112 replies to this topic

[pakman]

I can't see many people paying to go on cod-watching trips.

oh look honey, there's a cod breaching...

[MikeVeitch]

hahahahahaaaaa

[zippsy]

don't a lot of fish doctors have a cod complex? That would be worth seeing.



....and now back to the serious arguments.

Edited by zippsy, 20 January 2008 - 10:49 PM.

[John Bantin]

In the final analysis, it all comes down to money and how much someone can make. While animals are worth more dead than alive there can be no hope. Now, what about man's inhumanity to man?

[Drew]

John
Violence within the species is allowed apparently. if you look at the Darfur and SOOO many other almost surreal actions against humans (it's human John, remember using 'man' is so 1800s and passé) and that's in this century alone!
That said, economic development will always take the front seat to environmental concerns. It's the same everywhere in the world. It's ridiculous that the industrialized nations can go to developing nations and say they have to show environmental care when they themselves did not.

[cor]

The point is there will be no end to whaling. Just managed in lower numbers so that the populations can still semi-flourish. That is the realistic goal. To expect zero hunting from anyone is the same as expecting zero emissions of whatever greenhouse gases, it's a quest that is Don Quixotesque.

Hi Drew, I dont agree with what you're saying here. It it imho a realistic goal to have 0 legal whale hunting. Any remaining hunting (which surely will continue, that i agree with), will then be considered poaching. If and when Japan and Norway would condemn whaling, whaling boats would be in the same position as say ivory hunters in Africa. A totally underground, illegal, and possibly very dangerous activity.

The reason this isnt happening with whaling boats right now, is because these boats are protected by their respective governments, and other governments are not willing to risk trillion dollar trading by lets say sinking a whaling boat. (after taking off the crew). What needs to happen is for Japan and Norway to give up that protection, opening the door for law enforcement agencies to actually hunt down and seize/destroy these boats.

Another effect of Japan making whale hunting illegal would be that selling whale meat in restaurants would then be illegal as well, instantly dropping demand to a trickle.

You are seemingly saying that this will never happen and is unrealistic, but Japan is still a democracy last time I checked and the people that are unwilling to give up this 'right' seem to be quickly becoming a very small minority.

Cor

[Craig Ruaux]

Further moves for surveillance by the Australians:

AUSTRALIA has flown its first whaling surveillance mission as forces opposing the Japanese fleet in the Antarctic are stepped up.

The flight by an extended range Airbus, along with the sighting of a Japanese fishing boat said to be shadowing Sea Shepherd, raise spying over the "scientific" whaling program to a new level.

There are also signs that international attention on the program is creating unrest in Tokyo.

The Airbus A319, fitted with surveillance and imaging equipment, is being used by the Rudd Government, with the Customs patrol ship Oceanic Viking, to gather evidence for potential international legal action against the whaling.

Story on the Sydney Morning Herald site. Including commentary from Watson et al.


And a commentary/op ed piece from Paul Watson himself is here.

Something I find rather telling or disturbing in the op ed piece is the following:

As soon as we hoisted that black flag, children around the world began to write to us in support. Our Jolly Roger hats and shirts have become our most popular merchandise. Editorial emphasis is mine

Merchandising...

Yes, I know, they have costs to meet etc etc. But they also have a stake in promoting their merchandise. Economics sullies everything.

Edited by Craig Ruaux, 21 January 2008 - 08:42 AM.

[Drew]

Hi Drew, I dont agree with what you're saying here. It it imho a realistic goal to have 0 legal whale hunting. Any remaining hunting (which surely will continue, that i agree with), will then be considered poaching. If and when Japan and Norway would condemn whaling, whaling boats would be in the same position as say ivory hunters in Africa. A totally underground, illegal, and possibly very dangerous activity.

Cor
I think you have to realize a few things. Ivory, tiger and all the other poached items have no industrialized government backing. It was even popular to push for a ban on such items. Whaling ,while a minority, is a big enough voter base to affect politician's attention. Not to mention unemployment from shutting down the industry immediately etc. Then you factor in the indigenous people who have a 'right' to whale and that's why I think it's not realistic for whaling to disappear, and certainly not declared illegal.
As I said before, the whaling in the industrialized nations will gradually end because there is nothing sustaining them but the government subsidies. No real market for the products and not a very popular activity at that. However, all the whaling nations still support it because of nationalistic and voter based reasons. It is my opinion that the aggressive negative PR campaign,particularly against the Japanese, is actually detrimental in that it promotes nationalism and allows proponents to use it to keep whaling going. Look at the dolphin hunt for instance. Plenty of campaigns and even 'Heroes' trying to protest. But none of that convinced Izumi Ishii to quit hunting dolphins and start cetacean watching in Futo. He claims his own conscience made him switch.
Furthermore, you assume that the whaling nation's own population share the same sentiments as we do about whaling. If anything, I believe anti-whaling population is a vocal minority as well, even in the non-whaling nations. Would Australians have voted Rudd in if he didn't promise to stop whaling? I would venture yes.
In Japan's case, they have more issues with corruption, economy, aging population that I don't see whaling to be an issue that they'd consider important enough to sway votes on. My journalist friends in Japan read about the SS vs Japanese fleet and usually it's a negative spin for the whaling cause. Otherwise it's not in the news much. That's why I believe these tactics of soft targeting the japanese by giving them the information and letting them decide if it's good or bad is the right way, vs portraying them as villains as SS has done. There are other NGOs working on this angle but any progress is negated by the SS initiative.
So no, I don't think whaling will be zero in the immediate or near future. It will probably gradually disappear as the market and support dries up. The only thing to do is hope the IWC manages to contain the take until then.

Yes, I know, they have costs to meet etc etc. But they also have a stake in promoting their merchandise. Economics sullies everything.

What I like most is the quotes about Drake et al being knighted. I think he fancies a QBE or something. That press release is to negate the negative press SS is getting with this latest stunt. I really do think they have this PR work down pat. Now if they'd only control their madness.

[photovan]

Here's the piece on the Greenpeace website

I think I'll start a new thread just on this topic....

[zippsy]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't butyric acid basically a stink bomb? Whenever I've spoke with them, that's what they say it is being used for. How dangerous is it?

Isn't it similar to calling lemon juice an acid?

Actually, Paul Watson says it's more like throwing a litre of rancid butter.

The International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre thinks it's a bit more serious than that.
http://www.ilo.org/p...13/icsc1334.htm

[vincentkneefel]

Some footage from CNN

[zippsy]

Some footage from CNN

I guess there is some relevance - that link is to a CNN interview with actress Hayden Panetierre ('Heroes') talking about her own anti-whaling and "anti-dolphining" protests.

[TheRealDrew]

In Japan's case, they have more issues with corruption, economy, aging population that I don't see whaling to be an issue that they'd consider important enough to sway votes on. My journalist friends in Japan read about the SS vs Japanese fleet and usually it's a negative spin for the whaling cause. Otherwise it's not in the news much. That's why I believe these tactics of soft targeting the japanese by giving them the information and letting them decide if it's good or bad is the right way, vs portraying them as villains as SS has done. There are other NGOs working on this angle but any progress is negated by the SS initiative.

It is funny I missed this post and was actually going to ask something about this in the Canon thread and figured you or shawn would have info on this angle. Basically, I was going to ask if Canon is working within what it may be able to do politically/economically at this time and perhaps picking this fight could be a wrong one and undermine other things (perhaps even what they do right?)

As to NGO and actions, I agree that sometimes different things may work better and perhaps some resources can be channeled from things that seem to garner attention to things that may have more affect. For example shawn's video on the shark finning. Maybe money that is spent elsewhere and not getting that much bang for the buck can get that more exposure. Have run into things recently where sometimes I think things could be run a bit better, so probably projecting a bit