5 ships leave for research whaling

SHIMONOSEKI — A five-ship Japanese mission for 'research whaling' in the Antarctic Ocean sailed from Shimonoseki port in Yamaguchi Prefecture on Friday.

The vessels in the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) mission, which will last for six months, include the 7,575-ton mother-ship Nissin Maru and the 747-ton Yushin Maru No. 2, a visual observation ship. The Nissin Maru will return to Kochi port in Kochi Prefecture in April, according to the ICR.

The ships are expected to catch about 400 minke whales in the Antarctic Ocean during the operation and make records of the numbers and habitation of the whales, the ICR said.

The mission is also expected to collect biological and environmental data concerning the whales in the area and report them to the science subcommittee of the International Whaling Commission, it said.

Japan started its so-called scientific whaling in the Antarctic Ocean in 1987 to gather biological data on whales. The Japanese fleet took photographs of them and conducted environmental surveys.

In the last season's operation, the fleet caught 440 minke whales, discovered 2,289 groups of minke whales, the largest number ever found in the ocean, and confirmed the presence of 5,460 minke whales, according to the ICR.

Many governments and organizations worldwide condemn such expeditions as a cover for commercial whaling, noting that meat from caught whales is later sold in Japan for consumption. (Kyodo News)

Note the 'research whaling', a tacit acknowledgement of the falsity of the words within the quotes.

Note the 'so-called', a tacit acknowledgement of the falsity of the words within the quotes.

Since you have previously claimed that the IWC is irrelevant, David, then statements by it's officials are likewise irrelevant.

Because they are lies, baka yarou.

Richard Hayduke Lives! 'Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it. The ages have been at work and man can only mar it.' Theodore Roosevelt

Yet again, you make a totally ridiculous argument, which amounts to little more than one of your silly ad hominems.

Dr Ray Gambell was not the IWC, he was it's secretary. He was not able to control the way the politicians voted, but he did know the rules better than anyone, as the secretary. That the politicians who vote at the IWC are all corrupt is irrelevant to the fact.

Why you care what the rules say anyway is beyond me. You are against the whole concept of whaling in the first place, you should be campaigning against it - you would if you had any principles.

But you don't

Indeed, I've been doing so since before we first spoke, as you well know. There is little that I find more abhorrent than whaling, but you know that as well.

That might be the biggest lie you have told yet, David. My animal rights principles have been clearly stated here over and over and over as has my totally opposition to whaling. Your claim that I don't campaign against whaling is so transparently bogus as to make your sanity questionable.

Richard Hayduke Lives! 'Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it. The ages have been at work and man can only mar it.' Theodore Roosevelt

Just listen to yourself!

On one hand you crap on about how Japan is breaking the rules, then on the other you denounce the rules as being against your principles anyway?

Why don't you at least show some brains by conceeding that Japan is following the rules, but that the rules themself are against your principles?

You wouldn't seem like quite such a chump that way.

Just look at yourself! Instead of defending the massive lies you spewed in the last post, you play your little game of snipping THE ENTIRE POST and attempting to change the subject.

I'll repost it again, since you seem to have forgotten it:

Indeed, I've been doing so since before we first spoke, as you well know. There is little that I find more abhorrent than whaling, but you know that as well.

That might be the biggest lie you have told yet, David. My animal rights principles have been clearly stated here over and over and over as has my totally opposition to whaling. Your claim that I don't campaign against whaling is so transparently bogus as to make your sanity questionable.

Richard Hayduke Lives! 'Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it. The ages have been at work and man can only mar it.' Theodore Roosevelt

That's not unlike what you and your ilk do to other legitimate posts.

Oh yeah, to remind you, here is your post from earlier:

You as well. You should have deleted the rest of the message, thusly

<snip>

Richard Hayduke Lives! 'If history has taught us anything, it's that an action which is considered extreme by one generation is considered progressive and enlightened by the next. Ecotage is such an action, for the life of the sea is in imminent peril.' Paul Watson

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

BTW, top posting is considered bad form.

Richard Hayduke Lives! 'If history has taught us anything, it's that an action which is considered extreme by one generation is considered progressive and enlightened by the next. Ecotage is such an action, for the life of the sea is in imminent peril.' Paul Watson

You are often unprepared to discuss the topic at hand, for example the well written argument illustrating American double standards on whaling.

On that ocassion you chose to employ a ad hominem argument against it's author, rather than addressing the argument.

We do of course realise that you did not want to address the argument because it was so well written, and essentially faultless.

You did however choose to introduce things to the thread that had 'nothing to do with the topic at hand'.

But we all know that you are a hypocrite. I still often wonder whether you feel for the animals that suffer because of your existence, and indeed your very participation in this newsgroup.

So are ad hominem arguments, but when did that ever stop you?

See? You are a hypocrite.

Nonsense. I pointed out that the author was fired from the IWC for incompetance and now runs an organization dedicated to exploiting animals (such as reviving the ivory trade) under the guise of a conservation organization. There is little point in responding to such propaganda from a clearly biased and dishonest source. I posted citations and links to support this. You should look up the definition of 'ad hominem' before you use it in a sentence.

Richard Hayduke Lives! 'If history has taught us anything, it's that an action which is considered extreme by one generation is considered progressive and enlightened by the next. Ecotage is such an action, for the life of the sea is in imminent peril.' Paul Watson