Japan admits disaster funds to be used for whaling

RichieC

Well this makes me a little bit angry, didn't our government offer money to help Japan out? afaik it was rejected and thank fk for that... absolute disgrace.

they will be spending an extra 26 million(A$) of Japan relief money on beefing up the security on their (illegal) whaling operations...

Now I'm not a peta or green peace member but there's something about killing whales that galls the skin right off of me..

linkie: http://www.news.com.au/world/japan-confirms-greenpeace-whaling-charge/story-e6frfkyi-1226216712737?sv=dec710e3bdd624baeb28b70e2214b10b


:mad:

Welruc

RichieC wrote: »

they will be spending an extra 26 million(A$) of Japan relief money on beefing up the security on their (illegal) whaling operations...

Its not illegal, and not only Japan, as far as i know whaling is carried out in a number of countries, including the U.S.A., Russia and Norway

biko

CVPL -> AH

Redzer7

I've met some whales in my life, by god they we're huge.
Pity these one's could talk.

RichieC

deuceswild wrote: »

Its not illegal, and not only Japan, as far as i know whaling is carried out in a number of countries, including the U.S.A., Russia and Norway

It is illegal when they hunt in protected waters (Southern Ocean Whaling Sanctuary). which they do.

af_thefragile

It wouldn't matter if whales were reared like cattle and hunting them for food wouldn't have much effect on their numbers.

But unfortunately whales are quickly being hunted out of existence and its always sad when people continue killing endangered animals with little regards that soon it'll become an extinct species unless they stop their ways.

Humans have driven animals to extinction in the past and are still doing it today.

eleven1

RichieC wrote: »

Well this makes me a little bit angry, didn't our government offer money to help Japan out? afaik it was rejected and thank fk for that... absolute disgrace.

they will be spending an extra 26 million(A$) of Japan relief money on beefing up the security on their (illegal) whaling operations...

Now I'm not a peta or green peace member but there's something about killing whales that galls the skin right off of me..

linkie: http://www.news.com.au/world/japan-confirms-greenpeace-whaling-charge/story-e6frfkyi-1226216712737?sv=dec710e3bdd624baeb28b70e2214b10b


:mad:

(posted to wrong forum, can this be moved to AA proper please?)

i agree with you , it is very immoral . they over do it , and even in international waters, which is a breach of international laws and could lead to endangering the specie . and is not the priority here to get the radiation problems fixed first, then eat sushi afterwards .

Ghandee

Where do the Japanese take the dead whales they've caught, to weigh them?

the whale weigh station!

ShooterSF

RichieC wrote: »

It is illegal when they hunt in protected waters (Southern Ocean Whaling Sanctuary). which they do.

My understanding is that they are using the money to beef up security for the hunting they are doing legally that is attacked (illegally) by greenpeace. Stopping them hunting protected waters is something that should be enforced but likewise greenpeace's and the likes attacks on legal whaling should be stopped too.

RichieC

ShooterSF wrote: »

My understanding is that they are using the money to beef up security for the hunting they are doing legally that is attacked (illegally) by greenpeace. Stopping them hunting protected waters is something that should be enforced but likewise greenpeace's and the likes attacks on legal whaling should be stopped too.

with money the world sent after a natural disaster. yep.

More power to Greenpeace I say. hope they find the funding to match the japanese. doubt they will but will no less harry the japanese and annoy them.

zenno

ShooterSF wrote: »

My understanding is that they are using the money to beef up security for the hunting they are doing legally that is attacked (illegally) by greenpeace. Stopping them hunting protected waters is something that should be enforced but likewise greenpeace's and the likes attacks on legal whaling should be stopped too.

they are supposed to be hunting whales for scientific research but we all know this is a cover for illegal whaling. the sea shepherd stopped the nisshin maru whaling fleet last year they will probably stop the whaling again this year.

goose2005

From Herrr's heart I stab at thee!

(sorry)

vicwatson

deuceswild wrote: »

Its not illegal, and not only Japan, as far as i know whaling is carried out in a number of countries, including the U.S.A., Russia and Norway

It is illegal but they get around it by saying the catch is for "scientific purposes" - yet it ends up being sold in restaurants for exhorbitant money.

USA and Russia don't "whale" per se, Japan, Iceland and Norway are the main perpetrators.

daz801

Damn Japs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGepBtBCuTY

Deus Ex Machina

It sounds like a case of *toot toot* nuke them whales!!!

loveisdivine

I just want to point out that it is not Greenpeace that travel to the southern ocean sanctuary to defend the whales. It is Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Greenpeace haven't sent a ship to Antarctica for years. They prefer to sit in offices and email people.

It's a disgrace that aid money is being used for whaling.

Do we learn nothing from the past? We virtually wiped out whales once already, do we really need to do it again?

Japan claims to be using the whales for research, as it is illegal to hunt them for purely commercial purposes.

So far they have reported in this research that whales eat krill/plankton and that you can't breed a whale with a cow.
Some really ground breaking findings I'm sure you'll agree!

Mountainlad

Why did they admit this?

I'm more concerned that they're taking money they need to counteract the disasters that have occurred in the country this year, and wasting it, putting millions of people at risk. It's awful treatment of the people of the country. I would not be happy if I was a Japanese citizen.

zenno

If the money is not going to the people that need it then funding should be stopped immediately.

mrmeindl

never mind

maglite

Aid money isn't being used for whaling. Its being used to fund the coastguard. This money is being put into a stimulus package providing employment to people in the Coastguard, who protect fishermen, which allows them to fish and bring back their catch.

This is then processed and sold locally and internationally which brings money to the coastal areas hit by the tsunami.

I don't see the problem.

Doc Ruby

maglite wrote: »

Aid money isn't being used for whaling. Its being used to fund the coastguard. This money is being put into a stimulus package providing employment to people in the Coastguard, who protect fishermen, which allows them to fish and bring back their catch.

This is then processed and sold locally and internationally which brings money to the coastal areas hit by the tsunami.

Thats all a cover story, they're stepping up the hunt for Godzirra since the earthquake.

*rimshot aaaand crickets

R P McMurphy

ShooterSF wrote: »

My understanding is that they are using the money to beef up security for the hunting they are doing legally that is attacked (illegally) by greenpeace. Stopping them hunting protected waters is something that should be enforced but likewise greenpeace's and the likes attacks on legal whaling should be stopped too.

When exactly was the last time Greenpeace attacked a whaling vessel or are you just full of lies

Mr Benevolent

We kill cod all the time and it's rapidly becoming endangered. There's no difference between killing whales and cod other than a misplaced sense of humanity.

Norwayviking

vicwatson wrote: »

It is illegal but they get around it by saying the catch is for "scientific purposes" - yet it ends up being sold in restaurants for exhorbitant money.

USA and Russia don't "whale" per se, Japan, Iceland and Norway are the main perpetrators.

You dont know much about whaling i take it.:rolleyes:
whats the difference from killing a whale and some cattle:mad:
Because the whale looks more "innocent":eek:
Should we stop hunting for deer-reindeer as well,cause they look like "rudolph".:rolleyes:

R P McMurphy

Confab wrote: »

We kill cod all the time and it's rapidly becoming endangered. There's no difference between killing whales and cod other than a misplaced sense of humanity.

Quite an in depth theory there, you must be a marine biologist, would you draw any other comparisons between cetaceans and other fish

R P McMurphy

Norwayviking wrote: »

You dont know much about whaling i take it.:rolleyes:
whats the difference from killing a whale and some cattle:mad:
Because the whale looks more "innocent":eek:
Should we stop hunting for deer-reindeer as well,cause they look like "rudolph".:rolleyes:

What because you can kill something you should kill it?

dxhound2005

loveisdivine wrote: »

I just want to point out that it is not Greenpeace that travel to the southern ocean sanctuary to defend the whales. It is Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Greenpeace haven't sent a ship to Antarctica for years. They prefer to sit in offices and email people.

It's a disgrace that aid money is being used for whaling.

Do we learn nothing from the past? We virtually wiped out whales once already, do we really need to do it again?

Japan claims to be using the whales for research, as it is illegal to hunt them for purely commercial purposes.

So far they have reported in this research that whales eat krill/plankton and that you can't breed a whale with a cow.
Some really ground breaking findings I'm sure you'll agree!

They are hardly likely to be wiped out if only 2000 a year are being killed. There are probably over a million Minke whales alone in the world. Like lots of other marine species they have been killed and eaten by humans for hundreds of years.

http://luna.pos.to/whale/sta_2009.html

Norwayviking

R P McMurphy wrote: »

What because you can kill something you should kill it?

What do you think made man walk on this planet and not starve to death:rolleyes:

R P McMurphy

Norwayviking wrote: »

What do you think made man walk on this planet and not starve to death:rolleyes:

What sort of an argument is that, complete with rolleyes and all - hard to counter that

Norwayviking

R P McMurphy wrote: »

What sort of an argument is that, complete with rolleyes and all - hard to counter that

What i am trying to say is hunting for whale have been going on since 3000BC.
And yes you have to kill something when you hunt,but i guess common sense isnt for you;)

laoch na mona

maglite wrote: »

Aid money isn't being used for whaling. Its being used to fund the coastguard. This money is being put into a stimulus package providing employment to people in the Coastguard, who protect fishermen, which allows them to fish and bring back their catch.

This is then processed and sold locally and internationally which brings money to the coastal areas hit by the tsunami.

I don't see the problem.

killing an endangered species not a problem?

R P McMurphy

Norwayviking wrote: »

What i am trying to say is hunting for whale have been going on since 3000BC.
And yes you have to kill something when you hunt,but i guess common sense isnt for you;)

So to clarify your position it is fine to make a mockery of an internationally agreed ban on commercial whaling because:
a) it has been going on a long time; and
b) the Japanese people would starve if they didn't get their whale meat.

Or do you think that it is primarily about scientific study?

Akrasia

I used to like whales but after that dodgy line out in last years 6 nations that cost us the triple crown and cost me 300 quid... ****em

Norwayviking

R P McMurphy wrote: »

So to clarify your position it is fine to make a mockery of an internationally agreed ban on commercial whaling because:
a) it has been going on a long time; and
b) the Japanese people would starve if they didn't get their whale meat.

Or do you think that it is primarily about scientific study?

a)There was never a ban on whaling,only on certain species of whale.The rest is regulated by quotas.And yes Japan have a long tradition in whaling,and it brings food on the table just like Beef does in Ireland.

b)Well i believe its for scientific study,how can you else know about the species of whale,and their numbers.

noxqs

Whale meat is delicious and whaling can be done in a sustainable manner (see iceland/faeroe islands). Sure looks brutal and may make PETA people cry, but if you see the inside of a modern day slaughter house its peanuts in comparison. And a whale/cow is probably around the same on the evolutionary ladder.

Whaling if done sustainably is OK. Ever had tuna in a can? Did you know for every 50 tunas killed, about 2-3 dolphins dies too?
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_safe_label)

World is a cruel, place. Let me know when we evolve photosynthesis so we can stop eating any other living organism. Until then, it's not a question of which animal we harvest for food, but how we go about doing it in a long term sustainable way.

R P McMurphy

Norwayviking wrote: »

a)There was never a ban on whaling,only on certain species of whale.The rest is regulated by quotas.And yes Japan have a long tradition in whaling,and it brings food on the table just like Beef does in Ireland.

b)Well i believe its for scientific study,how can you else know about the species of whale,and their numbers.

You are ill-informed.

There is an international ban on commercial whaling and this has been in place since 1986. This applies to all stocks

Only a complete fool would believe that the current quotas are caught purely for scientific purposes

R P McMurphy

noxqs wrote: »

Whale meat is delicious and whaling can be done in a sustainable manner (see iceland/faeroe islands). Sure looks brutal and may make PETA people cry, but if you see the inside of a modern day slaughter house its peanuts in comparison. And a whale/cow is probably around the same on the evolutionary ladder.

Whaling if done sustainably is OK. Ever had tuna in a can? Did you know for every 50 tunas killed, about 2-3 dolphins dies too?
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_safe_label)

World is a cruel, place. Let me know when we evolve photosynthesis so we can stop eating any other living organism. Until then, it's not a question of which animal we harvest for food, but how we go about doing it in a long term sustainable way.

Where did you get this break though piece of research, link?

noxqs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minke_whale
Conservation status: Least Concern
(Homo Sapiens Sapiens (thats us) is in the same category).

Commercial whaling is banned but this is not set in stone as many whale species are not threatened and can be whaled sustainably. Iceland kills 30 whales per year and Faeroe Islands kills 950 whales per year - of long finned pilot whales (which is not classified properly yet in conservation status, they are not immediately threatened but may need more data/research as to better determine that).

I don't think whale meat should compete along side cows - since obviously - we can't farm them in the same way. But people seem to oppose it based on pictures and how cute whales look - there's nothing more annoying than people basing their opinions on looking at pictures. There's plenty of data to suggest modest whaling in Norway/Iceland/Faeroe Islands can be done sustainably. I'd oppose whaling too if there was data suggesting otherwise.

People get upset due to the pictures of whales being slaughtered on the beaches and the water turning red. If we applied the same criteria to other species no one would eat chicken, cow, pig, hell anything to cross a slaughter house assembly line.

P.S. Evolutionary ladder - they're both mammals which gestate for around the same period of time etc etc.

Norwayviking

R P McMurphy wrote: »

You are ill-informed.

There is an international ban on commercial whaling and this has been in place since 1986. This applies to all stocks

Only a complete fool would believe that the current quotas are caught purely for scientific purposes

Between 1986 and 1989 there was a ban yes.In 1993 commecial whaling was allowed again.The time between 1989-1993 was only for scientific purpose.;)
I think you need to check your resources,mate.:rolleyes:

R P McMurphy

Norwayviking wrote: »

Between 1986 and 1989 there was a ban yes.In 1993 commecial whaling was allowed again.The time between 1989-1993 was only for scientific purpose.;)
I think you need to check your resources,mate.:rolleyes:

I think you will find that you are wrong, there is a ban on commercial whaling and those that are currently killed are done so under the remit of scientific research although in practice it is for consumption and so makes a mockery of the ban

Norwayviking

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I think you will find that you are wrong, there is a ban on commercial whaling and those that are currently killed are done so under the remit of scientific research although in practice it is for consumption and so makes a mockery of the ban

.
Commercial whaling ceased for a five year period to allow a small scientific catch for gauging the stock's sustainability and resumed 1993.
Minke whales are the only legally hunted species. Catches have fluctuated between 487 animals in 2000 to 592 in 2007. For the year 2011 the quota is set at 1286 Minke whales.[23] The catch is made solely from the Northeast Atlantic minke whale population, which is estimated at 102,000.[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling

R P McMurphy

noxqs wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minke_whale
Conservation status: Least Concern
(Homo Sapiens Sapiens (thats us) is in the same category).

Commercial whaling is banned but this is not set in stone as many whale species are not threatened and can be whaled sustainably. Iceland kills 30 whales per year and Faeroe Islands kills 950 whales per year - of long finned pilot whales (which is not classified properly yet in conservation status, they are not immediately threatened but may need more data/research as to better determine that).

I don't think whale meat should compete along side cows - since obviously - we can't farm them in the same way. But people seem to oppose it based on pictures and how cute whales look - there's nothing more annoying than people basing their opinions on looking at pictures. There's plenty of data to suggest modest whaling in Norway/Iceland/Faeroe Islands can be done sustainably. I'd oppose whaling too if there was data suggesting otherwise.

People get upset due to the pictures of whales being slaughtered on the beaches and the water turning red. If we applied the same criteria to other species no one would eat chicken, cow, pig, hell anything to cross a slaughter house assembly line.

P.S. Evolutionary ladder - they're both mammals which gestate for around the same period of time etc etc.

It is disingenuous to suggest that the objection to commercial whaling is due to people looking at upsetting pictures. The fact is prior to the ban, tens of thousands of whales were slaughtered and brought some species to the brink of extinction. People were rightly outraged by this and if the international community had not acted then entire species could well have been wiped of the face of the earth. It is probably likely that a limited form of commercial whaling will commence at some stage. As you point out this could probably be targeted and done in a sustainable manner. Who will enforce it though, if it is to be self policing then it will not work as the Japanese government have acted in very bad faith in relation to the scientific status currently afforded

noxqs

The countries which would do whaling in the North Sea are very far from what they used to be. You'll find the inhabitants of Norway/Iceland/Faeroe Islands to be pretty concerned about ethics and sustainability too and their economies far from depend on whaling as they used to.

This isn't the 50es, 60es, 70es anymore - their population would be up in arms if whaling was threatening the whale population too.

I believe these countries would be able to do it in an honest, open and ethical way guided by proper studies and data to catch a sustainable amount. This isn't unscrupulous third world countries and AFAIK they have stuck to the quotas thus far without anyone questioning they were killing more than that.

Norwayviking

R P McMurphy wrote: »

It is disingenuous to suggest that the objection to commercial whaling is due to people looking at upsetting pictures. The fact is prior to the ban, tens of thousands of whales were slaughtered and brought some species to the brink of extinction. People were rightly outraged by this and if the international community had not acted then entire species could well have been wiped of the face of the earth. It is probably likely that a limited form of commercial whaling will commence at some stage. As you point out this could probably be targeted and done in a sustainable manner. Who will enforce it though, if it is to be self policing then it will not work as the Japanese government have acted in very bad faith in relation to the scientific status currently afforded

Yes and you have scientific proof of this:rolleyes:that the whale would be wiped out:rolleyes:
They said the same about the sealhunting in the 1990s,now the seals are overpopulated in large numbers,and they are thinking of lifting the ban there too;)

R P McMurphy

Norwayviking wrote: »

.
Commercial whaling ceased for a five year period to allow a small scientific catch for gauging the stock's sustainability and resumed 1993.
Minke whales are the only legally hunted species. Catches have fluctuated between 487 animals in 2000 to 592 in 2007. For the year 2011 the quota is set at 1286 Minke whales.[23] The catch is made solely from the Northeast Atlantic minke whale population, which is estimated at 102,000.[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling

Yes minke whales are legally caught under the guise of scientific research.

R P McMurphy

noxqs wrote: »

The countries which would do whaling in the North Sea are very far from what they used to be. You'll find the inhabitants of Norway/Iceland/Faeroe Islands to be pretty concerned about ethics and sustainability too and their economies far from depend on whaling as they used to.

This isn't the 50es, 60es, 70es anymore - their population would be up in arms if whaling was threatening the whale population too.

I believe these countries would be able to do it in an honest, open and ethical way guided by proper studies and data to catch a sustainable amount. This isn't unscrupulous third world countries and AFAIK they have stuck to the quotas thus far without anyone questioning they were killing more than that.

And as for Japan?

Norwayviking

R P McMurphy wrote: »

And as for Japan?

Japan is doing there scientific research like Norway\Iceland and Faroe Island does.;)

somefeen

Whaling is a lot more complicated than people seem to think and who the hell trust what greenpeace says anyway. They are constantly getting their facts wrong.

Over fishing of fish species is probably a much greater concern.

R P McMurphy

Norwayviking wrote: »

Yes and you have scientific proof of this:rolleyes:that the whale would be wiped out:rolleyes:
They said the same about the sealhunting in the 1990s,now the seals are overpopulated in large numbers,and they are thinking of lifting the ban there too;)

Scientific proof that if whaling commenced that whales would be wiped out? there would be a large number of factors that would influence that so how could their be scientific evidence now. There could be projections based on simulations but none that I am aware of. And will you stop using stupid faces unless you are five years of age, it is pretty pathetic

R P McMurphy

somefeen wrote: »

Whaling is a lot more complicated than people seem to think and who the hell trust what greenpeace says anyway. They are constantly getting their facts wrong.

Over fishing of fish species is probably a much greater concern.

Care to provide a case where Greenpeace have used incorrect data

Norwayviking

R P McMurphy wrote: »

And will you stop using stupid faces unless you are five years of age, it is pretty pathetic

Sorry its just common sense to me;)
I start thinking maybe you are around that age:eek: