Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 315 of 353

Thread: Fail: Sea Shepherd

  1. #301
    Join Date
    3rd March 2004 - 22:43
    Bike
    Guzzi
    Location
    In Paradise
    Posts
    2,490
    Bit lengthy all this but have italicized the bits that matter.



    JARPA
    The research program took place near Antarctica from 1988 to 2005. Its stated objectives were to determine mortality rates, whale stock numbers and structure, the role of whales in the Antarctic ecosystem and how environmental changes affect whales. The whaling operation alternated between several pre-established areas intending to take 400 or more minke whales per season.
    In 1997 the IWC scientific committee officially reviewed the JARPA program. The committee expected reasonable precision and usefulness of the data collected but disagreed on whether lethal methods were necessary. It was also noted that the results could potentially allow for an increase in the number of minke whales annually taken.[
    In the final 2007 review the committee agreed with the initial 1997 mid assessment. It recognized that progress had been made in identifying stock structure and at least two stocks were found in the research area. Agreed estimates of abundance could not be developed and preliminary estimates may only reflect major changes in abundance over a long time line. Problems were identified with age and mortality rate data. Krill-related work was welcomed but relatively little progress was made toward understanding the role of whales in the Antarctic ecosystem. Data on pollution was also welcomed but disagreement continued over the analysis of the results. Levels of toxic pollutants were lower in Antarctic whales than those sampled in the Northern hemisphere.
    The commission made note of the fact that the catches took place in the IWC established Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and that improving management of whaling in a sanctuary is unnecessary. The 2007-1 resolution on JARPA is one of several calling on Japan by majority vote to suspend its lethal research.
    JARPA II
    Like its predecessor, the research whaling program takes place near Antarctica. Starting in 2005 and continuing to the present day, objectives include monitoring the Antarctic ecosystem, modeling competition between whale species, recording changes in stock structure and improving future management of Antarctic whales. The program calls for 850 or more Antarctic minke whales, 50 fin whales and 50 humpback whales per season

    Disagreement over the value of the research, the use of lethal methods and the sample sizes continued in both the scientific committee and the commission. In 2005 and 2007 the commission passed resolutions by majority urging Japan to stop all lethal research in JARPA II
    JARPN
    From 1994 to 1999 Japan carried out its research program JARPN in the western North Pacific. Its stated goals were to improve knowledge of stock identity, improve Implementation Simulation Trials for North Pacific Common Minke whales and act as a feasibility study for a program on feeding ecology. The program called for 100 minke whales annually. The results were reviewed by committee in February, 2000. The committee agreed that the information was useful for management but no consensus was reached on whether lethal methods of research were necessary.
    As with JARPA, the IWC issued resolutions calling for Japan to cease issuing permits for the take of Minke whales citing concerns over the need for lethal methods such as the 1999-3 Resolution on whaling under Special Permit.
    JARPN II
    JARPN II began with a feasibility study from 2000 to 2001 to continue taking whales in the western North Pacific Ocean including 100 common minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales and 10 sperm whales. The objectives of the program included study of feeding ecology (such as prey consumption), stock structure and the environmental impacts of cetaceans. In 2002 after the completion of the initial study Japan proposed and began a long-term program to study how feeding ecology relates to sustainable use in the Pacific and within Japan's Exclusive Economic Zone. In 2008 the program included a proposal for an annual take of 340 minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales, 100 sei and 10 sperm whales.
    Disagreement over the objectives, methodology, effect on stocks and overall success of the program continued in the scientific committee review of the feasibility study and full program. The full program introduced a change from previous use of the ICRW Article VIII research provision by not specifying an end date. The objectives were deemed unnecessary for stock management by some members and would not contribute significantly to previously identified research needs. The sample size and methods proposed were unlikely to satisfy program objectives and the ecosystem modeling was considered to be poorly developed.
    Some contended the program placed undue emphasis on assumed negative effects of cetacean predation on fishery resources while failing to address the effects of fisheries on cetaceans. However, others believed determining the effects of cetaceans on fish stocks and more information on minke stock structure to be critically important. Some stated the feasibility study would provide valuable information on methodology and other aspects of the program would improve over time and contribute to fundamental questions. The committee identified that the pollution objective did not contribute to the goals of the IWC Pollution 2000+ project but remained relevant to the IWC for long term study.
    Disagreement over the value of data obtained through lethal methods continued as well. Some argued that a wide range of questions could be answered through non-lethal means such as "for pollutant monitoring (biopsy sampling for fatty acid and stable isotope analysis), for stock structure (photo identification, biopsy sampling and faecal sampling), and for feeding ecology (faecal sampling)." Others argued that prey data was required for modeling purposes that could not be acquired through non-lethal means. However, feeding ecology was not necessarily relevant to stock management according to some who argued biopsy sampling would allow for a greater amount of statistical data.
    Argument continued over the potential negative effects of catches, such as stock depletion of O-stock and J-stock whales, when the only data on many of the populations came from selective extrapolations of JSV (survey) data. Proponents contended that the JSV data was reliable and the research area extended from coastal areas to offshore areas thus limiting pressure on coastal stocks.
    In 2000, 2001 and 2003 more resolutions were passed by the IWC urging Japan to cease issuing special permits for whaling and limit research to non-lethal methods. The most recent Scientific Committee review was conducted in January, 2009.


    Seems pretty clear to me that the IWC Commission considers Japanese whaling illegal. And it was my contention all along in this thread that this was the case in respect of the IWC.


    Skyryder
    Free Scott Watson.

  2. #302
    Join Date
    25th September 2009 - 18:05
    Bike
    A bleck one.
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    468
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyryder View Post
    Seems pretty clear to me that the IWC Commission considers Japanese whaling illegal. And it was my contention all along in this thread that this was the case in respect of the IWC.
    It seems pretty clear to me that it says nothing of the sort. Urging someone to stop an activity, calling it unneccessary and making resolutions that are not binding does not make that activity illegal.

    BTW where's the link to this on the IWC website or verification that it's entirely their unmodified work, since you claim it's their opinion?
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My signature is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my signature is useless. Without my signature, I am useless.

    The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  3. #303
    Join Date
    3rd March 2004 - 22:43
    Bike
    Guzzi
    Location
    In Paradise
    Posts
    2,490
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaka_crasher View Post
    It seems pretty clear to me that it says nothing of the sort. Urging someone to stop an activity, calling it unneccessary and making resolutions that are not binding does not make that activity illegal.

    BTW where's the link to this on the IWC website or verification that ot's entirely their unmodified work, since you claim it's their opinion?
    The IWC has no provision to enforce breaches of it’s resolutions. The lack of a judicial process does not in any way legitimize breaches of any resolution. It simply means there is no mechanism for disputes.


    The IWC moratorium is still in place and has not been lifted. Resolutions have been passed by the majority in support of the moratorium in which Japan has refused to accept. No one but the Japanese and their supporters believe that Japan is harvesting whales for scientific purposes. In fact the very opposite is held in that Japan is operting a commercial harvest under the guise of Science Research. The IWC themselves have disputed the Japanese Science. They are in (Japan) fact cheating. And cheating in everyone’s language is against the rules and unlawful within the confines of the organization, corporate body or whatever.

    That resolutions can not be forcibly upheld is not the issue. What is at issue and that which is unlawful is that Japan is in breach of the resolutions passed by the IWC in which it hold membership.

    Which if you remember is the gist of my post in respect of the IWC and the whaling by Japan.


    Skyryder
    Free Scott Watson.

  4. #304
    Join Date
    3rd March 2004 - 22:43
    Bike
    Guzzi
    Location
    In Paradise
    Posts
    2,490
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaka_crasher View Post
    It seems pretty clear to me that it says nothing of the sort. Urging someone to stop an activity, calling it unneccessary and making resolutions that are not binding does not make that activity illegal.

    BTW where's the link to this on the IWC website or verification that ot's entirely their unmodified work, since you claim it's their opinion?
    The IWC has no provision to enforce breaches of it’s resolutions. The lack of a judicial process does not in any way legitimize breaches of any resolution. It simply means there is no mechanism for disputes.


    The IWC moratorium is still in place and has not been lifted. Resolutions have been passed by the majority in support of the moratorium in which Japan has refused to accept. No one but the Japanese and their supporters believe that Japan is harvesting whales for scientific purposes. In fact the very opposite is held in that Japan is operting a commercial harvest under the guise of Science Research. The IWC themselves have disputed the Japanese Science. They are in fact cheating. And cheating in everyone’s language is against the rules and unlawful within the confines of the organization, corporate body or whatever.

    That resolutions can not be forcibly upheld is not the issue. What is at issue and that which is unlawful is that Japan is in breach of the resolutions passed by the IWC in which it hold membership.

    Which if you remember is the gist of my post in respect of the IWC and the whaling by Japan.


    Skyryder
    Free Scott Watson.

  5. #305
    Join Date
    25th September 2009 - 18:05
    Bike
    A bleck one.
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    468
    Quote Originally Posted by Skyryder View Post
    The IWC moratorium is still in place and has not been lifted. Resolutions have been passed by the majority in support of the moratorium in which Japan has refused to accept. No one but the Japanese and their supporters believe that Japan is harvesting whales for scientific purposes. In fact the very opposite is held in that Japan is operting a commercial harvest under the guise of Science Research. The IWC themselves have disputed the Japanese Science. They are in (Japan) fact cheating. And cheating in everyone’s language is against the rules and unlawful within the confines of the organization, corporate body or whatever.

    That resolutions can not be forcibly upheld is not the issue. What is at issue and that which is unlawful is that Japan is in breach of the resolutions passed by the IWC in which it hold membership.

    Which if you remember is the gist of my post in respect of the IWC and the whaling by Japan.
    None of which matters because the resolutions are not law so ignoring them is not unlawful.
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My signature is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my signature is useless. Without my signature, I am useless.

    The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  6. #306
    Join Date
    8th October 2007 - 14:58
    Bike
    Loud and hoony
    Location
    Now
    Posts
    3,215
    Considering that 12 days have flown past by now, I would have thought that our naval architect would have had ample time to formulate a reasoned reply to this post. It's a rare thing on here when adios really does mean adios. Anyway, Dave, I'd really like to know whether it's option A or option B which reflects reality most precisely!
    It is preferential to refrain from the utilisation of grandiose verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualisation can be expressed using comparatively simplistic lexicological entities. (...such as the word fuck.)

    Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. - Joseph Rotblat

  7. #307
    Join Date
    16th September 2004 - 16:48
    Bike
    PopTart Katoona
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    6,542
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaka_crasher View Post
    What I have said is what the Japanese are doing is lawful. And to go about doing unlawful things as Sea Shithead have done in an attempt to stop the Japanese doing something that is entirely lawful is both unlawful AND wrong. How would you like it if in order to stop you motorcycling, motorcycle protesters threw Z-nails on the road as they saw you coming and you were at a distance where you simply couldn't avoid them?

    Your scenario is not appropriate because Kiwi are actually endangered (presuming you mean the bird...) and oceans are international - Kiwis are found only here, in our soverign territory. Incidently, I would have no objection to Kiwi being farmed and sold for meat - that will guarantee their survival as opposed to this piecemeal conservation bullshit. But that's an argument for another time...

    In what way are the IWC lieing about anything? Membership is entirely voluntary - Japan could just tell them to get fucked and withdraw. Obviously, Japan is looking after it's own interests, but who doesn't? The fact they're willing to be bound by the IWC says a lot.

    I'm not sure what you mean here.

    Of course it looks after whaling, but not solely the interests of the whaling nations.

    What imbalance?
    Sorry about the lack of multi-quote here......but if you re-read some of your response hopefully you may see some of my points immediately in regards to your own comments.
    Just to clear something up I am not for SS in this situation, fuckers sank a might fine boat and I am not happy about it.

    How are what the Japanese doing lawful. You mention sovereignty - but who's is it? The IWC represents whallers and while scandanavian and japanese have whaled for a long period - they did so on a low volume and in their own waters. The rest of the world does not consume whale meat, so who does the IWC really represent? and how can they pass judgement on international waters?
    I too do not mind commercial whalling.........but I also believe in boundaries. As far as I am concerned - the US cant steal oil from middle east, the russian cant steal seals from Alaska, China cant steal land from Nepal...........and Japan can only whale in its OWN waters.

    The IWC is a crock of shit - it does not represent and international opinion. It has vested interest in Whalers opinions. Clearly there are 2 sides to this issue, so I ask if there are 2 sides to an issue on an international level, in international waters.........should the answer simply be a "reserved" yes in the eyes of the IWC? If the IWC was voluntary - where are the non-whaling nations?
    If it doesn't just look after whaling........where does it also have vested interest? ALL of the published papers are to do with where whales are, how many there are, and how many can be killed..........how does this help ANYTHING but whaling?

    The IWC has lied about its research, upon review by other non IWC scientists it was found that the information was insufficent for lethal means. Yet the papers were still published. If this was any other sector of science - lets just say they would not be in the industry anymore.

    In every other association in the world, certain international strings can not be pulled unless a balance is brought foward. They can not act unless arguments on both sides are evaluated fairly.
    The IWC does not follow this ruling. This is international poaching at its best. Except they have blinded you by the simple thought of a japanese scientist rather than an american hunter.
    Compare the IWC to APEC, IEEE, IEC, IOC, OECD....... and tell me its just as balanced in board room as these organizations.
    Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.

  8. #308
    Join Date
    13th December 2008 - 18:22
    Bike
    Your mom
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    3,901
    Those anti whaling terrorists are just wannabe Al Queda tossers.

  9. #309
    Join Date
    16th September 2004 - 16:48
    Bike
    PopTart Katoona
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    6,542
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by SMOKEU View Post
    Those anti whaling terrorists are just wannabe Al Queda tossers.
    hahahaha
    What the fuck?!?
    You come up with some classic shit bro
    Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.

  10. #310
    Join Date
    13th December 2008 - 18:22
    Bike
    Your mom
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    3,901
    Quote Originally Posted by avgas View Post
    hahahaha
    What the fuck?!?
    You come up with some classic shit bro
    I do my best.

  11. #311
    Join Date
    29th November 2008 - 09:19
    Bike
    Hornet 599
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    480
    Blog Entries
    3

  12. #312
    Join Date
    26th February 2005 - 11:00
    Bike
    Two triples
    Location
    Bugtussle
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by kwaka_crasher View Post
    It seems pretty clear to me that it says nothing of the sort. Urging someone to stop an activity, calling it unneccessary and making resolutions that are not binding does not make that activity illegal.

    BTW where's the link to this on the IWC website or verification that ot's entirely their unmodified work, since you claim it's their opinion?
    News Flash: the PAHC has just made many of the posts in this thread illegal.Please remove them.

    Pixies Anti-HippyCommission

  13. #313
    Join Date
    16th September 2004 - 16:48
    Bike
    PopTart Katoona
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    6,542
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Pixie View Post
    News Flash: the PAHC has just made many of the posts in this thread illegal.Please remove them.

    Pixies Anti-HippyCommission
    Yeah I hear they are PAHCing so you dont want to mess with them
    Reactor Online. Sensors Online. Weapons Online. All Systems Nominal.

  14. #314
    Join Date
    2nd February 2010 - 14:10
    Bike
    2012 Kymco Dink 180cc
    Location
    Yankee in Taiwan
    Posts
    70
    Thanks for the link, great episode.

  15. #315
    Join Date
    4th May 2006 - 21:21
    Bike
    2006 BMW F800ST
    Location
    Southland
    Posts
    4,916
    http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-sto...-whaling-ship/
    Pete Bethune is going to end up in a Japanese Jail Muwahahahahaha! Sea shepherd - pompous arseholes. Their actions are not in my name - let them know they're not in yours either. Without public support these terrorists will run out of money.
    In space, no one can smell your fart.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •