13
   

OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 05:33 am
@farmerman,
Good night, farmer.

Yes, I know this is your thinking. You've said similar before.

Me, I have serious doubts that the IWC will actually be able to properly monitor the number of whales killed, say nothing of keeping the whalers to any form of agreement. These are the very nations that continued whaling commercially during the moratorium.

I won't go over other, previously stated reservations, again right now.

I am not attempting to persuade you that my thinking is right & yours is wrong. As I've said before, I have grave concerns about this situation.

Interesting that NZ has changed its position again.

I'm thinking that the June IWC meeting will be quite a volatile affair!

spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:13 am
@msolga,
Quote:
I'm thinking that the June IWC meeting will be quite a volatile affair!


That is very likely in view of the general environment in the better parts of Morocco in June when delegations on expense accounts find themselves free of their neighbours and close relatives.

I hope you Aussies are taking care of those locusts we were shown on the news last night. They are beautiful little creatures after all. A close up view of any one of them is startling to the scientific eye of even the most objective observer.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:30 am
Quote:
From The Sunday Times April 18, 2010

Ban on commercial whaling to be overturned Richard Kerbaj.

COMMERCIAL whaling is set to return after almost 25 years as Japan moves to overturn a worldwide ban.

Conservationists say that lifting the current moratorium will threaten the long-term survival of whale populations and would be a highly symbolic defeat for preservation.

They warn it could “open the floodgates” to far bigger slaughter in the future.

At present whaling is carried out mainly by Japan, Iceland and Norway.
The three nations have killed 35,000 whales since the ban was introduced in 1986. In Japan’s case, the killings have been justified as being for “scientific research.”

Under the deal being considered by the International Whaling Commission (IWC), hunting would be legally recognised and there are fears that other countries could take part.

Britain’s opposition to whaling may count for nothing because Denmark is likely to back the change. This failure to reach a European Union consensus will rule out any veto by the remaining 24 member states.

Proposals will be published this week and a deal will be struck at an IWC meeting in Morocco in June. They are expected to be backed by America and Denmark. The US is worried that if it blocks the plan, Japan will veto any renewal of permission for small-scale whale catching by indigenous peoples in Alaska. Denmark is expected to back it to ensure a quota for its dependent territories of Greenland and the Faroes.

Britain is a strong supporter of the existing ban, but may now be unable to stop the new deal being ratified because it votes in a block with the EU.

“The UK’s view, which is anti-whaling, will ultimately not be taken into account,” said Sue Fisher, a policy director at the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society.

The deal would suspend the moratorium on commercial whaling for 10 years and allow Japan, Norway and Iceland to continue whaling within new quotas. Hunters will be permitted to kill whale species that are considered plentiful, including the sperm, sei, fin, Bryde’s and minke " described by a senior Japanese whaling official in 2001 as the “cockroach of the ocean”.

Members of the IWC believe that allowing commercial whaling in a controlled manner will lead to fewer whales being killed.

Japan has been accused of using its foreign aid budget to co-opt 24 small or landlocked nations on the IWC including Mongolia, Nauru, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada and St Lucia to bolster its pro-whaling vote.

The Japanese embassy yesterday dismissed such claims as “unsubstantiated propaganda”.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 08:25 am
@msolga,
We will just have to keep a steady eye on the Japanese and their toady member countries whove been promised considerations should they vote in favor of resumption of whaling.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 08:27 am
@farmerman,
Indeed we will, farmer!

Sticking to anyone else's "rules" will be rather a new experience for them, I'd say! Wink
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 09:54 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
We will just have to keep a steady eye on the Japanese and their toady member countries whove been promised considerations should they vote in favor of resumption of whaling.


Your own government was included in the list fm.

If I might remind you--

Quote:
Proposals will be published this week and a deal will be struck at an IWC meeting in Morocco in June. They are expected to be backed by America and Denmark. The US is worried that if it blocks the plan, Japan will veto any renewal of permission for small-scale whale catching by indigenous peoples in Alaska.


On the non-scientific side of the matter--the cruelty involved---your government seems insensitive and, if the report is true, views it as a mere matter of political expediency and is sanctioning its own citizens to kill whales.

What about the locusts Olga? They are nature's, or God's, creatures just as much as whales are?

I think you two engaging in these sorts of mutually congratulatory exchanges without either of you addressing these questions suggests, to me at least, and perhaps to others, that your strictures are nothing more than emotionally driven, grandiose flouncings similar to the non-event of the ship grounding when compared to the danger to the reef from pesticicides and fertilisers, running off the land, from a pollution point of view.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 05:14 pm
@msolga,
More feedback from conservation groups on the IWC proposal. This time from an article in today's Guardian (UK).:

Conservationists condemn 'peace plan' allowing for limited whaling
The Guardian/23/04/2010

Under IWC proposals countries that hunt whales despite ban would have to agree to catch limits

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/4/23/1272044800674/Japanese-whaling-ship-001.jpg
Men onboard a Japanese whaling ship. Photograph: John Cunningham/Rex Features

An attempt to break the impasse over the global ban on whaling by allowing the first legal commercial hunting of whales in nearly 25 years came under attack from conservationists today.

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has proposed a 10-year "peace plan", which it said would maintain the global moratorium on commercial whaling but allow limited catches for those countries that continue to hunt whales despite the ban.

The plan aims to broker a compromise in the dispute between countries such as Britain which are opposed to whaling and those that hunt the mammals.

Currently Iceland and Norway whale commercially, setting their own quotas, while Japan exploits a loophole allowing it to catch whales under an exemption for "scientific" whaling.

Under the proposals set out by the IWC those countries would have to agree to catch limits set by the commission and based on scientific advice.

The IWC said the plan, which will be discussed at the annual meeting of the commission's 88 country members in June, would mean several thousand fewer whales would be caught than if the current situation continued.


Cristian Maquieira, chairman of the IWC, said: "For the first time since the adoption of the commercial whaling moratorium, we will have strict, enforceable limits on all whaling operations. As a result, several thousand less whales will be killed over the period of the agreement. In addition, no other IWC countries will be permitted to start hunting whales during the period."

The IWC urged countries to put their differences aside to focus on ensuring the world had "healthy" whale stocks.

It also said the plan would mean a whale sanctuary was created in the South Atlantic. But the wildlife charity WWF said the plans allowed for the hunting of endangered fin whales and sei whales whose numbers have been severely depleted by commercial whaling.

It would also endorse whaling in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary, which is an important feeding ground for species including blue whales, humpback whales and fin whales, WWF said.

Heather Sohl, species policy officer for WWF-UK, said: "If there is one place on Earth where whales should have full protection, it is the Southern Ocean.

"Some whales feed exclusively in the Southern Ocean " not eating at all during the winter months when they travel up to tropical waters.

"Allowing commercial whaling in an area where whales are so vulnerable goes against all logic."

She added: "Both fin and sei whale species were depleted to severely low levels by previous whaling that spun out of control, and they remain endangered as a result.

"Allowing new commercial whaling on these species when they have yet to recover from previous whaling is management madness."


The Pew Environment Group also criticised "unacceptable provisions" in the plans.

Susan Lieberman, director of international policy for the environmental organisation, said: "The draft compromise would allow whaling by Japan in the waters surrounding Antarctica to continue.

"The safe haven of the IWC-declared Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary " and the IWC's moratorium on commercial whaling " should be set in stone, not set aside.

"The proposal would phase down but not eliminate the number of whales killed by the annual expedition of Japan's industrial whaling fleet into the environmentally sensitive Southern Ocean and includes a quota for endangered fin whales, which is objectionable.

"This high seas sanctuary for whales, including endangered fin and humpback whales, must be respected."

The International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw) described the IWC plans as a "whalers' wish list".

Patrick Ramage, Ifaw's whale programme director, said: "It throws a lifeline to a dying industry when endangered whale populations face more threats than ever before.

"This would be a breathtaking reversal of decades of conservation progress at the IWC."

The animal welfare organisation said countries such as Germany and the US were involved in negotiations to draw up the deal.

And Robbie Marsland, UK director of the animal welfare organisation, said: "Whaling is unequivocally banned in EU waters.

"It would be hypocritical in the extreme not to condemn a deal which sanctions whaling elsewhere.


"Instead of twisting arms to get a deal that conserves whaling, the EU should be promoting 21st-century conservation measures and working to end commercial whaling once and for all."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/23/conservationists-peace-plan-whaling-iwc
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 11:16 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
........And Robbie Marsland, UK director of the animal welfare organisation, said: "Whaling is unequivocally banned in EU waters.....

I'm not sure that's literally true, since some indigenous peoples in the north of Scandinavia are exempt for "tribal rights" reasons. Anyway, I'm with Farmerman, this may be the least bad solution - allows Japan to save face and still reaches a complete ban (other than those pesky tribal characters) within 7 years. I understand the principle involved, but sometimes the better is the enemy of the good Smile
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 11:35 am
@High Seas,
Not on a matter of principle I'm afraid HS. Realpolik maybe. But Olga's not coming from realpolitik. farmerman simply copped out.

From a moral point of view immoral reasons cannot be used to acheive moral ends. To do so leaves you in the hands of sophists and propagandists.

We now know that farmerman is not against the hunting of whales just like he's not against the hunting of ducks. He is against the hunting of whales when he wants to be. For posing as a good bloke purposes.

You can wing a duck you know and condemn it to a number of different fates some of which are protracted.
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 06:01 pm
On my walk today I stumbled past this point of interest/relevance to this thread:
http://www.seashepherd.org/

http://i39.tinypic.com/fwj7gh.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/1h59a0.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/v7z1vl.jpg
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 06:30 pm
@tsarstepan,
Oh thanks for those pics, tsar. I somehow didn't picture you walking anywhere near water! Interesting!

You didn't happen to bump into Captain Paul (Watson) did you? Wink

SeaShepherd's Oz home base (office) is in Melbourne, not that far from where I live.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 09:25 pm

Quote:
Japan wants Sea Shepherd's captain arrested
Updated 1 hour 31 minutes ago

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200901/r332017_1498518.jpg
Hunted man: the Japan Coast Guard has obtained an arrest warrant against Paul Watson (ABC News: Scott Ross)

Japan plans to seek an international arrest warrant against the leader of the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd over tense high-seas clashes, the public broadcaster NHK says.

NHK says the Japan Coast Guard has obtained an arrest warrant in Tokyo against Canadian Paul Watson, 59, for allegedly instructing members of his group to obstruct Japan's whaling mission and causing injury to Japanese crew.


Japan will reportedly seek his arrest through Interpol.

No immediate confirmation of the report was available from the coast guard.

The last ship of Japan's Antarctic whaling fleet sailed home this month with the smallest catch in years.

Whalers blame the shortfall on high-seas clashes with the militant environmental group Sea Shepherd.

This season's confrontations in icy Antarctic waters saw the sinking of a Sea Shepherd vessel and the arrest of one of its activists, a New Zealander who faces trial in Japan.

Peter Bethune was indicted on April 2 for trespass, injuring a person, carrying a weapon, vandalism and obstructing commercial activities. The charges could see him jailed for up to 15 years.

Bethune, 45, was the captain of the Sea Shepherd's Ady Gil, a futuristic powerboat that sank after it was sliced in two in a collision with the whaling fleet's security ship Shonan Maru II in early January.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/30/2886762.htm
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 01:49 am
Interesting timing for a legal challenge... on the eve of the IWC meeting & also 4-5 months before the next Australian federal election. I think both have to be factored into the Rudd government's decision. (To me) it's sounding like the behind-the-scenes IWC wheeling & dealing is not going well for Australia (with the US now supporting Japan in a return to "limited" whaling. Seen as a return to commercial whaling to many conservationists.)
And on the local (Australian) level, the Rudd government is on the nose with many electors (as shown in the opinion polls) for reneging on a number of election promises, already. Taking Japan to The International Court of Justice was a 2007 pre-election promise. That said, I'm glad (if it actually happens) that Australia is finally acting on this. And if this gives Australia any clout at all in its efforts to preserve the Southern Ocean Whaling Sanctuary, then I'm all for it.:


Quote:
Australia on collision course with Japanese whalers
By North Asia correspondent Mark Willacy, staff
Updated 1 hour 27 minutes ago


http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200912/r484912_2488484.jpg
A dead minke whale sits next to the Japanese whaling vessel Yushin Maru

The Federal Government has announced it will launch legal action against Japan's whaling program in the International Court of Justice next week, but Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith says he doesn't think the move will hurt the relationship between the two countries.

Formal proceedings against Japan's Southern Ocean whale hunt will be lodged in The Hague ahead of an International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in Morocco in June.

Mr Smith informed Japan of the decision last night, after it was approved by Federal Cabinet yesterday afternoon.

He says he is confident the legal action will not affect Australia's bilateral relationship with its major trading partner.

"The agreement between Australia and Japan is that we will treat this matter in a calm, responsible and mature way," he said.

Federal Environment Protection Minister Peter Garrett joined Mr Smith for the announcement and said Japan's so-called scientific whaling program must end.

"We want to see an end to whales being killed in the name of science in the Southern Ocean," Mr Garrett said.

Mr Garrett was also confident the legal action would not affect Australia's bilateral relationship with Japan.

"It's a disagreement between friends, but it is a disagreement which we now believe needs to be properly resolved in the appropriate forum," he said.

"In the run up to the IWC my expectation is that that will be an extremely intense and difficult negotiation, but it's clear to us that this was the appropriate time to lodge that action."

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's pledge to take Japan to the international court was a key plank of Labor's federal election platform in 2007.

Hidenobu Sobashima from Japan's foreign ministry has told the ABC that Tokyo is disappointed by the decision.

Japan describes the legal action as ""regrettable" but says it is confident the legal action will not harm relations between the two close allies.

But it says it is prepared to argue its case inside the court.



'Having the guts'


Jeff Hansen from the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd says the Government's decision is a step in the right direction.

"Sea Shepherd commends the Australian Government for finally having the guts to stand up to the Japanese whalers," he said.

"But make no mistake - if the Japanese whaling fleet make their way down to the Southern Ocean whaling sanctuary this summer, Sea Shepherd will be there to stop them."


Mr Hansen has offered to help the Government collate evidence for its case.

"We're always open to share any information or documentation we have," he said.

"We have our log books and details where the Japanese whaling fleet is operating in and you can see clearly the whales are being hunted.

"They're operating deep within the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary and deep within the Australian economic exclusion zone."

Greens leader Bob Brown is pleased the Government is taking Japan to court but says it is too late to stop the whale hunt this summer.

"It's welcome but it's not enough. And a legal challenge now in the international court by the Rudd Government they know is not going to see any finality before the election," Senator Brown said.

"It is very careful election engineering rather than any sort of stay of the harpoons."

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott would not say if he supports the move because he has not seen the Government's legal advice, but he has a theory on the Government's motive for announcing the step today.

"Plainly, it is a smokescreen for the Government's failures," he said.

"Plainly, it is a smokescreen against the Government's latest attempt to brainwash the Australian people with a dishonest advertising campaign.

"The Coalition strongly opposes so-called scientific whaling. We support appropriate and affective action in international tribunals."


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/28/2911849.htm
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 10:59 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
You didn't happen to bump into Captain Paul (Watson) did you?


You couldn't hardly miss him, he's as big as a whale.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 11:03 pm
@msolga,
Japan should simply arrest Watson and take him back to Japan for trial. He'd be a leaner, meaner fighting machine when he got out.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 11:05 pm
He is indeed a chunky looking person. However I don't see this as terribly important in the grand scheme of things.

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 11:07 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
The Federal Government has announced it will launch legal action against Japan's whaling program in the International Court of Justice next week, but Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith says he doesn't think the move will hurt the relationship between the two countries.


The ******* hypocrites! If they want to do something useful, why not arrest John Howard and his underlings for war crimes and take legal action against the USA for the illegal invasion and subsequent deaths of a hundred thousand or so innocent Iraqis.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 11:17 pm
@JTT,
As you might or might not know, JTT, I have no great affection for John Howard & I find Australia's involvement in what used to be called "the war on terror" in Iraq despicable & unforgivable . And yes, a war crime, too. But if you don't mind, I'd rather stick to the topic here. Further, as you no doubt know, trade relationships & financial interests tend often to override all other "less important" issues like environmental concerns .. I'm not exactly crazy about this, either.
However, sorry, I really do want to stick to the topic.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 02:51 am
@msolga,
It was you Olga who brought up legal action against other governments based on "outrage". I think JTT is perfectly entitled to question priorities in outrage festivities which put whales ahead of humans and many an other creature.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 03:51 pm
@msolga,
This isn't directly related to your post, Olga, but I just came across the most incredibly beautiful book, written by an Olympic swimmer, Lynne Cox, entitled "Grayson". If you can't easily find it where you are I'll be glad to send you a copy. Please be kind enough to send me your contact info by e-mail (if you don't have it, Stradee will give it to you) as I don't know when I can login here again. It's not a long book, and every word in it is worth reading Smile
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 04:31:44