View previous topic | View next topic

Japan uses tsunami money for whaling

Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2

soup
869963.  Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:56 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:

Even as it stands, the Japanese whaling ships are armed.


With LRAD and hand held rifles?

suze wrote:
and can we really imagine Australia and Japan going to battle at sea?



According to those of the sea Shepherd group they are at war (or at least willing to die) to end the whaling. Several times there have been incidents between the Steve Irwin or the Bob Barker [1](even a sinking of the Ady Gil) and the Japanese whaling fleet (with each side blaming the other) where it appears that those of the Sea Shepherd group felt the Australian govt will have to act now, but still nothing.

[1] The two main ships of the Sea Shepherd group

 
suze
869972.  Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:48 am Reply with quote

soup wrote:
With LRAD and hand held rifles?


That seems to be about it - they don't appear to have cannon, ICBMs, or anything like that. (Japanese vessels transporting weapons grade nuclear material have been reported as carrying cannon and machine guns, but the same claim has not been made of the whaling ships.)

Japan claims that Sea Shepherd vessels too are armed, but Sea Shepherd denies this.


Much as Australia has chosen not to take military action against the Japanese whaling ships, it has also refused a Japanese request to send a protection vessel for them.

This is a bit odd. The very fact of Japan asking Australia for a protection vessel means that Japan must accept Australia's claim to these waters - and yet it says that it doesn't.

 
exnihilo
869978.  Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:07 pm Reply with quote

Are there not strict limits on the mobility of the Japanese navy/defence force? I'd imagine they asked for protection from harassment from the nearest friendly power as they're prohibited from deploying their own craft.

 
Starfish13
870489.  Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:39 am Reply with quote

Gavin wrote:
I live in Australia and we've donated to the Japanese tsunamis and now they're hunting whales in Australian waters.


As mentioned earlier, the Japanese whaling fleet hunt in Antarctic waters, not Australian territorial waters. These have been designated as the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary by the IWC (International Whaling Commission), however Japan is of the belief that the establishment of the sanctuary was illegal and in contravention of the principles on which the IWC was founded.

As the IWC exists to
Quote:
provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry
, do they have a point? The IWC is not a conservation organisation. It is the equavalent of having Captain Birdseye overseeing conservation of fish stocks, and only takes responsibility for the management of large species which were once part of commercial fisheries. The IWC is not concerned with management of smaller cetaceans like dolphins and porpoises, pilot whales, beluga, narwhals and others.

The "ban" on whaling is a moratorium on commercial whaling by a voluntary organisation with no treaty to back it up. Several countries, including Japan, Norway and Russia opposed the moratorium, and other whaling nations left the organisation after it was effected, such as Canada (where aboriginal subsistence whaling is practiced) or were never members at all, such as Indonesia.

Quote:
Japan claims that Sea Shepherd vessels too are armed, but Sea Shepherd denies this.

Sea Shepherd are usually armed with butyric acid, which they use as 'stink bombs' and to taint the meat of any whales that are caught. They were also found to heve been in the posession of bow and arrows following the collision of the Ady Gil and the Shonan Maru, which has been suggested but never conclusively proven as intended to cause injury to human life.

 
Ion Zone
871506.  Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:33 pm Reply with quote

Unless they found matching arrows on the whaling ship it would be impossible to prove. Though it seems highly unlikely that they would be practising archery at sea, bows are technically sporting equipment rather than weaponry as that is their primary use nowadays and target points are not designed to kill things (you could get shot a couple of times with target arrows and have a fair chance of surviving, so long as they don't get anything really vital like the heart).

 
Gavin
871511.  Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:48 pm Reply with quote

'yorz wrote:
In Australian waters? And the government doesn't protest?

Our government is a bunch of pricks!

 
Zebra57
871531.  Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:15 pm Reply with quote

Gavin wrote:
'yorz wrote:
In Australian waters? And the government doesn't protest?

Our government is a bunch of pricks!


Including the PM?

 
Gavin
871721.  Mon Dec 19, 2011 4:14 pm Reply with quote

Definitely!

 
T J Alex
891326.  Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:28 am Reply with quote

Speaking as someone who has supported Save the Whales for over three decades, can I just say that the Shepherds group are attention whores, more interested in funding and self publicity then the cause they supposedly espouse, and are notorious for being untruthful.

The only "War" that they've ever been involved in, has been a ratings war.

If they said that it was raining, I'd go outside to check.

 
Starfish13
891419.  Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:13 pm Reply with quote

T J Alex wrote:
If they said that it was raining, I'd go outside to check.


They are certainly reknown for not letting the facts get in the way of a good argument (or even a scufffle).

 

Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group