David @ Tokyo

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

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

See videos of the incident here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

damo,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi daniel,

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

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

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

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

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

vivien,

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

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

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

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

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

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

"voice of reason",

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

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

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

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

You have your facts wrong, you should check them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous,

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

I suggest that yourefresh your memory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vivien,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Editorial Staff
 

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

Japan's whaling program put to science review

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

Now Japan's scientific whaling program is under review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"voice of reason",

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

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

Thank you.

damo,

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

vivien, "voice of reason", damo,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marko,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vivien,

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

Knowledge is Power.

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japan needs Australia much less than Australia needs Japan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

"voice of reason",

Regarding your off-topic post in another thread:

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

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

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

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

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

"rights for all",

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

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

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

Best of luck.
 

Anonymous,

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

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

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

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

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

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

However you do reference the loophole the Japanese Government exploits;

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

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

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

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

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

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

10:52 AM

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

"voice of reason",

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"rights for all",

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

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

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

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

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

Here
Here

Thank you for asking.

I know little of Earthtrust.
 

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

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

Yes.

I have actually read about the results of the research.

Have you?

I posted the link to the JARPA review homepage earlier.

Read the documents for yourself.

Knowledge is power. Knowledge is not scary.

Here is the LINK again. Click it.

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

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

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

Hello David,

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

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

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

Hi isanatori,

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

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

curious,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David-san、

一寸日本語で失礼しますね。

しかし・・・オーストラリア
は一体何を考えているのか理解に
苦しみます。

ビールのコマーシャルとは言え、

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

とアピールしたいのでしょうが結局日本人にとっては　効果は全く逆効果で

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


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


日本のＴＶでもこのコマーシャル公開
すれば面白いでしょうね。

そりゃすごいことになりますけど。


Y/H(Japan)
 

Ad in question
 

しかし　グロテスクなＣＭですね。

趣味悪い。もっとオージーはスマートで
賢明と思っていたが・・・

あれじゃ・・・タコですわ。


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


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


Ｙ／Ｈ（ＪＡＰＡＮ）
 

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

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

Y/H(Japan)
 

This ad never aired.
 

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

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

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

What do you think?
 

I've never thought AUSSIE is so cruel.