Outrage over Japan's plan to slaughter humpback whales

Kill it for what? Fun?

0 Replies

cj is just a loon, pay no attention to his babblings

0 Replies

Thanks for the articles, Walter & Stradee. Very interesting reading!

Almost summer again (so soon!) & more "scientific" culling of whales planned by the japanese in the Southern Ocean. Here we go again. Sigh.

I found this request from the Japanese today rather incredible!:

Japan wants Aussie protection during humpback kill
Posted Mon Nov 12/ABC news online

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200705/r147124_518367.jpg

Targets: Japan wants Australian ships to protect its whalers from environmental campaigners (AFP)

Japan wants Australia to help protect its whaling fleet from what it calls "environmental terrorism" as it kills humpbacks in the Southern Ocean this summer.

Japan's whaling fleet is preparing to depart for its annual scientific hunt and 50 humpback whales will be targeted for the first time.

Japan's Fisheries Agency says Australia and New Zealand should help protect the Japanese fleet and has accused environmental group Sea Shepherd of being responsible for violent confrontations in recent years.

Sea Shepherd's captain Paul Watson says his organisation is not responsible for the collisions with Japanese ships and has acted lawfully.

"Japanese whaling is illegal. They're targeting endangered species in a whale sanctuary in violation of a global moratorium on whaling," he said.

"We have the law on our side."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/12/2087736.htm

0 Replies

A couple of surprise visitors to Sydney Harbour this morning. Very Happy

:
Whale takes calf sightseeing in harbour

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/11/12/whale_wideweb__470x272,0.jpg

A female humpback whale heads out of Sydney Harbour this morning after taking her calf sightseeing.
Photo: Peter Morris

Dylan Welch
November 12, 2007/SMH

A female humpback whale and her calf have paid a short visit to Sydney Harbour during their southerly migration this morning.

The pair entered the harbour about 7.30am when a passing ferry noticed the pair near Bradleys Head.

They tracked a slow southerly passage down to Rose Bay before exiting again about 10.30am and resuming their long migration south.

This morning's visit is one of about only three or four times humpback whales have entered deep into the harbour since 2003, and, before then, they hadn't been seen in central Sydney Harbour near the CBD for more than a century. ...<cont>

http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/whale-takes-calf-sightseeing-in-harbour/2007/11/12/1194766559703.html

0 Replies

here we go again. Nobody can dispute the scientific fact that Humpbacks are very close to being an unsustainable species. Their critical mass is low enough that the whale census scientists that were studying the clusters in the BAy of Fundy and Gulf of MAine, were not breeding .

Is the retirement of Mr Howard going to affect Australias position to consider protection of the JApanese fleet?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

here we go again. Nobody can dispute the scientific fact that Humpbacks are very close to being an unsustainable species. Their critical mass is low enough that the whale census scientists that were studying the clusters in the BAy of Fundy and Gulf of MAine, were not breeding .

Is the retirement of Mr Howard going to affect Australias position to consider protection of the JApanese fleet?

Yeah, here we go again! Rolling Eyes

You know, farmer, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) has not commented on this issue in the election campaign so far (to the best of my knowledge) ... so who knows? The ALP is not likely to stick it's neck out on anything vaguely "controversial" at this stage - they're running an extremely safe & boring campaign, so I'm not holding my breath! But they may surprise us (if the perception is that it's a vote-winner! Rolling Eyes

)

Let's see what the Greens have to say about this.

Paul Watson (Sea Shepherd) got a very good run on the ABC (national broadcaster) this morning. Claiming that the Japanese whalers were the actual aggressors (though claiming that Sea Shepherd had rammed one of their ships) last summer & that Australian investigations prove this. I think he called them "criminals", too!

0 Replies

..... however, if Oz & NZ authorities were silly enough to agree to "protect" the Japanese whaling fleet against the likes of Sea Shepherd or Greenpeace, I think there'd be quite a backlash from folk in both countries! Wouldn't go down well at all! What sort of protection would the Japanese expect, anyway?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Kill it for what? Fun?

Of course! Hunting is always fun. Much better than being a whiny anti.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

snood wrote:
Kill it for what? Fun?

Of course! Hunting is always fun. Much better than being a whiny anti.

When I get to the states I'm gonna make you bleed.... just for fun.

0 Replies

dadpad wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
snood wrote:
Kill it for what? Fun?

Of course! Hunting is always fun. Much better than being a whiny anti.

When I get to the states I'm gonna make you bleed.... just for fun.

Bring it on.

Does everyone now see what I am talking about? Animal rights types have no respect for human life. They are subhumans who care more about animals than their own species.

Pathetic.

0 Replies

Quote:

Animal rights types have no respect for human life. They are subhumans who care more about animals than their own species.

With you cj, its "either Or" , why cant you be a human lover and an animal lover? You dont give reason to your argument. Anyone who discusses anything with you is either an idiot or a subhuman. I think that you are your own worst example of what you try to preach.

Why would you even consider killing a whale? --snoods question

"\for fun" --your response. I may have even found a smattering of sense in there if you said "cause whale meat is really delicious", but no, you killl just for the fun of killing

Who sounds like the idiot?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Who sounds like the idiot?

The idiot who threatened me over whale blubber.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Animal rights types have no respect for human life. They are subhumans who care more about animals than their own species.

So you think that people living in countries with constitutions which name human AND animal rights are subhumans. Right?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
Animal rights types have no respect for human life. They are subhumans who care more about animals than their own species.

So you think that people living in countries with constitutions which name human AND animal rights are subhumans. Right?

Animals have no rights in God's kingdom other than to be prepared properly. We have dominion over them.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
Animal rights types have no respect for human life. They are subhumans who care more about animals than their own species.

So you think that people living in countries with constitutions which name human AND animal rights are subhumans. Right?

Animals have no rights in God's kingdom other than to be prepared properly. We have dominion over them.

Agree. Especially the prepared properly part.

Yet, some argue and I can agree, that hunting for fur/tusks and discarding the "meat" is a senseless killing (except in case of human safety)

0 Replies

So may I as a subhuman from a subhuman country quote Article 20a of our constitution (Basic Law):

"The state takes responsibility for protecting the natural foundations of life and animals in the interest of future generations."

I'm glad not to live in any kingdom, be it of George WB or someone else but in a democratic parliamentary republic, though.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

So may I as a subhuman from a subhuman country quote Article 20a of our constitution (Basic Law):

"The state takes responsibility for protecting the natural foundations of life and animals in the interest of future generations."

I'm glad not to live in any kingdom, be it of George WB or someone else but in a democratic parliamentary republic, though.

What does "protecting the natural foundations ..." actually mean? Can you kill a chicken to eat it?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

What does "protecting the natural foundations ..." actually mean? Can you kill a chicken to eat it?

You certainly are aware that the text is origianally in German.

It might well be that the English translation as somewhat arguable but no-one until now understood "natural foudations of life" to include chicken.
(That's because animals were named especially.)

As long as the slaughter of any animal is thought to be according the constitution, it is okay.
Otherwise, the Federal Constitutional Court will decide (which the highest German judges already did a couple of times).

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

woiyo wrote:

What does "protecting the natural foundations ..." actually mean? Can you kill a chicken to eat it?

You certainly are aware that the text is origianally in German.

It might well be that the English translation as somewhat arguable but no-one until now understood "natural foudations of life" to include chicken.
(That's because animals were named especially.)

As long as the slaughter of any animal is thought to be according the constitution, it is okay.
Otherwise, the Federal Constitutional Court will decide (which the highest German judges already did a couple of times).

I could have said cow, turkey, or fish. these meats are a natural foundation of human life (except for the Veggies). So I am not sure what your Constitution is really saying. Is sport hunting unconstitutional?

0 Replies

Hunting isn't considered a sport here. (Though we've quite some good competitors in shooting sports, wolrd champions as well as in the Olympic Games.)

Slaughtering is regulated in the animal protection laws (state/federal) as well as in variou other by-laws and EU-regulations.

0 Replies

Outrage over Japan's plan to slaughter humpback whales

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know