers from their whale research.
  - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene
    
    That was actually the scientific council that did ask them to stop. As for the peer review, the list you posted are all scientists that ….OMG! are Japanese, and also likely paid by the ICR. Why do you so ardently defend the ICR? They have only existed since 1987, when Kyodo Senpaku created them, for the express purpose of helping rekindle commercial whaling and removing the moratorium, or at the very least a way to skirt around it under the guise of research.
    
    Some of the research they have done is likely used per PDF’s I have read, to compare for the RMS and RMP the IWC was looking into implementing. Yes, dry reading, but not impossible I assure you. Secondly, they are also responsible for starting the Pro-whaling Counter Movement in reaction to the Moratorium, again, to get that killing back on track as well as discredit the eco-movements and the Anti-whaling movement.
    
    Some seek to help the world last longer, what’s your story ddp?
  - ddpalmer
    
    Wait a minute you mean that the reserch the ICR does is done by people paid by the ICR? Who would you expect to do the ICRs research, the Australians?
    
    Hunting in a sustainable way will have no effect on how long the world lasts.
    
    Oh no a group involved in whaling wants to promote whaling. Next thing you will tell me is that farmers want people to eat their food.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    As a matter of fact Australia has sent down a research ship to study whales.
    
    Are you that stupid that you don’t know this DD palmer?
    
    You really are a moron.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Australian Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett, and New Zealand Minister for Research Science and Technology, Wayne Mapp, launched the first Antarctic whale research expedition as part of the Southern Ocean Research Partnership in Wellington today.
    
    “This expedition – the largest of its kind – demonstrates the Government’s position that non-lethal whale research can provide all the information needed to understand and conserve whales,” Mr Garrett said.
    
    “A program of this scale not been seen before. It marries rigorous science and serious environmental inquiry, with an emphasis on collaboration, and respect for the oceans and the creatures that make their home in the vast waters of our planet.”
    
    The inaugural Antarctic Whale Expedition will undertake six weeks of research aboard the New Zealand vessel RV Tangaroa in the Antarctic waters to the south of Australia and New Zealand.
    
    The expedition will use state-of-the-art non-lethal research techniques such as biopsy sampling, satellite tracking and acoustic and hydrographic surveys.
    
    The research jointly undertaken by Australia, New Zealand and French scientists aboard the RV Tangaroa will improve the understanding of the population structure, abundance, trends, distribution, and ecological role of whales in the Southern Ocean.
    
    “The Southern Ocean Research Partnership is the first truly international, multidisciplinary research collaboration with a focus on improving the conservation of whales,” Mr Garrett said.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Hunting in a sustainable way will have no effect on how long the world lasts.
    
    Neither will torture, producing cocaine, amphetamines, distributing kiddy porn, rape, incest, or cruelty to animals. None of it is going to stop the world from turning. we just know that it isn’t right and things like this should be stopped. One thing you cant change DD palmer is the fact that some people have a moral compass and know when they are bing lied to and when a cruel industry that is taking what does not belong to them needs to be shut down. For good.
    
    Oh no a group involved in whaling wants to promote whaling. Next thing you will tell me is that farmers want people to eat their food.
    
    What would you do if someone offered you kiddy porn or a batch of cocaine DD palmer? Would you put that little interlude in the same catagory as say, growing parsley?
  - ddpalmer
    
    you really need to post before you drink a six pack, then maybe you would make some sense.
    
    Nice red herrings though.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Right back at ya DDP, a nice deflection of the arguments …true to form, you avoid the issues completely. When you cannot answer something with a composed, thoughtful reply, when someone is making too much sense, your systems go into overload. Nice try trying to insult me but it wont work, im afraid. FYO all i am drinking is my cup of coffee.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Maybe if you made some comment on the argument you would have a point. But you copied two parts of my post then brought up drugs and kiddie porn.
    
    I guess I should have explained it with smaller words for you. Get back on topic moron.
  - Abe
    
    Who offers anyone a batch of cocaine? Like it’s some cookies they just whipped up in the kitchen.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Well Abe you do know Australia was settled by convicts.
  - billy jean is my lover
    
    Geez DD – Australia settled by convicts? where on earth did you get that from? Let me guess, your walking talking internal fact book?
    
    Please. Give us a break.
    
    I wonder how convicts managed to escape from Europe or North America (You didnt specify where they came from) steal a sea worthy vessel and navigate down to the south pacific area and “settle” Australia?
    
    Fascinating DDPalmer, just fascinating!
  - ddpalmer
    
    Australia’s early history of European settlement was as a penal colony. Great Britain shipped their convicts there.
    
    Fascinating billy isn’t it.
CrazyIvan

How dare anyone go against what Watson says! He is the end all be all for laws of sea life and the ocean! If he wants to throw stuff at people, THEN IT IS LEGAL!
There is a reason he has never been in trouble with the law. Except in Canada, Norway, Iceland, and a couple others. But those dont count, cause he got away!
imforthewhales

DD Palmer, whats hunting got to do with it?

I thought Japan was doing research? True or False?
- ddpalmer
  
  You have to hunt the animal to find it so you can do research
  
  hunting
  n.
  1. The activity or sport of pursuing game.
  2. The act of conducting a search for something: house hunting.
  - imforthewhales
    
    Hunting does not always mean killing though DD Palmer.
    You can hunt for mushrooms. You can hunt for a lost book. You can research and animal without killing it.
    
    So in your opinion is the Japanese whale research for research purposes? Or is it really an excuse for the harvesting of whales for Japanese kitchens and restaraunts?
imforthewhales

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CSA0WuQzmQ

Anyone who thinks that Japan is actually doing research, perhaps they should take a look at this program aired on the ABC..where the reporters go through the ” science” of scientific whaling.

If link doesn’t work check out

Japan – Whale Science…. on u tube
- ddpalmer
  
  So all I have to do is find 3 scientist to agree to something and that ends the debate?
  
  Well then I guess evolution is wrong, man has never been to the moon and global warming is false. Because there are more than 3 scientists that disagree with each of those three things.
  - imforthewhales
    
    Of course they disagree DD Palmer…because they are paid to disagree. Just as you are paid to agree with the Japanese whaling machine.
    
    Facts are facts…its no good trying to support Japanese scientific research because all people see is Japanese whalers hunting whales to eat them.
    
    So you see it really doesn’t matter if you agree with the scientists or not. People can see you for what you are. People see Japanese whaling for what it is.
    
    Not something we are told it is by big business machines whose only intention it make as much money as possible. Just because one DD Palmer says it is one thing when we know it is another isn’t going to change what we know it is.
    
    Do you really think the people on here are that stupid?
- ddpalmer
  
  Well obviously many of the people on here are stupid enough to believe anything Paul Watson says. Look at the numbers that still believe he was actual shot.
  
  Also many of the people on here are so ignorant and egotistical that they don’t believe that anybody could not agree with their obviously supperior opinion. So they accuse anybody who does disagree with them of being paid with no evidence except that they have a different opinion.
  
  So yes many people here are stupid and ignorant and egotistical and delusional. But the worst part is that deep down they know it so the fight all the harder to try and justify themselves even though they know it just makes them look worse.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    The problem with you DD palmer is when you are faced with credible non partisan scientists who hold high positions in various educational institutions , saying the same thing and coming to the same conclusions that everyone with any intelligence on here has been saying for ages, (ie Japanese whaling:” research” is deeply flawed and completely unethical), you don’t seem to have an answer.
    
    Its obvious that you have been painted in a corner with this one because so far you haven’t come up with any credible arguments that go against the findings.
    
    Resorting to cat calls and asking silly questions doesn’t cut the mustard.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Non-partisan?
    
    Two of them are self professed anti-whalers.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    This view not supported 100 per cent DDP.
    
    *Dr Nick Gales, scientific committee member of the International Whaling Commission, and a reknowned scientific whaling critic
    
    *Professor Pat Quilty, former chief scientist of the Australian Antarctic program –
    
    *and UNSW Dean of science, Professor Mike Archer. He’s had nothing to do with whales, and favours harvesting wildlife.
    
    Even those that hold the view that whaling is an abhorant, disgustiung industry can still hold their noses in an impartial, scientific manner. Sadly for you, their verdict was that whaling science is a sham.
    
    They seem highly qualified to offer a point of view?
    
    Group: OK what have we got. That’s one another two papers there and number four
    
    Prof Archer: Alright, that’s it. And from that whole pile of papers we’ve got a total of one, two, three, four papers that can be said to be peer reviewed, that have some relevance to developing or managing a whaling industry and also would require lethal sampling of whales to get that information. Just four papers.
    
    Nick Gales: So with the eighteen year program and sixty eight hundred whales divided by four papers – that means 1700 whales killed for each one of those four papers.
    
    Mike Archer: Extremely depressing. Nick Gales: It wouldn’t pass an ethics committee. Archer: No it would not.
    
    Dr Jonica Newby: So – the verdict – science or smokescreen?
    
    Mike: I have to say, having seen it all it’s more like a smokescreen than science.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Dueling scientists really gets an argument nowhere. Especially when their opinions don’t matter. The Japanese meet the requirements of Article VIII. So until Article VIII gets changed they can research whether whale tastes better fried or raw and it is still legal.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Well this is the point DD palmer. The Japanese are bending the rules to suit themselves. They are snubbing the rest of the reasonable world with their charade.
    
    Japan has a long history of bending the rules.
    
    They have bent the rules so much here that many laws, treaties and other agreements are lost in translation. In short, japan is causing the breakdown of law and order. They are flaunting the rules and as a result the rules do not have any meaning.
    
    While they continue to bend the rules, then people will try to stop them.
    
    The question is, who is the more passionate…those who want commercial whaling to continue or those who want commercial whaling stopped.
    
    I know who I would be having my money on.
    
    I think you forget that groups such as Sea Sheperd, Greenpeace, IFAW etc are just the tip of the iceberg as far as opposition to japan grows and grows.
    
    Japan is now seen as the arrogant Godzilla of environmental piriahs of the world.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Dueling scientists really gets an argument nowhere. Especially when their opinions don’t matter.
    
    ***********************************************
    
    I don’t think they were dueling at all. Where exactly is your evidence of any dueling? Al i saw was three highly regarded scientists in complete agreement with each other and coming to the same conclusion.
    
    Japanese ” scientific” research is simply a smokescreen for commercial whaling enterprises.
    
    These scientists and their work is may not matter to you but the conclusions they reached are important in that their conclusions help to provide
    supporting arguments against this sham of Japanese whaling. Wether that is here on this little forum or governments preparing to take Japan to court.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Then why has all this opposition resulted in changes to Article VIII?
    
    I think you over estimate the anti-Japan sentiment that you think is there.
  - ddpalmer
    
    What I meant was that I could list scientists who disagree with your scientists.
    
    “These scientists and their work is may not matter to you but the conclusions they reached are important in that their conclusions help to provide
    supporting arguments against this sham of Japanese whaling. Wether that is here on this little forum or governments preparing to take Japan to court.”
    
    You still refuse to understand. No their opinions don’t matter. Article VIII doesn’t require Japan to publish any research data, peer reviewed or not, no matter how many whales they take under special permit. So whether anybody accepts their research or not won’t enter into any court case.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    In return I think that you are clearly underestimating the amount of opposition to the Japanese whaling machine. especially when yo consider the fact that a large part of the Japanese population are ignorant to what is happening in the Southern Ocean. Luckily the word is getting out more and more.
    Films such as the cove will certainly help inform the Japanese people what is going on .
    
    Article V1, 11, or 111…wont matter in the end, Japan has already made all these laws and regs look useless through their bending of the rules.
    
    Japans rape of the southern oceans will eventually stop. Article V or no article V.
    
    BTW yo really should be reading your own words here. In your case i suggest that it is very very true.
    
    So yes many people here are stupid and ignorant and egotistical and delusional. But the worst part is that deep down they know it so the fight all the harder to try and justify themselves even though they know it just makes them look worse.
  - ddpalmer
    
    So why haven’t they changed Article VIII? It would stop the whole loophole issue. If they had the support they would have done it years ago. But instead they are looking at allowing Japan to return to commercial whaling. Does that really sound like the way a group that has all this support would react?
    
    ‘Oh most people are on our side so lets give the other side what they have been asking for rather than stick to our principles.’
imforthewhales

IWC SCIENTISTS REVEAL JAPAN’S “Scientific Whaling” AS JUNK-SCIENCE:

“The IWC’s prestigious Scientific Committee exposed fundamental problems in? Japan’s “scientific research” whaling including a lack of testable hypotheses, failure to take performance measures; inappropriate use of ecosystem models, failure to include key data on ecosystem components.”

“Other flaws in Japan’s “scientific” research, and criticized by the IWC, include Japan’s selective inappropriate use of data.”
ddpalmer

“the IWC specifically only tolerates lethal methods if the data only can be obtained this way AND if the data is so importnat that it justifies killing whales.”

Look the answer to prove you wrong is right in you very next post.

“While the Commission cannot interfere with the right of a member nation to issue a permit,”

So the IWC specifically tolerates whatever a member nation decides to do because that is all the IWC can do.

“This isnt lethal research !!”

Are you really that stupid? The Japanese conduct non-lethal research to collect the data that can be collected by non-lethal research. But there is data that can’t be collect by non-lethal methods, even the IWC agrees that lethal research is required to collect some data (see the first quote from your post above).

“these articles that you mentioned and which are conducted with non lethal methods only prove our point that the lethal methods are just an excuse for commercially whaling”

Are you really that stupid? It doesn’t prove that. It proves that some data can only be obtain by lethal methods. Again a point that the IWC agrres with.

“in short, you want to impres by pasting and copying an overload of interesting looking text and just hope that at least some people will be impressed by it and dont read it too critically, right ?”

No wrong. You had asked for proof of reserach. I posted proof of research. You said that wasn’t good enough. So rather than post them one at a time until you decide you had enough I posted the whole list. Now you have complained about 5 or 6 out of over 100. If you could show that all of that research could be done non-lethally then you might have a leg to stand on. But then you return to the ad hominem attacks totally destroying any gains you may have made. I don’t know why Paul Watson continues to pay people like you who can’t even do your job correctly.
imforthewhales

Its no good trying to deflect the arguement DD palmer. Anyone who watches that video can see what a sham all your arguements pertaining to anything whaling is a load of bunkem.

I posted a link to a very interesting video DD Palmer ( which you obviously havn’t watched as yet and if you have you dont want to admot to it or discuss its findings) that has highly qualified renowned scientists going through the Japanese so called ” scientific” research papers …both boxes of them after twenty years ” resrearch” and making a judgement call as to which ones might possible be relevent.

What they found that there were only four papers that might possibly be of any benefit at all, and the one determining factor for lethal research, ie age, is not needed.

Their judgement, if you care to watch it, is that the Japanese so called scientific research is a smokescreen.

But of course anyone with any intelligence at all already knew that. This just conforms what we already knew.

Now if you are calling me stupid, then you are also calling these scientists stupid…the same ones that hold high positions within the scientific and academic community.

What do you think they would say about your intelligence DD Palmer?

You are just a cash for commenter. Plus, it is clear that you are starting to lose it.
- ddpalmer
  
  Obviously you can’t read. I answered your video post an hour before you posted the above comment.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Yes i can read, and i can write too…but it takes quite a while to get through all your posted garbage.
  - ddpalmer
    
    So you decided to write before you read? Good way to make yourself look even sillier than normal.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    How silly do you think is normal?
    
    Are you judging me by your lofty standards ???
Crazy Ivan

The Truth About Butyric Acid

We are submitting this short editorial to clear up some misconceptions regarding exactly what Butyric Acid is. Make no mistake about it, it IS an acid and it DOES harm human beings. Huge concerns about what happens if it’s dispersed into the sea near living sea creatures have been raised also. It stands to reason that pouring acid into the sea can’t be good. (1.)

For years now Paul Watson and his Sea Shepherds have fed the media with mis-information, the worst case of this being the association between butyric acid and butter. Yes, rancid butter does contain traces of butyric acid… the key here being trace amounts. In larger concentrations the acid becomes harmful and if splashed into an eye can blind a human… or animal. (2.) Although we can’t prove what strength acid the Sea Shepherds are throwing at the Japanese whalers and into the sea the Sea Shepherds themselves have indicated they purchase ‘Industrial Grade’ butyric acid. (3.)

This is just one example of how the Sea Shepherds, and Paul Watson in particular, use the media to twist the facts to their own satisfaction.

http://www.EndEcoTerrorism.com
A free, public, global forum dedicated to ending Eco-Terrorism on our good earth.

References:
- 1: CDC.GOV’s page on Butyric Acid: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng1334.html (Note the ‘Environmental Data’ that states “The substance is harmful to aquatic organisms.”)
- 2: MSDS sheets from two countries: http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Butyric_acid-9923216 -and- http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/BU/butyric_acid.html
- 3: Forums at http://www.EndEcoTerrorism.com where discussions about and images of actual butyric incidents involving the Sea Shepherds can be found. (Registration required.) http://www.endecoterrorism.com/nwfrm/index.php/topic,250.0.html -and- http://www.endecoterrorism.com/nwfrm/index.php/topic,231.0.html
- Imforthewhales
  
  I’m not sure what you mean by the term “eco- terrorism”.
  
  To me, a terrorist is someone who destroys something or takes something against anothers will.
  
  My opinion is that Japanese illegal whalers are eco-terrorists, because they are taking what does not belong to them, they kill and spill blood, and they do it against peoples wishes.
  
  To me, the people that go and kill whales in whale sanctuaries are eco- terrorists because they are destroying nature and because they are causing living creatures harm.
  
  On the other hand, Sea Sheperd and Paul Watson are trying save lives and save nature.
  
  So they are the exact opposite of an eco-terrorist. By saving lives and keeping the eco-terrorists…the ones who want to destroy nature… away from the whales.
  
  Can someone please explain to me how saving lives is being an eco-terrorist?
Pete

If these people are stupid enough to keep insisting that butyric acid is the same as rotten butter; they will never grasp the fact that the whaling is legal, both under objection and under scientific permit. Their opinion of the quantity or caliber of the research has no bearing on the issue. Get the votes to change the IWC rules if you really want it to change.

As to the remote helocopters, shooting with the large caliber rifle used on the whales is far too dangerous for all involved. They should use a simple 12gauge shotgun with 3″ magnums. From the comments already posted here, there are too many lunatics involved with Sea Shepherd to assume that these things are merely remote cameras and not a weapons platform. For years they have asked “why can’t we drop BA from the helicopter?” and one of the answers was that it was illegal to do so and the pilot might face legal consequences. I see this new rc chopper as a way around this fear of consequence to the pilot.
- Imforthewhales
  
  Japanese poachers should be treated the same way that the Russians treat them. No mucking around.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Oh you mean the disputed islands where Russia has given Japanese fishermen permission to fish?
    
    ” PETROPAVLOVSK-KAMCHATSKY, July 8 (Itar-Tass) – Tokyo’s law declaring the South Kuril Islands as “an integral part” of Japan has no legal force, the president’s envoy in the Far Eastern federal district, Viktor Ishayev, told reporters on Wednesday.
    
    He recalled that the Soviet Union had never recognized the existence of a territorial dispute with Japan. However, seeking to establish constructive and mutually advantageous cooperation with the neighboring country the then Russian President, Boris Yelstin, recognized that such a dispute exists and offered to consider discrepancies in a wider context of business, political and humanitarian cooperation.
    
    “First, a big step towards Japan was made. Second, the former President, Vladimir Putin, took a decision to introduce visa-free trips for Japanese citizens to the Kuril Islands. And, third, Japan’s fishermen enjoy the right to catch sea bioresources in Russia’s exclusive economic zone,” Ishayev said.”
    
    http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=14126572&PageNum=47
    
    So they have permission to fish there meaning they weren’t poaching, just like the whalers aren’t poaching.
    
    Thanks for showing another case where the Japanese follow the regulations and agreements even when the other side violates them.
    
    And why do you keep posting things that have been proven to be wrong? Oh that’s right you are delusional.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene

I always love how the Pro-whalers still never seem to get IT.
Whaling, scientific, commercial or whatever is still wrong, and when you guys post, you sound so much like Corporatist shills. So, you support what Corporates are doing? Like the way they eliminate you jobs? or beg the government for bailout money, Taxpayer money? The corporates that pollute and attempt to get the government to deregulate so that they can do anything they like with no worries about punishment? The same types that caused Love Canal and Three Mile Island. The same corporates that take more than is needed, and yet will hardly, if ever put anything back the way they found it? You see, what happens is all of this stuff done adds up in the long run. The bigger picture is that so much damage is being done to the eco-sphere that we share with other animals that are all here to sustain each other that the Earth will be forced to shut down what is left and start over again. That means boys and girls that you who support this rapacious lifestyle are also supporting the need of your species as well as 93% of the other lifeforms living here.

Debate all you like, the planet has been around for billions of years, and has seen 5 extinctions already, number 6 will blow over in say 100,000years and we will all be wiped away. Basically, we will be as a 24hr flu in geological time. These debates you love so much against the anti-whaling merely show how blind sheeple can be. Let the Corporates lead you to the abattoir.
- ddpalmer
  
  The great powerful and all-knowing Leonard Greene has spoken, all mortals shall quake in their shoes. Kneel and bow to the ultimate source of knowledge for he knows all that ever was and ever will be.
  
  Get over yourself Leonard. People have been prophesying gloom and doom since written history started and sooner or later one of them may be right but you haven’t given any reason why your prophesy is better than any other.
  
  As to humans being like a 24 hr flu in geological time, that is a given. No multi-cellular species of life has ever existed long enough to show up as more than a minor blip over a geological time scale. They either die out for one of a million reasons or they evolve into new species. It is not something to get your panties in a twist over.
  
  “It’s astounding, time is fleeting
  Madness takes its toll”
  - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene
    
    I have been doing a lot of research from scientists and marine biologists. Whaling,Shark finning, the 5 ocean gyres, ocean acidification, Phytoplankton(oxygen makers) dying off, sewage in the waters, the Nomuras off Japan, Overfishing, climactic changes, Pollution in China and other nations wanting the life enjoyed by the Northern hemisphere, And the massive ecological impact of these situations. There is more, but when one can actually look at the big picture, and not from the “comfort zone” artificially created by Corporations like Monsanto and their Multinational buddies to lull the sheeple into a false sense of security that all is well, no worries, then one can finally realize that things are far worse off than the news media, controlled by these conglomerates, is letting us know about as they shove it to the back if reported at all.
    
    People still have a chance to wake up and help. Those like yourself that support the very corporates keeping you sedated are actually the ones wrapped inside the madness. You can choose to stay asleep, or wake up and see what is happening.
    
    I just am letting people know that they are running low on time before the Point of No Return passes us by and the planet shrugs us all off of it. Doom and Gloom? maybe, but I also have explained there is still time, albeit growing shorter by the day.
    
    Remember, We have one planet, why eat from a cesspool(That we make by dumping sewage into the waters) why choke ourselves? why kill off parts of the eco-system that help keeps things going?
  - ddpalmer
    
    Oh so you have been drinking Eric’s kool-aid.
    
    And stopping the deaths of less than 1000 whales a year is going to make a difference?
    
    Why not work on what is really the biggest problem? Namely overpopulation. If everyone in the world became vegan today and all power was switched to wind, solar and hydro, just the current population growth rate would still cause all the problems you talk about.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    You wouldn’t be a Canadian by any chance would you DD palmer?
  - ddpalmer
    
    Nope none of my passports are from Canada.
imforthewhales

Sorry DD Palmer but Leonard Greene makes much more sense than your cash for comments.

I think madness is starting to take its toll on you?
imforthewhales

these people are stupid enough to keep insisting that butyric acid is the same as rotten butter; they will never grasp the fact that the whaling is legal, both under objection and under scientific permit. Their opinion of the quantity or caliber of the research has no bearing on the issue. Get the votes to change the IWC rules if you really want it to change.

Ah, sorry Pete, but you must be on the payroll of the ICR and Glen Inwood as well..you seem to be flying the company flag here.

There is nothing scentific about Japanese whaling. This is the problem. Go back and take a look at the video. Clearly, as the catalyst scientists have shown is that scientific whaling by the Japanese is both a smokescreen and a sham.

You then realise that there is no law or set of laws that is going to stop the Japanese whaling.

There are already enough laws to protect whales. We have in place a moratorium on commercial whaling for starters.

But Japan ignores it.

There are several whale sanctuaries.

But Japan ignores them.

There is a high court order in Australia that calls Japanese whaling for what it really is…illegal.

If the IWC votes don’t go japans way then they will leave it and continue whaling.

The laws are there to protect whalers from massive industrial machines such as japan, but no-one is willing to enforce the laws.

This is why we need groups such as Sea Sheperd to enforce the laws protecting whales from commercial enterprises. They are not there to be bought out, or to be traded. You cant buy a Sea Sheperd vote, unlike many of the countries that “support” the whalers in the IWC.

More chash for commenters.

Once Japan started flouting the rules, the rules failed to work anymore.

Now we are left with no-one trusting governments or their laws and they can see that its Ok to do what you like because if you hold enough sway you can do what you like where you like and how you like.

Japan is not only raping the oceans, but has made a mockery of laws and regulations. But then why should that surprise anyone? During WW2 they also ignored the Geneva convention.

One you realise that Japanese scientific whaling is simply a smokescreen for commercial whaling, then you also realise just how snaky and corrupt the whole whaling sbusiness is.
- ddpalmer
  
  “You cant buy a Sea Sheperd vote, unlike many of the countries that “support” the whalers in the IWC.”
  
  Then why aren’t the Sea Shepherds protesting the Australian Blue Fin Tuna fishing rather than go all the way to Europe?
  - Imforthewhales
    
    The big problem lies with japan and its ignorance of the state of tuna and its stated intention to ignore any ban on the fishing of tuna.
    
    Australia might need tighter controls of tuna fishing i its waters, but we have a problem today not because of Australias fishing of tuna but because japan raped the ocea of tuna the past 20 years or so.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Why do you insist on making yourself look stupid?
    
    The proposed ban isn’t on fishing of tuna, it is on international trade in tuna. So if Japan files a reservation against the CITES listing of Blue Fin Tuna it means the can still trade in Blue Fin Tuna. But if all other countries sign on to the listing then there won’t be anybody for Japan to trade with.
    
    Do you understand now or do I have to use smaller words? Maybe I should use pictures?
  - Imforthewhales
    
    I’m just trying to play catch up to you , el stupido.
    
    I would think about what you just said DD palmer.
    
    No fishing, no trade in fish, would I be right?
    
    The two go hand in hand.
    
    Unless they catch the fish and then store them up your butt for a few years, waiting for a better time to trade them.
    
    Just because Japan can’t trade in fish doesn’t mean that it wont still be fishing for them.
    
    It already ignores CITES in regards to whales. Look at the DNA samples in Japanese fish markets…showing many endangered species for sale ( in direct violation of CITES)
    
    It buys endangered whale meat from Noraway etc. it has lied to the world about its catch sizes of tuna. Recently they discovered a Japanese restaurant illegally selling whale meat in the USA of A of all places.
  - Crazy Ivan
    
    Always goes back to Japan with you huh? racist.
    Australia should completely sop hunting Bluefin tuna. But will they? NOPE! Cause they make too much money off of it. Greedy Australians, profiting off of the rape of the oceans.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    ha ha thats rich, who do you think buys the tuna el stupido?
  - ddpalmer
    
    The Japanese are the main buyers but they couldn’t buy it if Australians didn’t sell it.
gorilla

The problem isn’t with Australian blue fin tuna catches.

Australia has already reduced its quota.

The problem is years of the Japanese raping the oceans of life, including the now endangered blue fin tuna and lying about their catch limits.

The Australian industry has been very well regulated, but this means little when there is no International co-operation, or adherence to previously specified catch limits.

This is why we find the world in a worse place than it was 20 years ago. Japanese continue to take what they want, when they want, leaving little for the rest of the world.

Australia has reduced its catches by up to 30 per cent.

But Japan has already stated it is not interested in saving the blue fin tuna and arrogantly state that it is their god given right to continue raping the oceans till there is nothing left. They are not interested in any moratoriums on catching blue fin tuna and in fact intend to start doing “research” on blue fin tuna, much the same way as they research whales. Of course, like whaling, this will be just business as usual, commercial whaling/ fishing in disguise.
- ddpalmer
  
  And Japan has reduced their quota even more than the Australians have.
  
  “But Japan has already stated it is not interested in saving the blue fin tuna and arrogantly state that it is their god given right to continue raping the oceans till there is nothing left. They are not interested in any moratoriums on catching blue fin tuna and in fact intend to start doing “research” on blue fin tuna, much the same way as they research whales. Of course, like whaling, this will be just business as usual, commercial whaling/ fishing in disguise.”
  
  Do you have some kind of source for this BS.
  
  And just so you don’t strain yourself too much there isn’t a proposal to place a moratorium on blue fin tuna. The proposal is to list them in Appendix I of CITES which would ban the international trade, and Japan has said they will file a reservation meaning they could still internationally trade in blue fin. Of course if the countries that sell them to Japan don’t file a reservation then there won’t be any blue fin available for Japan to buy. So I guess you should be worrying about the blue fin fishermen rather than their customers.
Imforthewhales

Japan is just greedy and wants to keep wiping out species around the globe.
- ddpalmer
  
  Nope.
  
  Japan wants to sustainably harvest a natural resource.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Japan wants to “sustainably harvest” everything…until there is nothing left.
    
    Judging by their poor record to date, I dont think i would be putting too much faith in their methods.
    
    Japan has forgotten what sustainable means.
    
    The reason we are in this mess in the first place regarding tuna is because Japan has been consistently lying to the world about its catch sizes for the past 20 years, and ignoring the sustainable catch limits of Tuna.
Imforthewhales

So in your opinion is the Japanese whale research for research purposes? Or is it really an excuse for the harvesting of whales for Japanese kitchens and restaraunts?
Pete

Ahh, the typical rebuttal from Imfortthewhales when someone disagrees with the party line from Sea Shepherd! Only those paid by the ICR to disagree with Paul Watson could possibly come to a different conclusion? What nonsense! You have totally missed the point in my earlier post. The opinion of me, you, or the scientists in the hotel room, regarding the quantity or the caliber of the research does not change the legality of the whaling under scientific permit. Furthermore, it has absolutely no bearing on legal commercial whaling done under objection to the moratorium.

You and the SSCS seem to have a problem with understanding simple facts. I understand you revile whaling and place whales on a higher plane than other animals we consume. Fine, that is your opinion and you are free to express it. The problem is that you insist on characterizing it as illegal when it is not. Much the same way you insist on the rotten butter nonsense, you misdirect and misinform to bend facts to fit your arguements against whaling. Perhaps Watson got away with this for so long because no one outside of the AR movement knew much of anything about him. He made a serious miscalculation in succumbing to his ego and getting himself a television program that chronicles his actions for all to see. The least little bit of fact checking reveals nearly evrything he claims on the program to be false. If you wish to continue to believe: that Watson was shot; Potsy and Giles were kidnapped; that whalng is illegal; that other than 4, countries recognize Australian sovereignty in Antarctic waters; that Australian domestic law can be applied to international waters; that a country can not file an objection to rules such as moratoriums and sanctuaries and even CITES and not be bound by them; that ss throws rotten rather than an industrial chemical they purchase by the barrelful; then there is no chance of having any kind of reasonable discussion with you. To use a well worn cliche, you have had at the koolaid for too long to be saved.

Perhaps the words of the NZ representative to the IWC in 2006 will get through to you.
“The Government does not have a legal leg to stand on in the fight against whaling in the Southern Ocean, according to New Zealand’s representative at the International Whaling Commission.” … “Sir Geoffrey Palmer says under international law Japan is not doing anything wrong and there is no legal argument New Zealand could use to stop the whaling.”
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=87725
- Abe
  
  One of the smartest poasts I have seene on here. You go Pete!
  - Abe
    
    excuse me, seen.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    You call that smart? That whole post is just a smokescreen for commercial whaling.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene

Alrighty! the reason it is being called illegal by many people is that even though article VIII allows for scientific research of whales, the fact that ICR was invented in 1987(Just as the Moratorium was supposed to be in place) by Kyodo Senpaku Kaishi(A whaling consortium), the same COMMERCIAL vessels for whaling became suddenly Research vessels. Okay, they do have the abilities needed for keeping up. But based on a Japanese documentary from when commercial whaling was closing, the commercial catch was approximately 1000 whales for the seasons.

Here is where we get to see the most interesting part people. If one is just researching, either lethal or non-lethal, one takes a small part of the population to collect samples from, but the Japanese Whalers have been collecting a quota that is identical to their commercial catch. THAT is why it is easy to see the match up of commercial to research whaling, they have been using “Research” to make people go away and leave them to do their killing of the whales.

Another part is where the Article VIII stated that NO factory or other majorly industrialized vessel could be used in research on endangered Fin whales,,,,and yet they are still using the Nisshin Maru for that research. THAT is a violation of the Article VIII of the IWC. Along with the sanctuary being partially Australian as well as mandated by the IWC.

It boils down to not Japan versus the world, but Corporates against the world as this research is all part of an elite corporatist agenda in Japan. Much the same as Monasanto’s grasp for world food dominance.
- ddpalmer
  
  Well people can call it illegal for any reason they want. It doesn’t make it illegal. The Japanese meet all the requirements for whaling under Article VIII therefore it is legal.
  
  Yes you are right research collects a small representative sample and their are equations that will tell you how many samples to take based on the population. So using 200,000 Minke (it probably should be closer to 700,000 based on the latest results from Stanford Univ.) a 95% confidence level yields a sample size of 1061. Looks like they have their quota just about right.
  
  You obviously need to read Article VIII again because it doesn’t say anything close to what you say it does. Here it is for everybody to read.
  
  “Article VIII
  
  1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has granted.
  2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.
  3. Each Contracting Government shall transmit to such body as may be designated by the Commission, in so far as practicable, and at intervals of not more than one year, scientific information available to that Government with respect to whales and whaling, including the results of research conducted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and to Article IV.
  4. Recognizing that 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.”
  
  Now where does it say anything about factory or other majorly industrialized vessel not being allowed?
- ddpalmer
  
  Oops, missed the sanctuary comment.
  
  The Australians can’t set up a sanctuary in international waters.
  
  The IWC sanctuary only applies to commercial whaling. It specifically does not apply to research whaling. Also the Japanese filed an objection under Article V 3(c). And the IWC sanctuary was set up without a stated scientific basis which violates Article V 2(b).
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Japan IS commercially whaling. Thats the whole point. Their so called “science” is just a smokescreen for commercial whaling. Until you address these issues, people will continue to oppose illegal japanese whaling.
  - ddpalmer
    
    So “I” have to address these issues (although it looks like a single issue to me) to stop people from opposing illegal Japanese whaling?
    
    I didn’t realize I had that kind of power.
- Imforthewhales
  
  Exactly the point Leonard Greene…DD palmer and the bum chums Abe et al don’t understand this. Oh of course they do understand it, but they cling to the notion that people are unable to see through the entire charade. Sadly, we do see through it. Their thin veil of ” scientific research” is completely see through. Japan is putting on a puppet show, the ICR is pulling the strings, and Pete, Abe and their crew are the puppets that dance and bow for their puppet masters.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene

Alrighty! the reason it is being called illegal by many people is that even though article VIII allows for scientific research of whales, the fact that ICR was invented in 1987(Just as the Moratorium was supposed to be in place) by Kyodo Senpaku Kaishi(A whaling consortium), the same COMMERCIAL vessels for whaling became suddenly Research vessels. Okay, they do have the abilities needed for keeping up. But based on a Japanese documentary from when commercial whaling was closing, the commercial catch was approximately 1000 whales for the seasons.

Here is where we get to see the most interesting part people. If one is just researching, either lethal or non-lethal, one takes a small part of the population to collect samples from, but the Japanese Whalers have been collecting a quota that is identical to their commercial catch. THAT is why it is easy to see the match up of commercial to research whaling, they have been using “Research” to make people go away and leave them to do their killing of the whales.

Another part is where the Article VIII stated that NO factory or other majorly industrialized vessel could be used in research on endangered Fin whales,,,,and yet they are still using the Nisshin Maru for that research. THAT is a violation of the Article VIII of the IWC. Along with the sanctuary being partially Australian as well as mandated by the IWC.

It boils down to not Japan versus the world, but Corporates against the world as this research is all part of an elite corporatist agenda in Japan. Much the same as Monsanto’s grasp for world food dominance.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene
  
  Sorry for the double posting folks.
  - Hellfire Jack
    
    A whaling company that is basically about out of business and forms with some other companies to help a research company is proof that the research whaling is illegal?
    
    Your history is a bit off too BTW. The whaling companies that eventual became Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha came together in 1976.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan#Consolidation
    
    and the company that eventually became the ICR started in 1941.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Cetacean_Research
    
    Your tale needs refinishing.
- Mick
  
  Leonard Greene,
  
  You stated:
  
  “the fact that ICR was invented in 1987(Just as the Moratorium was supposed to be in place) by Kyodo Senpaku Kaishi(A whaling consortium)”.
  
  “the commercial catch was approximately 1000 whales for the seasons.”
  
  “but the Japanese Whalers have been collecting a quota that is identical to their commercial catch.”
  
  The fact is, the modern ICR was created by merging Kyodo Senpaku and the Whale Research Institute, Established in 1947. Which makes perfect sense. Kyodo Senpaku provides the ships and the Whale Research Institute supplies the scientists for the research.
  
  According to the IWC in the 1985/86 season Japan caught 1,941 whales using the ‘Under Objection’ clause.
  
  In the 1987/88 season Japan caught 273 whales using the ‘Under Scientific Permit’ clause. When the JARPA I program began in the 1995/96 season their quota was 440 whales.
  
  I obtained these numbers from the IWC website. Clearly, your contention that Japans’ commercial quota and scientific quota were the same, is wrong.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Now don’t go confusing Leonard with facts. He seems to be allergic to them.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    What a load of bunkem. Clearly the Japanese don’t need to kill that many whales for ( true) scientific research.
    
    In fact they don’t need to kill any, as age data is not needed for the types of things that japan is “researching”.
    
    The latest joint whale research expedition ( including Australia and NZ)is supporting much clerer, more relevent data in regards to whales with no whales being killed at all.
    
    No-one here is being fooled. The only reason the whales are killed at all is so that the Japanese can carve them up and serve them on little plates with soy sauce and wasabi.
    
    Japanese kill as many whales as they want using all sorts of methods, wether thats as a result of their lethal methods in Antartica or as the result of ” bycatch” off their coasts. If they cant kill them then they import them from Norway and any other country that wants to join in the program.
    
    Who knows how many whales are killed each year. The Japanese make up the numbers as they go along just as they did with the Tuna past 20 years ago. Which is why the Tuna are in so much trouble now.
    
    Luckily groups are out there making dents in the giant Japanese whaling machine and cutting their ” scientific” quotas to some extent.
    
    So those of you who support whaling by Japan can go on all you like about scientific catches…no-one is buying it. Sorry.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Doesn’t matter if anyone is buying it or not. It is all legal. And if the Norwegians are selling whale to Japan then why doesn’t Paul and his merry men go try and disrupt the Norwegian whalers? I mean they are going all the way to Europe to disrupt the tuna fishermen who sell atlantic bluefin to Japan, so why not the whalers that sell whale meat to Japan?
    
    Of course Norway doesn’t sell whale meat to Japan, they are considering it but don’t currently export any whale meat. Iceland however does export endangered fin whale meat to Japan, which is perfectly legal.
  - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene
    
    Why use the 1985-86 season? that was a test bed, the documentary I suggested indicated they had caught their 941st whale before season’s close. The fact that their quotas are set to 900-1000 whales indicates a comparative similarity between commercial and scientific whaling quotas.
    
    Yes, if you look for it, the IWC in 1008 did make an amendment regarding Fin whales to NOT be harvested in the research. IF I had not read it, I would never have mentioned it BTW. By the posts I have read from Palmer, he reminds me of certain people I have sparred with before. Seems to love insults and other rhetorical tricks when he doesn’t get people to absolutely agree with him, or in a response shifts to something different in subject.
    
    Now this argument by you Mick I have danced that dance before. The fact remains, once they saw how they could get away with it, the quota went to 900+
    
    And finally, the Japanese government finally admitted, this is NOT about the whales or the research as it is about Pride. The issue is seen as minimal, and one they can get away with telling outsiders to go and stuff it.
    
    In the end, along with Overpopulation, and the issues I addressed earlier that palmer brought the subject I forgot to add as there are so many issues adding up together, the world is in need of less rapacious practices, not the continuance of them.
    
    for now, take care Txexpat.
  - ddpalmer
    
    So correcting your mistakes of fact is what you call sparring?
  - Mick
    
    Leonard greene,
    
    “Why use the 1985-86 season?”
    
    Because that was the first year listed, because it was a commercial whale hunt and because it was just before the moratorium. That year Japan took 1,941 whales. In the 1986/87 season they took 1,941 whales in the SH, 513 in coastal waters and 315 in the Bonin Islands. From 1987/88 to 1994/95 they took between 273 and 330 whales for scientifc research. These are all facts supported by the IWC. Clearly the number of whales taken for research is considerably smaller that whales taken for commercial reasons.
    
    “The fact that their quotas are set to 900-1000 whales indicates a comparative similarity between commercial and scientific whaling quotas.”
    
    A fact according to who? A vague reference to a documentary does not constitute a basis of fact. You have offered no evidence to support your claim that the commercial quota was between 900-1000 whales. There is no comparison between the number of whales caught for commercial and scientific reasons.
    
    In summary, your claim that Japans’ commercial whaling quotas and their scientific quotas are comparatively similar; is wrong.
Imforthewhales

Selling endangered whale meat is a violation of CITES.
- ddpalmer
  
  Unless you have filed a reservation to the listed of that species. Both Japan and Iceland have filed reservations for fin and minke whales. So the international selling of endangered fin whale meat is not a violation of CITES for Japan and Iceland.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    How convenient for Japan!
    
    Is this the way of the world thee days?
    
    According to international environmental watchdog Greenpeace, Japanese adults rarely eat whale since it is considered a luxury food. Research on Greenpeace’s Web site shows that 95 percent of Japanese never or rarely eat whale and that 69 percent do not support whaling in the Southern Ocean. Other studies have shown that the consumption of whale meat has dropped considerably, forcing the whaling industry to place thousands of tons of whale meat in freezers because it could not be sold.
ddpalmer

“How convenient for Japan!”

Japan didn’t write the agreement and force other countries to sign it. They didn’t even become a party to it until 1980, 5 years after it went into force, so they weren’t even responsible for the existence of the ability to file a reservation. Also Japan, at 12, isn’t even close to the country with the most reservations, that would be Switzerland with 46 then Liechtenstein with 40. Even Palau has 32.

“…forcing the whaling industry to place thousands of tons of whale meat in freezers because it could not be sold.” No that is know as storage to make a supply available year round. The levels go way up when the fleet docks and then show a steady decline through the rest of the year. Most countries do the exact same thing with foodstuffs that are harvested/hunted at only certain times of year. They also have thousands of tons of Australian beef in frozen storage.
- Imforthewhales
  
  Norway resumed commercial whaling in 1993 as an attempt by the political party in power at the time to gain popularity in northern Norway.
  
  In order to justify its hunt, Norwegian scientists calculated a population estimate, which was later found to be much higher than the data supported.
  
  The scientific controversy surrounding Norway’s population estimates for Minke whales continues today, but even if the populations could be accurately determined, Norway’s whale hunt still directly undermines the authority of the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
  
  Norway – Traditional whale hunters … since 1930
  
  Since restarting its commercial whaling, Norway has claimed that its Minke whale hunt is small-scale and traditional. In fact, Norway did not begin Minke whaling until 1930. Some of Norway’s whaling vessels cross international waters and travel more than a thousand miles to reach their hunting grounds.
  
  The ships act as small factories, flensing whales on board and remaining at sea for weeks at a time. In fact, Norway’s whaling fleet is by no means crucial to the survival of Norway’s coastal communities, which depend on the state of Norway’s fisheries.
  
  Brochures published by the Norwegian government claim that whale meat is sold in Norway where it is a traditional part of the Norwegian diet.
  
  The reality is that there is little market for the meat in Norway – the real goal of Norway’s whalers is export to Japan where prices paid for whale meat are several times higher than in Norway.
  
  The Japanese connection
  
  The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) currently lists all the great whales on its Appendix I, under which the international trade in whale products is prohibited.
  
  Japan and Norway are both lobbying aggressively, to downlist whales from Appendix I to Appendix II, thereby reopening trade.
  
  In early 2001, the Norwegian government announced that it would allow the export of whale meat and blubber to Japan, even though such trade is prohibited under CITES.
  
  A spokesperson for the whalers public relations arm described the decision as ‘the final victory’. Greenpeace has documented tons of frozen blubber, each block carefully wrapped and labelled in Japanese, stored in Norwegian industrial freezers, waiting for export.
  
  A resumption of international trade in whale products would have dire implications. Pirate whalers will have an even greater incentive to hunt whales covertly, as it will become easier for them to smuggle illegal whale meat into Japan.
  
  Even with the current trade ban in place, illegal whale meat from both abundant and endangered species of whales is regularly discovered on sale in Japan.
  
  http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/whaling/norwegian-whaling
  - ddpalmer
    
    Nice undated anti-whaling source.
    
    But Norway has not started trading whale to Japan. They have considered it but because for Norway it would violate CITES they have not done so.
    
    Just because they considered something doesn’t mean it happened. Just like how Australia has considered taking Japan to court for years but still hasn’t done so.
- Imforthewhales
  
  Even Palau has 32.
  
  …yes but Palau is in bed with japan on this issue and is supported with many million of yen..of course Narau and other countries such as Togo are going to play along with their puppet masters.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Only one of Palau’s reservations have anything to do with whales.
    
    And how do you explain Switzerland and Liechtenstein? Are they in Japan’s pocket also?
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Go do your research DD palmer.
    
    Narau, Togo etc are all in recipient of Japanese yen. Millions of yen. So they follow their puppet masters and vote accordingly in the IWC.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Try reading my post again.
    
    Palau’s reservations are not for whales and the reservations they have are different than the ones Japan has. So what does the fact that they get aid from Japan have to do with what species Palau decided to file reservations on?
    
    And how do you explain Switzerland and Liechtenstein? Are they in Japan’s pocket also?
- Imforthewhales
  
  Why then do they turn part of the whale meat into pet food?
  - ddpalmer
    
    Because pets need to eat also. Would you prefer they let their pets starve?
  - Imforthewhales
    
    What a dimwit reply.
    
    When was the last time you saw a dog or a cat catch and eat a whale DD palmer?
    
    If you did , did you manage to get a photo of this great event?
    
    What makes you think that pets are going to starve because they are not being fed whale meat?
    
    Whales are for the oceans. Whales are not meant to be hunted in a barbaric and inhumane fashion and made into pet food.
  - ddpalmer
    
    When is the last time you saw a cat or dog catch and eat a horse?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene

Try this out. [QUOTE]Why Japan Keeps Fighting the Whale Wars
By Bryan Walsh

While the team behind The Cove, the hidden-camera documentary about dolphin slaughter in Japan, was in Los Angeles last week accepting an Oscar for Best Documentary, they took a detour to help carry out another undercover sting operation — this time at a Santa Monica sushi restaurant.

Together with federal officials, they discovered evidence that a restaurant called the Hump — really — was secretly serving whale meat, in violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. When confronted, the restaurant accepted responsibility for serving whale, and now faces up to a $200,000 fine. As Andre Birotte Jr., a U.S. attorney on the case, told the New York Times: “Someone should not be able to walk into a restaurant and order a plate of an endangered species.”

Which begs the question — who would possibly eat whale meat?

Well, for one: me.

Before you begin flooding the Internet with electronic hate mail — or contacting the nearest U.S. attorney — you should know that my eating whale was a one-time thing, as part of my reporting, and it happened in Japan, where eating whale is not only legal but sometimes considered a national right. (Japan is not the only country to refuse to sign onto the whaling ban, but it’s the only one that pursues whale in any significant way.)

In June 2005 I attended an annual whale-tasting event held by the Japanese Whaling Association at the national legislature in Tokyo. Whale restaurants from around Japan served their best cetacean recipes — whale sushi, whale sashimi, whale on crackers, canned whale, whale with Osaka noodles — to black-suited Japanese legislators, grazing from one table to the next.

So, I had to try: when you cover a whale-tasting event, you have to taste whale. And morality aside, I can tell you whale meat isn’t good. As sushi and sashimi, it was fatty and chewy with a bland, blubbery taste — like salmon that’s been kept out too long. The one exception was the whale noodle dish, but I’m going to say its success had more to do with the noodles — and the spicy broth — than it did with the whale. All in all, the experience made it hard to keep a straight face when people refer to whale as a “delicacy.” It was like eating leftovers from a submarine.

Indeed, even in Japan whale meat isn’t really that popular. Though some coastal towns have hunted whale for centuries, relatively few Japanese ate whale regularly before the postwar years, which is when it took off. What changed? Blame U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the head of the U.S. occupation of Japan, who thought whale meat would be a cheap source of protein for an impoverished country, and effectively launched the modern Japanese whaling industry. A generation of Japanese schoolchildren grew up accustomed to having a bit of whale in their lunch boxes.

But it’s been decades since Japan could be described as impoverished, and a 2008 survey found that 95% of Japanese either eat whale meat very rarely or not at all. The fishing company that owns Japan’s whaling ships estimated that annual per capita consumption from their catch might amount to less than four slices of sashimi a year. If Japanese whaling — which is allowed under the international ban only in very small scale, as “scientific research” — ended tomorrow, your average salaryman in Osaka would barely notice.

And yet, the whale wars continue — and even seem to be worsening. In January a vessel belonging to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a group that tries to disrupt Japanese whaling on the high seas, was badly damaged in a collision with a Japanese whaling ship. On Mar. 12, the Japanese Coast Guard in Tokyo arrested Peter Bethune, a member of Sea Shepherd, after he tried to board a whaling ship without permission in February. Yet Sea Shepherd — the subject of the popular Animal Planet reality show Whale Wars — isn’t holding back. “Nothing is going to keep us from trying to save whales,” says Laurens de Groot, a deckhand on the Sea Shepherd. “We’re not going to stop.”

But neither is Japan. In part, the Japanese may be protecting their right to whale as a stand-in for a separate issue that they actually care about: fishing for bluefin tuna. Japanese eat an estimated 80% of the world’s catch of the sushi species, which many scientists believe is in danger of being fished out of existence. If Japan holds the line on whaling, the argument goes, it would send a signal that limits on bluefin tuna aren’t up for debate either.

We’ll see if that message gets through. At the meeting of the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES), beginning Mar. 13 in Doha, the E.U. and U.S. will push for a ban on international trade in the bluefin. Japan has already said it will oppose the ban, but Tokyo faces an uphill battle. “A ban is the only possibility to prevent a total collapse of this species,” says Sergei Tudela, Atlantic bluefin tuna expert for the World Wildlife Fund.

But there is more than just fish politics and food culture at stake for Japan when it comes to whaling. Even though few Japanese ever sit down to a plate of whale sashimi, they still resist viscerally the idea that the international community could force Japan to stop whaling. A country that arguably never returned to full sovereignty after World War II — its constitution greatly limits its military, and U.S. armed forces are still based throughout Japan — can get tired of the world telling it what to do. As one Japanese chef told me at that whale festival in 2005: “If other people don’t want to eat whale, that’s fine. But we should be allowed to do what we want.” A side of national pride makes a blubbery dinner go down a lot easier. [/QUOTE]

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti…971807,00.html

So, as the Cove suggested, if the meat was tasty, it was likely mislabeled dolphin, I would suggest a doctor visit to check for mercury poison for some of you!
- ddpalmer
  
  So Bryan Walsh didn’t like the taste of a few pieces of whale he tasted, big deal.
  
  I don’t like the taste of coffee, does that mean nobody likes the taste of coffee?
  - Imforthewhales
    
    I think you are missing the point DD palmer. Endangered whale…CITES…USA restaurant…illegal…underground…smuggling…you get the picture.
    
    Last time I looked no-one was harpooning the last of the great coffee trees??
    
    So if you don’t like the taste of coffee then thats your problem.
    
    Luckily for the whales they taste pretty bad… otherwise there might not be any of them left by now, Japan would have eaten them all or fed them all to their cats and dogs.
  - ddpalmer
    
    No the point is that first there is no proof the whale meat sold in California even came from Japan. Second selling sei whale meat in Japan is legal, so even if did come from Japan there is no proof who was involved in illegally bringing it to California. Third some people do like the taste of whale meat.
- Imforthewhales
  
  No the point is that first there is no proof the whale meat sold in California even came from Japan.
  
  Smells like a rat, looks like a rat….
  
  second selling sei whale meat in Japan is legal,
  
  So is kiddy porn…This does not make it legal in the USA
  
  so even if did come from Japan there is no proof who was involved in illegally bringing it to California.
  
  Not yet, but the authorities will find out where it came from, who brought the endangered whale into the USA, and that restaurant that was following Japanese tradition of bending the rules and doing what they want is going to cop one massively huge fine…throw the book at em I say.
  
  Hopefully they will also end up in jail.
  
  Third some people do like the taste of whale meat.
  
  Some people like cocaine.
  
  This in no way makes it legal.
Imforthewhales

You know what they say, pride comes before a fall.
- Imforthewhales
  
  *********************************************
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ335g-HVxE
  
  **********************************************
  
  The Russians know how to take care of Japanese poachers.
  
  30/01/2010, 13:56
  Marine chasing violators off the coast of the South Kuriles, shooting to kill … and an unexpected finale.
  
  Russia’s border patrol with air support, the FSB had to open fire on the two Japanese fishing boat.
  
  Japanese fishing vessels were a half miles from the Kunashir. Russia border patrol followed the requirements to stop teh Japanese fishing boats but their crews ignored, and drove the boats at full speed.
  
  Japanese boats ignored the warning shots. They had fired the SOS, but immediately thereafter disappeared.
  
  Dmitriy Karpov, head of Sakhalin mzhdunarodnogo cooperation on border patrol management FSB: “Japanese ships, using the remote and difficult ice conditions, have gone beyond the limits of the territorial sea of Russia and arrived in the Japanese port.
  Japanese side is under investigation. Russia has insisted that the competent authorities in Japan had a need to work with organizations of fishing Hokkaido Prefecture, to avoid any violation of the inter-governmental agreement. ”
  
  Moscow warned the Japanese side that will continue to use all legal means to prevent violations of Russian borders.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Oh you mean the disputed islands where Russia has given Japanese fishermen permission to fish?
    
    ” PETROPAVLOVSK-KAMCHATSKY, July 8 (Itar-Tass) – Tokyo’s law declaring the South Kuril Islands as “an integral part” of Japan has no legal force, the president’s envoy in the Far Eastern federal district, Viktor Ishayev, told reporters on Wednesday.
    
    He recalled that the Soviet Union had never recognized the existence of a territorial dispute with Japan. However, seeking to establish constructive and mutually advantageous cooperation with the neighboring country the then Russian President, Boris Yelstin, recognized that such a dispute exists and offered to consider discrepancies in a wider context of business, political and humanitarian cooperation.
    
    “First, a big step towards Japan was made. Second, the former President, Vladimir Putin, took a decision to introduce visa-free trips for Japanese citizens to the Kuril Islands. And, third, Japan’s fishermen enjoy the right to catch sea bioresources in Russia’s exclusive economic zone,” Ishayev said.”
    
    http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=14126572&PageNum=47
    
    So they have permission to fish there meaning they weren’t poaching, just like the whalers aren’t poaching.
    
    Thanks for showing another case where the Japanese follow the regulations and agreements even when the other side violates them.
    
    This is what the third time you have posted this after being shown it is wrong.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    What i saw from the Russian poacher patrollers wasn’t ” permission” as you put it…more like” GTF outta here”
http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin

nice try. these islands are disputed thats for sure. that the russians say that the japanese “enjoy the right to catch sea-resources” is not the same as your word spin that they gave them “permission”. and second, since these islands are heavily disputed, Japan never could “accept” any right from the russians because they feel its theirs anyway.
there never has been any agreement between japan and russia about these islands, its just a figmet of your imagination.
you also cherry picked and did cut the article conveniently. the next line is “However, Japan made no reciprocal steps, he said adding that this problem can be resolved in the far future and “now it is not in the political dimension.”
last but not least, this article is from almost a year ago, ANYTHING can happen when it comes to disputes between countries. Looks like the russians decided they dont want japanese fishing boats anymore so they did shot them. the japanese are not following regulations or agreements (there are no agreements) in this case.
you made your point, yopu are pro whaling, now say goodbye and go do something else. your comments are so wrong all the time, doesnt matter for you, you just shoot your next twisted comment to stir things up. anonymous forum wreckers like you should be banned. you are nothing but a computer virus.
- ddpalmer
  
  So if the islands are disputed then they don’t belong to Russia either meaning the Japanese fishermen weren’t poaching.
  
  So either way the story doesn’t involve poaching or the Japanese doing anything wrong.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    well DD palmer you have better try telling that to the Russians who seemed a tad put out that the Japanese were there taking their fish. They gave those poachers a a spanking they wont forget in a hurry.
    
    Japan always thinks that they own this island or that island. Heck back on 42 they thought they owned Australia!
    
    In any case, regardless of who ” owns” the islands i have a feeling that the Russians wont be letting the Japanese fish poachers back back, somehow…
  - ddpalmer
    
    Russia knows exactly what the situation is. They don’t need me to tell then anything.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Yep they sure do…and now the japanese know it too.
ddpalmer

Australia opposes tuna ban!!!

http://www.theage.com.au/national/garrett-rejects-tuna-ban-20100312-q48o.html

“Australia has refused to join the US and European Union in seeking a trade ban on imperilled northern bluefin tuna.

The fish’s plight is seen as a key example of poor global fisheries management, and its fate sets a potential precedent for Australian tuna fisheries.

Environment Protection Minister Peter Garrett’s favouring of trade controls instead of the ban has angered conservation groups, but Australian tuna fishers call it sensible.”

“Imforthewhales, March 13, 2010 at 9:50 am

Ha ha the Japanese always ignore things that they don’t like.

Tuna ban? no problem,,well keep fishing tuna even though Blue Fin tuna is almost on the verge of extinction.”

Ha ha the Australians always ignore things that they don’t like.

Tuna ban? No problem, we’ll keep fishing tuna even though Blue Fin tuna is almost on the verge of extinction.
- Imforthewhales
  
  The Australian government has been pointing out japanese overfishing and rape of the oceans for a long long time.
  
  http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/japan-on-hook-for-overfishing-endangered-bluefin/2005/10/21/1129775960571.html?from=moreStories
  
  This story from 2005
  *********************************************************
  
  The Australian Federal Government believes it has uncovered a hidden sashimi mountain in Japanese fish markets.
  
  The markets appear to be selling thousands of tonnes more southern bluefin tuna than Japanese fishers are licensed to take, it says. Bluefin is regarded as one of the great raw eating fish, but the World Conservation Union has listed it as critically endangered.
  
  Suspicions have grown recently about an unreported overcatch, and for the first time the Federal Government has put a claim of its scale before an international organisation.
  
  Australia has told the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna that auction sales of frozen bluefin in Japan appear to have greatly exceeded reported catches since 1991. Last year alone, the extra catch amounted to 7050 tonnes.
  
  The federal Minister for Fisheries, Ian Macdonald, said a substantial overcatch by the Japanese was a big problem for authorities. “This is a very significant fish in Japan, and one of the few species that the Japanese fleet is actually involved in catching,” he said. “This could have very serious repercussions for the Japanese industry, and we do understand it’s a sensitive issue.”
  
  When Australia first laid the overcatch claims before the commission’s scientific committee last month the Japanese Government said the estimates were likely to include substantial double counting of fish that passed through both a “landing” market and a “consumer” market. But at the commission’s full meeting in Taiwan last week the Australian commissioner, Glenn Hurry, said Australia had put in significant effort over six months into analysing publicly available data about bluefin markets, and was now raising serious questions.
  
  Senator Macdonald said: “Australia wouldn’t be raising this if we didn’t think there was a real problem there.”
  
  Australia catches its bluefin almost exclusively by purse seine net – a method the Japanese claim may allow under-counting – and the two countries have each agreed to independent reviews of their operations.
  
  At the meeting, the global southern bluefin quota was held at 14,030 tonnes, despite scientific advice that current catch levels will reduce numbers and that the total should be cut by 5000 tonnes next year. Senator Macdonald said Japan was not prepared to commit to a cut.
  
  The $280 million Australian industry is under pressure from a legal action to overturn a federal declaration that the bluefin fishery is ecologically sustainable.
  
  A case brought by Humane Society International is due to return to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on November 11.
  
  A campaign manager with the society, Nicola Beynon, said: “The Federal Government has not found a multilateral solution, so we will be going ahead and asking for a unilateral solution.” The Japanese Fisheries Agency in Tokyo did not respond to requests for comment.
  
  Bluefin catches peaked in 1961 at 81,605 tonnes. In recent years catch figures put before the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna have declined to 13,490 tonnes for last year, or below the quota allowed.
  
  Most of the catch is taken from the Indian Ocean, but Japanese longline fleets hunt the fish in the waters south of Australia and into the Tasman Sea.
  
  ***************************************************************
  
  The world needs to get tougher on Japan and stop letting it get away with theft…Japan is stealing the worlds natural resources.
  - ddpalmer
    
    “The Australian government has been pointing out japanese overfishing and rape of the oceans for a long long time.”
    
    Yes and now that the proposed CITES ban is going to effect Australians they have decide to join the Japanese and keep raping the oceans themselves.
Imforthewhales

Australia, New Zealand, Japan Wage Tuna War

Monday, August 23, 1999

In one of the most serious fisheries disputes in several years, Australia and New Zealand have asked a UN-affiliated court to bar any more “experimental fishing” of bluefin tuna by Japanese boats in the two countries’ territorial waters.

Conservationists view the controversy as “a critical test case for the future management of high-seas fisheries and the protection of rare marine species,” reports the London Guardian. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea will announce its decision on Friday.
You are full of spin today arent you DD palmer. Nice try.

Australia has always abided by any catch limits imposed in regards to fisheries management and tuna quaots. As I sad before, Australia has cut its own quots down more than what was reqquired of it.

In regard to Japan, who have been over-fishing tuna for the past twenty years and lying about their considerable overtake..

Our environment minister might feel now that regulation is the best way forward and is a better overall strategy than just going for a Cites ban which japan will probably ignore anyway. Perhaps our environment minister feels that this time Japan might be forced into compliance and start playing by the rules for once.

Japan however is same old same old…doing whatever we want, bend the rules, if we cant do what we want we call it ” scientific”.

This article below from ten years ago. Its shows you firstly the arrogance of the Japanese and secondly shows you that the reason why we have problems now is because of japans actions a decade ago. The last paragraph is a damning testament to japanese arrogance.

http://www.unwire.org/unwire/19990823/4497_story.asp

“At the center of the dispute” is the future of the southern bluefin tuna. A single fish can fetch $40,000 in Japanese markets. Until last year, annual fishing quotas were set “amicably” under the terms of a 1994 regional pact. But in 1998, after talks on conducting scientific research into the tuna population failed, Japan announced it would take an extra 1,400 tons. This year, Japan increased its catch to 2,000 tons above its quota. Australia and New Zealand “retaliated” by asking the tribunal to issue the injunction, claiming Japan’s actions might “wipe out” the commercial fishery.

Experts claim the bluefin tuna “has been overfished for decades and is in critical shape.” But Japanese officials claim their fishers are not causing any harm to the bluefin population (Polly Ghazi, London Guardian, 22 Aug).
- ddpalmer
  
  Ancient history.
  
  Just today Australia is on the same side as Japan and plans on opposing the CITES tuna ban.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    That is a ridiculous claim DD palmer.
  - ddpalmer
    
    What claim is ridiculous? That Australia is on the same side as Japan in opposing the Tuna CITES ban. Here you can read all about it.
    
    http://www.theage.com.au/national/garrett-rejects-tuna-ban-20100312-q48o.html
    
    Sorry to point out your mistake again.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    First of all you claimed that Japan is on the same side of Japan…nothing could be further from the truth ( as usual)
    
    Australia s NOT on the same side as Japan on this issue …not at all.
    
    I really thought you might have realized that by now, but perhaps you were just trying to have a little joke. Because no-one could possibly be that stupid.
    
    Whilst both countries may not go with the CITES ban as the be all and end all of tuna conservation,it is highly obvious that Japan doesn’t want any ban of any kind, although I’m sure they knew this was coming. If they had kept any decent scientific records at all ( we all know how big the Japanese are on the science of killing the oceans) they would have realized the fact that tuna catches need to be lowered and done its bit for tuna conservation over the past twenty or thirty years.
    
    Australia wants Japan to stop overfishing…and sees regulatory measures as the best way of going forward as opposed to a CITES ban which it knows Japan will ignore. Japan has even stated that it will ignore a CITES ban.Australia has learnt its lesson from Japan over a long time.ie Japan cannot under any circumstances be trusted to honour any agreements, moratoriums on commercial whaling, treaties or conventions.
    
    Therefore Australia will vote against cites ( which Japan still ignores regarding whaling and will do so again regards tuna ) and vote for tighter controls, thus enforcing correct catch limits and controls and making sure that Japan, the great Godzilla of the words oceans, just for once, toes the line.
    
    Clearly your post was deceiving and disingenuous.
  - ddpalmer
    
    No clearly your post was a smokescreen.
    
    Australia opposes the ban because they are afraid that if the Atlantic blue fin are listed in CITES then the EU countries will get the Southern blue fin listed which will shut down a multi-billion dollar Australian industry.
    
    Especially since a CITES listing wouldn’t stop Japanese fishing because the Japanese use the tuna internally so CITES would have no effect since it deals with International Trade, like the Australia tuna that they sell to Japan.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene

So DD, which of the EET-ards are you? I see Txexpat, Hellfirejack/Endangered Man is here, I keep thinking Rammingspeed5, or StopWatsonNow7 as you love to hurl insults as replies. Can’t stand seeing people concerned that the planet is imperiled, so that you decide the waves are rocking your lil’ comfy zones? or that you guys are just so bored that trolling is what relieves the tension? You and the others already have shown that you like to show support for the whalers and other world rapers out there. Why not educate yourselves instead? Watch some movies, like Food-inc. or other similar movies? they will show that support for the massive Corporates the way you guys kiss their butts shows that one day they will be in control and you will lose your freedom to be trolls. Yes, they are working at eroding the American Freedoms of free speech, and are attempting to make the gov’t do as they say(They are pretty close to finished btw) How will that make you all feel over there?

When even your sad little group is classed as a subversive terror group by the Corporate states of America, and they come crashing through your door to steal your computers and literature, and take you away because they have eliminated Due Process. Who will fight for you?

But others that wish to fight for those rights, and the planet, and the whales are included get your derision all of the time. Ask yourselves, why is it if you are so correct about Paul Watson, why is it that he has actually never truly been charged or imprisoned? (Barring him setting foot in Japan as we all know how they feel about him) But why is it the US doesn’t charge him? why not Australia? Canada had him,and let him go because they really didn’t have that much, Norway he set foot, and they packed him back on the plane! (Or was that Iceland? who cares?)

You guys love to pack over to sites and do the same tied old dance over and over, have you nothing else to do with yourselves? (Oh wait, that could result in TMI!) Some of your group also do come across as employees of the ICR and or Glenn Inwood much of the time, and that could explain some of it. as that is a job to spread the disunity and Pro-whaling propaganda around so the Corporates can do as they see fit once they quash many people’s opinions, but guess what? our choices we make are what makes us more empowered than the Big Businesses like to admit. They want our money, if we choose to not buy what they are trying to sell, then they lose.

Realize fellas that you fight for the ultimately losing side. It matters not what articles you wish to support in regards to the whaling. It matters not that you seem to love the whalers so much. They could see about job skill retraining eventually if whaling ends, or just go and fish.

Japan knows it is running low on options, I wonder what the good people there will say once they can no longer be kept from the truth of the corruption that has lead them to the lack of Tuna, and world opinion against their taxpayer waste of whaling?

You guys tirelessly support the side that helps make it the end for a lot of the species and resources, eventually, and sooner than you think, things are gonna run out, parts of the world have riots over food that do not make the news because the companies do not want that known. But I digress. You lot from the old Animal Planet forums have been all kinds of unhappy w.o your old sounding board, is it tiresome to all agree with each other at your little hangout, EET? I see that you must be bored silly.

That and your circular arguments are old and tired guys. Stop sharing your boredom so much and find something more constructive to do already, the rest of the world is tired of your /b/-tard act.
- ddpalmer
  
  You seem to have the mistaken impression that I am an American.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    I’m tipping you are a New Zealander.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Nope, sorry try again. There are only about 190 countries left. Although your odds are a little better since i have multiple citizenships.
  - From MN, with hope…
    
    Canadian, American, or a European. How else could you supposedly work for the Great Lakes shipping company?
  - ddpalmer
    
    You don’t have to be a US citizen to work in the US.
  - From MN, with hope…
    
    Which is why Canadian and European was thrown in. I did a bit of research on the Great Lakes shipping Company, and it turns out, its a restaurant, located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Unless you left out part of the name, than your work at a restaurant, and I will no longer believe that you work on a ship, listening to the annoying engine hum on your tireless shifts.
  - ddpalmer
    
    No I said I work for ‘A’ Great Lakes shipping company. It was an SSCS supporter who can’t read that decide I meant The Great Lakes Shipping Company and even posted their phone number. I pointed out his error but apparently you made the same mistake.
    
    What is even funnier than you also having an inability to read what is actually written, is the fact that you think I might care what you believe. Let me guess you also believe my real name is DDPalmer?
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Why would we believe that D palmer> You just ripped the name off someone famous cause you think it adds to your persona.
    
    The fact that the original DD Palmer was Canadian led me to think you might be Canadian…that and your Kool Aid reference ( ala Jonestown) which is a common saying on Canada’s East coast. Especially amongst the sealers.
  - ddpalmer
    
    No I didn’t rip the name off. It actually was my name for 2 years until my mother remarried. So it is a name that people who actually know me will recognize but that no one without contacts at a major intelligence agency could ever connect to me.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    So all you are saying is it was your real name and now it isn’t your real name.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Yes that is what I am saying. When my mother remarried her and my last name changed.
    
    See you can understand simple concepts, it just takes explaining it at least twice.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    There was no need to explain twice, once was fine, and it was clear that i got your point the first time. i wasn’t asking for confirmation with my second post. Just making a statement. If you go back, you will see there was no question mark. I thought that was a fairly simple concept…no ? = no question but i will do my best to make things clearer for you in future.
  - From MN, with hope…
    
    ddp, how can I not read what written? Obviously thats your problem, because I said ‘Canadian, American, or European’ and you just said ‘you dont have to be a US citizen to work in the US’ so obviously you didnt catch what I wrote. Sure, so a letter was missed, either by you or me. Regardless, whatever job you claim to have is your business.
    
    And its beyond obvious that your true name isnt ddpalmer, same as mine isnt From MN, with hope…, and his is Imforthewhales.
Imforthewhales

Couldn’t agree more Leonard Greene…these whacky backy internet kamikazes are full of themselves and dangerous…dangerous to the natural world.
Mick

As usual, SS supporters have resorted to posting long opinion pieces and the old copy & paste routine due to a lack of facts to support their claims.

A few clear facts on the issue;

1)The ICR was created by merging the Whales Research Institute, established in 1947, with Kyodo Senpaku.

2)There is no similarity to the commercial whale quota and the scientific research quota. The scientific quota is, clearly, much smaller.

3)Whaling under scientific permit is allowed under IWC regulations.

4)The IWC regulations require that the whale meat be utilized.

5)Australia’s claim to the Antarctic is only recognized by 4 countries.

6)The Australian Federal court has no international authority.

7)To date, there has been NO International Court ruling declaring the ICR’s research in the Southern Ocean to be illegal.

8)Paul watson is not a licensed captain.

9)SS has not been granted the authority to act as law enforcement in the SO by any government or law enforcement organization.

10)Throwing glass bottles of acid and attempting to foul ships props at sea are illegal actions.

Now, I don’t want or expect anti-whaling people to change their minds on the issue. They are against whaling and I’m fine with that. That’s their opinion and their right. I respect their right to their views and opinions. However, they do not have the right to use violence or the threat of violence in an attempt to force their views on others. I have no objections to whaling. That is my view and opinion. I expect the anti-whaling advocates to respect my rights and views as I respect theirs.
Imforthewhales

As usual, Japanese whaling supporters have resorted to posting long winded claims, counter claims, accusations, so called facts which could be interpreted in a number of different ways and other minor points of contention…..and once again seek to distract from the real issues.

A few clear facts on the issue;

1)The ICR was created by merging the Whales Research Institute, established in 1947, with Kyodo Senpaku.

You “forgot” to state the reason for this.

The ICR was created when the commercial moratorium came into effect some 30 years ago and japan decided it needed to do some ” scientific” whaling.

2)There is no similarity to the commercial whale quota and the scientific research quota. The scientific quota is, clearly, much smaller.

3)Whaling under scientific permit is allowed under IWC regulations.

Japan is not doing scientific whaling.

In an open letter to the Japanese government, published in 2002 in the New York Times and sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 21 scientists declared that they “believe Japan’s whale ‘research’ program fails to meet minimum standards for credible science”. They were “concerned that Japan’s whaling program is not designed to answer scientific questions relevant to the management of whales; that Japan refuses to make the information it collects available for independent review; and that its research program lacks a testable hypothesis or other performance indicators consistent with accepted scientific standards”. They accused Japan of “using the pretense of scientific research to evade its commitments to the world community”.

4)The IWC regulations require that the whale meat be utilized.

Only under the regulations for true scientific whaling.

Japan is commercially whaling.

The ICR itself agrees that the scientific whaling is a sham. A smokescreen.

The International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee has repeatedly expressed concern for the objectives and results obtained by the ICR. In a resolution in 2007, the IWC noted that “none of the goals of JARPA 1 had been reached, and that the results of the JARPA 1 [Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic] programme are not required for management under the RMP [Revised Management Procedure]” and called upon the Japanese government “to address the 31 recommendations listed in [the Scientific Committee's JARPA 1 report] to the satisfaction of the Scientific Committee” and “to suspend indefinitely the lethal aspects of JARPA II conducted within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary”.

Japan has since ignored this directive.

5)Australia’s claim to the Antarctic is only recognized by 4 countries.

There are actually more than 4 countries claiming parts of Antartic territory. Norway, France, Australia, New zealand, the UK, Argentina & Chile. Under the terms of the Antartic treaty all territorial disputes were suspended at the time it was ratified.

Japan signed the Antartic treaty in 1959.

others to sign this treaty are:

1 United Kingdom 31 May 1960 OS/CP
2 South Africa 21 June 1960 OS/CP
3 Belgium 26 July 1960 OS/CP
4 Japan 4 August 1960 OS/CP
5 United States of America 18 August 1960 OS/CP
6 Norway 24 August 1960 OS/CP
7 France 16 September 1960 OS/CP
8 New Zealand 1 November 1960 OS/CP
9 Russia 1
2 November 1960 OS/CP
10 Poland 8 June 1961 AS/CP 29 July 1977
11 Argentina 23 June 1961 OS/CP
12 Australia 23 June 1961 OS/CP
13 Chile 23 June 1961 OS/CP
14 Czech Republic 2
14 June 1962 AS
15 Slovak Republic 2
14 June 1952 AS
16 Denmark 20 May 1965 AS
17 Netherlands 30 March 1967 AS/CP 19 November 1990
18 Romania 15 September 1971 AS
German Democratic Republic 3
19 November 1974 AS/CP 5 October 1987
19 Brazil 16 May 1975 AS/CP 12 September 1983
20 Bulgaria 11 September 1978 AS/CP 25 May 1998
21 Germany, Federal Republic of 5 February 1979 AS/CP 3 March 1981
22 Uruguay 11 January 1980 AS/CP 7 October 1985
23 Papua New Guinea 4
16 March 1981 AS
24 Italy 18 March 1981 AS/CP 5 October 1987
25 Peru 10 April 1981 AS/CP 9 October 1989
26 Spain 31 March 1982 AS/CP 21 September 1988
27 China, People’s Republic of 8 June 1983 AS/CP 7 October 1985
28 India 19 August 1983 AS/CP 12 September 1983
29 Hungary 27 January 1984 AS
30 Sweden 24 April 1984 AS/CP 21 September 1988
31 Finland 15 May 1984 AS/CP 9 October 1989
32 Cuba 16 August 1984 AS
33 Korea, Republic of 28 November 1986 AS/CP 9 October 1989
34 Greece 8 January 1987 AS
35 Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of 21 January 1987 AS
36 Austria 25 August 1987 AS
37 Ecuador 15 September 1987 AS/CP 19 November 1990
38 Canada 4 May 1988 AS
39 Colombia 31 January 1989 AS
40 Switzerland 15 November 1990 AS
41 Guatemala 31 July 1991 AS
42 Ukraine 28 October 1992 AS/CP 17 June 2005
43 Turkey 25 January 1996 AS
44 Venezuela 24 March 1999 AS
45 Estonia 17 May 2001 AS

6)The Australian Federal court has no international authority.

This does not mean the finding against whaling is not important or , as you are suggesting, nmeaningless.

7)To date, there has been NO International Court ruling declaring the ICR’s research in the Southern Ocean to be illegal.

But this might change sooner rather than later. The ICR itself is against Japanese ” research ” programs. See above.

8)Paul watson is not a licensed captain.

So what

9)SS has not been granted the authority to act as law enforcement in the SO by any government or law enforcement organization.

United nations charter for nature. Go for it lawyer boy.

10)Throwing glass bottles of acid and attempting to foul ships props at sea are illegal actions.

So is illegal commercial whaling in designated whale sanctuaries.

Now, I don’t want or expect anti-whaling people to change their minds on the issue. They are against whaling and I’m fine with that. That’s their opinion and their right. I respect their right to their views and opinions.

I doubt v much that they will change. In fact, i would give a million to one odds of that ever happening.

However, they do not have the right to use violence or the threat of violence in an attempt to force their views on others.

Any violence is coming from the whalers themselves. By stopping the whaling ships from killing whales, groups such as Sea Sheperd are saving the lives of whales. They are the most non violent people in the southern ocean, because they respect life.

I have no objections to whaling. That is my view and opinion. I expect the anti-whaling advocates to respect my rights and views as I respect theirs.

You see that is impossible because by continuing whaling you disrespect our rights as world citizens and you disrespect the right of our whales to live free of the harpoon. By asking people to respect your “right” to go whaling is to ask people to respect the rights of murderers to murder, of rapists to rape, of bank robbers to rob.

For some reason Japan seems to think that it owns these whales, when in fact I have as much right to those whales as Japan does. Just because they have a lot of money and are supported by governments and PR machines such as Glen Inwoods. does not mean that they have special rights to those whales. I prefer my whales to be swimming freely, re-populating and free of death by harpoon. If you exercise your claimed right to go whaling then you violate my rights.
- Mick
  
  imforthewhales,
  
  1)”The ICR was created when the commercial moratorium came into effect some 30 years ago and japan decided it needed to do some ” scientific” whaling.”
  
  Japan was already doing research before the moratorium.
  
  You skipped #2. I take it to mean you agree with my statement.
  
  3)”Japan is not doing scientific whaling.”
  ” “believe Japan’s whale ‘research’ program fails to meet minimum standards for credible science”.”
  
  The operating word here is “believe”. Just because some scientists “believe” that the ICR is not doing credible research does not make it so. A belief does not constitute a fact.
  
  4)”The ICR itself agrees that the scientific whaling is a sham. A smokescreen.
  The International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee has repeatedly expressed concern for the objectives and results obtained by the ICR.”
  
  The IWC Scientific committee “expressed concern”. They did not say it was a “sham” or a “smokescreen”.
  
  5)”There are actually more than 4 countries claiming parts of Antartic territory.”
  “Japan signed the Antartic treaty in 1959.”
  
  I know. That still doesn’t change the fact that only 4 countries RECOGNIZE AUSTRALIA’S CLAIM. And Japan is not one of them.
  
  6)”This does not mean the finding against whaling is not important or , as you are suggesting, nmeaningless.”
  
  But it DOES mean that the Australian Federal court does not have the authority to enforce it’s ruling. Due to the fact that the ICR is not operating in Australian territory.
  
  7)”But this might change sooner rather than later.”
  
  So, you do agree that there has been no International court ruling declaring the ICR’s research illegal.
  
  8)”So what”
  
  So, you agree he is not a licensed captain.
  
  9)”United nations charter for nature.”
  
  I’ve read the UN Charter For Nature. Nowhere does it bestow the authority to SS to act as law enforcement. It also does not grant them the authority to break the law by hurling acid at people.
  
  10)”So is illegal commercial whaling in designated whale sanctuaries.”
  
  So, you do not deny that throwing acid and prop fouing is illegal.
  
  I stated: “I have no objections to whaling. That is my view and opinion. I expect the anti-whaling advocates to respect my rights and views as I respect theirs.”
  
  Your reply was, “You see that is impossible because by continuing whaling you disrespect our rights as world citizens and you disrespect the right of our whales to live free of the harpoon.”
  
  Therein is the crux of the matter. Many anti-whaling and pro-SS people respect no one and nothing. They don’t respect the law, they don’t respect other people’s rights and they don’t even respect other people’s right to have a opposing viewpoint.
  It is for this reason, above all others, that I reject and oppose SS and their supporters. Their close-minded and self-righteous belief that they are above the law and even common decency.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Well you see that is what is so strange about people like you. All you are saying is that corporate giants of the world are the be all and end all of existence, they can do what they like, when they like and how they like. To you, money and power are your gods.
    
    “Many anti-whaling and pro-SS people respect no one and nothing. They don’t respect the law, they don’t respect other people’s rights and they don’t even respect other people’s right to have a opposing viewpoint”.
    
    You can have an opposing viewpoint, and people respect that, but its wrong to assume that you can take action on those viewpoints which will impose on the rights of others. All you are saying is that your rights are more important than anyone elses viewpoint.One again, its the murderer claiming he has a right to murder because that is his viewpoint. He sees nothing wrong with murdering and cannot understand the opposition he faces when he tries to murder.
    
    Anti whaling, SS people do respect life…that is why they want Japan to stop killing whales and that is why they head to the Southern ocean each year to stop the corporate giants imposing their will on the rest of us. SS and ant whaling groups …they don’t just respect life today but they respect life for future generations and want future generations to have the same gifts of nature that we have all grown up with.
    
    You would let a murderer go free because he liked murdering and it was a part of his culture. You would also condone rape because the rapist felt like raping and he was a rich rapist ( and was therefore more important than the person who was raped)? This seems to be the crux of your arguments.
    
    There is something very sick and twisted with this line of thinking which would be fine if you could hold those thoughts in private but unfortunately for the world that mentality comes out with very destructive patterns and is causing great destruction across the planet…and thus imposing on the rights of others to hold a different view to the giant enterprises who simply want to take as much as they can before they are gone.
  - Mick
    
    imforthewhales,
    
    You stated, “You can have an opposing viewpoint, and people respect that, but its wrong to assume that you can take action on those viewpoints which will impose on the rights of others.”
    
    I agree. It is wrong to take actions, based on your viewpoints, which will impose on the rights of others.
    Which is EXACTLY what SS and their supporters are doing. Taking action, based on their opinions, that imposes on the rights of others.
    SS and their supporters oppose whaling. That’s fine, no one is trying to force you to agree. No one is going out of their way to attack SS or people opposed to whaling in order to attempt to force them to agree with whaling.
    You have the right to disagree, to voice your opposition and to protest. You DO NOT have the right to travel 1,000′s of miles in order to violently and unlawfully attack people in an attempt to FORCE your opinions on them. Which is EXACTLY what SS is doing. Attacking people who are doing something that they don’t agree with. Which demonstrates a clear disrespect for other people’s rights. It is also immoral and shows a lack of common decency.
    
    There is nothing “sick” or “twisted” about treating people with respect and respecting their rights. The fact that you think so reveals your own lack of morals and intolerance.
- Imforthewhales
  
  The operating word here is “believe”. Just because some scientists “believe” that the ICR is not doing credible research does not make it so. A belief does not constitute a fact.
  
  At the same time just because you do not believe in something does not make something not a fact. Eg “I do not believe the earth goes around the sun”.
  
  OK then Mick..lets play it your way and give this a try. I “believe” Japan is lying to the world about its scientific whaling. I believe that they are using the words “science” and ” scientific whaling” as an excuse to continue commercial whaling. I believe that they are making fools of the world in doing so.
  
  So now i would like to know something from you.
  
  Do you believe…truly believe Japans claims that their whaling is for scientific purposes only? Or do you believe that they are commercially whaling?
  
  I think your answer will say a lot about you so please, answer carefully and give me a truthful indication of the type of person that you really are.
  - Mick
    
    imforthewhales,
    
    “Do you believe…truly believe Japans claims that their whaling is for scientific purposes only? Or do you believe that they are commercially whaling?”
    
    To answer your question: Yes, I believe Japan is whaling for scientific purposes. I do not believe they are engaged in commercial whaling.
Imforthewhales

2)There is no similarity to the commercial whale quota and the scientific research quota. The scientific quota is, clearly, much smaller.

I haven’t checked the actual numbers Mick. what i do know is that Japanese so called : scientific” quotas kept on getting bigger over the decades. I don’t think a reduction came about until the late 90′s. But once again i haven’t checked the tables to offer an informed opinion.

Why did you feel the need to add the point that Japan was doing research before 1947? What relevance t=do you hope to bring to the discussion with this point?

Also considering that the taking of whales is extra-ordinarily high, and the whaling for science claims by Japan have been shot down in flames by the Australian federal Court, public opinion worldwide, Australian Scientists and also the IWC itself which issued a directive to Japan for it to cease these activiities, what difference would it really make if Japan were taking more or less whales considering all taking of whales by Japan is bogus research?
- Hellfire Jack
  
  What are you talking about? It didn’t get bigger and bigger.
  
  JARPA’s quota was clearly stated in their proposal.
  JARPAII’s quota are clearly stated in their proposal.
  
  They don’t change them year to year. JARPAII is a ten year study.
  
  The statistical reason for each quota is clearly presented in their proposals.
  
  JARPA’s quota was 400 per year. JARPAII’s minke quota is 850 and 50 fin and 50 humpback.
  
  That doesn’t sounds anywhere near equivalent to the almost 2000 minke whale the Japanese were taking prior to the moratorium.
  
  You need to start actually researching this stuff rather than guessing at it.
- Mick
  
  imforthewhales,
  
  “Why did you feel the need to add the point that Japan was doing research before 1947? What relevance t=do you hope to bring to the discussion with this point?”
  
  This was a rebuttal to Leonard Greene’s and your implication that Japan only began research after the moratorium went into effect.
Imforthewhales

)”There are actually more than 4 countries claiming parts of Antartic territory.”
“Japan signed the Antartic treaty in 1959.”

I know. That still doesn’t change the fact that only 4 countries RECOGNIZE AUSTRALIA’S CLAIM. And Japan is not one of them.

Having signed the Antartic treaty, they undertook that there would be no dispute over claims. Unless they signed in bad faith, Japan has to honour the Antartic treaties and thus by default validate and claims on Antartica at that time.

How else would you explain Japans insistance that Australian federal police raid SS ships when they return to Australian ports?
- Hellfire Jack
  
  What you say is not a part of the ATS. The signatories of the ATS agreed to take their differences to an international body if they can’t resolve them themselves. That’s it.
  
  “1. If any dispute arises between two or more of the Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the present Treaty, those Contracting Parties shall consult among themselves with a view to having the dispute resolved by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement or other peaceful means of their own choice.
  
  2. Any dispute of this character not so resolved shall, with the consent, in each case, of all parties to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice for settlement; but failure to reach agreement on reference to the International Court shall not absolve parties to the dispute from the responsibility of continuing to seek to resolve it by any of the various peaceful means referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.”
  
  Anyone can read the ATS. http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/antarct/anttrty.jsp
  
  Under the ATS all claims are ignored. The ATS isn’t a treaty that establishes ownership of the antarctic territory. The ATS specifically says “the treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force”. Australia’s 200 mile EEZ, that they claim the Japanese are violating, was established well after they signed the ATS. Australia is dealing in bad faith with the ATS.
- Mick
  
  imforthewhales,
  
  “Having signed the Antartic treaty, they undertook that there would be no dispute over claims. Unless they signed in bad faith, Japan has to honour the Antartic treaties and thus by default validate and claims on Antartica at that time.”
  
  The treaty forbids any new claims. Australias’ claim for the EEZ was made after the treaty was signed. The United States, amongst many others, does not recognize Australias’ claim, either.
Imforthewhales

“6)”This does not mean the finding against whaling is not important or , as you are suggesting, nmeaningless.”

But it DOES mean that the Australian Federal court does not have the authority to enforce it’s ruling. Due to the fact that the ICR is not operating in Australian territory.”

Yet Japan wants Australia and Australia to Sea Sheperd from campaigning against their commercial whaling? Japan also wants Australian federal authorities to raid SS ships when they return to port.

Can you explain this?

Nothing much can be done regarding the federal court ruling. But it does draw a line in the sand and tells Japan what side of the fence it is sitting on. Australia needs to take Japan to an International court if it refuses to stop whaling and it is looking likely that this might be what will happen.
- Hellfire Jack
  
  Australia is the SS’ defacto port of call. Any problem with a ship at sea has to be investigated at the next port of call that that ship uses.
  
  If the SS were to bypass Australia and sail to the US then the US would have to do the investigating. The port of call also has a say in if a ship leaves or not. So who do the Japanese talk to if they want a ship in ab Australian port stopped? Well that would be Australia.
  
  Your conspiracy theory here is pretty weak.
- Mick
  
  imforthewhales,
  
  “Nothing much can be done regarding the federal court ruling.”
  
  “Australia needs to take Japan to an International court if it refuses to stop whaling and it is looking likely that this might be what will happen.”
  
  Nothing much can be done regarding the federal court ruling because the Australian Federal court has no jurisdiction which you admit in your following statement.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Australia has stated its intention to take Japan to an International court if it continues its charades.
  - Mick
    
    So, until Australia does take the ICR to an international court and the international court rules that their activities are illegal, the ICR is NOT BREAKING ANY LAWS AND ARE OPERATING LEGALLY.
Imforthewhales

8)”So what”

So, you agree he is not a licensed captain.

I don’t agree or disagree,….he can be Cindy Brady for all i care.

’ve read the UN Charter For Nature. Nowhere does it bestow the authority to SS to act as law enforcement.

You must have read the wrong UN charter for nature then.

10)”So is illegal commercial whaling in designated whale sanctuaries.”

So, you do not deny that throwing acid and prop fouing is illegal.

it is illegal for someone to shoot someone in the street with a gun. Its still OK for a policeman to shoot a gun at an armed robber.
- Hellfire Jack
  
  No country or treaty or charter gives the SS the authority to police the oceans. None.
  
  The UN World Charter for Nature says “Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction” but it’s after “States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:” The SS are not able to police the worlds oceans because no one grants them the ability to do so.
  
  The SS are not police or security for anyone or anything. They can’t self appoint themselves to a position. That’s not how international laws work.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    You havn’t read the whole thing. If you have read it then either
    
    1) You dont understand the document fully
    
    or
    
    2) You are being deceptive.
    
    Perhaps a bit of both?
  - Hellfire Jack
    
    No I’ve read it fully. That’s how I know the SS don’t get any special powers from the charter.
    
    It’s obvious you haven’t bothered reading it though by your answer. Why don’t you explain why I’m wrong according to the document rather than just accusing me of being wrong or lying? Because you can’t. You’ve never read it past the article Paul Watson cites.
- Mick
  
  imforthewhales,
  
  I have a question for you. Is paul watson a licensed captain or not? If so, please provide a source that supports that claim. If not, it is a misrepresentation for him to refer to himself as a ‘captain’.
  
  I stated, “So, you do not deny that throwing acid and prop fouing is illegal.”
  
  You replied, “it is illegal for someone to shoot someone in the street with a gun. Its still OK for a policeman to shoot a gun at an armed robber.”
  
  Your reply makes no sense what so ever.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Mick..I don’t care wether he is a Captain or not.
    
    As I sad, i don’t care if he is Harry Houdini or holds a pilots licence. All he has to do is get a ship from point A to point B and back to point A again.
    
    Its up to you to provide the proof that he isn’t a captain if that is your stated opinion and it is important to you.
    
    You replied, “it is illegal for someone to shoot someone in the street with a gun. Its still OK for a policeman to shoot a gun at an armed robber.”
    
    Your reply makes no sense what so ever.
    
    You need to think about it a bit more.
  - Hellfire Jack
    
    You can’t prove a negative imforthewhales. He’s not a captain. He holds no captain’s license. What do you want us to show you? A picture of Watson with his hands empty?
    
    His title is a nickname only. He makes his crew call him ‘The captain’. So his name would actually be Paul ‘The captain’ Watson not Captain Paul Watson.
Imforthewhales

thats your opinion but tell me this …why then hasn’t SS been arrested and charged?
- Hellfire Jack
  
  It’s not an opinion. What country gives the SS the legal right to police the international waters of the world. The answer is none. If no one gives them the ability to do that then they are not able to. The WCN doesn’t say “Well if you gots a boat go shoot at people in international waters if they’re doing bad things.” Sorry.
  
  No one has arrested them because they’re in international waters in a legally gray area doing legally questionable direct action.
  
  Who’s going to arrest them? Japan? They do when they have jurisdiction. Hence Peter Bethune now sitting in Japanese prison. No one wants to touch it and that’s why the SS keeps going every year.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Are you saying that the law is an ass?
  - Imforthewhales
    
    t’s not an opinion. What country gives the SS the legal right to police the international waters of the world.
    
    All countries who have signed up to the UN.
  - Hellfire Jack
    
    No country signed the UN WCN. Members don’t have to agree to every
    
    There are no laws made by the UN WCN. None. No country said to the SS: “Yes we want you to go do this for us.” Except Costa Rica and when they did it backfired and they wound up fleeing Costa Rica to avoid arrest. Again, the police arrested by those who claim to have authority due to the WCN? Nope. No authority is given to the SS by the WCN.
Imforthewhales

International Laws and Charters

Sea Shepherd campaigns are guided by the United Nations World Charter for Nature. Sections 21-24 of the Charter provides authority to individuals to act on behalf of and enforce international conservation laws.
Sea Shepherd cooperates fully with all international law enforcement agencies and its enforcement activities complying with standard practices of law and policing enforcement.
Sea Shepherd adheres to the utilization of non-violent principles in the course of all actions and has taken a standard against violence in the protection of the oceans.
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is dedicated to working towards cooperative agreements between nations to protect species and habitats according to SSCS Mandate.

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society respects and acts in accordance with the following international treaties, declarations, conventions, and charters:

The World Charter for Nature
U.N. Doc. A/37/51 (1982)

The International Whaling Commission (IWC)

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
March 3rd, 1973, Washington, D.C.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
December 10th, 1982, Montego Bay

The Convention of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)

The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention (NAFO)

International Convention for Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT)

The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
June 5th -16th, 1972, Stockholm, Sweden

ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
July 9th, 1985, Kuala Lumpur

The Berne Convention

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species

If you don’t like it then i guess you had better get the laws changed?
- Hellfire Jack
  
  What laws? The World Charter for Nature doesn’t make laws. It’s not a legal document. Show me where the Sea Shepherds signed this?
  
  Notice the word “guided” in there. Guided.. as in we like what this says so we’re following along with it.
  
  They have no legal ability to do anything to anyone on the oceans of the world. The UN World Charter for Nature doesn’t grant policing powers to anyone.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    They have no legal ability to do anything to anyone on the oceans of the world. The UN World Charter for Nature doesn’t grant policing powers to anyone.
    
    Um… I think you had better read it again.Because that is exactly what it says.
  - Hellfire Jack
    
    I’ve read it numerous time. Nowhere does it say “Please go out and attack ships at sea if you believe they are doing wrong to nature.”.
    
    The UN WCN is not a treaty. It’s not anything but guidelines and suggestions and it simply does not give enforcement rights to anyone. Having a boat doesn’t give you the ability to go out and become the sea police. Why is Bethune rotting in jail rignt now as we discuss this if he was an authorized law enforcement agent? They don’t arrest the police for being police do they? NO. Because the WCN doesn’t give enforcement powers to anyone. It doesn’t matter what the try to SS say. There have already been court rulings telling the SS that the WCN does NOT give them any enforcement abilities.
- Mick
  
  imforthewhales,
  
  watson states that SS complies “with standard practices of law and policing enforcement”.
  
  When did throwing bottles of acid and paint, using prop foulers and ramming ships become “standard practices of law and policing enforcement”? Can you name ONE legitimate law enforcement organization that utilizes such methods to enforce the law?
  - Imforthewhales
    
    From what i have seen of the Russians when they enforce the law,against Japanese poachers, they use bullets and guns fired from helicopters.
    
    However Sea Sheperd do not use any of these things.
    
    Most law enforcers that i am aware of have a gun.
    
    However Sea Sheperd are a peaceful organisation and they respect life, of all kinds.
    
    They do not seek to cause injury or harm and use more benign means of enforcement which are all aimed at property, not people. Stinky butter being one of them and a bit of old rope another.
    
    In return, Japanese fire grenade tipped harpoons
    into the backs of giant whales, causing agonising, lingering and polonged death, spilling blood into
    the ocean. After repeatedly shooting the whale with high powered rifles and perhaps even using electrocution on the whale, they then carve the bodies up and throw the bits they don’t like overboard.
    
    One might argue that the Japanese are the most dangerous and fearsom beasts ever to wander into
    the Antartic. Their actions certainly speak of a brutalitly that is unique.
    
    Of course if the Australian navy send down a warship one of these days to tackle the japanese illegal whale poachers, then I’m sure Sea Sheperd would happily acceed the enforcement to the navy and leave the Southern Ocean for sunnier climes.
    
    Which do you think the Japanese poachers would prefer…SS stink bombs or a nice little missile aimed at them from an Australian warship?
    
    ***********************************************
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX7BiENifRw
    
    ***********************************************
    
    ….because if they did, it might look something like this…………
    
    ***********************************************
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gErYKPcUp3Q
    
    *********************************************
  - Mick
    
    imforthewhales,
    
    I stated, “When did throwing bottles of acid and paint, using prop foulers and ramming ships become “standard practices of law and policing enforcement”? Can you name ONE legitimate law enforcement organization that utilizes such methods to enforce the law?”
    
    In your long pointless opinion piece you failed to answer the questions I presented to you.
    So, I will ask again:
    
    When did throwing bottles of acid and paint, using prop foulers and ramming ships become “standard practices of law and policing enforcement”? Can you name ONE legitimate law enforcement organization that utilizes such methods to enforce the law?
    
    Please try to stay on the subject and answer the questions.
Imforthewhales

World Charter for Nature: Implementations

21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:

(a) Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common activities and other relevant actions, including information exchange and consultations

(b) Establish standards for products and other manufacturing processes that may have adverse effects on nature, as well as agreed methodologies for assessing these effects

(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment

(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction

(e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction

22. Taking fully into account the sovereignty of States over their natural resources, each State shall give effect to the provisions of the present Charter through its competent organs and in co-operation with other States.

23. All persons, in accordance with their national legislation, shall have the opportunity to participate, individually or with others, in the formulation of decisions of direct concern to their environment, and shall have access to means of redress when their environment has suffered damage or degradation.

24. Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter, acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met.

——————————————————————————–

This UN Charter was upheld in 1995 when Captain Paul Watson cited the Charter as his authority to order Spanish and Cuban drag trawlers off the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Captain Watson had been arrested in this area, outside of the Canadian 200 mile limit, by Canadian authorities and was charged with felony mischief.

During the court proceedings, the jury was advised by the Judge that Canada was a signatory to the World Charter for Nature, and as such, they must take the Charter into full account.

Captain Watson was acquitted “by reason of colour of right,” and at the same time established a Canadian precedent for using the Charter to defend actions of intervention against illegal fishing activities.

Note: Colour of Right is a common law defense defined as “an honestly held belief in entitlement to property” (Source: Jurist Canada)
- Mick
  
  imforthewhales,
  
  “Captain Watson was acquitted “by reason of colour of right,” and at the same time established a Canadian precedent for using the Charter to defend actions of intervention against illegal fishing activities.”
  
  Your information is incorrect. He was found guilty and sentenced to 30 days imprisonment, fined and placed on probation for 2 years. The following is an excerpt from the summary of the judges’ decision.
  
  “Inasmuch as Mr. Watson’s defence to this charge was that he acted under
  colour of right in that he himself believed that he was authorized to do what he did by
  the UN Declaration (1982) known as the World Charter for Nature, his conviction also
  carries with it the conclusion that the jury were satisfied that the Crown had proven
  beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not have such an honest belief.”
  
  The judge also said, “the boat Watson attacked, the Rio Las Casas, was an innocent victim. It was not in violation of any law when Watson attacked it.”
- ddpalmer
  
  You really need to actually read what the court said.
  
  They said that the UN WCfN DOES NOT give Paul Watson any enforcement powers, but if he TRUELY BELIEVES it the ‘colour of right defense can be used.
  
  So now that he KNOWS from a court ruling that the UN WCfN DOES NOT give him any enforcement powers it can no longer be used as a defense.
  
  You really should do a little investigating before you drink the kool-aid.
Imforthewhales

24. Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter, acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met.

Note the words ” duty to act”.
- Mick
  
  imforthewhales,
  
  Section 24 states, “Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter” and “strive to ensure”.
  
  Section 21(e) states, “Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.”
  
  Section 23 states, “in accordance with their national legislation”.
  
  Nowhere does it grant anyone authority to act as law enforcement. Nowhere does it authorize anyone to break the law or to attack people.
Imforthewhales

Sections 21-24 of the Charter provides authority to individuals to act on behalf of and enforce international conservation laws.

It is an authority to enforce. But… I’m sure you don’t want to hear that either.

Kinda too bad really.
- Mick
  
  imforthewhales,
  
  “Sections 21-24 of the Charter provides authority to individuals to act on behalf of and enforce international conservation laws.”
  
  You should read it again. It says no such thing. Nowhere does it say “act on behalf of” or “enforce”.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene

“Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter” and “strive to ensure”.

Take a look at that a moment. Each person has a duty to act. A duty to act!
That is what is driving the actions to interfere with the whalers.

As for the other thing, I have linked a pdf that showed when and why the ICR was made, and in fact you seem to turn the blind pro-whaler eye to the fact that he ICR is in existence, per their own website, to bring back commercial whaling, hence lifting the ban.

The 1986 documentary sated that a retiring harpooner was to get the last whale of that season, number 941. Presently, the whalers seek a number very close to that, but with your circle arguments, and dead horse beating to make us all rehash the same tired arguments, you seem to not be understanding this.

Also, it is now more clear, with the impending ban on Tuna, that Japan is digging it’s heels in on whaling as preparation to the Tuna ban. It really is not about the whales for Japan, it is pride.
- Deacon Jones
  
  You can try to cut up the UN World Charter for Nature but if you follow one line you have to follow all of them.
  
  The Sea Shepherds can’t pick and choose which articles to follow. They have to follow the entire thing not just a sentence. The UN World Charter for Nature does NOT give authority to anyone at any time to police the world. They could get away with it once by ‘color of right’ but now any court that deals with them can throw the book at them because they now know that one sentence in the charter does not grant them any special powers.
  
  The charter is not a law making device and it is not a legally binding treaty. It’s just a nice little ‘respect nature’ guideline for all member states.
- Mick
  
  Leonard Greene,
  
  “I have linked a pdf that showed when and why the ICR was made, and in fact you seem to turn the blind pro-whaler eye to the fact that he ICR is in existence, per their own website, to bring back commercial whaling, hence lifting the ban.”
  
  “The 1986 documentary sated that a retiring harpooner was to get the last whale of that season, number 941. Presently, the whalers seek a number very close to that….”
  
  I have never discussed the PURPOSE of the creation of the ICR with you. I have discussed the fact that scientific research on whales was being carried out a long time before the moratorium. In order to refute your implication that scientific research only began after the moratorium, which is clearly incorrect.
  On different occasions on different websites I have clearly stated that the PURPOSE of the ICR’s research was to provide scientific evidence that limited and sustainable commercial whaling could resume.
  Therefore, your earlier assumption is incorrect. You must have me confused with someone else.
  
  In regards to your 1986 documentary. I have provided you with facts from the IWC’s website that clearly proves that in the 1986/87 season Japan took a total of 2567 whales under objection for commercial purposes. Far more than the 941 you referenced. In addition they also took 1,941 whales in the 1985/86 season. Again, far more than the 941 you claim. Therefore your contention that the current numbers taken for research and those taken for commercial reasons are close, is wrong.
  - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene
    
    Oh, if you are going to use the total number of whales take for the year, then yes, it makes me look wrong. the documentary was only dealing with the season for the SO whale hunt that actually gave the number of 941 whales before they went back home. As for the whales they hunted further north,That could make the rest of the numbers up as they hunt Minke, Sei, and other whales closer to their own waters, including species NOT wanted killed by the IWC.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Who really knows how many whales the Japanese are taking from the worlds oceans?
    
    The worlds rapidly diminishing tuna stocks is now in dire straights…with the blue fin tuna likely appearing on the worlds list of endangered species very soon.
    
    The Japanese have been fishing tuna over quota for the past twenty years, perhaps more, reaping them billions of dollars in revenue for their deliberate carelessness.
    
    Who said crime doest pay?? Who is to say that the same thing isn’t happening with their whaling?
    
    As far as whales go, Japanese not only kill whales in the Southern Ocean sanctuaries where they are “protected”. They also hunt whales in the Pacific and around Japans shores…dolphins and the like.
    What they don’t catch they try to import one way or another from countries such as Iceland and Norawy.
    
    Then there is the issue of ” bycatch” whereby any whales caught in nets somehow become ” bycatch” and are processed as such. Just another example of Japan bending the rules to suit themselves…there has been a steady increase of whales being caught in nets since the bycatch rule came into place.
    
    Considering that some whale meat ends up as dog food, and also when you are aware of how damaging this whole issue is to Japans image, I find it very difficult to understand their total fascination for whaling.
  - Mick
    
    Leonard Greene,
    
    “Oh, if you are going to use the total number of whales take for the year, then yes, it makes me look wrong. the documentary was only dealing with the season for the SO whale hunt that actually gave the number of 941 whales before they went back home. As for the whales they hunted further north,That could make the rest of the numbers up as they hunt Minke, Sei, and other whales closer to their own waters, including species NOT wanted killed by the IWC.”
    
    If you had bothered to actually look at the IWC website, you would discover that in BOTH the 85/86 and the 86/87 season, the whalers took 1,941 “MINKE” whales in the “SH”(Southern Hemisphere). Which means that you don’t just “look” wrong, you ARE wrong. By the way, if you would take the time to look for information instead of relying solely on a documentary, you would find that the USSR took 3,028 minke whales in the SH in 1985/86 and 86/87, too.
JIM

The UN charter has a limitation the SS conveniently overlooks. 21 begins with the phrase “to the extent they are able”. This phrase requires Sea Shepherd to remain within the bounds of law and does not give free reign to do whatever the heck they feel is justified. Ship ramming and prop fouling and launching botles of acid and paint are not within the bounds of law. They go beyond lawful protest. This is a part of the judge’s comments on the Canadian case that you misapply as justification for Watson’s continued use of the charter as a shield for his actions:

“Legitimate and lawful protest and public education on
environmental issues must take place within the parameters prescribed by law. There
is therefore a role for general deterrence in such circumstances, to bring home the
point to Watson and others that, no matter the strength of one’s belief in the moral
rightness of one’s cause, it does not, in the eyes of the law, allow for the taking of
the law into one’s own hands.”
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene
  
  And yet, had the Australian authorities done what they had vowed to do, the need for private people to go down and defend the whales would not have been needed. Votes were gotten, then forgotten. What you folks who are so in support of the Big Corporates who manipulate the laws they undermine fail to realize is that this whaling is done in waters that are wide open, as much as the old west used to be. That is a gray zone, had the Australians actually patrolled these waters more forcefully, or arrested the whalers the first time they set foot on Australian ports, that may have sunk in on a lot of folks.
  
  As to the extent that they are able to, can be liberally translated as to do whatever one can, period. I applaud the fact that only collisions that have yet to be investigated have occurred as opposed to shooting guns or rockets have taken place.
  
  Basically, until the authorities expand their influence over the SO, yes, people can and will take the law into their own hands, In case it had not occurred to you, the whalers have also committed questionable acts, the worst being the deliberate destruction of the Ady Gil, coming very close to murder had the vessel not swung itself with that left engine activation. Had they realized the SM-2 was going to do that earlier, they likely could have gotten away, they had no idea the captain of that whale-hunter was going to do what he did.
  
  Stinks bombs and not explosives have been thrown. Prop foulers that seem to always be cut by the very vessels have been more a slower down than an actual threat.
  - Deacon Jones
    
    Leonard, That’s just it.. The Australians have no authority to do anything. They are upset that people are whaling and tried to bend the ATS to create a whale sanctuary.
    
    The Australians have to go to a court hearing before they can make any legal claims to the waters the Japanese are whaling in.
    
    The Sea Shepherds are not Australia’s police force. They have no right to act in those waters on the Australian government’s behalf.
    
    The Ady Gil’s pilot at the time said he didn’t even see the SM2 coming. Peter Bethune was on top of the vehicle and did not order any movement of the vehicle. From all the footage I’ve seen the Ady Gil pretty much put itself in harms way and then when the SM2 got close to it it accelerated into the SM2. In the Ady Gil footage you can even hear Bethune screaming at the Ady Gil’s pilot to try and stop the acceleration.
    
    Stink bombs and prop foulers are not the tools of a maritime police force. They’re not the tools of any police force. The Sea Shepherds are not police and have no authority in international waters.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    n the Ady Gil footage you can even hear Bethune screaming at the Ady Gil’s pilot to try and stop the acceleration.
    
    Thats an interesting comment. That looks as though Ady Gil was trying to get out of the way of the japanese ship that was bearing down on them.
    
    Perhaps they could of if given fair warning, not forced to react within a millisecond.
    
    Its not hard to see who was under the most steam.
    
    Another interesting comment today in the NZ press.
    
    “The Japanese Daily Yomiuri reported that while it is possible to crack down on acts of piracy such as robbery based on the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea and anti-piracy law, “the Foreign Ministry does not regard Sea Shepherd protest activities as acts of piracy”.
    
    The Japanese whaling machine will be doing their best to come up with other charges to suit their purposes, no doubt. All the same this must be turning into one big headache for them?
- Imforthewhales
  
  he UN charter has a limitation the SS conveniently overlooks. 21 begins with the phrase “to the extent they are able”. This phrase requires Sea Shepherd to remain within the bounds of law and does not give free reign to do whatever the heck they feel is justified.
  
  Who says? You?
  
  When did you become bigger than the UN?
  
  Seems to be that : as they are able” means just that…if youa re able, then you go in to bat. If you have massive support, means you can do more because you are more able.
  
  You might not like SS heading off south to the Antartic to take on the illegal whalers. But they are doing the job the navy should be doing. Fortunatly, they do a good job and keep getting support from the public, nowhere more so than Australia which is very solid indeed.
  
  If the Japanese don’t like it down there with SS on their tail, and dont like the small of stinky butter, maybe..just maybe…they will realise that they are not wanted here…maybe they will get the message to bugger off back to Tokyo…
  
  Legitimate and lawful protest and public education on
  environmental issues must take place within the parameters prescribed by law. There
  is therefore a role for general deterrence in such circumstances, to bring home the
  point to Watson and others that, no matter the strength of one’s belief in the moral
  rightness of one’s cause, it does not, in the eyes of the law, allow for the taking of
  the law into one’s own hands.”
  
  One thing i have noticed about Canada and that is they don’t like their status quo being challenged. Its almost pitiful…and are pretty good at juggling the rules to suit themselves. Their press is some of the most biased in the ” modern” world.
  
  Most people worldwide like to support the status quo. Its safe and cuddly to be within its grasp. But what to do when the status quo not only lets the people down and becomes ineffective? The Status quo all round the world are failing to stop the jugernaughts that are killing off the world.
  
  Having been invaded once before by japan, Australians take a different mindset and support the people who take on these jugernaughts when the status quo are not only ineffective but are activly tied in closely 9 via trade) with the jugernaughts. .
  - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene
    
    Deacon, the footage showed that even Pete had no idea of the danger they were until it was too late.
    The SM-2 moves very nimbly for something over 500tons, and that is die to being a vessel designed to attack whales, and track them. Add tot hat fact the water cannon obscuring…..OBSCURING the view of the bow of the SM-2, and it makes it hard for one to see they intended to attack the AG, the acts of the AG was to fire up the left engine to make it pivot to the right and avoid a worse hit than they were about to receive. Even a Maritime lawyer has weighed in, for the most part, that it it would seem to be the SM-2 was at fault, and in honesty, he then gave a opinion that the AG agitated the SM-2. Even though the SM_2 had been also engaging in agi9tating behavior of it’s own when it came upon the SI and sprayed with the water cannon. So, both sides used their tricks on each other, the SM-2 captain is the one winding up T-boning another vessel.
  - ddpalmer
    
    If Pete had no idea then he failed as a captain. They had been harassing the Shonan Maru for over 3 hours and then they decided to stop and they just assumed that the people they had been harassing wouldn’t be a little pissed off?
    
    From their own video they saw the Shonan Maru a good 2 minutes before the collision and they were joking about what had been going on all day. At that point, at the latest, they should have realized that the Shonan Maru wasn’t done ‘playing’ even if Pete had decided he was.
    
    And the water cannon was aimed to port the whole time and didn’t obscure the Shonan Maru bow. And the fact that the water cannon was still going along with the LRAD was just another indication that the Shonan Maru wasn’t standing down just because Pete had slowed down.
    
    I don’t know whether the Shona Maru intended to hit the Ady Gil or just make a close approach with the water cannon, but the Ady Gil had enough warning and time to avoid them in either case.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    I don’t know whether the Shona Maru intended to hit the Ady Gil or just make a close approach with the water cannon, but the Ady Gil had enough warning and time to avoid them in either case.
    
    They were half a mile away from the Japanese ship for starters…so they were already ” out of the way” and were clearly idle in the water witht he Japanese ship at good speed making all the manouvres.
    
    The Japanese did not make their intentions clear ( ie they in no shape or form let it be known that their intention was to ram the Ady Gil). They could have done this over a loudspeaker, or by ships radio. They could even have aimed their ship directly at the Ady Gil, thius giving their intentions away but instead the japanese made their move at the last second.
    
    The Japanese had the speed and the direction to make the most out of avoiding a collision but this worked in their favour when they took out the Ady Gil.
    
    Given even a minutes warning might have meant that Ady Gil could have taken defensive measures. A radio boradcast, morse code, a flag raised…anything would have done. However the crew of the Ady Gil, relaxing on deck, were taken by total surprise by a determined Japanese captain making full use of the ” element of surprise”
  - Imforthewhales
    
    dpalmer, March 16, 2010 at 6:26 pm
    
    If Pete had no idea then he failed as a captain. They had been harassing the Shonan Maru for over 3 hours and then they decided to stop and they just assumed that the people they had been harassing wouldn’t be a little pissed off?
    
    **********************************************
    
    Pete Buthane didn’t fail as the Japanese had given no signals that they were prepared for a possible deadly action.
    
    His only failing was underestimating just how far the Japanese would go…above and beyond the laws of the sea… to keep the illegal Japanese whaling machine operating at full capacity…even tot he extent where others lives were put in grave and immediate danger.
    
    You seem to be saying that Pete B should have assumed that the Japanese captain would attempt a ramming.
    
    I’m sure the corporate giant that is Japanese whaling had been pissed off all day DD palmer and maybe even all week.
    
    But are you implying that because a captain of a large ship is ” pissed off” that he can attempt to cut in half another ship and endanger the lives of the ships crew?
    
    I agree with you that the Japanese whaling ships cannot be trusted to preserve life ..and more to the point, shouldn’t be trusted.
    
    But thats easy to say after the event.
    
    Any trust that may have existed previous to the ramming of the Ady Gil is now long gone and sits at the bottom of the Southern Ocean, alongside Pete Bethunes ship that the Japanese whalers destroyed.
  - Deacon Jones
    
    Oh I see Leonard Greene. The SM2 was more nimble than the super maneuverable and incredibly fast Ady Gil. That makes no sense whatsoever. The Ady Gil stopped where it was in the path of the SM2. They were talking in the video about whether or not they should shoot it some more. They knew where they were and what was coming for them.
    
    The water cannon made the inexperienced pilot throttle up and charge the SM2? Possible. But the captain didn’t the pilot to do anything when he throttled up and into the SM2.
    
    The blind pilot added to the the fault of the collision. The remainder of the fault of which falls almost entirely on Pete Bethune for putting his historic boat in harms way of another ship. It’s plain to see.
JIM

The judge seemed quite clear in the Canadian case that you think authorizes Watson’s behaviour. There is no gray area here. In his instructions to the jury, he said that the charter does not give Watson the right to do what he did then and continues to do now. The defense used at that time was that Watson “believed” the charter gave him authority. Despite Watson’s claim on his website, that this court case somehow vindicates his use of the charter; it does no such thing. “Colour of right” does not mean what Watson states on his website and the charter itself was not the basis of his defense. It is worth noting that in the appeal of this case, Watson and his attorneys did not take exception to the Judge’s instruction to the jury that the charter offered no authorization to Watson.
- Imforthewhales
  
  Regardless of anything that puppets of the Canadian admin might have to say about something that they have a vested interest in, the fact remains that SS , PW and crew won their case.
  
  the fact remains that the UN charter is in place, is there for everyone to read, and as yet they have not re-written the rules of the road there. It is binding for any nation that has joined the UN to pay heed to its directives.
  - ddpalmer
    
    How does PW being convicted of a felony translate into winning their case?
  - Mick
    
    imforthewhales,
    
    “…the fact remains that SS , PW and crew won their case.”
    
    As ddpalmer pointed out, you are wrong. paul “the captain” watson was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in jail, fined and given 2 years probation.
Michael Raymer

“Stink bombs and prop foulers are not the tools of a maritime police force. They’re not the tools of any police force. The Sea Shepherds are not police and have no authority in international waters.”

That’s nonsense. Police forces all over the world use tear gas and pepper spray which is much more debillitating than a stink bomb. Police forces also use puncture strips to flatten the tires of cars. These are directly analagous to the use of prop foulers at sea. Don’t pass yourself off as a law enforcement expert unless you can show credentials.

International waters are just that. There is no police force. The same rationale that whalers use for their activities is the exact same rationale the Sea Shepherds use to justify theirs. If you don’t like it, get a boat and go stop them. Oh, wait. Then you would be taking the law into YOUR hands. Hmmmm…it’s all so confusing.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene
  
  Actually, Michael. There is footage of a type of small scale prop-fouler for use by maritime police being worked on, it resembles a grenade launcher, but deploys a net-like device that can stop a small boat. Based on footage from whale wars, it appears that the Japanese whaling vessels have a line cutter under their keels as almost all of the prop-foulers used by the SSCS have been cut in half by the harpoon ships.
  
  And Palmer, as for the issue of Pete’s awareness of the danger, they had been at the game of cat and mouse all day, and it was basically the part of the day to call it quits, tell me how often it is that you yourself have not seen something about to happen that caught you off guard, it happens even to the best of us. And yeah, they thought the SM-2 was going to just pass by them like the other vessels, as there were the other marus passing away and not coming at them, at worst, they may have expected a watercannon spritz, not a T-boning. Now there are lawyers of maritime law stating the SM-2 was the give way vessel, but they make allowance for it being a mistake. Maybe that will come out under the investigations, or in court, maybe it won’t, neither side will know until the news is announced.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Yes the Shonan Maru was the give way vessel. But the COLREGS also require all vessels to do everything possible to prevent a collision. So minutes before the collision when they saw the Shonan Maru turn towards them it became incumbent on them to start paying attention and do what they could to prevent an incident. But they didn’t they stay at slow cruise waving to the Bob Barker and laughing at the Japanese. That doesn’t mean the Japanese didn’t violate the COLREGS but the Ady Gil could also be held partly responsible.
    
    That is the way the maritime regulations are written and the way they have been interpreted in courts for decades. Both vessels will be held partly responsible the only real question is what percentage will be assigned to each of them.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    From what I have read about maritime law and from what i saw ont eh videos, the japanese aimed directly for the Ady Gil.Everything they did violated maritime law…such as due care to prevent a collision etc.
    
    I havnt read or seen anything that supports the japanese version of events…its clear that the japanese are twisting things to suit themselves.
    
    The fact that they attempted to water blast the crew of the Ady Gil off theor broken boat after they have rammed them speaks ill for their intentions.
Sea Cucumber

Hey Grey Cell, or whatever name you’rre using here…. You know, for someone who say what you don’t like are “unemployed and living in their parents’ basement or getting paid for this — and I really can’t say which is more pathetic”, this is *really* hypocritical considering that the Sea Shepherds were begging for everything from ship machine supplies to VEGAN CONDOMS!?!?! Are you kidding me? You dare to call anyone pathetic when you idiots can’t even buy your own vegan condoms? Now *that’s* TRULY pathetic!

Also pathetic is the fact that you change your name every few posts and you try not to use the same one in multiple places. You’re a little coward, just like your buddy AnimuX. Look at his posts – posting every link that exists and comments on none. Like you – thinks he’s an expert in all, but is a master of none.

Tell MN Hope that he’s still outclassed, and that’s why he had to beg for help because he was too damn stupid to continue on his own. That’s because Paul Watson isn’t there to whisper what he should be thinking in his ear.

Oh, by the way…. Tell Rich when he’s out in the Med on the Barker trying to cut tuna nets that the fishermen have a few surprises in store for you guys! If I were him, I wouldn’t count on some tin badges saving his hide out there this time!

One last thing – congratulations on converting the Ady Gil to the first submarine used in anti-whaling activities! Wait a minute – aren’t they supposed to surface at some point? Nevermind! Did you save a piece of it for Danielle Bethune to have for her birthday so she and Sharyn can remember what a stupid idiot Peter is? What’s a couple of years in a Japanese prison, right? Yes, Peter in Cell B-14 will be having the Sei whale sashimi tonight please! Like I said on your forum – it was stupid of him to do what he did.
- Imforthewhales
  
  Seacumber, how long have you been a member of sea sheperd?
ddpalmer

Lets make it easy Imforthewhales.

“Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.

Rule 7

Risk of Collision

(a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.

(b) Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational, including long-range scanning to obtain early warning of risk of collision and radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects.

(c) Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information.

(d) In determining if risk of collision exists the following considerations shall be among those taken into account:

(i) Such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change;
(ii) Such risk may sometimes exist even when an appreciable bearing change is evident, particularly when approaching a very large vessel or a tow or when approaching a vessel at close range.

Rule 8

Action to Avoid Collision

(a)Any action taken to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.

(b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar;

a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed shall be avoided.

(c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.

(d) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear.

(e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to asses the situation, a vessel may slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion. ”

So Rule 5 requires them to be on constant watch for a collision situation, Rule 7 requires them if in doubt to assume a collision risk exists and Rule 8 requires everyone even if they have the right of way to attempt to prevent a collision.

So if the Shonan Maru was trying to hit the Ady Gil then they were in violation of just about everything in the COLREGS, but even if that was the case the Ady Gil still had a responsibility to be aware of the situation and the potential close approach of the Shonan Maru and to avoid that situation. So no matter how many parts of the COLREGS the Shonan Maru was in violation of, the master and crew of the Ady Gil did not meet their responsibilities either. You can justify it and try and blame the Shonan Maru but under maritime regulations the Ady Gil will be assigned some of the blame unless they can show that they were physically unable to change their speed or direction.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene
  
  Chances are the bulk of the blame/responsibility will be on the vessel who’s bow connected with the flank of the the other vessel. Even in a car collision, the one hit is assigned a small percent of the blame. AG likely will be hit with 10%.
  
  Sea cucumber, likely was banned, and so is probably butt hurt and venting, we all shall just have to ignore the childish remarks by that one.
Imforthewhales

Thanks DDP everything i read there applies to the Japanese ship…no question they are at fault.

Thanks for making it so easy for me…:)
- ddpalmer
  
  You obviously still have the comprehension problem.
  
  I concede that the Japanese violated parts of the COLREGS but so did the Ady Gil.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    so DD palmer, do you think the Japanese have got away with it?
- ddpalmer
  
  Do I think they have got away with what?
  
  As I understand it the collision incident is still under investigation by New Zealand and Japan, the two countries involved. Once they reach a conclusion I expect they will issue their findings and announce any charges they are making.
Imforthewhales

DD Palmer…do you think the Japanese ship would have been as direct on its path of choice if the ship had been the size of the Steve Irwin or the Bob Barker?

Its funny but i cant seem to remember the Japanese whalers executing the same manouver on a ship of any decent size or a ship that was made of steel.

Perhaps they knew that the Ady Gil was fairly light ( being made of carbon fiber and all) and would be unlikely to cause any significant damage to their own ship? Perhaps they thought that they could catch the Ady Gil by surprise and take them out?

Just a thought.
Imforthewhales

The Government could explore the legal opportunity in the Maritime Crimes Act 1999, to release New Zealander Pete Bethune, the Green Party said today.

“Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully has conceded jurisdiction in this case to Japan, but Japan’s claim is arguably invalid. All the talk of the Government not being able to interfere with the Japanese legal system is a farce. The New Zealand legal system could be dealing with this issue,” Green Party Oceans Spokesperson Gareth Hughes said.

New Zealand citizen Pete Bethune of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society boarded the Japanese vessel Shonan Maru No 2 while in the high seas to make a citizen’s arrest of the captain. The captain of the Shonan Maru No 2 allegedly rammed and destroyed the Ady Gil – a New Zealand registered vessel captained by a New Zealand citizen.

Australian based lawyer working in this field, Ronald Browne, has advised that New Zealand is a signatory to the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation.

This Convention was incorporated into New Zealand law through the Maritime Crimes Act 1999. Section 8 (1) of the Act specifies extra-territorial jurisdiction – that New Zealand law applies to acts committed against a ship in the high seas if that ship is registered in New Zealand.

Consequently, the captain of the Shonan Maru could be charged under New Zealand law for a crime punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

“I am surprised that the Government has so readily conceded jurisdiction, rather than exploring this legal opportunity,” Mr Hughes said.

Mr Hughes said the crime was reported to the NZ Police by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, and the Police referred the case to the Maritime New Zealand. That was almost two months ago and there has been no word from NZ authorities.

“Mr Bethune did what our Government should have been doing which is standing up to illegal whaling. New Zealand needs to stand up for Mr Bethune and stand up for the whales,” Mr Hughes said.

“Our Government’s silence is disturbing. That it was silent on the ramming of the Ady Gil, and that it is silent on the plight of Pete Bethune illustrates a pervasive soft touch towards Japan’s whaling industry. The Government is selling New Zealander’s principles to the pro-whaling Japanese Government.

“John Key’s Government must assert a claim of New Zealand jurisdiction in this case and bring Pete home. If John Key maintains a weak stance towards Tokyo, the only remaining option will be to take Mr Bethune’s case to the International Court of Justice,” Mr Hughes said.

http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/conven/suppression1988.html

Australian based lawyer working in this field, Ronald Browne, has advised that New Zealand is a signatory to the Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation.

This Convention was incorporated into New Zealand law through the Maritime Crimes Act 1999. Section 8 (1) of the Act specifies extra-territorial jurisdiction – that New Zealand law applies to acts committed against a ship in the high seas if that ship is registered in New Zealand.
Sea Cucumber

Imforthewhales – (or Iamaufo on the SS forum) – That’s really none of your business. But, if you must know, about a year or so.

Leonard Greene – Eeeh! Sorry Leonard, wrong guess. Would you like to go for Double Jeopardy where the scores can really change?

Imforthewhales – You quoted that “Consequently, the captain of the Shonan Maru could be charged under New Zealand law for a crime punishable by up to 14 years in prison”.

Well, he could, but he won’t be. New Zealand knows that they will absolutely not risk the mutually beneficial trade partnership with Japan over one idiotic numbskull, a numbskull that already killed one fisherman and injured others, while his insurance company paid their poor families off. Are you kidding me? Australia and New Zealand are doing the right thing – preserving good relations with another country that is performing a LEGAL research operation in the Southern Ocean, despite what a minority of the militant vegans have to say about it. Prepare to be disappointed! REALLY disappointed!!!

Oh, and it was such a blow that the EU didn’t go with the BF tuna trade ban. Man, that was really a shock, eh? You guys are really crying over that one on your forum. Too bad that will mean that when Paul Fatson gets to the Med, he’ll have more than just a few ships to contend with. They know he’s coming, and they will not let him interfere. No friendly ports nearby either….. Too bad the Ady Fail is at the bottom, becoming part of the Antarctic Reef Program! LOL! Maybe he could have run down the fishermen there like they did off of Guatemala. By the way, that country celebrated the sinking big time, as well they should! Yeah, and Canada and Greenland said that Polar Bears can continue to be hunted because it won’t affect the population by that much. I need a new seat cover for the back seat of my car – maybe a nice sealskin or white polar fur!

To Erik – keep dreaming Bud, no one is going to ride in and save Pete! Whaling isn’t on trial, the collision isn’t on trial – HE is! He’ll be convicted of the crimes listed and he’ll spend 2-3 years in prison for being stupid. I notice that Paul is off enjoying his freedom while Pete is learning to like his fried dolphin sandwiches that he can expect to enjoy for the next.. oh… 1095 days! In the end, he’ll be remembered as the murderer of a helpless fisherman, and petty criminal at the most.

All the remains now is for Chris to fix the engine on the Barker so they can take off as well, eh?
Bigbadpete

I,mmmm Baaack. Having spent the last two weeks in a quiet children freee caravan Park at the southern most tip of western australia, I,m back.
What a depressing scene of eco news I am greeted with, the sushi gluttons leading the charge to drive the northern bluefin to commercial extinction.

I said it before on the Sea Shepherd forum, and I’ll say it again….

I remember the rape of nankin,remember changi,remember the machinegunning of the australian nurses, remember the batann deathmarch, remember the burma railway, remember hellfire pass, remember the comfort women, remember sandarkin, I know my history, its a pity the Japanese don,t remember,
I have no love, respect, for this despicable race.

I hate a race that cannibalised and used Australian troops for bayonet practice, and until the truth about what the Imperial army did during world war 2 is taught openly to the japanese people and the whole sordid truth comes to light, I will continue to hate the bastards. For the sake of the innocents who suffered under the heel of the japanese THIS MUST NOT BE FOrGOTTON OR FORGIVEN anymore that what the NAZIS did to the Jews.
- Mick
  
  Bigbadpete,
  
  “I have no love, respect, for this despicable race.”
  
  Wow, racist much? Well, at least your more honest than most SS supporters and are up front about your racism.
Tlurie

Erik Brush, who is one of the main moderators at the Sea Shepherd forum just posted a link to an interview that he did – take a close look at the wetsuit he’s wearing and whose logo is on it…..

http://www.bant-shirts.com/interview/erik-brush.htm

For those of you who aren’t familiar with this logo – it’s Discovery Cove, in Orlando Florida. He went for a swim with the dolphins, as many tourists do. Now, that having been said, when the trainer was killed at Seaworld just recently, the Sea Shepherds were quick to start railing on the park and condemned all the tourists who do such things. It’s funny that he went for a swim with the dolphins, which is a pricey thing to do by the way, and I guess he kind of forgot, or maybe didn’t want anyone to know that Sea World and Discovery Cove are sister parks!

Just so everyone knows – that photo is not the result of a private visit with the dolphin as a “researcher – it’s a tourist photo that they take with every individual and you purchase on your way out.

From the Sea Shepherd Forum…..

Originally Posted by Albacore
Ok I know reading stuff is boring for some but I encourage you to read the report and understand the connection between sea parks and “dolphin drives”. When little John or Jenny wants to “swim with dolphins” she may be swimmimg with the sole survivor of a family butchered by fishermen following ” a traditional practise”.

Erik – did you have a nice time supporting Sea World and Discovery Cove?? What would Albacore say now??? Let’s see you try and justify this, if you can. If anyone even remotely questioned you on the forum, you’d delete the post and/or ban the person immediately, as you have done before. Believe it – this is going to get some publicity lots of other places!

Gee, what would Paul Watson say when told that one of his chief forum admins supports captive dolphins?

Hypocrites – no other word can describe it.
General Custard

I think someone forgot to take their medication.
Imforthewhales

Cucumber, what would your subversive anti everything group do if you told them that you have joined up for the green groups forums?

Would they think you were super freaky?

Or is this de rigueur behaviour for the anti environmentalist types?

Its obvious that you have no interest in the world or have woken up yet to what is going on within it. Despite all your championing of death to everything, i bet that you wouldn’t shoot your own dog for food, or wear its fur.

However you are doing a great job here cucumber. Its tops.

Despite you drawing conclusions which might appear to be a bit ” far out”, thats part of your charm … its always good to have someone like you playing the looney tunes crazy la la dude , because it brings some good discussion to the table, and creates a picture for the casual observer of just what the environment is up against.
Sea Cucumber

Imaufo,

Considering the lunacy that your own members have posted here, I would not be so quick to call anyone else crazy. Thanks! I think I’m doing a great job too – it seems that I have created some buzz in your forum and that there is some behind-the-scenes chatter to figure out who I am over there. I like it on the Sea Shepherd Forum… I can see all the craziness and stupidity that ensues every time you get some bad news, which has been a lot lately. Me? I’m just having fun. I have also seen that Gubbi is beating all your asses with the true facts and you guys just don’t like it. Geez – you had to tell everyone to stay calm on your forum when you posted because you already knew that the idiots there, like the posters above, simply can’t control themselves – that includes you. That whole “passive-aggressive” approach may fool some of *your* mindless supporters, but not anyone else. Good try, but no cigar!

I seriously doubt that you are in any position to tell me, or anyone else for that matter what is going on in the world as all you know are what Paul Watson tells you to think. That’s the problem with the Sea Shepherds, and all the other radical, hate-groups that exist – you believe that your way is the only way and anyone that questions you is immediately put down and brushed aside. You think you have the right to throw on a cape and a tin badge like your idiot friend Bethune, and just make up the rules as you go. You’re a victim of your own methodology, but it’s not really your fault. Being in a cult requires some programming, and from what I have seen, there is a lot of that going on.

Let me give you some reality – The bottom line is that the Sea Shepherds have no legal authority to do what you do. You interpreted the World Charter for Nature however you want as it fit in your agenda, and now you ride around like vigilantes. The rest of the world just sees you as a cult, a hate-group, or just a plain nuisance. You think you can order soverign nations around just because you don’t happen to like what they do. If Paul Watson is still going to the Med, watch what happens. I would think that theye’ll be less-forgiving than the Japanese!

I saw that the latest bit of buzz was that the Green Party filed a complaint against the SM2. Well, that’s really great! Want to know what going to happen? Not a damn thing. It’ll be brushed aside like a small gnat. Go back to Professor Roswell, or Rothwell, or whatever his name is and watch his arguments crumble as this plays out. We are talking about world trade partners who understand that their trade agreements are more important to one idiotic, petty criminal that is rightfully in jail, and despite what Erik Brush says, he’s not coming home anytime soon! Make no mistake – that’s all that Pete Bethune is – a petty criminal that is already responsible for the death of one person.

If you can’t see that maintaining good relations with other countries is a good thing, then you don’t know squat about anything in the world, but like most Sea Shepherds, you all claim to be experts.

After all your pathetic posturing, after all your pitiful antics, nothing much will come of it. Even the last couple of weeks of the campaign in the Antarctic was funny as well – the SM2 was just dragging you idiots around for no other reason except to see you scamper about. It was funny to follow on the news, and it will be even funnier when they air it on AP! It’ll also be good to see the Ady Gil get it’s nose job in Hi-Def, though! A bit less aerodynamic now, but I’m sure that the crabs and fish that occupy it now don’t mind!

Oh, by the way – as to the question of whether I would shoot and eat my dog? Not, not unless it was really cold and I was really hungry? There are many cultures around the world who actually eat dog, who are you to say that it is wrong to do so? Typical Sea Shepherd commentary – you don’t like it, therefore it is WRONG and no one must do it!

Why aren’t you bashing on Erik as noted above? He supports Sea World, and I thought that was taboo these days with you guys? Oh, because it’s a Sea Shepherd, it’s OK, right? Where’s your commentary on that

Typical – ignorant hypocrites. That’s your legacy – deal with it.

Come on, Iamaufo – thrill me with some more passive-aggressive commentary! Get you friends Grey Cell and MN Hope in here as well so they can spew the same racist, non-sensical rhetoric that we have seen of late.
Sea Cucumber

Iamaufo,

You wrote the following….

“well, if you can keep up with them and tackle them on their own terms…ie bombard them…then there is always the chance they will give up and surrender.”

I don’t think so. That’s a big “if” on your part. None of you can keep up any of the discussions on your own – you all lack the relevant facts, and just as you yourself said, the best thing to do is bombard anyone with all your foolhardy members. That’s why MN Hope had to beg for help in the Member Support section. So, you Grey Cell, and Lenzabi all take on multiple personas and spew the same, tired crap, that proves time and time again, that all you guys are interested in is making sure that others should bend to your will. It’s like the whales are incidental to the fact that if someone doesn’t agree with you, they are WRONG. Well, no Sea Shepherd in history has ever admitted that they were wrong about anything, and that is the purest sign of being a sociopath.

“I think we did a good job team.”

Again – I don’t think so – you ignore the basic facts and try and propagandize everything. You think the above postings are what you consider to be a “good job, team”? Well, thanks for proving here and now that you are truly a hate-group. Enough said on this one.

“Looks like sillycucumber is back ready for more.”

Boy, you really got me with that on – it really hurt! Wow – “Sillycucumber” is great – I’m sure you, Grey Cell, and MN Hope got kicks out of that one. You really showed me!

In all seriousness, there are some questions I would like some simple answers to, which are as follows:

Why isn’t anyone critical of Erik Brush for the above post? I read the bashing that Sea World took in your forum, but it looks pretty hypocritical to me that Erik would post a picture of himself smiling and playing with a captive dolphin, when it has been unilaterally condemned by Sea Shepherds. I know where that photo was taken, and I’m surprised to see a Sea Shepherd there. Just ask Albacore on your forum.

Why isn’t there any criticism for the NZ fishermen who have overfished the Antarctic Toothfish, which is prey for the Orca’s, that have been steadily disappearing from the area. Although the article states that too little is known now to say whether fishing is harming the orca, you know for a fact that if were some species being fished by Japan, you guys would have 6-7 pages already with fools bashing the Japanese. But, since it isn’t Japan, nothing is being said. I could quote from dozens of threads where just such things occurred.

I agree – hypocrite is the best word to describe it.
- Imforthewhales
  
  Form some reason you are against saving whales and letting them be…but as yet you haven’t let us in on the secret that lies deep within you what it is that is really troubling you.
  
  People who are concerned about the state of the world are up against it, because, sadly ,there are more than a few people like you out there.
  
  However, be happy little cucumber, because i have some good news for you. We don’t hate you cucumber…we adore you …simply because every time you post on these sites under whatever name take your fancy ….turns people away from the sad pathetic race of people that want to kill everything off on the planet for money.
  
  Thats all good news.
  
  You are obviously suffering cucumber and are being very emotional and reactive in your postings. You have lost control, which is a bad sign.
  
  What i would like to know, in order to understand you further is…what are you really frightened of?
  
  It is obvious to anyone reading your posts that you are lonely and scared…but scared of what exactly? Are you trying to protect something? as we are here? or do you have someting to hide?
  
  You have gone to a lot of trouble, joining up with green groups websites and posting a lot of the same stuff on other sites.
  
  You have spent time looking up posts, thinking that this might give you some sort of advantage,,,,but an advantage for what purpose? What exactly is your agenda?
  
  You said you were having ” fun” on here…does this mean that you are just having fun and are not to be taken seriously? Or do you mean that by having fun you are just doing your best to have your own way here to suit whatever agenda it is that you are pursuing?
- Imforthewhales
  
  Why isn’t there any criticism for the NZ fishermen who have overfished the Antarctic Toothfish, which is prey for the Orca’s, that have been steadily disappearing from the area. Although the article states that too little is known now to say whether fishing is harming the orca, you know for a fact that if were some species being fished by Japan, you guys would have 6-7 pages already with fools bashing the Japanese. But, since it isn’t Japan, nothing is being said. I could quote from dozens of threads where just such things occurred.
  
  I agree – hypocrite is the best word to describe it.
  
  This just goes to show you how little you know about NZ fishing these days…most of it has been taken over by the Japanese. NZ have sold their fishing to the big fishing fleets that go around raping and pillaging.
  
  Maybe you are happy with that state of affairs?
  
  Perhaps though you should do a little research before posting.
  
  BTW , it seems like you have changed your name from ramming speed, is this right?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene

So, now that I have been able to read your post, and look at it well, I see that you post like Rammingspeed5 or StopWatsonNow7 from AP.

You get very emotional in your attacks.

I do believe the picture that shows Erik with a porpoise is an old one, likely before he learned of the travesty that is Seaworld. So, you like to lurk or just read through over there, that is nice, same as any of the group from EET, yet you slink about not wanting to get banned there, but you do not like to allow anyone from there to go to your site to see what you have to say, seems one sided and hypocritical to me.

The Sea Shepherd forum is more open, and open minded than your EET site as it is so restrictive, oh yeah, support anything green and you list the person as “terrorist supporter” I suppose that you guys really are small frightened people that are afraid the world will take away your what? guns? ability to kill anything you want? Please, the whole thing about the CITES meeting was to try to reign in the over exploitation, so they failed to do so, they have basically shown that he kind of people who cannot control themselves from going overboard will use up everything and there will be none left for your kids or grandkids to have and enjoy. Very shortsighted if you ask me. Whatever happened to long range planning?

“The end of the line” should have been part of the mandatory viewing for the CITEs meeting.

Honestly, those of you out there who are able to be happy that the bans have not been set will one day have to answer your grand children or even your children as to why you did not help keep things from disappearing. The fact that anyone could be so happy about it all shows a low maturity level as well as short sightedness
- ddpalmer
  
  Yeah Australia and the EU should have supported the bans then they may have passed.
  
  I haven’t seen anybody get banned from EET, but if names is all it takes to scare you away that sounds like more of your issue.
  - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene
    
    No, I was curious, and someone allowed me to go onto EET based on their log in and both of us got banned, even though all I was doing was lurking, and not causing trouble. All I pointed out is that your site is more restrictive is all.
  - ddpalmer
    
    So two people where using one login. That is one account so only one person got banned. If that is even what happened. I believe that accounts that just lurk ultimately get deleted or restricted.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    I think Japan would have just ignored any bans by sites just as it ignores everything else.
    
    So there are really only a couple of paths to go down.
    
    Greater control over whats left of the tuna, or let Japan do its thing and wipe tuna off the face of the earth.
  - Mick
    
    Leonard Greene,
    
    “….and someone allowed me to go onto EET based on their log in and both of us got banned…”
    
    To my knowledge, currently there has only been one person banned from EET; winpooh. Shortly after winpooh was given a temporary ban, someone attempted to login to EET from a IP address on the opposite side of the U.S. using her screen name and password. Because of this attempt to by-pass the ban, the unknown person’s, at that time, IP address was blocked. It is my understanding that you are free to sign up at EET anytime. All you have to do is sign up, like the other SS supporters that are on EET. You are welcome as long as you create your own account and not try to sneak around by using someone else’s.
- Hellfire Jack
  
  I run EET. I can tell you now we are FAR less restrictive than other sites.
  
  Your friend Winpooh718 was given a 24 hour IP banned because she was acting suspicious and found to be using a bug to view posts outside of her membership. I fixed the bug and then her account logged in from across the country in an attempt to bypass the IP ban. She was then perma-banned along with the second IP she used to bypass her ban. She then went to cry on the SSCS boards about how much we hated and were afraid of her and how she asked me to remove her account several times (Never once did she ask any such thing.) She had one post on the boards. No one even responded to her.
  
  You’re not correct about the terrorist supporter thing as well. You have to either be an actual terrorist supporter and/or post abusive or offensive things to gain that title. We have several people who talk about green topics all the time. No one gets restricted for having an opinion even if it’s 180° in the opposite of everyone else. Whaling IS a green topic.
  
  Anyone is free to join the forums at http://www.endecoterrorism.com all you need is not use a throw away email account and not come from a proxy server. 99% of all comment and posting spam comes from proxy servers so… too bad for anyone who want’s to come spam us. That’s a plus for our members though. No spam. Let’s face it.. if you have to use a proxy and a throw away email to join a forum, you probably don’t want to actually be a member.
  
  If anyone feels they were blocked from our forums wrongly they are free to email me from the site and plead their case. You can find my email on the main website.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene

All of the nations should have heeded the science and supported the ban.
Sea Cucumber

Iamaufo,

Yeah, your highly predictable passive-aggressive response really got me this time – I feel so ashamed! Idiot!

Lenzabi,

Since, unlike your nitwit companion, you actually decide to answer the serious questions, I’ll bite – here are my follow-up responses. Your explanation of how Erik was not “aware of the travesty that is Sea World” doesn’t wash, and I’ll tell you why. Number 1, the picture of him looks fairly recent. Number 2, here’s what you have to do to swim with the dolphins like he did. He went in with a group of 6-8 people, and they were in the water about waist deep, and took turns giving the dolphins commands and took turns feeding them for doing tricks. Then each person in the water gets to go on a dolphin “ride”, which means the dolphin drags you while you hang on to the dorsal fin, and then you feed him for the trick. The last thing you do is to have an individual picture taken, again, feeding the dolphin for the trick, and then you’re done. They’ve been doing the same thing for years.

So, are you telling me that he wasn’t aware of this “travesty” before the recent attack at Sea World? Even *you* have to admit that your story makes no sense at all. He is now bashing it, and he was *participating* in what the rest of your membership was just bashing. He is supposed to be an intelligent person, and you say that he was oblivious to it before a few weeks ago that they kept these animals and did stuff like that with them? Really?

Of course I get passionate about stuff – because that’s what Paul Watson says to do – go look it up. And now you criticize me for doing what Paul Watson says? That doesn’t make any sense.

I know several people that got banned from your site for nothing more than being critical of Paul Watson. Now, before you say that they were trolls – some of them may have been, but not all were. So, don’t even try and say that your forum is so open to all points of view – it’s not. You won’t admit it, but the evidence shows that your admins are trigger-happy with the ban-stick. I will give you this though, perhaps that is a knee-jerk reaction to the trolling, which I do see happening, so I’ll concede a half-point on that one if you do.

Do you even understand why that even other anti-whaling individuals don’t agree with your tactics? Because we live in a society of laws, and that’s because we have elected officials that supposedly represent the people. Much of the time, it works, but not always. When it doesn’t, most democracies allow for voting in other elected officials that will do what the others didn’t do. If they don’t, we go through it again. That having been said – no one, and I repeat NO ONE has the right to take the law into their own hands and do what the Sea Shepherds are doing in the Southern Ocean.

Despite what you think, I am actually anti-whaling – something which has caused some angst even with my fellow posters. I don’t care – I have my view of whaling and they do as well. I respect them for what they think, even if it differs from mine. That’s the difference between you and I, and the difference between the EET folks and the Sea Shepherds. You won’t allow for any other point of view besides your own. Yes, I do research in your forum, and you know this also, so you know that I could easily come up with countless examples that prove this again and again. I don’t see why you have a problem with this, Paul Watson follows the Japanese into the Southern Ocean, and I followed you to see what you’re up to – what’s the difference? Again, why criticize me for what Paul does himself?

If I thought for a minute that we could have an intelligent, private conversation, I would PM you on your forum. But right now, I’m pretty sure that as soon as I did, I would find my membership suddenly gone because I dared to openly question something that anyone of a right mind would consider to be hypocrisy. I’d be open to a conversation, though, without Iamaufo, because he’s still an idiot.
Sea Cucumber

Lenzabi,

Oh, by the way, I don’t have any guns, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Also, I am not much concerned about what we tell our grandchildren because of two things” One – If the Mayans are right, we only have about two and a half years anyways, and Two – according to Erik, we only have about 20 years before the Earth melts down anyway. As far as I’m concerned, I am living every day like it was a weekend day! THAT’S why I am having fun! That’s my agenda!

By the way, tell Erik he’s got one part wrong, and that is that eventually the Earth will go through a magnetic pole shift, and when it does, nothing will prevent the solar winds from blowing away our atmosphere. There won’t be any life left to create any ozone.
- Imforthewhales
  
  Well its obvious from those poorly scripted replies neither of the bum chums has any interest in the topics at all really.
  
  Bum chums..you make it impossible for anyone to take you aeven remotely seriously.
  
  Cucumber, you really are a car aren’t you? You remind me of a few Canadian sealers that are out there trashing people interested in saving whats left. I know how they post, just like you. Erratic, emotional, stirring the pot…nothing to do? Must be a cold spring.
Imforthewhales

no one, and I repeat NO ONE has the right to take the law into their own hands and do what the Sea Shepherds are doing in the Southern Ocean.

hmmm…another bit of psychotic rambling from the great cucumber.

You really need to get over yourself.

Cucumber…no-one has the right to bend the laws to suit themselves and make fools of the world by lying about what they are doing. Obviously you have been sucked in BIG TIME cucumber if you go along with your puppet masters, the Japanese whalers. How stupid are you? Nothing on earth could be more stupid than that.

In the meantime,,,if you don’t like the laws that allow SS to go ahead and stop these industrial rapists of the oceans then go and get the words changed at the UN. So far, no-one has and the UN charter for nature stays in place. Untill then, Japanese whaling ships are not allowed to call into any Australian ports…including Antartica…that goes for the French as well…

So until you manage to get the words changed its bad luck for you and your bum chum DD palmer. you might have better luck making a difference elsewhere because you are going to be pretty useless tackling the whaling issue.
Imforthewhales

Despite what you think, I am actually anti-whaling – something which has caused some angst even with my fellow posters. I don’t care – I have my view of whaling and they do as well. I respect them for what they think, even if it differs from mine. That’s the difference between you and I, and the difference between the EET folks and the Sea Shepherds

You have a very strange way of showing your support for the whales then cucumber. What exactly are you doing about the problem if you are so pro-whales?
- Imforthewhales
  
  Specifically the Court ruled that:
  
  1. THE COURT DECLARES that the respondent has killed, injured, taken and interfered with Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) and fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) and injured, taken and interfered with humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in contravention of sections 229, 229A, 229B and 229C of the
  Interesting comment part 2 of the finding of the Australian federal court against the Japanese whalers calling for them to be restrained.
  
  *********************************************************
  
  Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), (the “Act”), and has treated and possessed such whales killed or taken in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in contravention of sections 229D and 230 of the Act, without permission or authorisation under sections 231, 232 or 238 of the Act.
  
  2. THE COURT ORDERS that the respondent be restrained from killing, injuring, taking or interfering with any Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera bonaerensis), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) or humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Australian Whale Sanctuary, or treating or possessing any such whale killed or taken in the Australian Whale Sanctuary, unless permitted or authorised under sections 231, 232 or 238 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Yeah that is what the court ruled. Now if Australia could just get the world to recognize their claim to the Australian Whale Sanctuary, then the ruling would have some effect.
    
    Just like Argentina claims the Falkland Islands but I bet if you go there you wont find the Argentine flag or Argentine laws.
    
    A country can claim whatever it wants but if the international community doesn’t recognize their claim then their claim has no practical meaning.
Michael Raymer

People, can we please keep our eye on the ball? Watson said this, Bethune did that, look I have a picture of this guy doing this. Who freakin’ cares?!? Can you all please take a step back and look at yourselves for just one moment?

Cruelty and inhumanity is happening all around us. Kids are getting molested and murdered, Africans are being killed by the thousands, North Koreans actually think that they have a leader that they can be proud of…. and our oceans are dying. Whales, dolphins, sea turtles, bluefin, cod, halibut… they are all going away, because of us. Y’know what? I love sushi. Love it. I’d like to love it tomorrow too. And that means that the entire environment needs to sustain all the species that we, as individuals, want to enjoy in the future. It also means that we need to take a hard look at ourselves, how we perceive the world around us, and what we are willing to allow; not from others, but from ourselves.

Cruelty is cruelty. Period. Having spent just a small amount of time on this board, I am willing to try an re-define what I think of a cruel. Or, I would if it wasn’t for the extremes and motives of those who try to make their arguments of what is and isn’t cruel.

To me, whaling is an outdated practice, a form of cruelty against a species that suffers from it, and a form of hunting that genuinely harms the planet. As for the personalities on each side of this issue, screw them all. I don’t care what they said, what they did in the past, where they got their picture taken or who they had it taken with. I care about today and tomorrow. That’s it. I will debate, I will argue, I will discuss. But, I won’t change my mind and I have no illusions about changing yours either.
- Mick
  
  Michael Raymer,
  
  “To me, whaling is an outdated practice, a form of cruelty against a species that suffers from it, and a form of hunting that genuinely harms the planet.”
  
  “But, I won’t change my mind and I have no illusions about changing yours either.”
  
  Fair enough. I appreciate and respect your position. It has never been my intention to change someones views about whaling. I understand and have no problem with someone being anti-whaling. My problem lies with SS and anyone else who uses their anti-whaling views to justify attacking other people in order to force their views on them. I believe people have every right to be against whaling, I believe they have every right to voice their opposition and work within the boundries of the law in order to change the law. However, they do not have the right to illegaly attack people and break the law simply because they oppose whaling. It’s as simple as that.
  - Michael Raymer
    
    Hello Mick,
    
    Thanx for you reasoned response. I think the end-point that the pro Sea Shepherd faction here (and elsewhere) is trying to make is that the boundaries of the law have proven to be ridiculously ineffective. The Southern Ocean pretty much classifies as the most remote part of the Earth. There is no law enforcement, and some would argue that there is no law. Whatever happens in Tokyo, Geneva, Brussels or wherever the next IWC meeting gets held, there is absolutely nothing stopping a fleet of ships (from Japan or anywhere else) from conducting a whaling operation in this region. Nothing whatsoever. The Japanese themselves have made it abundantly clear that their whaling operations will continue regardless of who tells them to stop.
    
    So you or someone else, please tell me (and I am asking this respectfully and constructively), what can any of us do to stop, or at least place a temporary moratorium on commercial whaling WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAW? (I just re-read this, I thought about back-spacing it out, but I’ll leave it there) Or I should ask: Is there a law that could be passed, where whaling is prohibited, that would actually be obeyed?
    
    I think this is the central theme. Frustration. When the law does not serve, some people will take the law into their own hands. This happened in America during the late 1800′s when owning and exploiting slaves was fully within the law in the southern states. Certain people said, “Enough”, and took the law into their own hands. Every last one of them had their flaws and character defects, but they stood against injustice, because the law would not.
    
    Watson, Bethune, you, me and everyone we admire and revile has good things and bad things that can be pointed too (believe me, a character assassin would make some easy money coming after me). But when one genuinely feels that the cause is just, and no one else will do it, one must carry it out one’s own self. This is where Sea Shepherd comes in. Sure, there are flaws and defects. No one has a perfect track record. But how is their cause served by standing outside an embassy waving a sign?
    
    Y’know, I am reminded of an episode (or excerpt, I saw it, but can’t remember where) where a crew member constructed a pneumatic cannon to shoot (or lob) butyric acid bottles farther than they can be thrown (and it worked). Watson’s comment on it was that it LOOKED like a weapon and therefore was probably not a good idea. That buys him some forgiveness, whatever else he has “done wrong”.
    
    These are people just trying to get results, and trying to draw attention to a cause that they genuinely believe in. If there is a better way, please clue us all in, but they have to include RESULTS.
    
    One last point and then I’m going to bed. And for what it’s worth, I’ve made this point before. If whale hunting is eliminated, who starves? If this immoral practice (in my opinion) is halted today, who suffers? And don’t answer with the whalers themselves. Seasoned seafarers who have Antarctic experience won’t have any problems finding other work. So, who suffers? What children will go to bed hungry? What parents will worry?
  - ddpalmer
    
    “Y’know, I am reminded of an episode (or excerpt, I saw it, but can’t remember where) where a crew member constructed a pneumatic cannon to shoot (or lob) butyric acid bottles farther than they can be thrown (and it worked). Watson’s comment on it was that it LOOKED like a weapon and therefore was probably not a good idea. That buys him some forgiveness, whatever else he has “done wrong”.”
    
    And I am reminded of this year when the decided to use the exact same thing that they rejected in that episode you mention. When their methods of that year don’t work they just up their actions to levels that they rejected in previous years. At this rate they will be using firearms in a year or two.
  - Mick
    
    Michael Raymer,
    
    Thank you for your clear response.
    
    “…the boundaries of the law have proven to be ridiculously ineffective.”
    
    I disagree that the law has been ineffective. Quite the contrary. It has been very effective. The IWC has made commercial whaling in the SO illegal and due to that commercial whaling has ceased in the SO. The IWC allows scientific research whaling in the SO and Japan is doing so within the boundries set by the IWC.
    
    “Is there a law that could be passed, where whaling is prohibited, that would actually be obeyed?”
    
    I sure that there is a law that could be passed. However, it would require the approval of all the countries involved and would need to be based on science and logic, not emotion.
    
    “Frustration. When the law does not serve, some people will take the law into their own hands.”
    
    I don’t think comparing slavery to whaling is valid. Slavery dealt with people. Whaling is about animals. I see your point about taking the law into your own hands. However, if you allow some people to do that, then everyone will feel free to do so. Then laws become pointless and you are left with anarchy.
    
    “But when one genuinely feels that the cause is just, and no one else will do it, one must carry it out one’s own self. This is where Sea Shepherd comes in.”
    
    That is the crux of the matter. Inevitably people and countries will have disagreements. That is why we have laws, treaties and agreements. To work out differences of opinion without violence. When you allow someone to ignore the law because they feel strongly about something then everyone will demand the right to do so. Where does it end? Who decides when it’s okay to ignore the law and when it’s not? Once again, you are left with anarchy.
    
    “If there is a better way, please clue us all in, but they have to include RESULTS.”
    
    The system of laws, treaties and agreements is the best we have, at this time. While it my not be perfect, it works fairly well and is far better than anarchy.
    
    “If whale hunting is eliminated, who starves?”
    
    As far as I know, if whale hunting is stopped, some people in Russia, Alaska, Greenland and various small islands would possibly starve. I do not believe anyone in Japan would starve if whale hunting were to cease.
    Now, you apparently feel that is reason enough to demand that Japan stop hunting whales. Your logic appears to be they should stop eating whale because many people are against whaling and because no one will starve. Is that right?
    If so, Muslims could equally demand that Americans stop eating pork for the same reasons. Hindus could equally demand that Americans stop eating cows.
    Please allow me to ask you a question. How does someone in Japan eating a whale affect you personally? In what way does it affect your life? I would like a specific answer, please. Not some vague reference to the environment.
    
    In summary, I personally think whales are ugly and nothing more than the ocean equivalent of a cow. As long as they can be sustainably hunted, then I have no problem with eating them.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    However, they do not have the right to illegaly attack people
    
    Mick…Sea Sheperd do not attack people.
    
    There is a massive difference between stopping illegal japanese whale poachers through variuous means which might include blockading a ship or suing rotten butter.
    
    Let us not forget that japan needs to realise one thing…they are not welcome in Antartica with their grenade tipped harpoons and silly commercial whaling loopholes.
    
    SS are very effective in cutting down profits for the illegal japanese commercial whalers, however, SS respct life, wen the life of a lowly whaler, SS are hardly going to start using firearms and to insinuate that they might in the future has no basis, is untruthful, slanderous, preposterous, provocative not to mention dangerous to comment in this manner as a japanese whaler might very well be reading this, take a gun with him to Antartica in preparation and be prepared to shoot to kill.
    
    Provocative comments and statements such as your wayward comment above could in fact get someone killed.
    
    That is not being a scaremonger, just look at how far the japanese whalers are prepared to go…you can forget about vote buying for a second .they very nearly took out 6 crew on the SS boat the Ady Gil this year, cutting it in two and who knows what the whalers might try next time.
    
    You need to be more careful and think about what you say in future.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Throwing glass bottles at people isn’t illegally attacking them?
  - From MN, with hope…
    
    Nope, as much as you want to believe, throwing glass bottles at people isnt illegal. I could throw a glass bottle at someone and they wouldnt call the police on me. Besides, the Sea Shepherd activists dont try to hit the people, they try to hit the decks.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Sorry as much as you want it to be legal it is at the very least assault and could be assault with a deadly weapon.
    
    And Sorry a second time. The Sea Shepherds say they don’t try and hit people but there are numerous times, like any time they throw from a RHIB at the Nisshin Maru, were they can’t see where the bottles will land so it is impossible for them to know if there is anybody in the impact area. They can say whatever they want but their own videos prove that they are lying.
  - From MN, with hope…
    
    Yes, I do know that when they are in the RHIBs that they cant see anything, in fact I previously said that when they were in the RHIBs that they could just hope that they dont hit anyone. They TRY not to hit anyone, but since its not a chemical that can harm humans, if the whalers get hit, it’ll hurt maybe, and sure it may bruise, but the bottles wont break upon contact with humans, the bottles will ‘bounce’ off the people, then fall to the deck, chances are with little damage. Now notice, I said TRY. Try means, they attempt not to. Try doesnt mean that they always do. If they can see the whalers, they dont aim for them. Then again, if you have ever thrown something you would know that things like weather, spin, follow-through, force behind throw, and so on can affect the items trajectory, so you could intend not to hit someone, but the wind could hit it, and push it towards the person.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Try means make an attempt. They don’t make an attempt when they throw them blindly.
    
    And what is your basis for saying a thrown bottle, much less one from their slingshot or compressed gas launcher, “if the whalers get hit, it’ll hurt maybe, and sure it may bruise, but the bottles wont break upon contact with humans, the bottles will ‘bounce’ off the people, then fall to the deck, chances are with little damage.”
  - Imforthewhales
    
    DD fact is SS have yet to cause an injury to anyone…including the whalers. You talk about assault with deadly weapons…hats just what the Japanese are doing to the whales.
    
    The Japanese keep trying to pin sea Sheperd down, claiming this and that. This year they claimed that all on board including les Captitan all got acid in their eyes and needed surgery, life support and two years worth of counselling. Yet the videos show them firing capsicum spray into their own faces…keystone cops style, or was that Laurel and Hardey? .
    
    Les incompetants!
    
    I hope that they include this episode on whale wars 3. It is just another example of how silly the Japanese claims are who hide behind mummys skirts and cry like babies whenever they cant get their own way.
    
    BTW…when the Japanese whaler who couldn’t take the suffering of the whales anymore and jumped overboard into the icy depths of the Southern Ocean
    who was it that helped search for the missing body?
    
    Yes thats right Sea Sheperd searched the area alongside the Japanese ( who claimed that they didn’t want any help from the ” eco terrorists”)
    
    Perhaps if the Japanese whalers had not been so stubborn and incalcitrant they might have found the poor man and there is always the small chance that his life might have been saved if found in time.
    
    Unfortunatly for his poor soul, the Japanese whalers finished him off good and proper.
    
    So next time you talk about lives in danger, just remember who is treating human ( and cetacean) life with contempt down in the Southern Ocean.
    
    _
  - Mick
    
    imforthewhales,
    
    “Mick…Sea Sheperd do not attack people.”
    
    “…between stopping illegal japanese whale poachers..”
    
    “..cutting down profits for the illegal japanese commercial whalers..”
    
    Throwing glass bottles, filled with acid, at people is attacking them. It is assult and illegal.
    
    You, yourself acknowledged that there has been no international court ruling declaring the ICR’s operartion in the SO, illegal. Therefore, they are operating legally and are not “poaching”.
    
    The ICR isn’t making ANY profit to “cut down”. That’s why it is partially funded with government subsidies. The money the ICR makes from the sale of whale meat goes to pay for SOME, not all, of the cost of the research.
  - ddpalmer
    
    “BTW…when the Japanese whaler who couldn’t take the suffering of the whales anymore and jumped overboard into the icy depths of the Southern Ocean
    who was it that helped search for the missing body?”
    
    How far up Paul’s fat ass did you stick your head to come up with this gem?
    
    Care to show some proof? Maybe Paul can send it to you with your next check?
  - From MN, with hope…
    
    Its a compressed air T-shirt cannon, which is designed not to hurt people, in fact the air cannons dont shoot the bottles, they almost ‘lob’ them over the nets, so they have little force behind them. As for the slingshots, again they try to shoot over the nets, so most momentum in the bottles is used getting them over the nets. Besides, if the whalers arent smart enough to stay clear, and watch the sky, when they know that bottles will come down upon their ship, then well they really shouldnt even be out on the ships decks.
    
    As far as the whaler who went overboard (not the lightest way to put it…) Sea Shepherd were the only guys out there with a helicopter, and they offered to help, despite their dwindling fuel, but the whalers turned down their help. That chopper couldve helped go far distances, searching for the man, but no. The whalers turned down the help.
  - Abe
    
    Let me drop a bottle on your head from 30 feet and tell me how much it tickles.
  - Mick
    
    imforthewhales,
    
    “…when the Japanese whaler who couldn’t take the suffering of the whales anymore and jumped overboard into the icy depths of the Southern Ocean..”
    
    That is a truly despicable, disgusting and reprehensible thing to say.
  - ddpalmer
    
    Besides, if the Ady Gil’s crew wasn’t smart enough to stay clear, and watch the ocean, when they know that ships will come at their ship, then well they really shouldnt even be out on the Antarctic ocean.
  - From MN, with hope…
    
    ddp, I think that your post was meant somewhere else. Abe, it will hurt, but chances are the glass wont break. Mick, I do agree that there was a better way to put that…
Imforthewhales

Well said Michawl Raymer.

A half a century ago, a ship’s physician on a whaling trip in the Antarctic wrote the following description:

“If we can imagine a horse having two or three explosive spears stuck in its stomach and being made to pull a butcher’s truck through the streets of London while it pours blood into the gutter, we shall have an idea of the method of killing. The gunners themselves admit that if whales could scream, the industry would stop for nobody would be able to stand it.”

whales are being killed, their living flesh torn from their bodies. They are being electrocuted for up to twenty minutes to kill them as their heads are submerged beneath the sea. Imagine the agony of being drowned and electrocuted at the same time as your body pours hot pulsing blood into a cold sea from a gaping wound, and your body is riddled with burning shrapnel from the grenade tipped projectile that exploded with unimaginable pain, shredding your organs yet not killing you.

The killing of an endangered species is a crime against nature and it is a crime against humanity.
- Mick
  
  imforthewhales,
  
  “The killing of an endangered species is a crime against nature and it is a crime against humanity.”
  
  Minke whales are not endangered. However, the Bowhead whales that America kills are endangered.
Imforthewhales

you can add to that fin whales etc that Japan do kill and import from places such as Norway and Iceland.
- Mick
  
  imforthewhales,
  
  “…..import from places such as Norway and Iceland.”
  
  You are incorrect. Norway does not hunt Fin whales. Last year I believe Japan killed one Fin whale and Iceland killed 150 Fin whales. Yet there were no SS’s to save the Fin whales in Iceland.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Japan imports fin whales from Iceland.
    
    Whilst Norway does not hut fin whales they are still catching whales and selling to Japan.
    
    Hvalur hf is an Icelandic whale meat company.
    They are hunting fin whales for the Japanese markets.
    
    They claim to be exporting 1,500 tonnes to Japan. They have a quota of 150 fin whales. They are also catching minke whales… I believe Norway is also on the Japanese sushi gravy train. The Icelandic whale meat company has admitted that whale meat from Norway is being sold in japan…Norway specializes in Minke whales.
    
    They reckon there are only 30,000 fin whales left in the North Atlantic ( a large proportion of these in the Mediterranean).
    
    Fin whales are listed as an endangered species.
    
    Fin whales are the second largest species of whale and the second largest animal ever to have lived.
    
    So whilst japan only caught one fin whale themselves, it appears as if they are killing many more.
  - Mick
    
    imforthewhales,
    
    “So whilst japan only caught one fin whale themselves, it appears as if they are killing many more.”
    
    No, ICELAND is killing “many more” Fin whales, not Japan. And SS is doing nothing about it. It also does not change the fact that America is killing endangered Bowhead whales, as well.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    No, ICELAND is killing “many more” Fin whales, not Japan. And SS is doing nothing about it. It also does not change the fact that America is killing endangered Bowhead whales, as well.
    
    Mick, i think it is not a co-incidence that the Icelandic fin whale hunt is processing more and more fin whales and this is probably consistent with demand coming from japan. The icelandic whaling companies have expressed high hopes for the future of whale meat trade with japan.
    
    Japan might not be physically firing the harpoons themselves but its hard to deny that Icealand is very interested in fin whale trade with japan and see this as a profitable industry (where few exist at the present time in Iceland, what with it being broke and all). Therefore japan is in fact killing these whales because they are paying for the bulk of the Icelandic fin whale hunting.
    
    The driving force for Icelandic whaling appears to be Japan.
    
    You have complained that SS appear to be doing nothing about Icelandic whaling.
    
    I believe in years past that the campaign against Iceland has been strong, and Sea Sheperd claim that they helped shut down all whaling in Iceland for a decade or more.
    
    Now you cant be in three areas at once and SS is just one small outfit with limited resources. Sea Sheperd probably take the view that the best way to shut down Icelandic whaling is to shut down Japanese whaling. Thats my view anyway, but if they were to tackle Icelandic whaling more directly in some fashion then that would also be a good thing imo.
  - ddpalmer
    
    The way I see it the SSCS is causing the increase in Icelandic whaling.
    
    The restaurants and grocery stores in Japan have a demand for whale meat. Japan’s research whaling is able to meet some of that demand. But by reducing the whales caught by Japan the SSCS is decreasing the supply so the Japanese restaurants and grocery stores have to look elsewhere for a supply. Iceland is one of the few other countries with a reservation in CITES for whales, so they are a natural supplier.
    
    So an argument could easily be made that by reducing Japan’s take of non-endangered Minke whales the SSCS is causing an increase in Iceland’s take of endangered Fin whales.
    
    Iceland’s whaling season is the exact opposite time of year from the Antarctic whaling season. So the previous years the SSCS and their boat have not been active during the time of the Icelandic hunt and could have been using their direct action techniques against the Icelandic whalers.
- Imforthewhales
  
  Mick, my undestanding is that the American bowhead whaling is done for susbistance purposes by native Americans..the original inhabitants. Whilst i find this concerning, and I do not condone this slaughter of endangered bowhead whales…there are allowances for subsistance whaling around the world 9 as well as of rother animal species such as dugongs in Australia).
  
  These hunts are small and non comercial in nature. They are liited ot the native peoples. They are not killing these whales in the name of ( inecessary, false) research and they are not killing bowhead whales commercially for profit. Unlike Japan, they are using traditional methods to hunt the whales, which is probably just as cruel as any other method, but has to be seen as far more cultural than the Japanese claims of cultural whaling. After a whale is caught, the Captain of the boat and his wife distribute the whalemeat to the crew and to mebers of the community.
  
  My understanding is that these whales are used for food in areas where food is not always available ( Alaskan coastal regions )and are used to support the local population. Rather than a commercial company trying to maximise profits arriving with their million dollar ships and high powered guns, these groups of native people hunt from traditional boats made of skins and share the whale meat amongst the community to help them surivive very long, very cold winters. The native people also only take what the community needs for survival.
  - Mick
    
    imforthewhales,
    
    “Mick, my undestanding is that the American bowhead whaling is done for susbistance purposes by native Americans..”
    
    “These hunts are small and non comercial in nature.”
    
    “..these groups of native people hunt from traditional boats made of skins..”
    
    You are generally correct. The number of Bowhead whales taken is smaller than the numbers of Minke whales taken by the ICR. However, they take a higher percentage of the total population than the ICR does. They are also allowed to sell native handicrafts made from whales to anyone, even non-natives. So, the hunt is commercial, to a very small degree.
    This is incorrect. They use modern boats and explosive grenades in their hunt. Here is a brochure from NOAA on the subject.
    
    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/whales/bowhead/bowheadbrochure07.pdf
  - Imforthewhales
    
    I find it sad that they are hunting these whales…especially so that these whales appear on endangered species lists.
    
    However this does appear to be done for community benefit and survival, even the selling of trinkets would be for community benefit. It is not a whaling industry per se. I see that the captain of the whaling boat is not allowed to be paid for his services either.
  - Mick
    
    imforthewhales,
    
    “I find it sad that they are hunting these whales…especially so that these whales appear on endangered species lists.”
    
    “However this does appear to be done for community benefit and survival…”
    
    By the way, I want to make it clear that I fully support the whale hunt in Alaska.
    
    Now then, you stated in an earlier post that hunting endangered whales was a “crime against nature” and that whale hunting was “the most cruel form” of hunting. Yet, you appear to be making an exception for the native whale hunt in Alaska.
    To criticize Japan for killing whales by saying it is “cruel”, “inhumane” and “a crime against nature” but then making an exception for the native whale hunt is hypocritical, to say the least. If it is “cruel” for one group of people to hunt them then it is equally “cruel” for another group to hunt them.
Imforthewhales

Interesting.

After the July 2000 IWC meeting, Dominica’s Fisheries Minister, Atherton Martin, made headlines around the globe when he resigned in disgust from his government post, denouncing what he declared was:

“Japan’s outright extortion and the use of bribes to win
third world countries’ votes for pro-whaling interests.”

Japan has given the small island of Dominica (with a population of just 77,000 people) more than $7 million for fisheries facilities since it joined the IWC.

According to Martin, “Japanese officials had visited the Prime Minister and had threatened to withdraw aid for a new fisheries complex if Dominica abstained on the critical sanctuary issue.” Martin went on to say that five other islands—Grenada, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Antigua, and St. Kitts and Nevis—also have “succumbed to the same extortionary tactics of Japan.” As Martin put it: “Frankly they [the Japanese] are relentless, very pushy and aggressive, and I think a lot of our governments cave in.”
- ddpalmer
  
  You do realize that is how all governments work? They give aid to countries that do things they like and threaten to remove the aid if the country does things that the donor country doesn’t like.
  
  You do remember that the US used similar tactics to get Japan to sign the moratorium in the first place? And that the same tactics were used to get countries to join the IWC expressly to vote for the moratorium.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    DDP what the Japanese doing is vote buying..they buy the votes of smaller, poorer nations than themselves in order to gain influence.
    
    They tend to do this using fisheries aid and building things such as wharves ( then calling such wharf a name such as togo- japanese friendship wharf) .
    
    As far as i know, USA used its muscle on japan to stop commercial whaling and agree to a moratoriuum. howver no money changed hands as far as i was aware, perhaps you know differenntly…and Japan got its way yet again via the research loophole.
    
    I doubt there can be a more blatent example of vote buying than that engaged in by Japan.
    
    At last count there were 22 countries receiving japanese aid. When, in 2006, the IWC passed the pro-whaling “St Kitts Declaration”, two-thirds of the countries voting for it had received fisheries aid from Japan. According to Greenpeace, these countries have received 470 million US since 2004.
    
    Public statements from Japanese officials:
    
    “Because anti-whaling countries’ attitudes are stubborn, it is judged that it is more advantageous for future negotiations to dig up supporting votes by increasing member countries than by trying to split opposing votes.”
    
    – Hiroaki Kameya, Japan’s Vice Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, reported by Kyodo News, 2 June 1999
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Japan has denied claims it is paying the expenses of countries in return for their support at the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
    
    ABC TV’s Four Corners program tonight reveals specific details of favours handed out by Japan to countries in the Caribbean and Pacific in exchange for support.
    
    The former IWC representative for Solomon Islands says his country had its membership paid by Japan for at least 10 years and the program has also obtained a letter from Grenada’s Government showing Japan covered all its expenses.
    
    Grenada’s former IWC commissioner Michael Baptiste was charged for allegedly pocketing the money in 2002 and he says such “vote buying” does occur.
    
    “I would get to an airport and someone would meet you at the airport and pay for your expenses and give you money for your expenses,” he said.
    
    ‘”I can’t say it’s the Government of Japan because they wouldn’t identify themselves, but individuals would do so, yes.”
    
    The tiny Caribbean nation of Dominica has been a member of the IWC since 1992 and for the past five years has used its IWC vote to support Japan’s efforts to resume commercial whaling.
    
    Dominica’s former environment minister told Four Corners that he resigned from his position in 2000 after Japan allegedly bought his Government’s vote with aid.
    
    Atherton Martin says he had convinced his Cabinet not to vote with Japan in the IWC but that the then prime minister overturned in the decision because Japan said there would be no more aid without the vote.
    
    “I don’t think the international legal community has come up with a term yet to describe this blatant, purchasing of small country governments by Japan,” he said.
    
    “I mean, that has to go down in legal history as being at the high end of public sector extortion.
    
    “I felt if it was that easy for a foreign government to walk into my country and with the promise of aid to get a cabinet decision to be reversed, in complete defiance of the elements of trust and comradeship that exists in the cabinet, that is not a process that I wanted to be a part of.
    
    “I felt it was unfair to me as an individual, to the institution of government, and most importantly it was unfair to the people of Dominica.”
    
    Japan denies allegations of buying the votes of smaller poorer nations and IWC delegate Joji Morishita says he will look into the claims.
    
    “I don’t believe that happened,” he said.
    
    “That’s a serious allegation I guess and we will look at this issue.
    
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1416208.htm
    
    So even japan admits that this is a serious issue.
    But you don’t DD palmer?
  - ddpalmer
    
    “After these amendments were passed in the mid-1980′s, the Reagan Administration asked Japan to comply with the IWC moratorium on whaling or face trade sanctions and loss of fishing rights in U.S. waters. Japan stood to lose a million-ton Alaskan pollock fishery if it did not comply.
    
    After further negotiations, Japan finally agreed to withdraw its objection to the moratorium. Thus, the moratorium on commercial whaling went into effect in 1986. Later, the United States ended up phasing out the fish allocation, an unforeseen loss for Japan.”
    
    So no the US didn’t pay Japan they threatened to cut off a multi-million dollar industry and when Japan gave in they cut them off anyway.
    
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/04/japans_hunt_for_whaling_rights?page=full
    
    “Those countries that have joined the IWC recently and voted with Japan have also been more likely to see increases in Japanese bilateral aid receipts. For instance, Antigua & Barbuda and St. Kitts & Nevis, both of which were on the panel behind last month’s decision, have received around $40 more in per capita aid from Japan since joining the IWC.
    
    But two sides can play at this game. As it turns out, IWC membership is an even more powerful predictor of decreases in British aid receipts and the combined aid receipts from France, Germany, and the United States. Even more strikingly, the net effect of becoming a pro-whaler on total turns out to be negative. In other words, punishments from the anti-whaling donors are larger than rewards from Japan.
    
    This raises the question of why countries do join Japan’s side. There are many untestable explanations such as additional unobserved side payments. However, the foreign-aid data itself also offers a partial explanation. Foreign aid can be divided into loans that need to be paid back and grants that do not. Japanese foreign aid increases are almost entirely in grant form, which developing countries prefer, while the aid reductions from anti-whalers come almost entirely from loans. It is hard to know what the effects on recipient-country welfare might be.”
    
    So apparently countries LOSE money by siding with Japan.
    
    “RUDOLPH: But Japan is not alone. Nor was it the first to try to make friends and influence votes on the IWC. Dr. Tillman and others claim that in the years just before the vote on the worldwide moratorium, conservation groups paid some small island nations to join the Commission.
    
    TILLMAN: There was what we called “common knowledge,” quote unquote, that a number of countries joined and that their dues and the travel support was reportedly due to conservation groups providing it. So that, in a sense, one could say that the conservation groups set out a strategy that the Japanese copied.”
    
    http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=98-P13-00019#feature4
    
    And Japan seems to have said they are “serious allegations” not “serious issues”.
    
    Where did I deny that Japan gives aid to countries that back it’s policies? I said that countries tend to give money/aid to countries that support them and decrease the money/aid to countries that do things that the donor country doesn’t like.
Michael Raymer

Mick,

I had to jump down here due to the lack of a reply bar.

“Now, you apparently feel that is reason enough to demand that Japan stop hunting whales. Your logic appears to be they should stop eating whale because many people are against whaling and because no one will starve. Is that right?”

That is not my logic at all. I couldn’t care less who else or how many other people are against whaling.(BTW, I’m answering your questions in my terms, not getting defensive or hostile) I am against it because I genuinely believe that there are too many un-answered questions about the intelligence, depth of feeling and capacity for suffering of cetaceans. Their intelligence does not have to be “our kind” of intelligence. It just has to be intelligence. Depth of feeling, of suffering, despair, remorse. We simply don’t know how deep it goes. Look up Cetacean intelligence on Wikipedia and they’ll tell you that whales have not been researched adequately because of the difficulties and expense involved. And then there is the suffering. Please do not tell me that the whalers methods are humane. I’ve seen too many videos of whales being harpooned with the current methods.

I am a meat and fish eater. I support regulated, lawful hunting of elk, deer, ducks, quail, etc. I shop for beef, chicken, pork, etc. I am confident in the fact that these particular animals are not possessed of a sentience or intelligence that makes this a moral problem. I am also confident that (abuses and incompetance aside) they are being killed as humanely as possible. Vegan assertions aside, I believe that these animal products are necessary to feed the worlds population, at least for the forseeable future. In this as in all things, if someone ever changes my mind, my mind will be changed and I will act accordingly.

“Please allow me to ask you a question. How does someone in Japan eating a whale affect you personally? In what way does it affect your life? I would like a specific answer, please. Not some vague reference to the environment.”

Many people don’t think that whales should be equated with people. I will not deny that I do, at least in degrees. Again, if the taking of these animals is causing them the pain and suffering that I honestly believe that it does, then it is just plain wrong. If we are hunting species that have a conscious thought process, an awareness of self, a capacity to feel loss when they witness a mate or their offspring being killed, then it is just plain wrong. No one has been able to make these determinations, and the possibility exists.

I am a student of history. I have read and researched too many times in the past where lack of understanding lead to lack of compassion, which led to abuse, suffering and death. And once we finally ended these abuses, the first question that was asked was, “Why didn’t someone do something earlier.” Genocide, slavery, the Holocaust. Yes, these are “people” issues. And we place a premium on human life because we have learned (slowly and incrementally) compassion and understanding and caring about others. This was not always so. We are an intelligent and sentient species capable of resolving what is right and wrong in regards to ourselves. When I read here and elsewhere the lack of willingness to even consider the suffering of cetaceans, because they are “not us”, I see the same cycle, just in a different manner. All this, for a product that is not needed and that the vast majority of consumers don’t want. This is how this issue affects me personally. “Aggression unchallenged is aggression unleashed.” Well, cruelty that is tolerated diminishes you, it diminishes me, it diminishes everyone on this planet.

Sorry for the length. The sad thing is, I could have gone on a lot longer.
- Mick
  
  Michael Raymer,
  
  “I had to jump down here due to the lack of a reply bar.”
  
  No problem. Thank you for your reply.
  
  “That is not my logic at all.”
  
  I see. I’m sorry for the mis-understanding.
  
  “I am against it because I genuinely believe that there are too many un-answered questions about the intelligence, depth of feeling and capacity for suffering of cetaceans. Their intelligence does not have to be “our kind” of intelligence. It just has to be intelligence. Depth of feeling, of suffering, despair, remorse. We simply don’t know how deep it goes.”
  
  I see and understand your feelings. However, I believe you could apply that same reasoning to many different species of animals. I have dealt with many different animals under different circumstances over the years. I have read different reports about cetaceans intelligence. In my personal opinion I have seen nothing to indicate that whales exhibit more intelligence than some other animals. I believe your views are reasonable. However, I believe it is unreasonable to ask people to stop eating whales for the reasons you have given.
  
  “And then there is the suffering. Please do not tell me that the whalers methods are humane. I’ve seen too many videos of whales being harpooned with the current methods.”
  
  I believe the current method of hunting whales is as humane as possible, under the circumstances. Granted, there is some cruelty involved. However, it is due to the circumstances involved and not due to the whalers being deliberately cruel. In other words, there is always a certain amount of cruelty involved in the hunting of wild animals.
  
  “All this, for a product that is not needed and that the vast majority of consumers don’t want. This is how this issue affects me personally.”
  
  What is “needed” and what is not “needed” is totally subjective and cannot be resolved. That’s just one of those things were people will inevitably disagree. I believe the only moral thing to be done is to leave that decision in the hands of those involved. I can say, from personal experience, that there IS a fairly large demand for whale meat in Japan. Many people do eat whale meat. It is certainly not sitting on store shelves collecting dust, I can assure you.
  
  Thank you again. I’ve enjoyed our disscussion very much. Even though I disagree with you, I understand and respect your views and opinions on this matter. Have a good day.
Imforthewhales

I believe the current method of hunting whales is as humane as possible, under the circumstances. Granted, there is some cruelty involved.

If anyone did to a farmyard animal what they do to a whale, they would end up in jail, charged with animal cruelty. No question.

This is all the more horrific when you are comparing the level on cruelty to the end result. Lets stop and think for aminute about this whole sorry saga. whales are not feeding the world. Whaling is not a noble enterprise. Industrial whaling in areas japan ahas not been able to reach until last century has nothing to do with culture.

The end result for all this cruelty is just money,as usual, but more than that it is simply servicing high priced Japanese restarunt patrons who pay high prices for an exotic food which at the end of the day gets flushed down a japanese loo somewhere in Toyko after the whale has been excrected. Surely our worlds supply of precious whales deserve a better fate than this, as do future gernations of people. Surely our whales should not be ending up as japanese poo.

This type of cruelty should be abolished in todays world just as we have moved forward in other areas.
- ddpalmer
  
  “If anyone did to a farmyard animal what they do to a whale, they would end up in jail, charged with animal cruelty. No question.”
  
  And if anyone did what they do a farmyard animal what they do to wild deer, they would end up in jail, charged with animal cruelty. No question.
  
  The rules/laws are different for animals under different circumstances. So comparing the two is rather pointless.
  - Michael Raymer
    
    You just love pulling this crap, don’t you dd. Tell me, what do they do to wild deer? Who are “they”, and what do “they” do?. And if “they” are doing it, why aren’t “they” in jail, charged with animal cruelty? No question? That’s several questions.
    
    What rules/laws are you referring too? What different circumstances? Rules/laws are written down and available to everyone, and you seem to be an authority on this, so you should have no trouble providing this information for our edification.
  - ddpalmer
    
    They are hunters. They shoot deer with arrows then track them, sometimes for miles, while they deer slowly bleeds to death. They are not in jail because it is an accepted way to hunt deer. Just like explosive harpoons are the accepted way to hunt whales. But if a rancher did that to his cows he would be charged with animal cruelty.
    
    Well the hunting laws for Ohio, as an example, say arrows are acceptable for deer hunting. And the IWC says explosive harpoons are acceptable for whale hunting. While state and federal laws cover the acceptable methods of killing farm animals.
    
    You can look them up yourself. You really need to learn to be more self reliant.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    DD Palmer…unfortunately hunting occurs throughout the world. some of this hunting is to feed people, subsistence hunting and so forth. other shooters are professionals which shoot feral animals.
    
    Then there are the sport hunters who enjoy stalking an animal and killing it.
    
    I don’t know a lot about sports hunting as it doesn’t turn me on at all.
    
    However, i would take an educated guess that most hunters would be using guns ( with sights) and only a small proportion of hunters would be using the old bow and arrow. why they use a bow and arrow I don’t know…perhaps you can fill me in here as you seem to be an expert on bow and arrow hunting….. but perhaps the sports hunters find it more thrilling? Perhaps it takes them back further towards their Neanderthal roots. Who knows.
    
    The deer hunters would be more likely to end up in jail if they used explosive tipped arrows which blow the insides of the deer apart without killing it outright.
    
    So rather than a bleeding flesh would, the animal would also have damaged liver, kidneys, intestine and lungs.
    
    Now imagine if these deer hunters, having shot the poor animal and hearing the boom as its insides disintegrate, had the animal on the end of a long rope, tied to the bumper bar of their truck.
    
    Whilst the deer bleeds, the hunters pull o the rope dragging it ever close to the truck. This process taking a good ten minutes to a half hour with the animal clearly in agony and struggling for its very life. The look of fear is evident in its eyes as it struggles to get away, not knowing or understanding where this pain has come from or who these strange creatures are.
    
    After the half hour is up the hunters then try taking a few more shots at the deer with a high powered rifle, balancing on the edge of the truck side as they do so. They fire 5 or 6 shots into the deer but even this does not kill it. Meanwhile no-one on board the truck seems to thing that there is anything wrong with this or tries to save the deer.
    
    Someone has the bright idea of getting a bucket of water out and they stick the head of the deer in the bucket of water, attempting to drown in.
    
    Of course there is blood everywhere and there is now a gaping hole the size of a football where the arrow has entered the body of the deer. The deer is weakening.
    
    45 minutes on, and Bob the bow hunter gets out his jumper leads. He goes to the front of the truck, attaches the jumper leads to the truck battery and then places the other ends on the head of the deer.
    
    He then proceeds to electrocute the deer.
    
    Now unbeknown to him, his neighbor Beryl has seen all of this kerfuffle, filmed it on her i-phone and sent the video in to u-tube where it seen by the local police. Bob is arrested, charged and a high profile court case ensues with mass media coverage. the local Ku Klux clan see this on tv and decide to pay bob a visit. His house gets burned down that night in protest and Bob gets sent to jail for 20 years.
- Mick
  
  imforthewhales,
  
  “If anyone did to a farmyard animal what they do to a whale, they would end up in jail, charged with animal cruelty.”
  
  “..it is simply servicing high priced Japanese restarunt patrons who pay high prices for an exotic food..”
  
  Hunting wild animals and the slaughter of domesticated animals are two completely different activities with completely different circumstances. I believe the current method of hunting whales is as humane as possible under the circumstances. Any cruelty involved is unavoidable, under the circumstances, and not deliberate.
  
  This statement is grossly incorrect. While I’m sure you can find whale meat in high priced resturants, it can be found in the average local grocery store, as well. The local drugstore has canned whale meat. It sells for about $2.50 a can. And they have no problem selling it. It is hardly a delicacy reserved for rich people.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    This statement is grossly incorrect. While I’m sure you can find whale meat in high priced resturants, it can be found in the average local grocery store, as well. The local drugstore has canned whale meat. It sells for about $2.50 a can. And they have no problem selling it. It is hardly a delicacy reserved for rich people.
    
    Mick…given that the whaling is supposed to be all about research, ( Japanese claims) do you think that the Japanese would have a problem if the other loophole was removed from the IWC research guidelines?
    
    in other words, if the whales that were bing ‘ researched” were not allowed to be made use of,
    would Japanese research whaling continue?
    
    Because to the casual observer, this research whaling appears to be supporting an entire whale meat industry.
    
    Also do you know which particular whale species end up in supermarkets and in cans? Is it the local product ( dolphins, pilot whales etc) or the whales caught in the southern ocean?
    
    As far as unavoidable cruelty goes…whilst the cruelty may not be intentional, it does not remove the fact that it is the most cruel of all forms of hunting, bar trapping of wild animals imo.
    
    The fact is that by its very nature, there is no avoiding this massive cruelty unless lethal whaling stops altogether.
  - Mick
    
    imforthewhales,
    
    “Mick…given that the whaling is supposed to be all about research, ( Japanese claims) do you think that the Japanese would have a problem if the other loophole was removed from the IWC research guidelines?”
    
    “Also do you know which particular whale species end up in supermarkets and in cans? Is it the local product ( dolphins, pilot whales etc) or the whales caught in the southern ocean?”
    
    “..that it is the most cruel of all forms of hunting…”
    
    Hmmm, would the ICR continue their research program if the whale meat could not be sold? I don’t know. Maybe, maybe not. Please bear in mind, research costs money. Lots of money. The sales of the whale meat defrays some of that cost.
    
    It depends upon the area. The whale meat we have bought here has been Minke whale taken in the SO.
    
    I disagree that whaling is “the most cruel” form of hunting.
- Robert Beller
  
  I would just like to weight in on the hunting issue you introduce a little further down with ddpalmer. Currently in most of Maryland (US) you can kill 36 deer each season 12 by shotgun, 12 by bow and 12 with a black powder rifle. Thousands of animals are wounded by inexperience or incompetent hunters every year in Maryland alone. In some counties there is no bag limit for antlerless deer. 100663 white-tailed and sika deer were taken in the 2009-2010 season If only 10% were wounded and escaped that would be 10,000 deer. You’re not shooting paper targets the 10% number is being generous there are lots of hunting stories that end “I chased the blood trail but I never found it”. Hunters aren’t perfect and sometimes animals move unexpectedly. All it takes is one good gust of wind or an unexpected movement to turn an easy kill into a maimed escapee.
  
  Keep in mind this is only hunting one type of animal in one small state on a big planet. I don’t think it is unreasonable to say world wide a million or more animals are legally injured by hunter every year.
  
  http://www.dnr.state.md.us/huntersguide/regionb.asp
  - Michael Raymer
    
    Where, exactly do you get these estimates? “Thousands of animals”, “if only 10% were wounded”. What is the basis for these numbers? I haven’t seen your name before, but I’m still somewhat new myself. I’ll just say that making stuff up doesn’t work with me. You already got off to a bad start with your “Look how Watson gets flustered,” post. Now you’re talking about 10,000 wounded deer wandering around Maryland every year. No state DNR is going to tolerate that, and the anti-hunters would go into conniptions. And one thing to keep in mind if you’re going to bring up apocryphal stories of blood trails. If it’s a trail and it’s blood, it’s blood that is no longer in the animal. How far are they going to go? I suggest that in the future, you take a little more time deciding what you want to say.
    
    Oh, and BTW, this is a thread about whaling.
Imforthewhales

Mick..it has been claimed that there are stockpiles of Japanese whale meat and some of this is turned into pet food. Do you know if this is true or not?
- ddpalmer
  
  Wait 4 minutes ago you claimed that whaling is “…simply servicing high priced Japanese restarunt patrons who pay high prices for an exotic food…”. Now you are talking about it maybe being used as pet food. Did I miss something somewhere. It is a high priced delicacy but it also may be pet food?
  - Imforthewhales
    
    simple question i thought…is this true or not?
  - ddpalmer
    
    Yes it was a simple question. But you contend in one post that whale is a high price delicacy then 4 minutes later you ask if it is worth so little that they use it for pet food.
- Mick
  
  imforthewhales,
  
  Yes, they keep a stockpile of whale meat, along with stockpiles of other meats, as well. They continually cycle whale meat in and out of storage in order to sell it year ’round and to keep a steady supply on hand.
  I have heard that some whale meat from whales caught near the coast is used for pet food. However, I can’t confirm that. It is also unclear if they are talking about actual whales or dolphin species such as Pilot whales.
  - Imforthewhales
    
    thanks for your reply mick.
  - Mick
    
    You’re welcome.
Michael Raymer

“They are hunters. They shoot deer with arrows then track them, sometimes for miles, while they deer slowly bleeds to death. They are not in jail because it is an accepted way to hunt deer. Just like explosive harpoons are the accepted way to hunt whales. But if a rancher did that to his cows he would be charged with animal cruelty.

Well the hunting laws for Ohio, as an example, say arrows are acceptable for deer hunting. And the IWC says explosive harpoons are acceptable for whale hunting. While state and federal laws cover the acceptable methods of killing farm animals.

You can look them up yourself. You really need to learn to be more self reliant.”

You paint a very singular picture to suit your own ends. And you’re doing it in the right place. You allege that “They shoot deer with arrows then track them, sometimes for miles, while they deer slowly bleeds to death,” is commonplace in bow-hunting. Nothing is further from the truth. This is me being self-reliant. I know about bow-hunting, much more than you, it would seem. Bow-hunters spend the time, money and effort to make a clean kill (otherwise, they wouldn’t be bow-hunters), and this happens the vast majority of the time. I do admit, off-target shots do occur. But to act like they are the norm shows no knowledge of whatever point you are trying to make.

“They are not in jail because it is an accepted way to hunt deer.” No it’s not. No it is not! You show me a bow-hunter that can’t make his shots, I’ll show you a guy that’s going to have is bow taken away from him by his own peers. A clean kill, with an absolute minimum of suffering is the goal of every hunter. And what kind of common sense is required to know that no hunter wants to track a wounded animal “for miles”?

Honestly, the more I read from you, the more you convince me that you are not here to uphold your beliefs. I think you found a place where you can start trouble, piss people off and inflame tensions. Kudos though, you are very good at it.
- Mick
  
  Michael Raymer,
  
  “You paint a very singular picture to suit your own ends.”
  
  “Bow-hunters spend the time, money and effort to make a clean kill (otherwise, they wouldn’t be bow-hunters), and this happens the vast majority of the time. I do admit, off-target shots do occur.”
  
  I understand what you are saying and I generally agree. However, ddpalmer has made good point, as well. You say, “off-target shots do occur”. When this happens, a cruel and inhumane death is a likely result. Any cruelty inflicted is not deliberate or intended. I have heard many people talking about the average time it takes a whale to die. You said that,”I know about bow-hunting”. I would like to ask you a question. What is the average time, in minutes, it takes for a deer to die after being shot?
  - Imforthewhales
    
    “When deer hunting, your trophy deer shot placement must be put into a vital region of a deer to ensure a quick and humane kill. Once this is done, most deer will not live over 10 seconds”
    
    “Gun Hunting
    For rifle hunter’s, I feel a better shot placement then the heart is the middle area of the front shoulder just an inch high of center. One shot; one kill. You can be off a several inches in any direction and you still have a dead trophy deer laying on the ground within seconds”.
    
    “The only exception to this shot placement is if your archery hunting; then a razor sharp broad head on a finely tuned arrow, released into the center of the lungs, may be your best shot placement on a trophy whitetail deer. Your target here is the size of a soccer ball or basketball. A relaxed confident shot under 30 yards and you should be fine unless you suffer form buck fever or bad luck. As you cans see from the photo, a shot 2 to 3 inches off in any direction and you will have a dead deer with somewhat easy tracking. Ideally, I would of liked this shot to be about 1 – 1 1/2 inches lower. Then I could of been off about 4 inches in any direction with the same results. This deer traveled about 35 yards as fast as it could run and the piled up dead within sight.”
    
    I imagine that deer hunting is a lot easier and far more successful than trying to place a harpoon into a moving whale that is 90 per cent underwater and aiming from a rolling moving ship at sea?
    
    When To Shoot
    Many whitetail deer hunters ask me; “When is the best time to take the shot at a deer?” I tell them: “The very first opportunity for a quick, clean kill.” As a deer hunter, you have be prepared when the opportunity presents itself. You may not get a second chance for a shot. Whitetail deer are unpredictable; they can and will change direction of movement for no reason. It happens! At times a deer will present a shot without much room for error. Lets say a deer is approaching a shooting lane and if so will present about a 18 to 20 yard shot. It just happens to stop before the lane in a area, about 25 yards away, that has an opening of a couple square feet or so. For me, that’s perfect – I take the shot. Because I have only a small opening, it probably means there is brush, branches, or trees, that may obstruct the deer’s vision in my direction; perfect opportunity to lift and aim my weapon. Also, I practice this scenario in my mind and shoot at a much smaller target when I practice with my bow or rifle. With enough practice, any deer hunter should be comfortable with a shot like this. If not, don’t shoot; wait for the deer to get into the shooting lane – but, be at full draw or have your rifle up as you take aim at the spot on the deer you will be shooting at when it does get into the lane.
    
    http://www.the-deer-hunting-guide.com/trophy_deer_shot_placement.htm
  - Imforthewhales
    
    Difficulty: EasyInstructionsThings You’ll Need:
    Bow and arrow
    Rifle
    Step 1Notice your target and what lies beyond it. To ensure the utmost safety while hunting, recognize when you spot a deer and then look beyond the deer. Make sure there is nothing beyond the direction you plan to shoot. This protects other hunters and animals in the area.
    
    Step 2Identify inhumane or difficult shots. Certain shots are more effective and humane than others. Frontal shots, when the deer faces you, are too risky for both the bow and the rifle. Your goal is the most humane and ethical shot for a fast kill. Straight down shots, when you are overlooking the deer are also risky. Never take a rear shot, when the deer’s hind end faces you. This severely wounds the animal and is very cruel.
    
    Step 3Try for a shot when the deer quarters toward or away from you. This gives you an excellent shot. The deer is more angled so that you get a clean kill. The perfect shot, however is the broadside shot, when you have a completely unobstructed shot at the broadside of the deer’s body.
    
    Step 4Take your shot. Once you are sure you have the best shot possible for a quick and ethical kill, use your rifle or bow to kill the deer.
    
    Step 5Find the animal. You have successfully hit your target. Observe carefully as the animal moves away. A mortally wounded deer does not usually travel more than 250 yards before it drops.
  - Michael Raymer
    
    Mick,
    
    imforthewhales got there first. The answer below (at least that’s where it is as I type this) is as good, if not better than any I would have given. The average time it takes for a deer to die after a well placed shot with any suitable, legal equipment is probably around 10 seconds or less. I know of no “official” estimate, and I’m not going to go look for them. I, personally like rifles too much, and don’t have the desire to spend the money to buy, or take the time to practice with archery equipment. But bow-hunters do have that desire and they fulfill their obligations in this regard. I have been around bow-hunters all my life, I have relatives and many, many friends who hunt this way.
    
    I had to say “off-target shots do occur”, because….they do. Bad luck occurs in every facet of existance. And, you and I have corresponded enough now that you know I take responsibility for what I post and I try to be honest in what I say. I will always make a genuine attempt at full disclosure.
    
    My original response was for ddpalmer. While I respect the opinions of those who disagree with me, I don’t respect those who spend their time stirring up trouble. I read post after post from him and it’s not like I haven’t seen this sort of thing before. He flails about, making claims without foundation, accusations against others across the entire spectrum and comparisons that have no basis in logic. That’s not a debate. It’s trolling. And I can’t stop him from doing it. But I can make him have to work harder at it. I can call him on every bogus, pointless claim that he makes. And I don’t mind. This is easy for me.
  - Mick
    
    imforthewhales and Michael Raymer,
    
    Thank you for your posts.
    
    “Your goal is the most humane and ethical shot for a fast kill.”
    
    “The average time it takes for a deer to die after a well placed shot with any suitable, legal equipment is probably around 10 seconds or less.”
    
    I can accept that the average time for a deer to die is around 10 seconds, under good circumstances.
    That seems reasonable and I will not dispute that. however, I also believe that under bad circumstances it can take much longer. I will also agree that a humane and ethical shot is indeed the goal of the vast majority of hunters.
    Which brings us back to my original statement. I believe that, just like deer hunting, whale hunting is humane as possible under the circumstances. And, just like other hunters, the whalers goal is a humane shot. I also believe that, just like deer hunting, sometimes inhumane shots are made resulting in a cruel death for the animal being hunted. Therefore, on the question of cruelty, I do not believe that whale hunting is substantially more cruel than other forms of hunting.
Imforthewhales

Yes he is good at it, very good in fact, but i would like to know how much Glen Inwood and or the japanese whaling companies are paying DDP to get on every forum known to man, and every newspaper with a comments section spouting the same inverted crappola?

If Glen Inwood and his little band of merrymakers are not paying you DDPalmer then they should be!

Actually Sea Sheperd should be paying you and the cucumber as well.

Though the cucumber would be earning double your wage from Sea Sheperd.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene

I have reviewed that picture of Erik and the dolphin, and it does appear that he is not giving a happy smile, so, I give him the benefit of the doubt that he is happy about captive dolphins.

As to other things, I am not as optimistic as he is, but I am also one to try to give a good fight where I see the need

As for the worry you expressed, why not try and see if I have the integrity? All I will promise is that if you send insults at me on PM I will let them know you did. I leave the ball in your court cucumber.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene
  
  Basically, Erik appears actually unhappy that the dolphin is stuck there. IF that needed clarification.
Imforthewhales

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOS20plm7UM&feature=related

Just thought i would post this video of a whale underwater.
Imforthewhales

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f2BstBvaGE

Then try this one.
Smokin’

To get this back on to whaling, I just don’t think that the whole Pete Bethune stunt was worth it. Everyone on the Sea Shepherd forum are all wringing their hands like they are going to arrest the Captain of the Shonan Maru 2, but in the end, and as much as I hate to admit it, nothing will happen to him. They’ll use the same videos as evidence that we had hoped to use as a defense, but they do show provocative action on the part of Captain Pete. I would also agree that whaling itself isn’t part of this trial now, and it won’t be in the future. I just don’t think it was a smart move overall. In the end, I feel he’s going to be convicted and that will be that – just another activist in jail – not even news worthy in a couple of months.

Also…..

Shark finning in Ecuador, Guatemala, and Costa Rica are secretly run by the Shark Fin Mafia.

Whaling is secretly run by the Japanese Yakuza (Mafia).

Tuna fishing in the Mediterranean is secretly run by the Italian Corsican Mafia.

Do you really think that statements like this are helping the cause?
Imforthewhales

Looks like the pro japanese whale killing side have been called into a meeting>?

Maybe Grand Poohbah Glen Inwood is in town.
Imforthewhales

DOHA, Qatar — The Japanese seemed to be everywhere at the U.N. wildlife trade meeting.

Dozens of government officials worked the floor the past two weeks ahead of key votes, offering guidance to confused but supportive delegates. They held a reception for select representatives at their embassy in Qatar, offering up Atlantic bluefin tuna sushi — a typical food served at Japanese formal occasions — the night before the vote on the export ban of the overfished species.

Their aggressive and relentless lobbying campaign appeared to pay dividends.

Japan came out the big winner at the 175-nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES, which wraps up Thursday, successfully defeating the proposed bluefin ban, voting down efforts to regulate the coral trade and joining other Asian nations to prevent several shark species used in the fin trade from gaining protection.

For some activists, the Japanese tactics were proof that CITES has been transformed from a clubby, conservation body to one driven by big money, trade and economics. The meeting is becoming more like U.N. climate change meetings, they said, where politics at times trumps science and a deals are struck by world leaders behind closed doors.

“Japan clearly mobilized massive efforts to keep fisheries out of CITES,” said Mark W. Roberts, senior counsel and policy adviser for the watchdog group Environmental Investigation Agency.

It’s not that the Japanese were the only ones to stake out a position, but they were more organized and persistent, delegates said, than the divided European Union and the United States, which didn’t announce its position on the tuna ban until late in the game.

Japan launched its global campaign months ago, repeatedly meeting with governments big and small. And when it came to the conference in Qatar, they sent a 30-strong delegation that was stacked with fisheries people who have years of experience working the hallways at CITES.

The Japanese insist they were just one of many delegations searching for votes. But they were also under intense pressure at home to defeat the proposed ban on Atlantic bluefin tuna, given it could devastate the country’s fisheries industry since it imports 80 percent of the fish.

Hisashi Endo, the director of the Ecosystem and Conservation Office in the Fisheries Agency of Japan, said delegates stuck to the facts. They argued that regional fisheries bodies were better suited to regulate marine species and that the CITES ban was unfair. They also argued that the ban proposed by Monaco would penalize the Japanese sushi industry, while allowing American and European fisheries to keep catching Atlantic bluefin.

“We are not pressuring anyone,” Endo said. “We are talking to many countries and expressing our opinion and seeking their understanding.”

But some delegates accused Japan of using tactics that went beyond diplomacy and violated the spirit of CITES.

Kenya, which fought the Japanese over tuna and a proposed sale of Zambian and Tanzanian ivory stocks, accused Tokyo of pressuring delegates to support its positions and paying fisheries officials from unnamed African countries to attend the conference — something the Japanese repeatedly denied.

“The way we have seen this conference operate, there is a lot of influence that is quite unnecessary,” said Patrick Omondi, a member of Kenya’s delegation. “That is not very good for species that are affected by trade.”

Javier Rosero, a member of the Ecuadorean delegation that supported most of the marine listings, acknowledged the Japanese played hardball, but argued the United States and others could learn a thing or two from them.

He said the Americans were often too slow to react and were not forceful enough when they did. And in meetings with Ecuadorean officials, Rosero said the Americans didn’t bring anything to offer to the table.

“I have been talking to Japan and they say, ‘What do you need? What kind of project are you able to do?’” Rosero said. “The Japanese come to make business and the States come to explain.”

Others, however, dismissed talk of Japan’s influence as overstated. The Egyptians said it was nonsense, as did the Zambians. Even the Libyans, who supported Japan on the coral and tuna proposals, denied there was any quid pro quo.

“We were with Japan on tuna but not the sharks,” said Hussin Ali Zarough, who was among the most vocal opponents of the tuna ban and called for the crucial vote. “That shows Libyan independence.”

Masanori Miyahara, chief counselor of the Fisheries Agency of Japan, acknowledged the government has funds that were aimed at helping developing countries build their fishing capacity. He said the funds were used by nations to attend CITES and other fisheries conferences — though he did not say how much or which countries benefited from the funds.

“Participation is very important for them to learn what is going on internationally,” Miyahara said. “They use the money for tuna regional fisheries management meeting and other meetings. CITES is one of them.”

But he denied his government “was buying votes” with such funding or its offers of bluefin tuna at its reception.

“We wanted to show what it is,” Miyahara said of the tuna sushi served at the reception. “You can’t buy the vote by just serving bluefin tuna. That’s a silly idea.”

Roberts said Japan’s tactics are reminiscent of the way it operates at the International Whaling Commission, where heavy lobbying and allegations of vote-buying are common. He said activists brought non-whaling governments into the body to win a moratorium on commercial whaling and Japan followed suit, leading to political gridlock with little room for scientific debate.

“That is what happened here,” he said. “The science on the bluefin tuna — if there was no economic factor — would have been a slam dunk. But given that there is millions, if not billions of dollars at stake, it became a political decision.”

http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Front+Page/20100325/9475762/Japan-big-winner-at-UN-conservation-meeting.htm
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene

Seems someone has focused on our arguments and has decided to spoof the whaling arguments, I found this http://sagebrush57.blogspot.com/ on Blogspot, as well as this so far. http://txexpatt.blogspot.com/

Based on the style, as well as some of the things said, it also appears that some of us, myself included have some sort of fan. I personally cannot say that I am completely flattered, but I still wonder if it is a dubious honor or not. I linked these so that all could see, and also the ones whose handles are listed to be fair, as this is not my style, in fact my one blog is really not that busy. Mostly about my not being decided as to what to post first.

But also, due to the respectful discussions I and “Mick” have had in the past, I thought you may want to see this.
- Hellfire Jack
  
  Haha those are awesome. These people must really be striking a nerve with the person who appears to have spent days copying the forums at http://www.endecoterrorism.com and then commenting on them outside of the forum.
  
  For an “exposer” though it’s pretty weak. Anyone can just join the forums there and read what this obsessed person is “exposing”. Only one person has ever even actually been banned there and it was because she was a mental case who shared her username and password out.
  
  Who ever it was that made these blogs… Thanks for the free advertising! I appreciate it.
  - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene
    
    Well, I have not seen much else, so maybe they have stopped.
  - Deacon Jones
    
    Probably best for them really.
    
    No one knows the user names except apparently this nutter who obsessively follows them around the internet.
    
    All it will do is make people seek out http://www.endecoterrorism.com to read the real posts and then they’ll just laugh at the spiteful idiot(s) who made the blogs when they do.
    
    You have to be a total off the wall imbecile to want to copy and paste months and months worth of posts from some random people on the internet and change and comment on each one.
    
    We’re all having a major laugh at the craziness back on http://www.endecoterrorism.com.
  - Rammingspeed
    
    I don’t see where it mentions the site, just the players, so I think you have prematurely “hooted” on yourself.
  - Hellfire Jack
    
    Hey Lenny.. Can you get mine edited so it’s maybe funny or something? It’s really dry. You want a blog to be at least interesting. You know what I mean? Catch the eye. Make them want to read it.
    
    Mine reads like stereo instructions. Here I was, hoping for a good laugh, and I almost fell asleep.
    
    TLDR for the poser on that one. If they’re going to spend hours trying to impersonate someone else at least they can be a bit funny. Now they’re just boring.
bbbieker

“To get this back on to whaling, I just don’t think that the whole Pete Bethune stunt was worth it. Everyone on the Sea Shepherd forum are all wringing their hands like they are going to arrest the Captain of the Shonan Maru 2, but in the end, and as much as I hate to admit it, nothing will happen to him. They’ll use the same videos as evidence that we had hoped to use as a defense, but they do show provocative action on the part of Captain Pete. I would also agree that whaling itself isn’t part of this trial now, and it won’t be in the future. I just don’t think it was a smart move overall. In the end, I feel he’s going to be convicted and that will be that – just another activist in jail – not even news worthy in a couple of months.”

Yeah, I’m with that. The real truth is that no one gives a crud about the whales – there are too many other problems in the world right now. Yeah, they’re cute…. They make a nice cute sound when they get run over by whale-watching boats, or when the new Navy sonar is microwaving their brains in the Pacific during testing. Oops!

We in the US don’t have the time for a bunch of vegan asshole trying to tell the world that they know best. What you got in the US is a couple of “celebrity” has-beans that need publicity and have given you a little attention. Page 46 news now, just like good ol’ Capt Pete Buffoon. Believe me, two years into his prison sentence, his wife will be bouncing on the pool boy while Pete learns to love whale and dolphin meat! Forget about your little letter-writing campaign, no one in the US government is EVER going to take ANYTHING that the Sea Shepherds say seriously. You guys ever figure out why you can’t get flagged in the US or Australia? Because they both know you idiots are full of crap.

Rudd’s doing the right thing now – you Australians should just sit down, shut up, and listen to the leaders that YOU elected!

Oh yeah, sorry to hear that the Seal hunt in Canada is still on! Too bad you can’t do squat about it – I guess you’re all bark and no bite up there now. Time to get the Louisville Slugger out of storage and go hunting some boot liners and some nice, white car seat covers!
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene

Hellfire Jack, March 31, 2010 at 5:36 pm

Hey Lenny.. Can you get mine edited so it’s maybe funny or something? It’s really dry. You want a blog to be at least interesting. You know what I mean? Catch the eye. Make them want to read it.

Mine reads like stereo instructions. Here I was, hoping for a good laugh, and I almost fell asleep.

TLDR for the poser on that one. If they’re going to spend hours trying to impersonate someone else at least they can be a bit funny. Now they’re just boring.

If I could, but I am not the one that made it, so , I have no power over what is posted there. As I said, I found them, and I reported their existence. I was serious when I said that I do not do that kind of thing.
- Rammingspeed
  
  You shouldn’t be so jealous they made me famous first, and do the rest of us a favor, try not to sound so whiny.
  - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1306324129 Leonard Greene
    
    Me or Jack?
  - Rammingspeed
    
    Jack is acting like a whiny gril. He is jsut jealous that he doesnt have his own blog.
  - Hellfire Jack
    
    Haha looks like we found our poseur. The real Rammingspeed doesn’t post here. That guy’s a fake.
Michael Raymer

WTF does any of this have to do with the issue of whaling and the article at the top of the page? Why don’t you children take your little pissing contest out to the playground where it belongs. Jeez, this is what happens when you let kids play without proper supervision.

« PREVIOUS POST

Castrate Knut The Global Warming Polar Bear?

The Green Quote: Cro-Mag Singer John Joseph Explains New Vegan Book Title

Ecorazzi

Sea Shepherd Building A Robot Army?

About Michael dEstries

Latest Stories

Most Viewed Stories

Twitter Updates

Recent Comments

Category Sponsors

Categories

Connect

Ecorazzi

Sea Shepherd Building A Robot Army?

About Michael dEstries

Latest Stories

Most Viewed Stories

Twitter Updates

Recent Comments

Category Sponsors

Categories

Connect

Subscribe