Senate Estimates have shown the true lack of commitment from the Rudd Government on the fight against whaling in our Antarctic waters.
Under questioning, it was confirmed that the 2008 budget held no funding for a continuation of the customs ship Oceanic Viking (or any other ship) to monitor Japanese whaling fleets in our Southern and Antarctic oceans, making one wonder just what they are doing to do about whaling into the future. Does this mean that the Government will not be undertaking monitoring of Japanese whaling activity into the future?
Not that we can count on anything actually being done about it – after monitoring the whaling operations, documenting the slaughter with pictures, video and other media, the Australian Government have evidently decided to file this away and wait for the Japanese to stop whaling on their own terms.
The Minister for Home Services has claimed success for the operation taken out by the Oceanic Viking, when not one whale has been saved through their operations to date. So far, the only ones who have had any success in preventing whales from being killed in the Australian Antarctic whale sanctuary have been the non-government organisations Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd.
Meanwhile, the Greens continue to call on the Australian Government to close the loophole in the IWC that allows the killing of whales under the name of ’scientific research’ and to pursue the international legal case to stop the slaughter occurring in our Antarctic territorial waters.
The yearly migrations of humpback whales up the Australian coast are the mainstay of the whale-watching industry, and losing the species could have drastic effects on the tourism market on our southern coasts.
Humpbacks were hunted to the verge of extinction in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, with only 3 to 5% remaining when the IWC ban was enacted in 1963. While populations off Australian waters have slowly begun to recover, the population is only a fraction of their original abundance and they are still listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act.
The Government hasn’t been prepared to take legal action to stop the whale slaughter on environmental or humanitarian grounds and the Japanese have continued to up the ante. First they procrastinate about acting on any evidence they have collected, and now it appears they may have given up entirely – therefore creating a farce out of the original expense incurred by the Oceanic Viking mission.
Perhaps it would be more economically responsible for the Government to fund Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd directly, rather than waste Customs time with useless whale watching expeditions?
The Japanese should just do the right thing and stop
closer to Oz I’m truly disgusted with what happened in Camden yesterday
1) Antarctic waters aren’t Australian waters.
2) Humpbacks in the Antarctic are generally increasing quite robustly, as even Australian scientists grudgingly confirm.
3) Australia is adhered to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. This agreement was agreed explicitly for the purpose of developing international cooperation amongst nations wishing to exploit these creatures for resources (such as food). This agreement expressly permits all signatory nations to catch as many whales as they like for scientific purposes that any signatory nation believes will further understanding of whale biology etc, thus improving our ability to efficiently manage whaling operations on a sustainable basis.
If Australia does not like the terms of this agreement, it is free to quit it. You guys are crazy if you think Japan is at all obliged to stop conducting operations that it is carrying out legally in what are internationally (sorry, what Australia plus 3 of it’s friends think does not count for much) recognised as international waters.
The problem is not the Japanese, the problem is that Australia is adhered to an agreement that it does not agree with. Why doesn’t Australia draft a new agreement and seek to get other nations to join up?
Gunnar…
Listen and learn.
THERE IS NO REASON TO KILL A WHALE!
THERE IS NO HUMANE WAY TO KILL A WHALE!
WHALES ARE SENTIENT BEINGS AND HAVE SYNTAX IN THEIR SONGS… SYNTAX…. EQUALS… LANGUAGE! The science is available.
Whale flesh is toxic and should not be eaten by any other living being.
Very few Japanese are interested in eating toxic whale flesh.
They breathe air, they bear live young, they nurse their young, they keep their families together, they don’t have crime and they live in the water.
SINCE THERE IS NO REASON TO KILL A WHALE THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE WHAT YOU DISGUSTINGLY REFER TO AS SUSTAINABLE WHALING.
The IWC was formed a long time ago, before people knew anything about whales and lacked in compassion and common sense. When the oceans of this big blue marble were not filled with the toxins and human offal they are now loaded with. That was then, this is now…. it’s a new paradigm and things must change.
And just how many whales need to die agonal deaths that last for hours and hours before the stupid Japanese need to kill before they know something? The Japanese must really be stupid if brutally slaughtering a thousand whales a year hasn’t taught them anything.
I wish you the same long and agonal death … just like you wish for the whales.
*Editor - the following has been edited for length. Instead, links to the articles have been provided.*
11/27/2007
Meet the Dr. Mengele of Whales
Commentary by Paul Watson - Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
01/22/2008
Japanese Professor Questions the Existence of Whaling Culture in Japan
Commentary from Professor Jun Morikawa of Rakuno University
Rakuno University Professor Jun Morikawa says that contrary to the claim by the government of Japan, whale meat is not an important part of Japanese culture and there never was a widespread tradition of eating whale meat prior to the end of World War II.
Morikawa is currently in a research fellowship at the University of Adelaide in New Zealand.
The World Today ran an interview with Prof Morikawa on Tuesday, July 19, 2005. Morikawa was interviewed by reporter Eleanor Hall.
You are sorely misinformed and lacking in the ability to do research, so much so that you make claims about the quantity of humpbacks. No one has counted them. These are interpolations and they are incorrect. Interpolations are just that, interpolations, not facts. If you believe them you are a fool.
“THERE IS NO REASON TO KILL A WHALE!”. I believe there are numerous Native Americans who would disagree. Also, Norwegians, Icelanders and Japanese. Whales are no different from any other animal humans kill for food. For all of the hype about how ‘Intelligent’ or ‘Sentient’ they are. If they were intelligent they would figure out a way to keep humans from killing them or develop ways to defend themselves. Maybe Tuna torpedos. If they had a language I think they would have found a way to communicate with us, after the first hundred years or so of us hunting them, to ask us to stop. So, until those things happen………Happy hunting!
Australia has two solid arguments against whaling:
1. There is no humane way to kill a whale.
2. Japan’s research program is a sham.
The rest of our arguments are culturally biased and hypocritical. Most Australians are opposed to whaling because they find the idea of eating whale meat repugnant. The same people don’t think twice about eating factory farmed meats, shipping live animals overseas, catching endangered species of fish such as orange roughy.
The Queensland Government is now issuing permits for shark finning in the Great Barrier Reef.
What a bunch of ignorant hypocrites we are.
To TruthBeTold: Whales must be killed in order to get meat from them. You may not want their meat, but whether or not you recognise that what applies to you does not apply for all of your fellow human beings, we will continue to eat whales, just as you will continue to eat the things that you eat.
For your information, we disagree that whales are treated inhumanely as compared with the animals that people in places such as Australia. We also recognise that all animals communicate with other members of their species, and that in that respect whales are not special. We also have heard propaganda about “toxic” whale flesh. On behalf of my fellow whale eaters, I thank you for your concern for our health, and assure you that we will take full responsibility for our decisions.
Regarding humpback numbers, some information about this for you:
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/cetaceans/conference/pubs/hw-noad.pdf
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1153253.htm
In the entire Southern Hemisphere, scientists believe that as of 1997/1998 there were between 34,000 and 52,000 humpbacks in total.
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm
Personally, I have no interest in eating these whales in particular. I’m happy to forgoe the chance to eat them if you are happy to accept and respect the right of people such as myself to exist.
I think whaling is appalling. It needs to be stamped out. I thought it would in my lifetime but it does’nt seem like the Rudd government cares really. They are more interested in petrol prices and fueling our dying future.
Daniel,
Why do you think whaling is appalling?
No matter of which way you look at it, so-called “scientific” whaling is a sham and should be discontinued.
The market for whale meat in Japan is talked up by the whalers to justify their miserable, cruel employment. In actual fact the market for whale meat is very, very small.
With a bit of luck the shortage and increasing costs of fuel oil will see these ghastly people employed in more humane pursuits.
Colin, is it unexpected to you that the market for whale meat is “very, very small”, considering the fact that there has been a commercial whaling moratorium in place for the past 20 years?
For your reference, immediately prior to the moratorium Japan and Russia together were allocated a total quota or around 6,000 Antarctic minke whales per year, and Iceland and Norway were exporting whale meat to Japan as well.
Then the useless moratorium came in, hunting abundant minke whales was effectively banned, and by the early 1990’s exports to Japan had been stopped.
So, if your problem with whale eaters is that there are few in number, you might want to consider that this is due to supply of the product being choked off.
This situation is a result of the useless moratorium, which effectively only banned hunting of Antarctic minkes, as pretty much all other species had already been protected by the IWC in the 1960’s and 1970’s after Australia and it’s modern day whale loving allies participated in the original over-harvesting that caused the whole damn mess.
I think we should only fund Sea Shepherd.
Greenpeace makes alot of money and crew members are paid to do what they do
Sea Shepherd Is non profit and is direct action tactics.
If anyone can stoop the Japanese its them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That’s good Jack, why don’t you go and fund Al Qaeda too if you happen to disagree with American foreign policy.
Gunnar, as per your previous comment:
“Personally, I have no interest in eating these whales in particular. I’m happy to forgoe (sic) the chance to eat them if you are happy to accept and respect the right of people such as myself to exist.’
I totally respect your right to live, live and prosper and exist. Live well, be happy, be cool, good health to you and many blessings upon your house etc etc
Now stop eating whales!
If only it was always that simple.
I highly reccoment funding Sea Shepherd, those guys are great and do alot of great things for the whales, seas and sharks.
http://www.seashepherd.org
Gunnar, the comparison you draw between terrorists who have killed thousands of people and an environmental organization that enforces international conservation law and has never harmed a single being nor been convicted of a felony in the process is utterly ridiculous.
You can attempt to marginalize environmentally conscious people all you want but the fact remains that left unchecked, the corrupt corporate/governmental system will continue to exploit the planet to utter destruction for nothing but profit - THAT is the extremist position in this story.
Gunnar reeks of Cetacean Research Institute propaganda to me.
Are you so worried about Sea Shepherd you’ve taken to monitoring their site news and distributing your vile prejudice where ever you get the chance to have an audience?
Thank god for Sea Shepherd! And thank you Tim Norton what a refreshing perspective!
buzz, we won’t stop eating whales, no matter how much you tell us. You aren’t going to stop eating cows if we tell you to, are you? The difference is that our manners are a notch above yours, so we don’t bother in the first place.
Australia hasn’t even suggested a compromise along the lines of getting the whales that migrate around the Australian coast protected, in exchange for tolerating sustainable whaling in other parts of the world.
To us, it seems like you guys don’t give a crap about the whales, you only give a crap about trying to impose your preferences on others, and maintaining your symbollic (but evidently meaningless) anti-whaling stance.
Daily Veg Editor, It was a deliberate comparison to make your other commenter think about it.
It’s not the scale of the violence, but the principle. Violence should not be tolerated, whether it be a 9/11 attack, or ramming other vessels at sea (or sinking them in ports).
Zero violence between humans is where decent human societies draw the line.
Sea Shepherd goes beyond that, and fortunately for us whale eaters, some people out there evidently think that violence is justified in some cases. I say it’s fortunate because in most of the world such violent behavious is frowned upon by fair-minded people, and certainly those who don’t take a particular position on a controversial issue.
“the corrupt corporate/governmental system will continue to exploit the planet to utter destruction for nothing but profit”
There are not that many of us whale eaters that we will exploit the whales to extinction, and we are doing it because whales taste great. If you study your history you’ll recognise that the whales were over-exploited when nations such as Australia were hunting them for oil to fuel industrial revolutions.
Those days are gone, we live in the 21st century, and eating whales is entirely sustainable. We will continue to eat whales, so Australia would be better off accepting it, and at least trying to get some compromises to ensure “your” whales aren’t targetted on the high seas. A failure to do this indicates that the anti-whaling stance is just empty posturing.
Hello Senator,
I agree with you that the Rudd Government hasn’t done enought yet.
I just wanted to let you know that Greenpeace doesn’t accept any money from any Government, I think.
Maybe Sea Sepherd does but funding Sea Sepherd is actually the worst things to do.
Because their (SS’s) silly activity is very popular among the whaling lobby in Japan, which they (Whalers) can say ‘look! Westerns are attacking us. We have to fight against them!’
Then they(Whalers) get more support from the public in Japan and the Government.
The more silly stant, the more power to the whalers.
I think the Greens should have strategic and peaceful plan to deal with this issue.
Regards,
A
The idea of funding Sea Shepherd is a good one. The group already works with the government of Ecuador to protect the Galapagos islands. They seem to be the only group effective at actually stopping the killing of whales.
Shooting Paul Watson is violent. Throwing grenades at the Sea Shepherd crew is violent; threatening to sink a fully crewed Sea Shepherd vessel at sea in Antarctic waters is violent; shooting an exploding tip harpoon into a whale so it dies after hours in agony is violent. Whalers did all of this earlier this year.
Should this be tolerated?
Shooting P. Watson?
Ｉ can’t believe that actually someone believed it!
That rubbish wasn’t even reported in Japan as far as I know…
SS and whalers are way too violence. Poor whales..
Gunnar, you said quite clearly you’d stop whaling if we respected your right to “live” and “exist”. I did, now you won’t stop eating whales - you’re a liar amongst other things but I assure you I’m not the least surprised.
And how funny this is, you were the one who said “our manners are a notch abover yours” Yep, great manners you have. You must be so proud of your “manners” especially when you routinely call Australians “cultural supremists” and “racists” in your media.
Japan doesn’t even have the balls to come out and say they eat whales to the international community instead hiding like guilty cowardly murdering thugs behind the sham “science” as written on their vessels.
And you wonder why you are so loathed in Australia.
When homo sapiens will evolve in a way that they will no longer wish to eat any animal flesh, only then violence will end on this planet. To that human being who said that if whales were intelligent they would have already figured out a way to stop homo sapiens from hunting them, here is a thought for you: if homo sapiens, sapiens were so intelligent, why are they currently engaged in wars, murdering senselessly one another, not able to feed the hungry, to cure cancer, raping the planet and its living creatures (women included), commit suicide, hate, …the list goes on. Have you ever thought that homo sapiens is just another animal species which, most probably another, more intelligent lifeform, would find delicious to taste? And please, refrain yourself from non-intelligent replies.
you think paul watson being shot wasnt real watch the video footage they got on camera.
you know what gunnar keep eating whales if you want with how much murcury is in it you will learn the hard way that it is very poisonous. its top of the food chain therefor has a build up of murcury which will kill humans. it is austraian waters. yes whale numbers are increasing but they havnt increased enough yet to be able to hunt them they were on the brink of extinction. you say we wont stop eating cows but i disagee if they had enough poison to harm us yes i would and if shooting a cow woulnt kill it straight away instead of taking 4 hours like a whale i also wouldnt eat it.
and donn yes i think alot of australians are ignorant hypocrites but you will find the same people support both acts
i believe it is wrong myself ut thats my choice to belive that i think it should stop because it is ILLEGAL. the IWC have told japan to stop but they told them to get stuffed and said they would continue anyway. did you know that most of the whales killed by japan arnt evan eaten by people they are made into dog food and fed to livestock.
i think it would be a great idea to fund sea shepherd allthough it is never going to happen. but who ever said they shouldnt fund grenpeace i am now in love with you. how much funding do they get allready and it all goes on advertising i gues you have all sen the multi million dollar adds. and paying their crew come off it thats not right.
i cant believe the rudd governtment i can say the only reason i voted for them was because they said they would take the japanese to internation court over this issue but because of the whale culling thig which is also wrong they whimped out of it because japan is a bigger and stronger nation and rudd doesnt want to make enemies well i garentee he wont get another 4 years.
I love how people hid behind the cultural validity argument. That it is not right for our culture to tell another culture what to do or not do, because well it’s their culture.
This is horse s–t. One has EVERY right to make a judgement about another; another person, Another group, another country, another Culture. It is called morals.
I believe it is morally incorrect to kill animals in general. I believe it is even more morally abhorrent to kill sentient animals. I believe it is morally wrong fo the Japanese government slip poisoned meat into the food stream of children (which is where much of the whale meat winds up - in school lunches.) And I believe that those who support whaling for ANY reason are morally wrong and a lesser human beings then those who don’t.
S_
Its great that there is so much passion aimed at making the world a better place. Here is a challenge to consider:
1. What is the likely sustainable world whale population with current whaling practises in place (all else held equal)?
2. What is the likely sustainable world whale population with unmitigated climate change (all else held equal)?
The likely answer to 1 is much higher than the likely answer to 2. The reason being that once an oceans waters exceed 20C mixing with lower levels stops and surface nutrients sink to the bottom and that ocean becomes a desert. The absence of nutrients means all the photosythesizing plankton disappear from that warm unmixed layer. This large scale removal of those plankton massively underminesthe whales nutrient supply and the food chain in general.
Failing to curb climate change will kill far more whales than the Japanese will.
The upshot is that directing your passion for whales into specific climate action will achieve more than verbal stoushes with Japanese.
What action you might ask? How about within the next two years figure out how to personally convince five major party voters to vote Green ahead of the major parties in the senate in time for the next election.
Here’s a tip, you won’t win them over by beating them over the head telling how bad they are to vote major, instead lay some thoughtful aspiration for a better world on them.
If only one Green voter in ten achieved that we’d have 12% of the vote and be in a position to demand climate action.
Greens at central command could make this task a little easier as well with the right messages. Christene’s providing an example of doing a very nice job on that front of being broadly appealing right now.
Hi John Griffin,
I am as passionate about protecting the whales as I am passionate about curbing climate change. I am an active member of S.S. and also support groups who are actively involved in protecting our environment. I do all my best to step lightly on this planet. My husband has also successfully involved a local labour politician to act in the climate change challenge. The local Green party I feel, is not active enough. They are not aware of current green technology! They are only about not cutting trees! That is not enough to save our planet from climate change. The Green party has to become more knowledgeable about new green technology if they want to lead our Nation in the climate change challenge. The responsibility also lies with each one of us. We have to become activist in our daily routine. No one is spared in the action! And that means that each one of us must be able to sacrifice a little of our “precious” life style. It means also to have the courage to change ourselves. So, the challenge is….”be the change you wish to see in the world”.
Gaia
Our oceans are dying. We have overfished the seas, 90% of the big fish (whales, dolphins, sharks, seals) are gone as of 2002 according to the Pew Institute. We have polluted it with chemicals, agricultural runoff, plastic, sewage.
Does that matter? If you like to breathe oxygen yes. Plankton is at the base of the marine food chain and creates 90% of the oxygen on the planet. Some is used by the oceans for fish to breathe leaving 70-80% for the atmosphere for us to breathe. Only 20% of the atmospheric oxygen is created by rainforests.
Additionally a healthy ocean uptakes 50% of the carbon dioxide. All fish in the sea help plankton - how? They fertilize it with excrement, ammonia, parasites and eggs. But whales fertilize plankton the most. How? When they breach they slough off dead skin cells at the surface where plankton are busy photosynthesizing. Whales also excrete at the surface. When they dive deep they help accelerate the movement of billions of protein-rich eggs at the bottom of the ocean.
No whale species has come even close to recovering from 200 years of commercial slaughter. Most are down to 10% of former numbers and some as low as 1%. No whaling anywhere is sustainable and Japanese claims of abundant whale populations are disputed even by the IWC and all other marine authorities.
The ocean needs every whale, dolphin, seal, shark, turtle, fish, eel, etc to help it recuperate from the rapacious greed of homo sapiens who sees everything as a resource to be used for his own selfish needs with no regard for the whole ecosystem in which he lives or even his own future or the future of his offspring.
The truth is we are eating the planet to death! At this rate there will be nothing left to eat except each other. And that will be the final solution for people like Gunnar who have not an ounce of compassion or care for others and care only about their own fat stomachs.
Not only that there won’t even be enough oxygen to breathe for anyone …
Helping Sea Shepherd save whales and marine animals and habitats is the most worthy cause for those who care about the planet. Greenpeace does not save whales - they just collect money for whale lovers and only 2% of what they collect goes into whale campaigns. Last season they quit half way through due to “lack of funding” when last year they raked in 127 million dollars! Sea Shepherd’s budget by comparison is only 1-2 million dollars. That’s because nobody gets paid. 94% of all funding goes directly into the campaigns. However they would never accept money from governments because then they would be forced to do whatever the governments told them. It’s good that the Greens made this suggestion though - it shows you their heart is in the right place, at least in some areas….
And if you want to learn about the effect of the ocean on global warming check out http://www.fisherycrisis.com/strangelove.html
Why is the Australian government backing down from pursuing the court case against illegal Japanese whaling in the International court of Justice?And why was there no charge for the attempted murder of Capt. Watson on the conservation ship The Steve Irwin?
Capt. Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd put it well here:
http://seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_080520_1.html
In a nutshell, Japan is exposing the hypocrisy of the Australian government for criticising Japan for killing whales when we are conducting the largest slaughter of wildlife on the planet right here - against the kangaroos.
The Australian government doesn’t want the truth to come out and to have Australian people awaken from their apathy and slumber and realize that we have been LIED to: in fact kangaroos are NOT in plague proportions, their populations are crashing (according to government websites see http://tinyurl.com/6bafk6 ) from 2001-2006 populations of all 4 main species dropped up to 70%. They are becoming regionally extinct in many parts of Australia where they once flourished.
Nor are kangaroos a pest. Like Capt. Watson said it is the livestock that create environmental degradation, not kangaroos who have been living in perfect harmony with the land for 16 million years and actually helping regenerate grasslands and soil ecosystems.
Both Japan and Australia are wrong for killing whales and kangaroos. But let’s face it, there’s a profit to be made and neither of them care about the environmental impact of what they are doing, nor do they care about what the people want. And least of all do they care about what the animals they are killing feel.
When are we going to wake up to the fact that we are interconnected. What we do to the one we do to the whole.
Perhaps if we stopped cramming dead and tortured animals into our bodies on a daily basis we might be a more peaceful compassionate species?
Interesting video illustrating this perfectly at the bottom of this web page http://www.theworldpeacediet.org
Daily Veg Editor, I think you’ve made it clear that you have rose tinted googles on.
buzz, was it not clear that my offer involved you respecting / tolerating the way we live our lives?
I had a whale steak on the weekend. Would you have noticed if I hadn’t told you? I’m not infringing on your rights, but you would appear to be happy to do so where mine are concerned. As such, I couldn’t give a crap for your concerns if you are worried about the Japanese eating humpbacks caught in the Antarctic ocean.
My media has never refered to Australians as “cultural supremists” or “racists” (although I suspect in some cases that’s pretty close to the mark - you seem to assume that since I eat whales I must be Japanese, which is an indication of something)
As for Japan, they do eat whales. Your not understanding their research whaling programmes is a fault that belongs to you, not the Japanese. It’s no wonder Australia has been crying about this for 20 years now when lay people can’t even understand the basics of the issue.
zoe-lee, No one shot Paul Watson. It was a propaganda stunt.
Thanks for agreeing to let me keep eating whales. I know “how much mercury” is in it, and I figure that my knowledge of that is a little more polished than yours. I’ll live by my judgements.
The Japanese aren’t hunting in Australian waters. They are hunting in the international waters of the Antarctic (plus their own backyard). They are entitled to under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. It’s not illegal.
There are enough whale numbers for eating. As you say they are increasing. If there are going to be an extra 1,000 whales by next year, show me what the problem is by us taking one additional whale this year.
I don’t eat any whale species that is anywhere near “the brink of extinction”.
Since you say you would stop eating cows, let me inform you that in fact all cows have mad cow disease and eating them will kill you. And just look at the way cows are treated, not only when they are slaughtered, but also beforehand. Given the choice, I don’t know anyone who would rather their life as a farmed cow rather than a free ranging whale.
Septemous, go ahead, make your judgements of our whale eating culture. (In fact I believe you are an immoral person yourself, as is any person who is anti my sustainable whale eating in any way. But I accept your right to exist and hold such opinions.)
Now if you are a lawful person, what are you going to do to stop us eating whales?
We whale eaters are not subject to your laws.
Menkit, The Australia government backed down from the court case because Australia itself is legally adhered to the very international agreement that legitimises Japan’s whaling. Australia’s legal advisors know this, even if the “average joe” in the street does not.
You guys worship Paul Watson like he is a messiah or something. Very strange!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
(1) THE JAPANESE ARE HUNTING WHALES FOR A FOOD SOURCE, WHY IS THIS NOT OK?
Hunting whales for a food source goes against all logic. Whale meat is laden with extremely dangerous metals that break down the human central nervous system in a matter of years. Mercury, Methyl Mercury, Cadmium, DDT & PCB’s are some of these.
In effect, Japan is poisoning its own citizens. What is deeply concerning is the fact; they are trying to introduce the whale meat into schools under “School lunchtime programs”.
According to Japan’s own media, the Japan Today Newspaper poll showed less than 1% of Japanese eat whale meat. There is no demand for it outside Japanese coastal towns. It is widely known that over 4000tonnes of whale meat is in frozen storage. Much of it ends up as dog food.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23024633-5000117,00.html
Whales are also “endangered” mammals that happen to be at the top of the food chain. Anyone with simple biology knowledge knows top of the food chain animals have an important role to play in this world. We need to keep them alive so we can monitor what happens in the ocean.
Top-of-the-food-web species are crucial bio-indicators. Their presence is an indicator of a healthy eco-system, while their absence could indicate a serious pollution or other environmental problem eg a chronically overfished ocean.
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
(2) BUT YOU EAT COWS, THEY EAT WHALES…. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE ?
Hunting whales for a food source goes against all logic. Whale meat is laden with extremely dangerous metals that break down the human central nervous system in a matter of years. Mercury, Methyl Mercury, Cadmium, DDT & PCB’s are some of these.
In effect, Japan is poisoning its own citizens. What is deeply concerning is the
fact; they are trying to introduce the whale meat into schools under “School lunchtime programs”.
Furthermore whales cannot be farmed like Cattle can be. Females give birth to a single calf. Nursing time is long (more than one year in many species), which is associated with a strong bond between mother and young. In most whales, reproductive maturity occurs late, typically at seven to ten years of age.
This is in stark contrast to Cattle, Sheep or Pigs that mature much quicker and breed far more often which enables us (humans) to sustain their populations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale#Behavior
Clearly there is NO such thing as “sustainable whaling” when looking at these figures like you can do with cattle, sheep or pigs.
The world learnt this when previous whaling saw whale populations decline by up to 90%, hence the moratorium on whaling which came into effect in 1986.
Harvesting only 1000 whales a year would be the equivalent to wiping Germany off the map each year. It can’t be allowed.
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
(3) WHY DO YOU CARE, THE ICW ALLOWS THEM TO HUNT FOR SCIENTIFIC REASONS ?
This is indeed true of the IWC. There is a loophole in the moratorium on whaling which allows whales to be hunted for scientific reasons and Japan uses it to kill over 1000 whales a year.
Are you aware that Japan is killing whales to prove they can kill more? Their so called “scientific research” revolves around them trying to determine exact numbers of whales so they can prove to the world they can sustainably begin commercial whaling. It is no secret. They openly admit this is why they are killing them.
The big secret is what the Australian Broadcasting Corporation uncovered in 2006 with their Science show “Catalyst”. They discovered of the 18year JARPA 1 program, which lethally obtained samples from over 6800 whales, less than 55 peer reviewed papers were produced, 14 that could be relevant to goals of the JARPA program and ONLY 4 that would require lethal sampling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Value_for_research
Its obvious Japan isn’t scientifically whaling. Besides, any scientist will tell you live specimens are much more fun and informative to study. What can you learn from a dead whale other than looking into its ear to determine its age?
We need to keep them alive so we can monitor what happens in the ocean.
Top-of-the-food-web pecies are crucial bio-indicators. Their presence is an indicator of a healthy eco-system, while their absence could indicate a serious pollution or other environmental problem eg a chronically overfished ocean.
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
(4) WHY IS IT WRONG THAT THE JAPANESE HUNT WHALES FOR CULTURAL REASONS?
Japan does indeed have a long history of whaling. The oldest records date back to the eighth century when Emperor Jimmu was fed whale meat and the villages used whale oil in their lanterns. The numbers of whales killed is disputed, however all sources agree it was no more than 10 whales a year per major coastal town. Food was scarce and the oil provided a valuable means for lighting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/world/asia/14whaling.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin
However, It was a long time later, after World War 2 when whale meat became a large part of the majority populations diet. Again, food was extremely scarce and the people were poor. Whale meat was a cheap source of protein and it was critical to harvest it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Japan
Japans whale consumption peaked in 1962 when 226, 000 tons were harvested. In 1985 (a year before the global ban on whaling), Japan only harvested 15, 000 tons as many Japanese citizens were beginning to shun whale meat for better food options.
While Japan does have a “history” of whaling dating back many centuries, the initial “cultural” need is no longer there. Japan is one of the world’s riches, powerful and technologically advanced nations around today. No longer is there that critical need to obtain whale oil to light their night lamps and lanterns. No longer are Japanese citizens starving to death because of food shortages like there was after World War 2.
Japan cannot be allowed to claim “Cultural” reasons, when less than 1% of the population eat whale meat and when they are hunting these remarkable creatures thousands of miles from their coastal villages where the initial whaling took place.
http://climateofourfuture.org/fearing-us-reaction-japanese-whaling-fleet-hides-in-port/
Japan has close to 4,000 tons of whale meat from its “scientific” whaling program in cold storage - uneaten, unsold, and unwanted ~ !!!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
(5) HOW CAN IT BE “ILLEGAL”, JAPAN DOESNT RECOGNISE AUSTRALIA’S ANTARCTIC CLAIM?
Australia has indeed laid perfectly valid Antarctic claims on the area in question. The treaty was open for signatures in 1959, so the claims are not “NEW” and were around way before Japan started whaling in the Southern Ocean. Australia’s claims are justified by the Australian & British explorers who mapped the Antarctic ice shelf in the early 1900’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Antarctic_Territory
Japan would be indulging in hypocrisy to not recognise these claims. Japan has its own disputes with South Korea over the Liancourt Rocks (a small cluster of islands between Japan & Sth Korea), yet Japan heavily defends these islands using their coastguard and Navy.
Put all that aside, Japan is still breaking 5 INTERNATIONAL treaties by whaling in the Southern Ocean.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) hired 3 international panels of independent legal experts who all ruled Japan to be in breach of the following International treaties and laws;
- United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,
- United Nations Charter on Nature,
- The Antarctic Treaty System,
- The Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES) and
- The International Convention on the Regulation of
Whaling
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=223096
http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20071114/14nov20071142.html
* Reply to Your Post
* Delete Post
Post #2
You replied to your poston Feb 12, 2008 at 5:50 AM
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
(6) IT’S NOT JUST THE MEAT. THE JAPANESE ALSO OBTAIN VALUABLE OIL FROM THE WHALES.
Whale oil is the oil obtained from the blubber of various species of whales, particularly the three species of Right Whale and the Bowhead Whale (None of which are on Japan’s hunt list in the Southern Ocean) prior to the modern era, as well as several other species of baleen whale (like the Minke whale which Japan does hunt).
The first principal use of whale oil was as an illuminant in lamps and as candle wax. Whale oil later came to be used in oiling wools for combing and other uses. It was the first of any animal or mineral oil to achieve commercial viability. It was also used to heal soldiers’ wounds in war.
However, with the 1986 International Whaling Commission (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling, whale oil has all but ceased to be viable, as substitutes have been found for all of the original uses of whale oil, most notably jojoba oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_oil
Today almost any whale product may be replaced by an equivalent which does not involve killing animals. In previous centuries there was much less choice, and whale products were highly valued for their oil.
It is indeed true, the oil of the sperm whale is the essential ingredient needed to make a uranium bomb. No synthetic oil can do the job. However, (A) sperm whales aren’t being hunted and (B) Who needs Nuclear weapons? The Japanese should be the first to say no to Nuclear weapons.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/trek/4wd/nukes_diffs.htm
Clearly, there is no longer a need for whale products like there was up until the 20th century.
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
(7) JAPAN CLAIMS THE WHALES ARE KILLED HUMANELY AND QUICKLY. ARE THEY NOT?
Experience has shown that it is very difficult to kill a whale at sea humanely; that is, by causing minimum pain or instantaneous death.
Whales are killed at sea, using explosive harpoons, which puncture the skin of a whale and then explode inside its body. For the smaller Minke whales, it is true some experience deaths within 5minutes, but this is rare and often pure luck. Unfortunately, this is not the case for ALL whales though. Pending their size, it can take up to 1 hr for the animal to finally succumb to death.
http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/what_are_the_issues/whaling/
It has been documented that of all whales hunted by the Japanese in Antarctica, 60 percent of them do not die instantaneously.
After the whale is pulled towards the vessel it is secured. If it is still alive, it will need to be harpooned again or shot with a high powered rifle to kill it.
It may take more than one hour to die, in what appears to be extreme pain.
Harpooned whales may escape capture, because the harpoon failed to stick, pulled out, or because the line broke. These whales may suffer over several hours or days, before dying of their injuries.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentPage.aspx?id=43890
In March 2003, Whalewatch, an umbrella group of 140 conservation and animal welfare groups from 55 countries published a report, “Troubled Waters”, whose main conclusion was that whales cannot be guaranteed to be killed humanely and that all whaling should be stopped. They quoted figures that said 20% of Norwegian and 60% of Japanese-killed whales failed to die as soon as they had been harpooned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Method_of_killing
Please watch this video of the recent Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean. The footage was shot by the Australian Customs chartered ship Oceanic Viking.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080207-whaling-video-ap.html
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
(8) WHALING IS A PROFITIBLE INDUSTRY IN JAPAN. ARE YOU OUT TO CRASH THIS INDUSTRY?
Whaling is hardly a profitable industry. Japan has close to 4,000 tons of whale meat from its ’scientific’ whaling programme in cold storage - uneaten, unsold, and unwanted.
http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/news/fearing-us-reaction-japanese
It is estimated in late October 2006. Japan’s whaling industry is worth about 6 million dollars, Iceland’s is about 20 million dollars, and Norway’s is 75 million dollars as more people consume the meat in the latter countries than they do in Japan. The Japanese government gives the fisheries department $10 US million dollars a year to subsidise the whale industry.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:5kMIG1Hm6GUJ:www.abc.net.au/tv/btn/stories/s1776750.htm+japan%27s+whaling+industry+worth&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=au
Because of the bursting whale-meat inventories, Japan is trying to introduce surpluses to school children under School lunchtime programs. Many of these children don’t like the taste and would prefer their contemporary sushi rolls.
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=68591023407
What is a profitable industry is the Whale watching industry.
Whale watching is primarily a commercial activity estimated to be worth up to US $1billion per annum worldwide to whale watching operations and their local communities.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E1DE1030F93AA3575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
In Australia alone, the whale watching businesses draw over 1.5million people annually, pumping an estimated $225 US million dollars into the Australian Economy.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Japan_whalers_off_to_hunt_humpbacks_expedition_chief_999.html
The whale watching industry argue that whaling kills “friendly” whales that are curious about boats, as these whales are the easiest to catch. This analysis claims that once the economic benefits of hotels, restaurants and other tourist amenities are considered, hunting whales is a net economic loss.
The facts and figures make it clear, whale watching is a growing billion-dollar industry that provides more revenue and more equitable distribution of profits than commercial whaling.
Peru, Uruguay, Australia, and New Zealand also support proposals to permanently forbid whaling south of the Equator, as Indonesia is the only country in the Southern Hemisphere with a whaling industry.
http://www.ecozine.co.uk/Whaling1.htm
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
(9) WHALES EAT UP TO 1 Tonne OF FISH PER DAY. WHY SHOULDN’T WE KILL THEM?
This is just the stupidest argument I have ever heard. Really, one would think the answer is common-sense, but apparently it isn’t. The argument has been put forward countless of times by both Japanese government officials and pro-whalers from around the world.
Yes, whales eat up to 1 ton of fish per day, however seafood - per capita consumption in Japan is some 80 kilograms, among the highest in the world. The Japanese are relentless in their fishing, showing little regard for the world as they continue to break many international treaties.
To argue whales are depleting the world’s fish resources is idiotic and deviant on the entire issue. The only reason the Japanese throw this argument out there is to deflect attention from their fishing industries.
It is a blatant facade.
It’s about Japan being petrified of the western world enforcing fishing quotas on their fishing industry (or worse, documenting their catches) to stop the pillage of the oceans fish stocks.
The United Nations estimates Japan eats 30 per cent of the world’s fresh fish, about 80 kilograms a year for every man, woman and child, compared to just 18 kilograms in Australia.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/japan/something-fishy-at-dawn/2008/01/24/1201025079076.html?page=2
They have effectively turned whales into scapegoats on the whole issue in order to delay the inevitable world forum on their fishing practises.
They want to avoid topics such as Blue fin tuna at all costs. The whaling industry is nothing but symbolic of this resistance by Japan. Some have called it a “smoke & mirrors show”.
Japans highly decentralized government accords significant power to the ministry of fishing, which in turn has the power to greatly influence national policy. It is here, they have decided; maintaining sovereign control over their fishing industry is of vital importance and the number 1 goal of “future Japan”. The lies are created and the propaganda is fed to their own population.
They have their backs to the wall and they will use every card trick up their sleeves to get out of Jail.
Their best trick is to claim:
Anyone who interferes with Japanese research whaling is a racist and an enemy of science!
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/illegal-fishing-hits-tuna-stocks/2005/10/09/1128796409792.html
The world isn’t stupid. It is clear and widely known Japan has a massive fishing industry that has done damage to many different parts of the world’s oceans. One, only needs to use commonsense, to answer this argument.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/EF28Dh03.html
Gunnar, what is there to understand about Japanese research? They have not published a single scientific paper that has been peer reviewed. Where is the research? Where? I never said I did or did not understand the research whaling programes, you just made that assumption. But if I did say I didn’t understand, who would be surprised seeing as there is no research!
What I did say is they still claim it’s “science” and have ‘research’ written on their vessels (re-read if you’re confused) - that is all and that is factual.
The fact that you imply you DO understand whaling and the alleged research just confirms in my mind that you are in fact a tool of the cetacean fake research institute and not a very successful one given that it is stark ravingly obvious.
Japanese or otherwise you are still just a mouthpiece.
Oh, seeing as we’re sharing what we’re eating now, just like to say I’m half way through a sandwich.
buzz, the research is on the IWC homepage. Researchers from various places (including Australia, even) submit papers to the IWC’s Scientific Committee using data obtained via Japan’s research whaling.
So you can shoot the messenger all you like, all you are doing is reconfirming in the mind of a whale eater that people like you are just crazy.
If this is the best you can do I guarantee you that we’ll be eating whales still by the time you’ve left this earth.
No interest at all in a serious discussion of this?
Gunnar, do you realise what exactly you have been saying to me here. You’ve said you will not stop eating toxic meat until Australians respect your right to “exist” and “live”.
That doesn’t make you a martyr. It makes you childish and an easily manipulated person with low self esteem, totally dependant on the opinions of others for self worth and I can’t make fun of that.
Have you honestly stopped yourself and thought about what you’re trying to say, what you hope to achieve, and how exactly this situation works in your favour?
Neither outcome has you looking good. It’s crazy person talk.
Gunnar, how stupid do you think we are??
Everybody knows Japan contributes weak, poor quality, uninformed, unimportant information on whales just to waste people’s time and in order to try to deflect attention. And you’re trying to defend this? Puh-lease!
I can find HEAPS of information about how useless Japan has been in this regard, here is one of many (hey, I’ll find more if you’re not satisfied) :
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/06/20/1395923.htm
QUOTE: “But scientists say Japan’s research is sketchy or spurious and tainted by conflict of interest. This is because whale meat supposedly caught for scientific ends is sold on the market, an income estimated at between US$38 million and US$50 million dollars a year”.
and:
QUOTE: “Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research has indeed cranked out reams of papers under Article VIII, but experts say the work is of negligible value. The studies especially sidestep the IWC’s key questions: how many whales constitute a safe level for sustainable hunting and how should whaling be managed?”
And just incase you still need more, here’s a quote about Japan’s “research” from respected, Associate Professor Scott Baker of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and Dr Phillip Clapham of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts who trawled through more than 150 publications by Japan’s scientific whaling program. They found that just a single study dealt with the IWC’s assessment needs and was published in an international peer-reviewed journal.
“There’s been a large amount of documents produced [by the Japanese] that have been submitted to the IWC’s scientific committee. Most of these have been of general descriptive material and not directly related to management of whaling or whale populations”
And here’s the clincher:
“It’s pretty clear why it’s done; it’s the only legal means for going whaling”
Exactly.
buzz, I believe the meat I eat isn’t toxic. And this isn’t just wishful thinking.
The problem we whale eaters have with talking to you people is that you’re full to the brim with propaganda. You must have been fed this stuff from birth.
You complain that whales are endangered. We know that there are healthy stocks of whales, and that those are the ones we eat.
You complain that the killing method is cruel. We know that there isn’t a single Australian who would prefer to be reborn as a farmed cow than a free ranging whale.
You tell us that the meat we eat is toxic. We are the ones who have the meat and do the toxicity tests on it to know.
It goes on and on, round in circles, and we are now very close to the point where we are going to give up trying. The only reason we haven’t is because the Japanese government hasn’t quit the IWC yet.
Of course, we’re ignoring the real problem here - the Government’s whale envoy.
The ALP announced they would appoint a special whale envoy a few weeks back, and yet we haven’t heard a peep (or a whale song) about it since.
I do hope this whale envoy speaks whale fluently. I know, I know, the common language of the sea is porpoise, but we must appreciate the complexities of ocean politics.
Nevertheless, a whale envoy does seem like a good idea, and it has the backing of several groups.
A spokesperson for Bio-security of Large Underwater Beings Belonging to Earth and Region (BLUBBER) said:
“AOOOOEEAEAEAEOAEOAOOOEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAARRRRRRRR!”
Sorry, but the conversation here was getting a little too heated. A little humour people, that’s all.
buzz, I don’t care much whether you want to believe Japan’s research is useless or not, it’s for us whale eaters that the data is useful. Nonetheless if you were serious you’d check out the IWC homepage rather than basing your opinions on what you read in the (un?)biased Australian mass media.
Your propaganda about research whaling is also just another excuse you people wheel out to avoid having to answering questions about what’s wrong with eating whales, and why Australia remains a member of the International Whaling Commission when it is opposed to whaling and the terms of the agreement.
Harvey, thanks. I am looking forward to Australia’s whale envoy telling me why I shouldn’t eat whales any more. I have a tasty whale steak recipe which I would like the envoy to try while we have a discussion. I presume we will have a discussion with the whale envoy, rather than a one-way lecture!
Hi Gunnar, how is work at the Cetacean fake research institute treating you today? Spreading lots of dissinformation and lies? Earning your money?
Honestly your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. You try to say that they do important research, when I prove you wrong you say “It’s not important anyway and it’s not the point”
Don’t start games you can’t finish. And you can’t finish them because you are in the wrong and you can’t back up your assertions - and you lie repeatedly.
I didn’t just take examples from the media Gunnar, I am a librarian, I KNOW how to find legit information. I deliberately quoted scientists and professors, who know more about the subject than you or I. And what makes you think I didn’t check the IWC site? There you go with your assumptions again.
Australia remains a member of the IWC to ensure Japan doesn’t get the numbers in votes. Unlike Japan, Australia doesn’t give massive amounts of aid to countries like Fiji and pacific island nations to ensure numbers in their wicked schemes.
For a nation that is supposed to have a lot of honor, you do nothing to uphold it.
buzz, As you didn’t get it already, a “proof” is not posting a link from the Australian mass media - you’d be hard pressed to find a more biased source. The IWC homepage has various papers full of research based on data obtained by the Japanese. Of course it is for us whale eaters, rather than people like you. People like you would love this data to not exist, as then you’d be saying “oh but we don’t know anything about whales”. Speak for yourself wishfully, but not us.
“Australia remains a member of the IWC to ensure Japan doesn’t get the numbers in votes.”
Glad you want to talk about this. So, agree to an agreement, and then do everything you can to undermine it… nice. What you and your government don’t appear to realise is that the IWC is an international organization for coooperation to meet a common goal. The Japanese government is so foolishly patient in believing that Australia is acting in good faith there, but even their patience has now started to wear very thin. What you Aussies don’t realise is that you can not “win”. We will continue to eat whales. You can’t stop it. We will accept your input into how many whales can be safely eaten, but stop it you can not. Our goal is to eat whales, forever. You either contribute, or you don’t. As such, it’s looking likely that we’ll be talking about our catch quotas in a different forum in the not so distant future. A hassle you are causing us, but whales taste too good to give up because a bunch of crazies who have no clue about how we live our lives.
Funny a librarian brings Fiji into the IWC discussion. Why don’t you check whether Fiji is actually an IWC member or not, first? That info is on the IWC homepage too. And you want me to believe you checked it? Why do bring this up anyway? Another excuse to throw at me to avoid answering tough questions! All your propaganda, and yet I still have no reason why I shouldn’t eat my next whale steak.
For those that are interested, below is a part of the transcript from Senate Estimates in the Environment, Communications & the Arts for Wednesday 28th May 2008.
———-
Senator SIEWERT—I would like to first ask some budget questions before asking more detailed questions. This is from the portfolio budget statements on page 53. I understand that there has been an increase in revenue for both Antarctic policy and Antarctic science, and that part of that revenue increase is from a memorandum of understanding with the Japanese government for the resupply of their Antarctic station. Could you tell me what the funding level is, what is being done, and has this occurred in the past?
Ms Mudie—We have a collaborative arrangement with the Japanese to undertake some work on their behalf to resupply their Antarctic station and, for that resupply, we are obtaining revenue from them.
Senator SIEWERT—What do you resupply?
Ms Mudie—It is a matter of resupplying their Antarctic station, so it is all manner of equipment supplies for their Antarctic station.
Senator SIEWERT—Could you tell me how much that revenue is?
Ms Mudie—Depending on the length of the voyage, it would be between $9 million and $10 million.
Senator SIEWERT—Over the 12 months?
Ms Mudie—Over 12 months.
Senator SIEWERT—Is this a longstanding arrangement? I noticed that it was not in the estimated actual for last year.
Ms Mudie—No, it is not a longstanding arrangement. The Japanese do not have a vessel to resupply. They are rebuilding a vessel for their own Antarctic program and we are supplying our vessel for them.
Senator SIEWERT—In other words, this is the first year that it has been undertaken?
Ms Mudie—That is correct.
Senator SIEWERT—When was this negotiated?
Ms Mudie—It is still under negotiation. We have yet to finalise the MOU.
Senator SIEWERT—So that has been negotiated while we have ships surveilling their Japanese whaling operation?
Ms Mudie—That is a different issue. The Aurora Australis is an Antarctic vessel which we use for resupply.
Senator SIEWERT—Yes, I appreciate that it is a different issue. But the point is that, on the one hand, we are sending envoys to Japan, and this summer we had the Oceanic Viking in the Southern Ocean and we made very strong statements about whaling; on the other hand—and it may have been publicly available but I do not think much notice was taken of it—the Australian government at the same time was negotiating with Japan to resupply their Antarctic base.
Ms Mudie—We have a very close relationship with Japan in terms of science that we undertake and we have a collaborative arrangement in terms of logistical support as well, where possible.
Senator SIEWERT—So it is still under negotiation. I want to come back to the science issue in a minute. Could you tell me when the negotiations were started?
Ms Mudie—I would have to take that on notice.
Senator SIEWERT—But that is still under negotiation?
Ms Mudie—That is correct.
Senator SIEWERT—When you say between $9 million and $10 million, that is then broken down, is it? It appears from the budget statement that some is to be allocated to Antarctic policy and some allocated to science. Is that a decision made by the department or something that is being negotiated with Japan?
Ms Mudie—It actually achieves both objectives from a policy perspective, as well as resupply and operational issues.
Senator SIEWERT—What is the basis for the allocation? Is it an agreement with Japan?
Ms Mudie—It is an agreement with Japan.
Senator SIEWERT—Japan are saying, ‘We want you to allocate some of this money that we’re paying you to policy and some to science’?
Ms Mudie—No. That is how we allocate it, but the actual dollar figure is for the hire of the vessel.
Senator SIEWERT—The dollar figure is for the hire of the Aurora Australis. Just for this year?
Ms Mudie—That is correct.
Senator SIEWERT—It is not an ongoing arrangement?
Ms Mudie—No, it is not.
Senator SIEWERT—Do I understand from the comment you made earlier that in the past they had a vessel, that they no longer have a vessel, and that is why Australia is negotiating?
Ms Mudie—That is correct.
Senator SIEWERT—This figure, therefore, will not be there into the future. So, while the funding is being boosted into Antarctic policy and science for this financial year, that is a one-off boost?
Ms Mudie—That is correct.
Senator SIEWERT—Could you tell me, therefore, what that money has been specifically used for in those programs, and has that been negotiated with Japan?
Ms Mudie—I would have to take that on notice.
Senator SIEWERT—You do not know—
Ms Mudie—Off the top of my head, no.
Senator SIEWERT—if there has been an agreement with Japan about what will be studied with that
money?
Ms Mudie—No. It is still under negotiation. I am happy to provide the information we can on notice.
Senator SIEWERT—Is the contract amount under negotiation or is what the money is to be used for under negotiation?
Ms Mudie—The whole arrangement is under negotiation at this stage.
Senator SIEWERT—So Japan gets a say over how the money that they are paying Australia for the hire of our vessel will be used?
Ms Mudie—That is correct. That is the negotiation.
Senator SIEWERT—Why is that? If they are hiring our vessel, why do they get a say in what the money will be spent on?
Senator Wong—Senator Siewert, I understand Ms Mudie’s evidence is that these are matters which are currently the subject of negotiation between Australia and Japan. I suppose what she is flagging, in terms of taking it on notice, is that there is a limit on how far she can respond, given that those negotiations under that arrangement are still pending. I appreciate you are entitled to put your views about the appropriateness of anything in relation to such an arrangement, but I think the officer at the table can only proceed so far, given that those negotiations are still under way.
Senator SIEWERT—I do take the point. In terms of the detail of the negotiations, I understand the issues around sensitivity. However, I do not see why there is an issue about whether Japan has the ability to negotiate how Australia spends its money on science when it is paying us. As I understand it, Japan is paying us for a service and, as I understood your answer—and I may be incorrect, so please tell me—there is then negotiation about how that money will be spent on science.
Ms Mudie—No, on the use of the vessel. They may utilise the vessel at some point in that resupply for some science that they may wish to do.
Senator SIEWERT—Sorry, I misunderstood. It was not clear from what you said. I understood that the vessel was purely being used for resupply, but is it also being used for science?
Ms Mudie—It could be that on the resupply voyage they may undertake some science at the same time. It is possible to do that, in terms of marine science.
Senator SIEWERT—Would it be safe to assume that that science will not involve anything to do with scientific whaling?
Ms Mudie—I think that would be a safe assumption.
Senator SIEWERT—Am I guaranteed that?
Ms Mudie—Until we complete the negotiation, it is difficult to answer that.
Senator SIEWERT—What sort of science would—
Ms Mudie—It would be consistent with government policy.
Senator SIEWERT—I would have thought it was inconsistent. I will not go there. What safeguards are being put in place to ensure that nothing associated with whaling will be carried out by an Australian vessel?
Mr Borthwick—I do not know the details of this particular contract, but there would be nothing that would be undertaken with this Australian vessel which would in any way relate to enhancing Japanese scientific whaling efforts—absolutely not—but the Antarctic Division for a long time has had a cooperative scientific relationship on a whole host of Antarctic science with Japan. But there will be nothing that will serve to enhance Japan’s scientific whaling.
Senator SIEWERT—I understand your reassurance, but I am looking for what we have written into the contract and how the Australian community can be absolutely assured that nothing on those voyages will be used to contribute to any of the science they are doing around whaling.
Mr Borthwick—Why I hesitate is that we do, through the International Whaling Commission—and this is a separate issue from the Antarctic Division—undertake joint scientific assessments which can look to nonlethal science in terms of whales. That is quite separate from this particular vessel. It is not as if we are not looking at whaling issues through the auspices of the International Whaling Commission on whales, but this particular vessel is not connected with that in any way.
Senator SIEWERT—I am fully aware of the cooperative research that is done internationally, but the point is that that still contributes to their understanding of whale populations, which is then used to justify their stance in the IWC to enable them to take whales.
Mr Borthwick—But not, as I understand it, in terms of Aurora Australis. That is not connected in any way with that.
Senator SIEWERT—I want to know how the government is going to guarantee that none of that information is going to contribute to anything to do with whaling.
Mr Borthwick—The government would not allow that to happen. It just would not allow that to happen.
Senator SIEWERT—How? Is that currently being included in discussions and negotiations?
Mr Borthwick—No, it is not pertinent to the discussions.
Senator SIEWERT—Why is it not pertinent when they are carrying out science?
Senator Wong—No, you are at cross-purposes. I think Mr Borthwick was saying that those issues are not pertinent to these arrangements.
Mr Borthwick—Yes.
Senator SIEWERT—No, I did understand what Mr Borthwick was saying.
Mr Borthwick—It is a difficult thing because Australia, in terms of broad Antarctic science, cooperates very closely with Japan, and has for a number of years, as do other areas of government cooperate with Japan, but on one issue we fundamentally disagree with them, and that is on lethal scientific research when it comes to whaling, and we would do absolutely nothing to cooperate with them on that front.
Senator SIEWERT—I understand the point, and I have been reassured that—
Mr Borthwick—We will make sure that there is nothing in terms of this contractual arrangement which will enhance or indirectly contribute to lethal so-called scientific research on whales.
Senator SIEWERT—What I want to know, then, is the type of research that will be carried out, because the other scientific research does contribute to their lethal scientific research and it does contribute to the evidence that they take to the IWC.
Mr Borthwick—Ms Mudie will be able, if she does not have it now, to give you more generally a rundown of the scientific research we have been undertaking with Japan and the cooperative relationships with Antarctic that we have had for quite some time, just to give you the context of it. In terms these specific moneys, some of those moneys, as you can see, will be departmental—that is, they will go to fund the ship and the crew and all those other things—and some of these moneys will just go into our general bucket, so to speak, to enable the division to undertake scientific research completely unconnected with this particular voyage.
The science, as I understand it, that we might be undertaking with Japan would be incidental science and it is of a kind, from what Ms Mudie said, that we undertake all the time. When we undertake voyages to our bases, we try and undertake science in terms of testing ocean currents and biomass et cetera.
Senator SIEWERT—I understand that.
Senator Wong—Can I make it clear that the government has a very clear and strong position on whaling and will not enable government resources to be utilised by any other government, including in the context of these discussions, in a manner inconsistent with that policy. Secretary Borthwick has made that clear and I have now made that clear.
Senator SIEWERT—One of my colleagues here is asking, ‘What are the safeguards?’ and that is the point I am trying to get to. I appreciate that it is non-lethal research, but there is non-lethal research that contributes to the Japanese argument on taking whales. Does your assurance, Minister, go to that point as well?
Senator Wong—I am advised yes.
Ms Mudie—Yes, it does.
Senator SIEWERT—And it will be written into the contract?
Ms Mudie—Absolutely.
Senator SIEWERT—And you will be scrutinising it?
Ms Mudie—It is an MOU.
Senator Wong—The arrangements will take account of or reflect the policy position that I have just outlined to you.
Senator SIEWERT—Will Australia be in a position to oversee the research or look at the research projects to ensure that?
Senator Wong—That goes to how. Those are matters for negotiation, but the advice I have is that the arrangements will reflect the policy position I have outlined.
Ms Mudie—It is primarily a resupply voyage. That is the function of the voyage.
Senator SIEWERT—Yes, I appreciate that, but you did say they would be undertaking science.
Ms Mudie—I said that they could be. That is up for negotiation. But it would not be addressing the whaling issue; it would be a separate issue.
Senator SIEWERT—Will it be written into the MOU that there will be a process whereby Australia can be assured that none of the research is targeted at supporting the Japanese argument for whaling?
Ms Mudie—We would assure that.
Senator SIEWERT—Will the MOU be able to be tabled as a public document?
Senator Wong—That will be a decision for government after the conclusion of the MOU.
Senator SIEWERT—You can guarantee that I will be back here next time asking for the MOU.
Senator Wong—I gathered that, Senator Siewert, and I am sure that Ms Mudie and Secretary Borthwick will ensure that at least we come prepared for that question.
Dear Tim,
I don’t really understand the concern. Science has nothing to do with Australian opposition to whaling.
For example, it’s known that there are enough minke whales in the Antarctic for some non-zero number to be taken on a sustainable basis. Even some “bloke” named Flannery has said so hasn’t he. Big deal, that doesn’t stop Australia from opposing whaling anyway, people just fall back to some other excuse like, “whales are magnificient wonderful creatures that don’t deserve to be eaten”, and so on.
So if Japan wants to pay you guys money to borrow a boat, you should be happy for the cash. Take it and run.
If it’s not wanting to be a part of anything the Japanese are doing in relation to whaling, then hey, look guys you are adhered to the international agreement that gives legitmacy to everything the world’s major whaling nations are doing today. Although as buzz pointed out, that’s all just about making a nuisance of yourselves to try and stop us eating whales. You should surely be calling for Australia to quit the IWC, or officially denounce the parts of the ICRW agreement that Australia objects to.
While Gunnar merrily discusses his “tasty” whale meat recipes, brandishing the words around like “whale meat is no big deal and normal, I wish to share how he and his co-workers and the cetacean Fake research institute butcher the most gentle and intelligent creatures of the sea:
Be warned – this is horrific. This is actual Japanese footage (filmed as they thought it would be good PR – seriously, not kidding!!) as described by the author, Peter Heller, in his book ‘The Whale Warriors’ page 271.
‘the camera focused on a whale in the rear of the pack. Good size. The harpooner focused on her too. Fire. Miss. Fire. Next shot hits her in the flank. Explosion and fountain of blood. Whale thrashing, screaming whale reeled in, gushing blood, turning the sea red. Hauled to side. Still convulsing, hemorrhaging everywhere. Another spear, a probe on a long pole with cable attached thrust into her side. Whale writhing. Big generator on deck blaring. Electrocution current now coursing through the new spear. Whale in bloody agony. Not even close to dead. Finally hauled tail up, suspended so they can hold her breathing hole under water. She drowns after 15 minutes in a sea of her own blood. A hard-hatted crew stepping forward with the long flensing knives and slicing whale open. The three foot long foetus removed still alive.
He is sick.
He is part of the problem.
Treat him with the contempt and ridicule he and his co-workers deserve and don’t believe his lies.
Be part of the solution and give generously to Sea Shepherd.
buzz, That is horrific, albeit thoroughly sensationalized. No one is electrocuting whales, and the whales that I eat aren’t speared, they are shot with explosive harpoons designed to render the animal unconscious instantaneously when used correctly. In the cases where this fails we shoot the whale with a high-powered rifle.
No kill is pretty, but whaling is almost nothing compared to what happens to the millions of animals that are slaughtered in Australia every year. Not tens or hundreds or even thousands, but millions of them.
So long as we are eating whales, we will always be morally superior to Australians. This is our view. However you are welcome to live they way you live, if you are comfortable with it. We are humble people, and tolerate your difference of views, even if internally we are disgusted by your hypocrisy. It speaks of the level of Australia that you do not afford us the same tolerance, arrogantly presuming that you are better.
I doubt a foetus would still be alive after it’s mother had been caught and hauled in either, but for comparitive purposes look what the Australian government recommends as “humane” regarding baby kangaroos:
“Where euthanasia is carried out using a blow to the head, the blow must be delivered with force sufficient to crush the skull and destroy the brain. The blow should be delivered with a solid steel bar or 25 mm diameter galvanised steel water pipe. Alternatively for small pouch young the blow may be achieved by forcefully swinging the head of the young against a solid metal object (e.g. tow bar of a vehicle). The operator must confirm that there has been massive and deadly damage to the head.”
How many joeys are missed? And for those that aren’t, how terrified must they be when swung through the air at a “solid metal object”?
And Australians think whaling is barbaric.
zoe-lee
>you think paul watson being shot wasnt real watch the video >footage they got on camera.
Do you mean the one he showed some crashed lead and says ‘My eco-warrior pendant saved my life, mate!’
Good story for Oz media.
I heard that he made this story to cover up his embarrassed photo - Watson ran away like coward sheep from a flash grenade.
http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea-img60.htm
To all of you who are trying to win the argument: For God’s sake killing any animal is horrendous! No matter if it is a whale or a bird! Just the act of taking a life from any living creature is horrible. Homo sapiens have evolved by eating animal flesh, but that does not mean we humans have to continue. We have evolved in a way that it is no longer required to do so. So why are we still eating animal flesh? Because we cannot get rid of our habits!! No matter if they are harming the Earth. That’s says something about human intelligence. Does anyone out there ever thought about spiritual evolution? And no I am not a religious person for you who are wondering, just someone who thinks outside of the square.
Gunnar, you are right! Whaling is barbaric so is the way Australians kill baby kangaroos. The majority of Australians I feel are not aware of this massacre. There is no justification to use violence on any animal. The way out of this is just simply to forcefully protest, protest and protest, boycott, write letters, do some form of action..ANYTHING but silence! Humans are soooo catatonic about important issues. I guess we are doomed as a specie.
One more thing Gunnar. No one is superior to anyone else on this planet. I think we all should stick to basic morals. One of which is do not use violence that causes harm to another living creature. I am sure we can all survive by not eating animal flesh. Let’s put our taste buds aside and think of the grater good. Besides, vegies, nuts, legumes, fruits, eggs and cheese are a good source of nutrition for a developed human being. It is just a matter of getting used to the new diet. It is not bad at all, quite at the contrary. We are too much self absorbed homo sapiens. When we will understand that, we have made a step further on the scale of human evolution.
Gaia, Thank you for your cordial comments.
I also envy you in that you have alternatives to eating meat, hence not needing to kill animals to have food to survive.
The same is not true of us whale eaters. Much of the food we eat comes from the sea because of a lack of land suitable for growing vegetables or grazing farm animals. Why don’t you come and visit a whaling town sometime. Or if that’s not possible, do a search on the internet for some photos of the place that we and our ancestors call home. Vegies, nuts, legumes, fruits, eggs and cheese are not so easy to come by in all parts of the world.
Our history and our environment has led us to develop in different ways to you. And our development continues today, just as does yours.
Hi Gunnar,
I will do the search on internet. Where do you live? In your town are there supermarkets where eggs, legumes, etc, are sold, perhaps imported? I understand your point of view, but that does not apply to some countries such as Japan. It may sound a bit not practical at first, but growing some vegetables with hydroponic technology may be an alternative? If there were any alternatives, would you stop eating whale meat?
I think that we all have developed more or less in the same way and that is by eating animal flesh. I wonder if each one of us, in order to eat meat, would have the courage to kill the animal ourselves. It is far too easy to find animal flesh already packed ready to be cooked. People become desensitised.
What I do not condone is the violence we humans inflicts on animals in order to eat them or use them in any way we think fit. That is very wrong….here is an example, if for argument sake, on earth there were no longer any animal species, but only humans, would anyone kill another human being in order to eat animal flesh? And if so, how would someone go about killing another person “humanely”? What I am trying to say is that we are no different from any other animal species. We are part of the animal kingdom. Therefore we should have the same consideration towards another animal species when it comes to killing them for human consumption.
I am afraid that we have come to lose respect towards our planet, which IS our home, whether we like it or not. Evolution should count for something!
For all the doubters,
Paul Watson was injured by the TERRORIST attack by the Japanese. There was independent videomakers on the boat and their footage will be released in a program in September!
And for those calling the Sea Shepherd organisation terrorists should study law! They have never hurt any person and thus can’t be labelled as terrorists.
Go and eat another burger, you savages ;)
Dear Gunnar,
I don’t care what you NEED to eat. Whaling is illegal and if your people don’t stop it themselves, others are forced to make you understand the laws and follow them.
Kind regards
Way to go STV…it is true Paul Watson WAS SHOT AT! Whether we like him or not, he is an amazing man. Someone who has dedicated his entire life to safeguard the oceans and who always stepped out of his confort zone to do battle for the greater good. How many of you can say that of your life?
Instead of criticizing him why don’t the lot of you learn from him? Remember that alternatives to whaling, seal hunting, sharkfin, do exist…where there is a will there is way. IT TAKES COURAGE AND SACRIFICE TO CHANGE OUR ATTITUDES AND HABITS..but it can be done.
Wishing to all of us the courage to evolve.
Hi STV:
>Paul Watson was injured by the TERRORIST attack by the Japanese.
Who do you mean the TERRORIST? Whalers or Japanese coast guard? I don’t think both of them are terrorist anyway…
>There was independent videomakers on the boat and their footage will be released in a program in September!
That’s interesting! But why September..? it’s so late.. Don’t they wanna use the footage to put more pressure to Japan before IWC in July? Or will it be the last push to collect $ (AUS$)before they go to the Southern Ocean again?
>And for those calling the Sea Shepherd organisation terrorists should study law! They have never hurt any person and thus can’t be labelled as terrorists.
Of course SS is not terrorist. Terrorists are very serious about acheving their objectives. But SS is not. SS is keen to save 5 whales in front of them but they don’t actualy have long term strategy to end Japanese whaling and save 100 or 1000 of whales.
After SS sank whaling ships, whalers bought better ship than before with insurance. This shows the fact they have no strategy…sad
GAIA:
>Way to go STV…it is true Paul Watson WAS SHOT AT!
Didi you see it? Ask one of the crew onboard seriously…
>Whether we like him or not, he is an amazing man. Someone who has dedicated his entire life to safeguard the oceans and who always stepped out of his confort zone to do battle for the greater good. How many of you can say that of your life?
That’s true. That’s why I’d like him to use his power to fight with whalers seriously… not just playing…
>Instead of criticizing him why don’t the lot of you learn from him?
What can we learn from him?? How to lie??
Akira,
It’s a little sad you are trying to discuss this without knowing facts or without understanding them.
First of, SS is trying to get in discussions with several governments. But very few are willing to talk to them. At least the Dutch are helping them financially and giving them a flag to sail.
Secondly, their plan is better than you think. They are not just playing. It’s been a while since they sunk a ship, and that’s because their plan is working. As soon as the Japs see their boat they stop whaling and try to outrun them and hide. Last trip the Japs didn’t even get half their quota and that means they made a HUGE financial loss. They can’t afford too many trips like that anymore and the government my pull fundings. Higher fuel prices are helping also!
If only Greenpeace wouldn’t be so lame and help SS out as requested, last trip the Japs might have returned without whales. They only time the caught whales was when SS had to return to fuel up.
And the footage being released when it will be released has nothing to do with SS. As I said it’s an independent filmmaker and it will be released when everything is ready, not sooner!
And I talked to someone who was on board and who’s seen the injuries…
If you can quote 1 lie, I’d be impressed, maybe you just can’t handle the truth!?
And you may or may not know, but SS is not allowed to go to ICW! Last time Paul was invited by the Prince of Monaco to go to the reception and the Icelandic, Norwegians and Japs walked out as soon as he walked in… it says much when Norwegians walk out on free booze ;))
Akira, are you a whaler yourself? A Greenpeace activist perhaps? Why are you ready to dismiss the fact that Watson was shot and instead ready to believe the contrary? Do you have proof otherwise? Really, I’m curious! For your iformation in Australia it was reported on the news about Watson been shot. The bullet was also handed over to the Australian customs. How about that!
On one of your comment you mentioned that SS is violent. Ok here is an example for you: if you see someone being brutally killed do you just stand there, watch and profess “peace” or you actually act to stop the violence taking place? You tell me. And for the record, Watson is famous for his strategic tacticts. Who do you think brought awareness of the whales, dolphins, seal pups massacre to the world? True, he was not alone in these campaigns, but by God, he is the only one who has the guts to go out there and fight those idiots who think that the plantet exists for their own personal misuse.
Save 5 whales??? You must be joking. SS has saved hund