13
   

OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

 
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 07:58 am
@spendius,
Quote:
I thought my "worldview" was a bit more expansive than your's.
See how incorrect your views are? Your worldview is bound by "why ", mine is bound by "why not"
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 08:31 am
@msolga,
Quote:
And as for posting a list of questions like that, did you seriously expect anyone to spend the time researching the answers for you?


Actually Olga I didn't expect any answers at all never mind seriously. And that goes double for the estimate of the cost of the deliberations which I daresay is confidential.

My questions, which were raised by fm's post, partook of a combination of those well known Classical rhetorical devices known as EPIPHONEMA and EROTESIS. The questions were not asked to elicit answers. They were asked to make people think about why they have become obsessed by only one of the processes which kill whales so that they might, if they dare allow themselves to become a bit scientific for a brief period, they could realise that their obsession with one of the processes suits their purposes while the others don't and maybe even scares them. Like choosing a hat say. Or a frock.
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 08:42 am
@spendius,
You might notice Olga the succulent lamb chop producer's standard technique in operation in his last two posts.

First thing is not only to not answer the questions but to pretend they don't exist which is a bit tricky as it was his post that raised them.

Then he makes some disparaging remarks about whoever asked them and contrasts himself with the disparagements, which are always assertions and other infantile rubbish, so that the golden glow of the footlights is played upon himself in such a way as to set him up as a superior being.

He limits himself to one of the causes of the killing of whales and I don't and due to that I am the one with the limited world view.

You buy into it if you wish. It's bloody idiotic as far as I'm concerned and if I was you I would try to prevent anything the silly sod says from influencing your judgment in any way whatsoever.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 08:55 am
@spendius,
Quote:
11 November 2006 Pilot whales mass beaching in New Zealand.
Over 40 pilot whales have died in a mass beaching in northern New Zealand on Friday. A pod of the same size was refloated by volunteers and guided by boats out to sea.

Whale experts have never been unable to explain why the whales swim into dangerously shallow waters and strand themselves year after year

New Zealand has one of the world’s highest incidences of whale beaching. Statistics show that over 5.000 cetaceans, whales and dolphins have ended in NZ beaches since 1840.

The largest even beaching was in 1918 involving 1.000 pilot whales in the

10 March 2005: UK Whale stranding cases double in ten years
Whale, dolphin and porpoise strandings have doubled in the UK over the last 10 years to 782, according to a new study. The Whale and Dolphin Stranding Scheme at the Natural History Museum blames an increase in fishing activity, which it says leads to more "by-catch". This can occur when dolphins or whales chase fish into giant nets and get entangled in the gear.
03 March 2005: Stranding of rare whales on far north beach
A stranding of seven rare gray's beaked whales on a Northland beach was the biggest ever stranding on mainland New Zealand. Four adult whales and three calves were found dead on Waikuku Beach.
29 January 2005: Whale Stranding in N.C. Followed Navy Sonar Use
At least 37 whales beached themselves and died along the North Carolina shore earlier this month soon after Navy vessels on a deep-water training mission off the coast used powerful sonar as part of the exercise. Although the Navy says any connection between the strandings and its active sonar is "unlikely" it is cooperating with other federal agencies probing a possible link.

27 November 2003: Predator theory for whale mass stranding
Over 100 whales and 20 dolphins stranded on a remote beach in Tasmania may have been driven to their deaths in a desperate attempt to escape a predator, Australian scientists have suggested. The beached carcasses of 110 long-finned pilot whales and 20 bottle-nosed dolphins were discovered by an abalone diver on the west coast of the island on Monday.
16 November 2003: 12 sperm whales die after stranding on NZ beach
A pod of 12 sperm whales, some 10 metres long and weighing up to 12 tonnes, have beached themselves on Auckland's west coast and died. The whales, thought to be mostly females with a young calf, were stranded over a five kilometre stretch of beach at the mouth of Manukau Harbour, drawing a crowd of about 1,500 curious onlookers today.


If one thinks of the length of the coastline in these incidents compared with the length of the world's coastlines one might easily conclude that the whale hunters are the least of the whale's problems.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 09:10 am
Quote:
The low frequency active sonar (LFA sonar) used by the military to detect submarines is the loudest sound ever put into the seas. Yet the U.S. Navy is planning to deploy LFA sonar across 80 percent of the world ocean. At an amplitude of two hundred forty decibels, it is loud enough to kill whales and dolphins and already causing mass strandings and deaths in areas where U.S. and/or NATO forces are conducting exercises.
dyslexia
 
  3  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2010 09:27 am
@spendius,
low tech version would be my neighbors son's garage band, kills diamondback rattle snakes in a 2 mile radius.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 01:26 am
@dadpad,
How does whale meat, caught by the Japanese whalers for "scientific research purposes", end up on upmarket Californian restaurants menus, disguised as sushi?

How does whale meat, which is illegal in the US, even enter the US in the first place?

How many other places are importing illegal whale meat from sources like Japan?

And what does this make of the IWC's compromise "limited scientific whaling" proposal allowances for Japan & a small number of other nations?

What do the the whaling nations do with their "scientific" catches if all whales killed are tracked by their DNA by the IWC?

Interesting questions to consider!


Video from the (Oz) ABC News:

Whale meat found in US restaurant
Source: The Midday Report
Published: Friday, April 16, 2010 1:47 AEST
Expires: Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:47 AEST


Whaling scientists are calling for a rule requiring all whales taken for scientific research to be tracked, after whale meat was found in a Californian sushi restaurant

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/04/16/2874875.htm
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 06:38 am
@msolga,
Quote:
How does whale meat, caught by the Japanese whalers for "scientific research purposes", end up on upmarket Californian restaurants menus, disguised as sushi?

How does whale meat, which is illegal in the US, even enter the US in the first place?


Sleight of hand motivated by financial gain. I can't think of any other reasons.

If they are going to label kerb-crawlers and handlers of stolen goods as criminals it would make equal sense to arrest the diners.

Quote:
How many other places are importing illegal whale meat from sources like Japan?


Anywhere a profit can be made with little or no risk.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 06:36 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Sleight of hand motivated by financial gain. I can't think of any other reasons.


I was asking how whale meat actually enters the US.

Wondering if there is any checking at the point of arrival, as in the recent Netherlands example (some posts back.)

Quote:
it would make equal sense to arrest the diners.


I suspect the diners thought they were eating the usual variety of sushi, not whale meat.

If this is the same restaurant that dadpad posted about (I'm not certain, unclear from the video) then there has indeed been a (furious) customer backlash. For starters, the restaurant is now closed & the owners are being dealt with by the law.

I was also wondering about the suggestion of DNA tracking of whale meat, which the scientists at the New Zealand conference have advocated.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 08:30 pm
@msolga,
I see our little gasbag spendi is still at it. Its illegal to serve whalemeat in US restaurants and Im certain that the offenders will be either closed down or fined in some manner equal to several times their income . Im actually disappointed that this would happen in the US where we seem fairly unified about NOT killing whales. (all the pro whale stances from members in the US are based upon feelings about international law and "hands off" another country"s means of doing "research".
I dont think that George or JTT would make a diet of whale meat.

PS, I think that the diners in Calif. DID know they were eating blubber because the traditional dishes of whale meat leave the blackish epiderm on the blubber. Ive seen the Iceland form of whale meat treats. It is probably an acquired taste (Ive eaten seal in a pemmican treat in uppwer Alaska, it really is kinda shitty tasting to me, but the locals relish the mixture of the grease, the berries and the other stuff in there.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 09:19 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
PS, I think that the diners in Calif. DID know they were eating blubber because the traditional dishes of whale meat leave the blackish epiderm on the blubber.


Interesting.

But if it was actually the same restaurant (as dp's post a while back) it sounded like they thought they were eating "regular" sushi, farmer. The restaurant issued a public apology for deceiving their clients, before voluntarily shutting their business down. Mind you, they'd already lost most of their clients, by the sound of things, due to the bad publicity.


0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 09:46 pm
I think the Californians knew they were eating whale.

I also think whales beach themselves because the oceans are dirty and they are ill. All that plastic in the ocean really bothers me.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Apr, 2010 10:13 pm
@plainoldme,
Ah. Found the original article.

Whether this is the same restaurant that the scientists at the NZ conference were referring to, as I said, I don't know. They didn't name the restaurant.

You & farmer would be in a much better position than me to know whether whale meat is knowingly consumed in US restaurants, POM. It comes as a surprise (say nothing of a disappointment) that this appears to be the case.


Quote:
Whale sushi restaurant closes for good

Posted 1 hour 1 minute ago

A California restaurant facing criminal charges for serving endangered whale meat as sushi has announced it will close permanently as a "self-imposed punishment".

The Hump restaurant in Santa Monica and chef Kiyoshiro Yamamoto face charges over "the illegal sale of a marine mammal product" after the Oscar-winning documentary makers of The Cove filmed them serving sei whale sushi.

"The Hump hopes that by closing its doors, it will help bring awareness to the detrimental effect that illegal whaling has on the preservation of our ocean ecosystems and species," a statement on the restaurant's website said.

"Closing the restaurant is a self-imposed punishment on top of the fine that will be meted out by the court. The owner of The Hump also will be taking additional action to save endangered species.

"One such action will be to make a substantial contribution to one or more responsible organisations dedicated to the preservation of whales and other endangered species.

"The Hump apologises to our loyal customers, the community of Santa Monica, and the public at large for our illegal actions."

The restaurant owners face up to a year in prison and a $US200,000 ($218,000) fine, while Yamamoto faces a maximum fine of $US100,000.

More
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/21/2851748.htm?section=justin


URL: http://able2know.org/topic/109975-42
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 02:17 am
Quote:
Tiny Tokelau declares 11th Pacific whale sanctuary
By RAY LILLEY, Associated Press Writer Ray Lilley, Associated Press Writer " Wed Apr 14, 2:28 am ET

WELLINGTON, New Zealand " The three-island territory of Tokelau declared itself a whale sanctuary Wednesday, adding a huge patch of sea to the total protected area of more than 7 million square miles that is off limits to hunting in the Pacific Ocean.

The isolated group of coral atolls with a land area of just 5 square miles (12 square kilometers) has outlawed whaling in its 116,000-square-mile (290,000-square-kilometer) exclusive economic ocean zone, spokesman Foua Toloa said.

Sanctuaries have only moral force, but are seen by supporters as helping support the recovery of decimated whale populations like the humpback and southern right whale.

Toloa made the announcement at a conservation meeting in New Zealand that condemned continued whale-hunting by countries such as Japan.

"Whales don't recognize national boundaries, and Tokelau would be remiss if we failed to support our Pacific island neighbors in the quest to help recovery of the whales in our region," Toloa said.

About 1,500 people live in Tokelau, a U.N. protectorate that remains a colony of New Zealand and lies about 300 miles (500 kilometers) north of Samoa.


Tokelau's new whale sanctuary takes the number of protected areas in the Pacific to 11, and together they cover some 7.2 million square miles (18 million square kilometers).

The territory's declaration came as whale researchers and conservationists began a meeting of the South Pacific Whale Research Consortium in New Zealand. The grouping was formed by independent scientists to investigate the status of humpback and other whale species in the region
.

The group noted that despite a global moratorium on commercial whaling being in force since 1986 and an international whale sanctuary established in 1994 in the oceans around Antarctica, more than 3,000 whales are hunted and killed for their meat each year.

Japan alone kills hundreds of whales each year in Antarctic waters.


Consortium member, Scott Baker, associate director of the Marine Mammal Institute at Oregon State University, said whale sanctuaries send "very strong messages to the global community and particularly to the whaling nations ... that they are in a minority."

The sanctuaries also help endangered whale populations return to their pre-exploitation numbers, he said.

Sue Taei, co-chairwoman of the research group, said Tokelau was joining other Pacific nations in calling on whalers to respect sanctuaries, including the southern oceans' sanctuary where Japan hunts each year.

Baker said Japan was breaking two agreements by hunting whales in the southern oceans " contravening both the 1994 agreement to set up the sanctuary and the 1986 majority vote in the International Whaling Commission setting up the moratorium on commercial whaling.

Japan classes its annual hunt " mostly of nonendangered minke whales " as scientific whaling within the commission's rules, but opponents regard it as illegal commercial whaling under the guise of science.

The 11 Pacific nations and territories that have established whale sanctuaries within their ocean economic zones are: Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Niue, Papa New Guinea, Samoa, Tokelau, American Samoa and Vanuatu.

Two nations, New Zealand and Tonga, and two territories, Guam and the Northern Marianas, have passed laws banning the taking of whales from their economic zones but have not declared sanctuary areas.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100414/ap_on_re_as/as_south_pacific_whale_sanctuary_1
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 02:24 am
@msolga,
Bravo, Tokelau! Smile
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 05:38 am
@msolga,
Her Brittanic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state so I think some credit is due to the dear Lady.

The killing of whales and the trade in their flesh disgusts me as does the killing and trade in the flesh of all animals. I can't look at a butcher's shop window without pangs of remorse darting flaming spears into my heart.

A leg of lamb is the worst. It might have been gambolling in the spring sunshine with its Mum looking on approvingly and its little cute tail going fifty-to-the dozen. And there it hangs waiting to be purchased by a lady for a dinner party later on where it will appear in the centre of the table, still sizzling, ready to be sliced for the guests and, with a touch of mint sauce, and gravy of course, guzzled down accompanied by subtle (usually--if its a posh dinner party) low and soft moans of pleasure from whence it is transferred by peristalic reflex from the oral cavity, the pharynx, the esophagus, the stomach, the small and large intestines, aka the puddings, the bowel, the colon, upper and lower, the anus which some call the nipsy, the machinations of the world making invention of Sir John Harrington, the pipes of the processors of such objects and out into the bay where it conveniently makes a feast for the prawns.

By presenting trivial, obviously biased and emotionally driven, useless arguments against such things is actually comforting to the whaling nations because they are so easily shot down by the international lawyers and spokespersons of those engaged in whaling in the council chambers where it matters.

If in such a council the question is raised relating to how whale meat gets into the US and the answer is given that it is by "sleight of hand motivated by the profit motive", any response to it which seeks to identify the docks or the airports or the highways or the ship or the fork truck, probably expressed in a squeaky voice with concommitant indigation overload, would be sniggered at by the jaded, world-weary, free-loading negotiators who are well aware that the question is pointless for obvious reasons and the task at hand is to keep the negotiations going on forever and ever in order to ensure that the free-loading goes on for ever and ever in the sort of salubrious climes and class of hotel to which the participants and their hangers-on have become accustomed to and to widen the scope of the negotiations if possible so that not only can it go on for ever and ever but can expand in size and importance enough so that each delegation is large enough to provide proof that the sex equality legislation is being strictly adhered to.

One might call it Hunting the Taxpayer where the pain is kept just below the toleration level but lasts from the moment one comes of age, or appears on the radar, until the yellowed pages of the last will and testaments have finally been deposited in an institution similar to the one William Burroughs described in one of his crazy books.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 03:52 pm
@spendius,
Interesting, Spendius.







Wink
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Apr, 2010 06:16 pm
Quote:
Whalers blame low catch on Sea Shepherd
Updated Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:09pm AEST
ABC News


http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200802/r221875_874062.jpg
The fleet's catch of 507 whales was down sharply on last year's cull of 680. (Australian Customs Service: File photo)

The last ship of Japan's Antarctic whaling fleet has sailed home with the lowest catch in years and whalers have blamed the shortfall on high-seas clashes with environmental group Sea Shepherd.

The Nisshin Maru, the last of five whaling ships to return to Japan, sailed into Tokyo harbour with its hull splattered with blood-red paint thrown by the protesters.

The fleet's catch of 507 whales was down sharply on last year's cull of 680 and below the target of about 850, said Japan's fisheries agency, which blamed harassment by the Sea Shepherd group for the shortfall.

It was the smallest catch on record except for the 2006-07 expedition when the fleet caught only 505 whales after a fire aboard a ship hampered whaling operations.


This season's confrontations in icy Antarctic waters saw the sinking of a Sea Shepherd vessel, the Ady Gil, and the arrest of one of its activists, Peter Bethune, who faces trial in Japan for assault, trespass and three other charges. ...<cont>


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/12/2870859.htm?section=justin
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 04:53 am
Quote:
Australia, NZ condemn 'offensive' whaling plan
By New Zealand correspondent Brigid Glanville
Updated 9 minutes ago/ABC NEWS online


http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200912/r484912_2488484.jpg
The IWC's new proposal would allow 400 minke whales and 10 fin whales to be killed each year in the Southern Ocean until the 2015-2016 season. (Australian Customs Service, file photo)

Environment groups say the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) proposal to allow some whales to be killed is a return to commercial whaling.

The IWC's proposal would let whalers harpoon 400 minke whales and 10 fin whales each year in Antarctic waters until the 2015-2016 season.

Fin whales are an endangered species and green groups say the only reason their numbers are strong again is because of the ban on commercial whaling.

Australia says it will not support the proposal and in a surprise twist New Zealand has also said it will not support it.


The next meeting of the IWC in Morocco in June was always going to be heated, but Friday's announcement from the IWC guarantees the debate will be loud and long.

Australia is against whaling and is very worried this latest proposal may be supported.

"We'll look at the IWC statement carefully but on face value it falls very well short of any outcome that Australia could ever accept, and I repeat what we've said all through this process and that is that Australia remains resolutely opposed to commercial and so-called scientific whaling," Environment Minister Peter Garret said.

"We will not support a proposal which would sanction commercial whaling and we've put an alternative set of proposals which we think go towards achieving the conservation goals which we believe the IWC nations should set for themselves."

Australia wants a proposal that bans whaling for commercial and scientific reasons.


"We need to strongly press for no whaling in IWC endorsed sanctuaries. We need to agree on the scientific procedures that underpin all IWC decisions," Mr Garrett said.

'Legitimises whaling'

Environmental groups are outraged by the IWC proposal.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) says the proposal endorses the killing of whales in one of the most critical feeding grounds, the Southern Ocean.

Mick McIntyre from Whales Alive says the proposal is flawed.

"This proposal would mean the return to commercial whaling because it clearly is a proposal that would legitimise whaling over a 10-year period," Mr McIntyre said.

"To me it's like if you were a parent and you said to your kid don't worry about us telling you what to do or receiving any discipline, you do what you like for 10 years and then we'll come and talk to you about how you went and then we'll talk to you about discipline at the end of those 10 years.

"I mean it's a free for all and it's completely legitimising what Japan has been doing in a scientific whaling program. It completely allows them to get away with murder basically."

This is the first time the IWC has put a figure on the numbers of whales it would allow to be killed.

The proposal was put forward in an attempt to break the deadlocked debate.

Non-whaling countries which support it, such as the US, believe a compromise will mean the number of whales killed will be closely controlled.

Three weeks ago there was international outrage when New Zealand said it would consider this proposal, but it now says the proposal is offensive and inflammatory.

"The proposal for a consensus decision proposed by the IWC chair and deputy chair today falls seriously short of being a basis for diplomatic settlement to the whaling debate," New Zealand foreign affairs minister Murray McCully said.

"In terms of the specifics, the proposed catch limits for the Southern Ocean are unrealistic and unacceptable from New Zealand's point of view.

"The suggestion that there should be a small quota for fin whale is an inflammatory proposal in my view."

Mr McIntyre hopes other nations will now follow New Zealand.

"New Zealand's change of heart is very, very welcome. I think commonsense has prevailed with the New Zealand government," he said.

"They saw the writing on the wall that this was a complete contradiction of the proposal. All that this proposal does is give the whaling countries everything they could possibly want."


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/23/2881601.htm
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 05:17 am
@msolga,
Lets look at the big picture with this proposal. It will mean that 400, rather than 1000 minkes get slaughtered each year until the complete phase out in 7 years. Thats 2800 whales in the southern poplulation. Im not happy but maybe this will be the only way to get the Japanese and Icelanders to quit whaling entirely.

They will have to donate to the gene pool data so any pop constriction can be evaluated based on data, (rather than the no DNA rule from the caught whales as it is now).

This may be some kind of "worst case" option that results in a complete phase put. (I hope).


Gotta go to work, gnight
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 06:43:39