Peter Bethune's trial starts Thursday 27 May

[shrub]

Up to a point, I agree that the argument has been over sentimentalised however that "slab of cow arse" is subject to a shed load of regulations governing it's treatment at slaughter. You are not, for instance, allowed to chase the beast around the paddock chucking spears into its back and leaving it to die of exhaustion and blood-loss (unless of course you're spanish and wearing spangly trousers).

The key point for me is that these are highly intelligent animals and it's unacceptable to kill them in the way the japs do. If there's no humane way to kill em, leave 'em alone.

That's a very good point, and if Mr Tamagochi wants some meat for his sushi we can sell him some nice tasty beef. We could even call it whale and double the price for him.

[imdying]

I've done some research

You need to get a life man

[Swoop]

... to kill them in the way the japs do. If there's no humane way to kill em, leave 'em alone.

The words "Japs" and "humane killing" don't really go together well.

[Max Preload]

You're 100% wrong.

1. Resolution 2007-1 of the IWC, which was passed with 40 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 1 abstention "called upon the Government of Japan to suspend indefinitely the lethal aspects of JARPA II conducted within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary" noting that "none of the goals of JARPA 1 had been reached, and that the results of the JARPA 1 programme are not required for management under the RMP". http://www.iwcoffice.org/meetings/re...tion2007-1.pdf

Japan still retain the unalienable right of all protocol members to carry out lethal research via special permit issued by the government of the respective nation. The resolution CALLING FOR anything carries no weight. It's like me calling for you to STFU about things you clearly know nothing about - it won't stop you.

2. All the species currently hunted by the Japanese are officially listed as endangered by CITES, including the Antarctic Mincke (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) despite extensive lobbying by the Japanese. http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.shtml

Next please.

I don't much care about CITES because there's no common definition to 'endangered' (it's a whimsical classification) and it's not international trade anyway so isn't covered by CITES either.

Next.

[Max Preload]

Up to a point, I agree that the argument has been over sentimentalised however that "slab of cow arse" is subject to a shed load of regulations governing it's treatment at slaughter. You are not, for instance, allowed to chase the beast around the paddock chucking spears into its back and leaving it to die of exhaustion and blood-loss (unless of course you're spanish and wearing spangly trousers).

The key point for me is that these are highly intelligent animals and it's unacceptable to kill them in the way the japs do. If there's no humane way to kill em, leave 'em alone.

Fair call. But I suggest you've been reading far too much propaganda from the hippies on the matter. The fact is that generally the whales are killed as quickly as circumstances allow.

The thing people are overlooking is that Japan is an IWC member by CHOICE. They could just say "Fluck you, round-eye" and withdraw then hunt as many whales as they like. Then where would the whale huggers be? Diplomacy is the only avenue open and that requires compromise. Compromise is not saying "no whaling" but people acting solely on emotion can't see that.

[MisterD]

Fair call. But I suggest you've been reading far too much propaganda from the hippies on the matter. The fact is that generally the whales are killed as quickly as circumstances allow.

Not really no. "As quickly as circumstances allow" just isn't good enough, if we can't do at least "instantaneous in the overwhelming majority of cases" we shouldn't be doing it at all.

[shrub]

Japan still retain the unalienable right of all protocol members to carry out lethal research via special permit issued by the government of the respective nation. The resolution CALLING FOR anything carries no weight. It's like me calling for you to STFU about things you clearly know nothing about - it won't stop you.
I don't much care about CITES because there's no common definition to 'endangered' (it's a whimsical classification) and it's not international trade anyway so isn't covered by CITES either.

Genuine scientific research and what the Japanese government are doing are not the same thing - it's kind of like writing Harley Davidson on the tank of a GN250; you can call it anything you like, but it's still a GN250. And of course you don't like CITES - they don't agree with you, and while I realise that the institue of Cetation Research probably do, I don't think they can be taken all that seriously.

[Max Preload]

Not really no. "As quickly as circumstances allow" just isn't good enough, if we can't do at least "instantaneous in the overwhelming majority of cases" we shouldn't be doing it at all.

I'm unaware of the exact nuumbers for the Japanese but the for the Norwegians which I'm sure is typical, it's a little over 50% instantaneously, with the average being 3½ minutes.

Genuine scientific research and what the Japanese government are doing are not the same thing - it's kind of like writing Harley Davidson on the tank of a GN250; you can call it anything you like, but it's still a GN250. And of course you don't like CITES - they don't agree with you, and while I realise that the institue of Cetation Research probably do, I don't think they can be taken all that seriously.

They're producing scientific papers. Who are you to say it's not genuine? I don't take any notice of CITES because the definition of 'endangered' is whimsical, as I've pointed out.

[shrub]

They're producing scientific papers. Who are you to say it's not genuine?

I paint Harley Davidson on the tank of my GN250 and then I take it to a HOG rally so it must be a Harley.

Of course they're going top produce scientific papers, but when Article 8 of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was originally drafted over 60 years ago, many elements of scientific research into whales, such as stock identity and genetic relatedness, required the animal to be killed. However the modern techniques of genetics and DNA analysis no longer require lethal methods, therefore there is no credible rationale for the lethal take of whales to collect the data that the Japanese are using. Least of all the magnitude of the kill.


Face it mate, you've been conned by the Japanese PR machine - or you've allowed your fear of commies wanting to take your money to blight your judgement because the Greens are anti whaling, and EVERYONE knows that they're commies, so you are morally obliged to take a stand for whaling regardless of how spurious your position.

I don't take any notice of CITES because the definition of 'endangered' is whimsical, as I've pointed out.

Of course you don't - it doesn't fit with your position, but just because you don't like someone's definition doesn't mean they're wrong.

I find the Japanese definition of "scientific whaling" dishonest, as I've pointed out.

[Max Preload]

Face it mate, you've been conned by the Japanese PR machine - or you've allowed your fear of commies wanting to take your money to blight your judgement because the Greens are anti whaling, and EVERYONE knows that they're commies, so you are morally obliged to take a stand for whaling regardless of how spurious your position.

No. I've simply taken the position that Japan is operating entirely within all the rules that were agreed among the nations that are signatories to the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, which include NZ, Australia and Japan, which they are. Whereas you've taken the side of confirmed liars (we've kicked Buffoon out) who are prepared to say anything and everything in the flawed belief that the end they seek justifies the means. FAIL.

Sea Shephard remain no credibility hypocrites.

[shrub]

No. I've simply taken the position that Japan is operating entirely within all the rules that were agreed among the nations that are signatories to the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, which include NZ, Australia and Japan, which they are. Whereas you've taken the side of confirmed liars (we've kicked Buffoon out) who are prepared to say anything and everything in the flawed belief that the end they seek justifies the means. FAIL.

Sea Shephard remain no credibility hypocrites.

no, I've taken the side of the Australian government, WWF, Greenpeace and numerous other groups. But of course they're all commies, so you won't listen to them.

[Max Preload]

no, I've taken the side of the Australian government, WWF, Greenpeace and numerous other groups. But of course they're all commies, so you won't listen to them.

Yours, and theirs, is an entirely self-serving, and thus meaningless, view. Facts are not subject to a requirement of votes of vocal opinion in order to be verified.

[shrub]

Yours, and theirs, is an entirely self-serving, and thus meaningless, view. Facts are not subject to a requirement of votes of vocal opinion in order to be verified.

I see. So wanting to stop the needless slaughter of an endangered and iconic species is self serving is it? And in your worldview the fraudulent claim to be engaging in scientific research as a front for a commercial activity that would other wise not be permitted isn't self serving?

You have a very interesting perspective; or maybe you realise your position doesn't stand critical assessment so have created an alternative reality. Either way I find you amusing.

[Winston001]

I'm a bit perplexed about this whaling issue. Some whale species are common - or at least not endangered - while others such as the blue whale are threatened. I'm against whaling generally because its an unnecessary killing of a creature for food. There are other simpler food sources which are more numerous and down the food chain.

But here in NZ we allow the killing of wood pigeons and the taking of toheroa. Both upon the grounds of ethnic cultural practise. This rather undermines our moral stance against the Norwegians and the Japanese.....

[shrub]

I'm a bit perplexed about this whaling issue. Some whale species are common - or at least not endangered - while others such as the blue whale are threatened. I'm against whaling generally because its an unnecessary killing of a creature for food. There are other simpler food sources which are more numerous and down the food chain.

But here in NZ we allow the killing of wood pigeons and the taking of toheroa. Both upon the grounds of ethnic cultural practise. This rather undermines our moral stance against the Norwegians and the Japanese.....

My problem is with the commercial nature of the Japanese whaling, and their claims that it's an important part of their culture rings rather hollow because as I understand it whale only became a popular part of the japanese diet in WW2 when other sources of protein were unobtainable because they were at war with us. The majority of people in Japan who like whale meat are old, and by some coincidence very right wing.

Maybe supporting whaling is part of being a right whinger? Kind of like how a lot of right wing people love SUVs and Commodores.

And I think hiding behind the cultural thing to eat anything is silly - you don't hear a lot of Maori demanding the right to eat kuri, rats or people, yet they scoffed them down in the past. Hey, I have a cultural right to eat bears - my ancestors ate them, so I demand the right. And my ancestors owned slaves and wore swords, so I demand the right to own slaves and wear a sword in my daily business.