Australian of the year supports Japanese whaling.

[centrajapan]

ENVIRONMENTALIST and 2007 Australian of the Year Tim Flannery has declared his support for the hugely unpopular Japanese whaling program.
As Australia prepares to monitor the whaling fleet in Antarctica amid rising diplomatic tensions with Japan, Professor Flannery says there is nothing unsustainable about its annual cull of up to 1000 whales - particularly the common minke whale.

"In terms of sustainability, you can't be sure that the Japanese whaling is entirely unsustainable," Professor Flannery told The Daily Telegraph. "It's hard to imagine that the whaling would lead to a new decline in population."

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...l?from=mostpop

Finally Australians seem to come to their senses. Good to see The Australian of the year no less and environmentalist supporting Japanese whaling.

[Sarapva]

So does this mean that from now on you'll be praising Australians, and take back your earlier racist remarks?

[centrajapan]

So does this mean that from now on you'll be praising Australians, and take back your earlier racist remarks?

haha. I am glad the brightest Australians are no racist.

[kame]

After reading the article, Tim Flannery strikes me as quite biased toward anti-whaling at heart. But he is a realist and understands that making arguments against sustainable whaling is not a good solution to saving whales and other environmental causes in general. Humans sometimes have to cull wildlife to save the environment or specific species. Tim knows that arguing against hunting whales even when they are abundant would make such future efforts more difficult to justify.

Tim's remarks on allowing minke whales to be hunted while saving the humpbacks for the time being sounds to me like the political compromise that US/Australia and the whaling parties are aiming for. It may very well have been worked out behind the scenes already.

But Tim still had to make a rather desparate argument of labeling minkes as less intelligent of the whales so that they can be eaten, to please the irrational "save all whales at all costs" public.

And even for a tabloid paper, do these guys have any morals as journalists? "Stop the whale slaughter: Sign our petition" in the middle of the article. That's hilarious.

Originally Posted by Sarapva

So does this mean that from now on you'll be praising Australians, and take back your earlier racist remarks?

You see, Sara, that's what I call getting down to his level. Can't you just read the article and comment on it like I do? If nothing else, just stay silent.

[centrajapan]

Selective catching of marine fish and mammals is an environmentally sound way for producing food for humans because the environment remains unaffected, energy use is low in relation to yield, and there is no pollution from fertilisers, pesticides, or other chemicals. The natural habitat does not have to be turned into agricultural land. From an enviromental point of view whaling should be welcomed.

When you only protect a single spiecies in a multi spiecies eco system the eco system gets out of balance. We need to discuss ecological realities but it is difficult to discuss this when the anti whaling camp is driven by so much emotions because they regard whales as special animals. They have simply taken the whale out of the eco system due to cultural preference.

Back to the article. The impression I have of Australia is that they see whales as special animals which should be left alone so it is good to see that despite having emotional feelings towards whaling he atleast admits that there are no good environmental reasons for why Japan shouldn't be able to conduct whale hunting.

Looking at the bigger picture we should start asking ourselves if eating beef and pork like we do is sustainable for the planet. It isn't. Cows rasied for beef, in particular, emit massive amounts of nitrous oxide and methane. Trees are cut down to make room for agricultural land.

Whaling is a green industry. If the Australian government can't live up to the promises they have agreed upon to IWC they should leave IWC.

In IWC you now have small countries in the Pacific Ocean who support whaling and the reasosn to why they support whaling is because they want to protect their fish stocks.

Scientists have already found out that whales eat more fish than humsn do globally.

[Sarapva]

Originally Posted by kame

You see, Sara, that's what I call getting down to his level. Can't you just read the article and comment on it like I do? If nothing else, just stay silent.

I made that remark just for fun - it wasn't serious. I don't expect an answer to it.

[kame]

Originally Posted by Sarapva

I made that remark just for fun - it wasn't serious. I don't expect an answer to it.

Do you have any insight to share regarding the article? Do you think he is a traitor, reasonable man, hypocrite...?

[Rose Selavey]

Originally Posted by kame

Do you have any insight to share regarding the article? Do you think he is a traitor, reasonable man, hypocrite...?

I do, Dr Tim Flannery may be Australian of the year but this does not mean all Australians or scientist agree with him, Dr Peter Harrison of SCU is much more well respected then Tim with regard to whales and their biology and he is against the whales hunt of endangered species such as the Fin and Humpback. Tim wants Australia to go Nuclear but that doesn't mean we will.

[Sarapva]

Originally Posted by kame

Do you have any insight to share regarding the article? Do you think he is a traitor, reasonable man, hypocrite...?

I read the article, but I don't have an opinion about it - he's one man who agrees with whaling, and that's it. It doesn't matter that he's Australian. Rose has given much more insight on how he's seen in Australia.

[Rose Selavey]

Originally Posted by centrajapan

haha. I am glad the brightest Australians are no racist.

Australians of the year are chosen not for their I.Q but for those who have a consistent record of excellence, who have made outstanding achievements in their field, and contributed in a significant way to our nation.

Australians are not racist if they oppose whaling, they are merely extending their rights as part of the global community to oppose something they disagree with.

[Rose Selavey]

Originally Posted by centrajapan

Selective catching of marine fish and mammals is an environmentally sound way for producing food for humans because the environment remains unaffected, energy use is low in relation to yield, and there is no pollution from fertilisers, pesticides, or other chemicals. The natural habitat does not have to be turned into agricultural land. From an enviromental point of view whaling should be welcomed.

The whaling populations are no where near post whaling size and yet the earths fish stocks are depleted, did whales do this? No humans did. Fishing post industrial revolution would have been sustainable as the numbers and methods of humans catching them was less then today. This is why we have to have regulations on how many fish are caught and even these are often broken. The thousands of Albatrosses of the seas would have to disagree with you that selective catching of marine fish is an environmentally friendly with no effect on the environment, as to would the billions of tonnes of bi-catch that are annually caught in fishing nets around the world. The Great Barrier Marine park in Australia (the largest marine park in the world), have different zones for different activities with some areas no go zones for humans at all. This allows fish stocks to be replenished, but even so it is very hard to mange and protect certain species. Certain fishes have become to economically profitable to allow for proper conservation.

As to no pollution, the Australian tuna industry would be a good example of high energy use. The tuna are caught in Australian waters far from the coast using lots of fuel, the best sent to Japan, the others sold on the Australian market all moved by trucks up and down the high way. The Tuna off to the Japanese markets are flown, using up energy and again would be transported form one end of the country to the other, all using fuel. The worlds food consumption in the first world uses so much energy from catch/harvest/production to the dinner table that your statment is laughable. The best form of food production is small scale, local and in season.

[centrajapan]

Australians of the year are chosen not for their I.Q but for those who have a consistent record of excellence, who have made outstanding achievements in their field, and contributed in a significant way to our nation.

It was just a stupid joke. I am sure AUstralia is a nice country and Australians friendly. While I do think that anti whaling is anti Japan I will leave this for now and despite you being anti whaler I am sure you are allright.

I agree with some points and disagree with some points. Ill say what I disagree with first.

The whaling populations are no where near post whaling size and yet the earths fish stocks are depleted, did whales do this? No humans did.

There are 80 different spiecies of whales. Some are still endangered and others aren't. As I stated earlier if you protect a non endangered spiecies in a multi eco spiecies the eco system gets out of balance. Humans got to eat something.

While humans are to be blamed for over exploiting the various fish stocks if we were to hunt the non endangered spiecies which also eat the fish stocks there would be more fish in the ocean.

I am not sure how the Albatros gets caught. I would assume fishing nets? If you use equpiment that enable you to only cath the marine fish and mammal you are looking for and make sure not to catch more than they can reproduce then that is environmental friendly.

Fish trawlers which scrape the bottom of the sea and take much more than what they are looking for is not eco friendly.

Many of the great whales are still endangered. While the minke whale isn't.Could the reason why teh greater whales don't increase in numbers be due to the fact that minke whales have increased so much and because different whale species compete for the same food?

[Rose Selavey]

Originally Posted by centrajapan

I am not sure how the Albatros gets caught. I would assume fishing nets? If you use equpiment that enable you to only cath the marine fish and mammal you are looking for and make sure not to catch more than they can reproduce then that is environmental friendly.
Fish trawlers which scrape the bottom of the sea and take much more than what they are looking for is not eco friendly.

Many of the great whales are still endangered. While the minke whale isn't.Could the reason why teh greater whales don't increase in numbers be due to the fact that minke whales have increased so much and because different whale species compete for the same food?

The Albatrosses get caught in long line fishing (which is supposed to be the most selective method of fishing).

The Minke whale is not endangered in Northern hemisphere waters and is becoming more abundant in Southern waters. But the Southern hemisphere Minke's which are being targeted by the Japanese whaling fleet, feed mainly on krill followed by small schooling fishes, their eating habits would have nothing to do with decline in fishes such as the orange roughie or tuna.

[centrajapan]

The Albatrosses get caught in long line fishing (which is supposed to be the most selective method of fishing).

It is obviously not selective enough if the Albatrosses get caught in the line.

The Minke whale is not endangered in Northern hemisphere waters and is becoming more abundant in Southern waters. But the Southern hemisphere Minke's which are being targeted by the Japanese whaling fleet, feed mainly on krill followed by small schooling fishes, their eating habits would have nothing to do with decline in fishes such as the orange roughie or tuna

.

The minke whale is not endagred. Thats the whole point. Minke whales eat both fish and krill. Some other whale spieces only eat krill. Yet an another reason to why the greater whales despite a hand off policy does not increase in numbers.

When tuna grow in size they wouln't get eaten by minke whales but when tunas are small they do get eaten. That is why countries like Nahuru an island nation off the coast not too far away from Australia votes in favour of a commercial hunt for the minke whale to be able to protect their tuna stocks.

If you compare whalng and utlization of marine animals and fish. One thing which speaks to their favour is that the natural habiat remains unaffected. This is teh reason to why it is more sustainable than agricultural products. While fossil fuel is needed for boats. Australia wants to ban whaling and do whale safari. Alot of energy is needed to transport people back and forth too.

[caster51]

Ｉ　think it is very interesting..
anti- whaling is money

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=W8hJTrSG7sg

real anti- whaling matter is different schema


http://www.icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm

[Sarapva]

Is there an English version (or a way to see subtitles) for the youtube video? I'd really like to know what he's saying.

[kameron]

I would respect them (the whale harpooners) more if they were a bit more honest about what they're doing, culling 1000 whales seems a bit odd for "research" purposes.

[centrajapan]

Japan can only hunt whales if it is for research purposes. Japan is conducting research to make sure that they can hunt whales without it having a negative impact on the stock numbers. Thats the point of the research.

[Kyoto Returnee]

Originally Posted by centrajapan

Japan can only hunt whales if it is for research purposes.

So obviously what they are doing is illegal as let's face it, why on earth would you kill all those whales for research purposes.