Eco-terrorism

[Kimmik]

I am sorry but I see eco-terrorists the same as rabid anti-abortionists. Neither is right, I am sorry. You can not justify killing someone because you think they are wrong. And by the by I am also against the death penalty, no I don't speed intentionally and when I find myself going to fast I will slow down.. much to the irritation of those behind me, don't fudge my taxes, return money when I get to much back, etc. I try to follow all the laws, even if I think some of them are down right stupid. I will admit that yes I have broken laws in the past and I am ashamed to admit that.

But what good are laws if we can arbitrarily ignore them because they are inconvenient? Just because you do not agree with the laws is no reason to violate them intentionally.

If I was in a Muslim country, yes I would cover my head and no I would not drink and if I was not allowed to drive then I wouldn't. When in Rome do as the romans do. It is not my place to question their laws or culture.

I have seen what happens to loggers when eco-nuts damage equipment, good people can't pay their bills. I have seen what happens when mills close down, houses burn down and more.

I am sorry people that damage other people's property or injure or kill because they don't agree with them or what they do are wrong.

While the general argument seems to be similar, it is in fact very very different, to the point of being irrelevant. You're trying here to attach significance only on the moral aspect of my argument, rather than the reason for it. And also make it a lot more black and white in moralistic terms... I've never indicated that!

Eco-terrorists and Anti-abortionist are the same. They justify what they do and the harm they cause because someone needs to speak for those that can't. So what if an abortion doctor dies.. it was for the babies that don't have a voice... so what if the eco-terrorists kill a ceo it is to save the animals that have no voice. Their reasons are they are in the right because of what they believe in not just because of moral reasoning.

I have a question.. do you eat meat? If so you are responsible in a way for the death of wolves, coyotes and other predators. Do you live in a house that is 100% wood free? If not you support loggers. There is nothing that we do in our daily lives that does not impact the world around us. Would it be grand if we could live in 100% harmony with the world.. yes but that isn't going to happen.

Everything has a season... animals, people, plants, all of it. Species come and go and I am a firm believer that one day humans wont be here. If I had my way I would live on a mountain living off what I could grow and hunt. I much prefer that then living in the city and I am not very much a people person.. I much prefer animals to people, but that doesn't mean that I would chose an animals life over a humans.

[BlaqueKatt]

just thought I'd add this little fact here-even though the fact will totally destroy the "kill a Japanese CEO to save the endangered whales" argument.


The Japanese and Norwegians mainly hunt Minke Whales-which ARE NOT endangered-worldwide population is over 500,000 a couple hundred are taken combined every year. Even if the number is doubled to 400 per year taken-it would take over 1000 years to render them extinct from hunting......provided breeding only replaces those that die from natural causes....

[protege]

The Japanese and Norwegians mainly hunt Minke Whales-which ARE NOT endangered-worldwide population is over 500,000 a couple hundred are taken combined every year. Even if the number is doubled to 400 per year taken-it would take over 1000 years to render them extinct from hunting......provided breeding only replaces those that die from natural causes....

You'd never hear that though. Just another example of how the environmental nuts will twist information to suit their own agendas

[BlaqueKatt]

You'd never hear that though. Just another example of how the environmental nuts will twist information to suit their own agendas

And notice how everyone focuses on the Japanese and totally leaves the Norwegians out of any kind of protests-even sea shepard only harasses the Japanese fleet(which was purchased from Aristotle Onassis-who maintained it privately before selling it). When the Norwegians sell their catch to the Japanese....So I guess whaling is bad to feed your populace but ok if you do it for money?



and I was wrong on the population American Cetacean Society
(protecting whales, dolphins, porpoises, & their habitats through education, conservation, & research since 1967)-puts their numbers at around a million animals-also they live about 20-40 years and reach breeding age at around 5-7 years, so pretty good odds for them....relatively speaking...especially since the pre-whaling numbers for their population was around 200,000 due to not being able to compete for food due to being smaller that the other baleen whales...

[Slytovhand]

A) I notice the use of the word 'mainly' in the post. While Minkes do make up over 50% of whales killed, it's not even close to 100%. Also, where do you get your numbers from? I'm seeing figures of

According to Joji Morishita of Japanese Fisheries Agency, <snip> Norway issue around 1000 quota per year as opposed to Japan's 1,330.

B) No, the Norwegians cop a stack of crap about it as well... I just used 'Japanese' as it is more in the news of late.

C) "So I guess whaling is bad to feed your populace but ok if you do it for money?" Say what?? Since when is Japanese (in particular) whaling about 'feeding the populace'?? Sure, it's a Japanese delicacy, and most Japanese don't want it, so how is that even close to being accurate? Now, if you wanted to argue against the indigenous Eskimo populations, you'd have a better argument.

D) The Norwegians are doing something they've sort of done for thousands of years (granted, to a lesser extent) and in their 'local' area. The Japanese whaling vessels are travelling thousands of miles to do their hunting... for rather suspicious purposes (given the different 'reasons' being used).

In 1976, the quota for Southern Hemisphere Bryde's whales was set to zero by the IWC. However, Japan proceded to take 225 of them during the 76-77 season by issuing itself a permit to take whales for scientific research under Article VIII of the ICRW. Following this event, the IWC recommended all future applications of Article VIII be reviewed by the IWC scientific committee.[44]

In 1986, Japan introduced a similar proposal and later issued itself a scientific permit to take 825 minke whales and 50 sperm whales every year for ten years. Despite the fact that the IWC scientific committee rejected its research proposals Japan continued whaling.

The IWC adopted a resolution in 1987 recommending Japan not proceed until disagreements over its research proposals were resolved. A second resolution was also adopted on February 14, 1988 recommending Japan not proceed. On February 9, 1988 Japanese whalers killed the first minke whale in Antarctic waters under the new self issued research whaling permit.

So, it's ok for a nation to just ignore the international community, and it's ok?? (and again, you'll note the difference to your numbers).

My argument still stands. In this particular one - humans number over 6 Billion... the whales you mentioned - woot! Maybe up to a whole 1 million! Cool... no need to panic!


[ETA: what could be dubious 'information' from Greenpeace - take it for what it's worth...]

Facts and figures

Recent DNA evidence shows that the impact of commercial whaling may be even worse than previously thought.

Most estimates of historic whale population size have been extrapolated from old whaling figures, but this method is often very inaccurate, according to marine biologist Steve Palumbi of Stanford University's Hopkins Marine Station in California, USA.

In 2003 Palumbi and his colleagues used DNA samples to estimate that humpback whales could have numbered 1.5 million prior to the onset of commercial whaling in the 1800s.

That number dwarfs the figure of 100,000 previously accepted by the IWC based on 19th century whaling records. Humpback whales currently number only 20,000.

Japanese delegates to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) constantly refer to a 1990 estimate of the Antarctic minke population of 760,000. But that figure was withdrawn by the IWC in 2000 because recent surveys found far fewer minkes than the older ones.

The new estimates are half the old in every area that has been resurveyed. The IWC’s scientists do not understand the reasons for this and so far have not been able to agree a new estimate.

[jackfaire]

In this particular one - humans number over 6 Billion... the whales you mentioned - woot! Maybe up to a whole 1 million! Cool... no need to panic!

Although numbers alone can't be used as a comparison of which species is doing better because you need to take into account environment, species size, breeding habits, etc.

[BlaqueKatt]

A) I notice the use of the word 'mainly' in the post. While Minkes do make up over 50% of whales killed, it's not even close to 100%. Also, where do you get your numbers from?

ABC News Austrailia

Japan has confirmed it has had trouble meeting the quota it set itself - with 551 minke whales making up roughly 60 per cent of the quota.

and that's all they took, not the 1000 quota, heck their "quota" could've been 10,000 they only took 551.

So, it's ok for a nation to just ignore the international community, and it's ok?? (and again, you'll note the difference to your numbers).

BBC News
In June, the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) passed a resolution condemning JARPA-2; but it has no power, as any member nation is empowered to run "scientific" programmes. Or simply leave and not be bound by anything they say-which they can't enforce anyway.


and as I already said Quota=/=actual amount taken-you're using the quota numbers-I'm using the actual catch which is much lower than the quota.

actual numbers taken since 1986 from the IWC

12,309 all species, all countries whaling for scientific research

April to august of 2007 208 minke whales taken by Japan-which is what I believe I said-dec to april 08 they took 551. Both years they had a "quota of 1000"

My argument still stands. In this particular one - humans number over 6 Billion... the whales you mentioned - woot! Maybe up to a whole 1 million! Cool... no need to panic!

that's up from 200,000 in the 1980's not down-their numbers are INCREASING, so no panic is warranted if the population is INCREASING.

[mikoyan29]

I can live with the Greenpeace tactics of getting boats in the way of whalers to stop things. Or the people who will chain themselves to trees or whatever to stop a bulldozer. However, when people start spiking trees so that workers get hurt or start burning down SUV dealerships, I draw the line.

[Tanasi]

I can live with the Greenpeace tactics of getting boats in the way of whalers to stop things. Or the people who will chain themselves to trees or whatever to stop a bulldozer. However, when people start spiking trees so that workers get hurt or start burning down SUV dealerships, I draw the line.

So what if those people get hurt in the process of trying to stop the whaling or dozers? Do you hold the whalers or dozer operators responsible for those injuries providing it was truly an accident?

[mikoyan29]

So what if those people get hurt in the process of trying to stop the whaling or dozers? Do you hold the whalers or dozer operators responsible for those injuries providing it was truly an accident?

Those people know the risks they are taking.

[protege]

Those people know the risks they are taking.

Still though, they're going to sue over their injuries. I have a feeling they will. Never mind that they put *themselves* in harm's way, they're going to find a way to get someone else to pay for it. Hell, our national sport isn't baseball, but litigation

[Tanasi]

The Sea Shepard bunch best be thankful the Japanese are being peaceful in this regard because a few .50bmg rounds through their generator or engine that ship is out of business and adrift somewhere you don't want to loose power.
Wasn't it the French that blew the bottom out of the Rainbow Warrior? The Japanese have a lot longer warrior tradition and now better weapons, it would tickle me to see the SS bunch put adrift and then have to beg the Japanese for help.

I also wonder where a lawsuit would be filed for an incident that happens in international waters?

[joe hx]

Um the Japanese don't have a standing military. All they have is the Japanese Defence Force.

[Nyoibo]

Which is a military force, just domestic.

[Fryk]

I don't think Tansi was talking about the military doing the shooting, but the whaling ship.