I'm curious, have you actually seen a whale being hunted, what styrofoam and plastic does to the insides of animals, have you ever seen a dolphin being turned into pet food, have you seen the way blood drips out of a bird's neck when its caught in plastic drink holders? have you even bothered to look at road-kill? Have you seen anything? And don't you worry, My opinions are not the random opinions of a cotton wool-wrapped urbanite. I've seen these things, for which I have had 'swallow cement and harden up' for and they are experiences I never want to experience again. "
------------------------

Not many pple have , unfortunately Progs..a little reality can be good for all of us.

Off topic replies have been moved to This Thread

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/rspca-approves-of-major-sydney-deer-cull/2007/08/03/1185648143013.html

The RSPCA says it approves a major deer cull in Sydney's south - provided it is done as humanely as possible.

RSPCA NSW branch chief inspector David O'Shannessy says there was a proven need to curb the deer population, which is estimated to exceed 1,700.

---

Court may act soon on whaling injunction

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Court-may-act-soon-on-whaling-injunction/2007/09/18/1189881497985.html

After a three-year battle by anti-whaling groups, the Federal Court may hand down a decision soon on a stalled bid to challenge Japan's annual whale hunt in Australian Antarctic waters.

Animal welfare group the Humane Society International has sought an injunction against Japanese whaler Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd, saying it was responsible for the deaths of about 1,260 whales since 2000 in Australia's whale sanctuary near Antarctica.

---

Turnbull uses YouTube for whaling issue

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Turnbull-uses-YouTube-for-whaling-issue/2007/10/09/1191695872827.html

With the Japanese summer whaling season in the Antarctic fast approaching, federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull has launched an internet video message to gather anti-whaling support among children.

Mr Turnbull uses the YouTube vision to tell children what the government is doing to fight commercial whaling and to hear from Australian children who have been active with the anti-whaling message.

He has also launched a Japanese subtitled version of the video on Japanese YouTube.

---

Japan fishermen, anti-whalers tussle

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Japan-fishermen-antiwhalers-tussle/2007/11/01/1193619057074.html

Japanese fishermen tussled with over 30 anti-whaling protesters in waters off the country's eastern coast this week as the activists tried to stop the killing of thousands of pilot whales.

A group of mostly Australian and American activists, some on surfboards, left flowers at sea off Taiji, a historic whaling town some 450km west of Tokyo.

But the ceremony on Monday, shown in a video provided by the activists, was interrupted by a boat of local fishermen, who used a long pole to chase away the protesters. Whales could be seen swimming on the other side of the boat.

Protesters say there is no point to whaling, citing research by Taiji assemblymen this year which showed local whale meat contained levels of mercury 10 to 16 times more than advised by the Health Ministry.

---

Japan asks Australia to protect whalers

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s2087785.htm

TONY EASTLEY: Japan is worried that its whaling fleet is going to be targeted by protesters on the high seas during its annual Southern Ocean hunt and it wants Australia and New Zealand to provide some protection.

Japan says its ships have been subject to terrorist-like action and says it's stepping up its own security for its crews.

But environmentalists say it's Japan that's been provoking confrontation, especially with its plans to kill up to 50 humpback whales this season.

North Asia correspondent Shane McLeod reports.

SHANE MCLEOD: Japanese officials won't say exactly when the ocean-going whaling fleet is due to depart on its annual Southern Ocean hunt. But it's expected to be within days.

And with Japan anticipating more confrontation on the high seas between its ships and environmental group Sea Shepherd, Fisheries Agency spokesman Hideki Moronuki is calling on Australia and New Zealand to ensure the safety of the Japanese fleet.

HIDEKI MORONUKI: Those two countries maintain the same position as Japan does against the violent action of terrorists… terrorism. So everybody can imagine that Sea Shepherd may take very dangerous illegal actions again, so I need the kindest support of those two countries in order to secure the safety of our crews and the (inaudible).

SHANE MCLEOD: Sea Shepherd and the Japanese fleet clashed last summer, before Japan's ships headed home early after an unrelated fire crippled the main whale processing ship, killing one crew member.

Mr Moronuki says Sea Shepherd is engaging in environmental terrorism. He says Japan is stepping up measures to deal with the threat.

HIDEKI MORONUKI: We cannot take illegal actions even though the Sea Shepherd would take illegal, very dangerous illegal actions. So we have to take another legal actions in order to escape from dangerous actions by Sea Shepherd. It's very difficult what we should do, something.

SHANE MCLEOD: Sea Shepherd's captain Paul Watson says his organisation is not responsible for collisions with the Japanese ships last season.

And he says he's not worried by Japan stepping up its security measures.

PAUL WATSON: I don't think it'll have any impact at all. I mean, what we have to understand here is Japanese whaling is illegal. They're targeting endangered species in a whale sanctuary in violation of a global moratorium on whaling.

---

Labor to ramp up anti-whaling campaign

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/labor-to-ramp-up-antiwhaling-campaign/2007/11/15/1194766856574.html

A Labor government would ramp up Australian efforts against Japanese whaling and use the military to monitor ships killing the mammals in the Southern Ocean.

What an expensive waste of taxpayers money and an exercise in futility...

Maybe they will be able to catch the real criminals like the Sea Shepherds who endanger life on the high seas

These people have no concept of sustainability:

http://news.smh.com.au/flannerys-views-on-whales-curious/20071231-1jmg.html

The crew of a protest ship searching for Japanese whaling ships in the Antarctic have described as "curious" claims by prominent scientist Tim Flannery that a sustainable whale cull is possible.

Professor Flannery - a principal research scientist at the Australian Museum in Sydney - said the current Japanese annual target of 935 minke whales was possibly entirely sustainable.

He said there were more important environmental concerns in the Antarctic including fishing pressure on low-end food sources such as krill.

"Given the Japanese government's stated objectives in their science program...is to restart commercial whaling and one of the target species is an endangered species and they have doubled their quota in the last few years... shows they have no interest in sustainability," Mr Walsh told AAP.

Unlike fishing we can do without whaling. It is not an important food source. Alternatives to whale products have been found many years ago.

If we wanted to we could do without fishing also. For such a staunch defender of recreational fishing to make this argument is very naive. If he accepts it for whaling, what will he do when the hippies make the same argument about recreational fishing? Has he decided where we should draw the line on intelligence, or has he just been swayed by emotional arguments?

No one will suggest that fish are sentient creatures or akin to humans.

Plenty of people have suggested exactly that to me.

I don't think a signifacant harvest of whales will have the same sustainability.

So, harvest fewer of them.

The point is, if you support a ban on whaling based on arbitrary reasons, you are playing the same tricks as those people you oppose. I see no difference between Walter Starck saying we should ban whaling because they are smart and PETA saying we should ban recreational fishing because it is cruel.

Fishing is a massive industry and ending it completely may make some people go hungry. But it can be broken up in any number of different ways. Singling out whaling is just one of those ways. It makes more sense to ban catch and release angling than to ban whaling. At least the whale meat is consumed and not wasted.

The original IWC ban was all about sustainability. It had absolutely nothing to do with intelligence, cruelty or other emotional arguments. Walter Starck is supporting the shifting of the goal posts. He is saying that it is OK to intervene temporarily when stocks are at risk, with the promise that the itnervention will be removed when stocks recover, then afterwards change your mind and say that because some people have come to like the animals the intervention will be permanent.

It is of considerable doubt that fish feel pain let alone have self awareness or approach human levels of intelligence.

Science has no way of telling whether fish feel pain. The research into fish pain makes some fundamental assumptions about pain that don't stack up.

Thats the point - such a low level of harvest will not be a significant food source.

So what? Since when was the amount of food harvested a particular way a valid point for or against any harvest?

There is a huge difference between whales/dolphins and fish. Its irrefutable. The reasons Walter gave aren't abitrary at all.

Where do you draw the line then? I bet Walter cannot give you an objective measure, just a lot of empty headed arm waving.

The reason is arbitray in the sense that it was introduced after the original ban to keep a ban whose jsutification is expiring. Also, if you introduce intelligence as a valid reason for banning a harvest, what other reasons will you allow? Sure whales are obviously different, which is why Walter feels safe making such a flawed argument - because in a narrow, specific set of circumstances he cannot see the flaws in it and how it will inevitably be used against him.

Released fish aren't wasted, they have a high level of survival.

The ones that don't survive are wasted. The ones that do survive are subject to unnatural acts which many members of the public consider cruel.

The few that die become part of the food chain.

So do the harvested whales. So does all the bycatch from trawlers.

Comparing fishing to whaling on cruelty grounds is like giving fish human attributes.

Walter's argument is like giving whales human attributes. Go ahead and ask him for an objective way to draw the line.

It's true that there is a huge conceptual gap between fish and whales. This just means that it is easy to assume that the line would be drawn somewhere between fish and whales. Yet there is no justification for this assumption. It is a purely emotive argument. Once you support one, you find it much harder to hold back all the others.