$25,000 Reward for Japanese Whalers' Coordinates

GMAN wrote:
In article , Jer wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:15:42 -0600, Jer wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Jer wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Jer wrote:
wrote:
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is offering a reward to any
one person or group that can provide the coordinates of the
Japanese Whaling Fleet presently operating in the Ross Sea.

...

If I had a clue, I'd rat that scum out in a heartbeat.
You realize that Watson is well known as a convicted criminal,
a liar, and has no integrity at all.
The Japanese Research Whaling fleet is operating entirely
within
international law (Watson is not), and providing *precisely* the
type of information the International Whaling Commission has said
that it needs.

Well, the law has no integrity either, so no points there. The
The law has a great deal of integrity. You get no points when
you make it clear that you don't understand it.
Trouble is, I do understand it, and with that understanding I just don't
agree with it.

Watson is a criminal. I assume he's found a country by now, but
as of a couple weeks ago no country would register his vessel.
Why do you suppose the UK rejected his application? Why do you
suppose Belize de-registered it?
Don't know, and don't care why. If I had a country, he'd be welcome.

JRW fleet is a thin cover for supplying whale product to the
Japanese.
That is simply not true. The Japanese Research Whaling Project
has produced more valid research than virtually all other
cetacean research projects combined.
I never said they don't learn something, it's their methods they use to
gain that knowledge I disagree with.

We might note that there is a precident for the US distributing
propaganda claims saying the research is a disguise for
commercial whaling though! In fact the country that has done
that is the US. When hunting Sperm whales was banned, the US
set up a "research project" to provide Sperm oil to the
munitions industry. That continued until a synthetic water
replacing oil was developed a few years later.
Whatever made you think I agree with the U.S. on this issue?


I would point out to you that the US government ceased, in late
2004, distributing that type of propaganda about the Japanese
research. It's an interesting story, but is both long and very
off topic here. Whatever, you are out of date... :-)

The IWC is too focused on business to actually
accomplish anything remotely helpful to the issue of protection.
I figure they're sleeping together.
You don't seem to have a clue about the IWC. It is not focused
"on business", it is in total disarray and on the verge of
collapse.
Considering the fact that, in their lab, the rat always dies may offer a
clue. And the results of that death end up on someone's supper plate.
Of course, you'll know rant on about the legal virtues of this result,
and I'll again say I don't care about how much the law makes sense to
you, I only care about how much sense the law makes to me. It's only my
opinion, Floyd, which doesn't include any concern for yours on this subject.


The only functional part of the IWC is the Science Committee,
which has supported the Japanese research from day one.

I don't care who supports what - I only care about what I support.
If you don't like the law then get the law changed. If you can't get
the law changed then maybe you should consider why that is.

And don't say "big business" or "big money" unless you are prepared to
explain the myriad laws passed in the last 40 years or so that are
deleterious to the interests of "big business" and "big money".

I don't have an issue with big business making money, unless their
activity proves detrimental to the environment. Then I'm agin it. Simple.

Sometimes big businees returns the environment to a condition in better
condition than when they found it.


Yup, it seems sometimes they do, sounds like progress to me. Of course,
if they hadn't screwed it up in the first place...

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Jer wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Unless that activity proves detrimental to the health of the
global stock - then I expect the human to do without, up to and
So now you are claiming that the Japanese whale research is
somehow detrimental to the global stock????
Care to find some way to support that ridiculous claim?

Nothing ridiculous about it. Eating one's own research project is
ridiculous.

Sort of discombobbled, aren't you.

The question was how is the research detrimental to the global stock
of whales.

Incidentally, eating a research project is not hardly ridiculous,
as long as the "project" is food. Whales are food.

The Japanese could increase their take of Minke whales, for
example, by many times and still not cause even a dent in either
the "global stock" or in the particular stocks they are hunting.
You do realize that out of the dozens of different types of
whales that have gone extinct, not one has *ever* become extinct
due to humans hunting and eating them.

And you expect me to actually believe this can be substantiated how?
Proving a negative has always been problematic.

It is rather easy to substantiate. The ICW's management plan is
intended to do exactly that. With good research, scientist can
and do determine the maximum harvest levels that will not harm
the stock.

That isn't exactly rocket science, as the same thing is done with
farm animals and other species of hunted animals. The difficultly
with hunted animals is whether the research is available or not.

In the 1980's the ICW passed a moratorium on commercial whaling,
as you are well aware. You seem to be unaware that the stated reason
was a *lack* of basic research required to accurately determine valid
harvest limits.

The Japanese research project's primary goal is of course to
supply the information required to allow accurate assessment of
harvest level limits.

You do realize that it is also quite possible that the current
status of some whales (Blue whales and Right whales for example)
might well be what it is *only* because virtually all whales are
being listed as "endangered", and the ones with higher
population numbers (Sperm, Minke, Gray) are eating up most of
the food needed by the others to recover. Oh, you don't
realize...

Sure, I realize that, sounds like nature trying to take it's course to me.

So you don't mind causing the extinction of entire species of whales.

Your illogical efforts are counter productive.

Humans believing they can micro-manage nature has always been counter
productive, IMO.

You are entitled as many opinions as you like, but you do need
to realize that when you spout off abject stupidity in a public
forum you *will* have people point out the fact that it is
stupid.

Which in itself wouldn't be too bad. But in your case you have
had all of this pointed out to you previously, and you *still*
haven't managed to learn a thing.

I don't care who supports what - I only care about what I support.
That is my point. Your ignorant and dishonest opinion isn't
worth reading about. We do have opinions from people that *are*
informed.
Then go talk to them, be happy, and leave me alone.
Then don't post illogical and irrational articles. You *will*
get corrective responses.

So, now you're trying to impose some sort of posting requirement? I

You are the one who said others should do something (leave you
alone). I'm saying that if you want to be left alone, don't
post stupidity in public forums. That is not a case of me
imposing any "requirement" on you. If you want to get kicked
around like a football for saying dumb things, be my guest!

musta missed another memo. Besides, I don't recall posting any article,

You have posted several articles. Those articles express *your*
opinions.

only my opinionated response to someone else's post. IIRC, you took
issue with that, which is okay, so long as we both know.

We both seem to know you don't mind using inaccurate sources,
saying things that simply are not true, and that sort of crap to
get emotional appeal. You've admitted it directly.

You have no integrity.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:38:33 -0600, Jer wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:49:02 -0600, Jer wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:15:42 -0600, Jer wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Jer wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Jer wrote:
wrote:
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is offering a reward to any
one person or group that can provide the coordinates of the
Japanese Whaling Fleet presently operating in the Ross Sea.

...

If I had a clue, I'd rat that scum out in a heartbeat.
You realize that Watson is well known as a convicted criminal,
a liar, and has no integrity at all.
The Japanese Research Whaling fleet is operating entirely
within
international law (Watson is not), and providing *precisely* the
type of information the International Whaling Commission has said
that it needs.

Well, the law has no integrity either, so no points there. The
The law has a great deal of integrity. You get no points when
you make it clear that you don't understand it.
Trouble is, I do understand it, and with that understanding I just don't
agree with it.

Watson is a criminal. I assume he's found a country by now, but
as of a couple weeks ago no country would register his vessel.
Why do you suppose the UK rejected his application? Why do you
suppose Belize de-registered it?
Don't know, and don't care why. If I had a country, he'd be welcome.

JRW fleet is a thin cover for supplying whale product to the
Japanese.
That is simply not true. The Japanese Research Whaling Project
has produced more valid research than virtually all other
cetacean research projects combined.
I never said they don't learn something, it's their methods they use to
gain that knowledge I disagree with.

We might note that there is a precident for the US distributing
propaganda claims saying the research is a disguise for
commercial whaling though! In fact the country that has done
that is the US. When hunting Sperm whales was banned, the US
set up a "research project" to provide Sperm oil to the
munitions industry. That continued until a synthetic water
replacing oil was developed a few years later.
Whatever made you think I agree with the U.S. on this issue?


I would point out to you that the US government ceased, in late
2004, distributing that type of propaganda about the Japanese
research. It's an interesting story, but is both long and very
off topic here. Whatever, you are out of date... :-)

The IWC is too focused on business to actually
accomplish anything remotely helpful to the issue of protection.
I figure they're sleeping together.
You don't seem to have a clue about the IWC. It is not focused
"on business", it is in total disarray and on the verge of
collapse.
Considering the fact that, in their lab, the rat always dies may offer a
clue. And the results of that death end up on someone's supper plate.
Of course, you'll know rant on about the legal virtues of this result,
and I'll again say I don't care about how much the law makes sense to
you, I only care about how much sense the law makes to me. It's only my
opinion, Floyd, which doesn't include any concern for yours on this subject.


The only functional part of the IWC is the Science Committee,
which has supported the Japanese research from day one.

I don't care who supports what - I only care about what I support.
If you don't like the law then get the law changed. If you can't get
the law changed then maybe you should consider why that is.

And don't say "big business" or "big money" unless you are prepared to
explain the myriad laws passed in the last 40 years or so that are
deleterious to the interests of "big business" and "big money".

I don't have an issue with big business making money, unless their
activity proves detrimental to the environment. Then I'm agin it. Simple.

Then get the law changed. If the only people who give a damn are a
few nutcakes then that won't happen. So why haven't you gotten the
law changed?


We're working on that. In the meantime, we're also working on making
the cost of doing business so expensive as to hopefully change the
reason why the laws need to be changed. Both take time and your
patience is appreciated.

If you are trying to "make the cost of doing business so expensive" by
interefering with navigation on the high seas, well, quite frankly the
only problem I have with what the French did to the Rainbow Warrior is
that they left some survivors.

By the way, plonk.

(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

"Doug MacDonald" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
:
: The Japanese Research Whaling fleet is operating entirely within
: international law (Watson is not), and providing *precisely* the
: type of information the International Whaling Commission has said
: that it needs.
:
What's that Floyd?
The size of the wax plug in a minki whale's ear?

There has been a *massive* amount of biology done by the
Japanese Whale Reseach Project. They have produced more
research than virtually all other sources combined! The reports
are peer reviewed by the IWC Science Committee each year, and
the plan for next year's research is pre-approved. The Science
Committee has stated that the research is appropriate.

There was a report of the `scientific papers' published. 4, that's
F O U R, where considered worth considering for publication. At
a cost of ~17,000 animals per paper.

For one example, see IWC document 49/4, "Report of the Scientific
Committee, 1997" and document "Report of the Workshop to Review the
Japanese Whale Research Programme under Special Permit for North
Pacific Minke Whales (JARPN), Tokyo, 17-10 February 2000".

We can assume the Science Committee knows more about cetacean
biology and research than you do, for example.

You can. I note who is paying them.

Paul Repacholi wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
"Doug MacDonald" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
:
: The Japanese Research Whaling fleet is operating entirely within
: international law (Watson is not), and providing *precisely* the
: type of information the International Whaling Commission has said
: that it needs.
:
What's that Floyd?
The size of the wax plug in a minki whale's ear?

There has been a *massive* amount of biology done by the
Japanese Whale Reseach Project. They have produced more
research than virtually all other sources combined! The reports
are peer reviewed by the IWC Science Committee each year, and
the plan for next year's research is pre-approved. The Science
Committee has stated that the research is appropriate.

There was a report of the `scientific papers' published. 4, that's
F O U R, where considered worth considering for publication. At
a cost of ~17,000 animals per paper.

According to who? The IWC Science Committee published more than
20 in 2005 alone.

For one example, see IWC document 49/4, "Report of the Scientific
Committee, 1997" and document "Report of the Workshop to Review the
Japanese Whale Research Programme under Special Permit for North
Pacific Minke Whales (JARPN), Tokyo, 17-10 February 2000".

We can assume the Science Committee knows more about cetacean
biology and research than you do, for example.

You can. I note who is paying them.

Who would that be? They come from around the world, they are
scientists rather than political lobbiest, and they are *not*
paid by any one organization.



Strange how you make such strong claims but have *nothing* in
the way of facts to support them. A "report"?? From where,
paid for by who, and stating what? We don't know, and you don't
say. And you "note who is paying" the Science Committee... but
you do *not* know.

The fact is that the Japanese whale research project *has*
produced more science that virtually all the rest combined. It
is also a fact that cetacean research here on the North Slope is
also very productive, and for much the same reason. Biologists
are able to work with whales caught by subsistence hunters.
Literally *every* whale caught here is at least in some why
examined by biologist before it is butchered. (And all
experiments proposed by biologists for this area are screened by
the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission too, which also increases
the productivity and credibility of the research done.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)