whales

Please send me some info on saving the whales .

Which whales do you want to save? Are you aware that several whale stocks are quite abundant and in no danger?

It's really quite simple; don't pollute. The only threat whales face these days is pollution - but that's a serious threat. To save the whales, stop driving a car. Instead take the bus or train or ride a bike. Don't buy stuff you're not sure you need. Don't buy food unless you're sure you're going to eat it (food production causes an amazing amount of pollution). Stay away from all 'use and throw' stuff. Etc.

Don't waste youur time on the whaling issue, because despite the lies of Greenpeace et al, whaling has no effect on the whale population.

Now wouldn't that be because there is no commercial whaling going on at present? Get a brain clunk (futile request, I know)...commercial whaling historically has had tremendous impact on the whale population. And the japanese who are catching whales today over their own government given quota prove that commercial whalers, if given the chance, will continue to disregard any quota driven commercial whaling and take as many and as much as they can get away with...there is no penalty.

terminalethargy(Douglasred)

Norway is at present whaling commercially. Once again its is confirmed that the less a person knows about whales and whaling.. the more they oppose to it.

Gunnar Davidsson

Funny thing is, the antiwhalers often spout on and on about how commercial whaling is going on 'under the guise of research whaling'. Now he suddenly changes his mind?

LOL! Since when have you had a capable mind to judge? You still maintain that the U.S. should bomb Japan, don't you? Does the same apply to Norway?

Anyhow, I'm sure Douglasred will feel most pleased that he has someone of your opinions supporting him

All that is deserving - you have shown on many occasions that you are more than happy to deliberately come up with nonsensical misinterpretations because you have nothing to say.

I think you'll find that not many people would support your opinion that whales getting caught in fishing gear and drowning is 'whaling'. Certainly not anyone of importance, anyway

Sure. That is whaling by definition.

You seem to think that when whales get caught in fishing nets, that that is whaling. I see quite a clear parallel with this and a situation where a whale beached itself nearby a fishing village, and instead of pushing it back into the ocean, decided to utilise it's resources in some fashion.

So, you think that fisherpeoples in areas where whales are present are actually aiming to catch whales when they put out their fishing nets?

You seem to be evading the question - maybe you don't understand.

When a whale swims into a fishing net and gets stuck, you think this is whaling, do you not? (No human interference - the whale swims into the fishing net of it's own stupid volition) Do you think it is whaling if a whale beaches itself, and dies on the beach?

Look - stop evading questions. You have said that there is a trend of increasing incidental whale catches, and you seem to be claiming that the incidental catches are in fact pure whaling.

What I am asking you for is EVIDENCE that there is TREND of an increasing number of reported incidental catches.

If you want to look at one year and say 'It's a trend!' then you obviously haven't learnt much from your attempts to argue that Japan and Norway were responsible for depletions of certain whale stocks by simply counting whale numbers.

???? You said 'I believe it is ...', I said 'what you believe...' You can't see the connection?

You'll have to have evidence to back up your arguments if you want anyone to believe you, not just 'what I believe'

If people intended to catch whales, there are far more efficient and sure fire means of doing so.

That wasn't the question, again. How do you know what THEY 'knew'?

Bullshit they did. You think an average 7.5 whales getting caught in nets over a 6 month period is volitional whaling???? Are you serious????? Are you trying to take Anthony's crown or something????

Are you trying to suggest that people who live in the vicinty of both fish and whales should not be allowed to catch fish because over a certain period of time statistics say that a few stupid whales will probably ensnare themselves in the fishing net? Do you think that the fisherpeople should perhaps put a big sign that says 'no whales! fish only!'????? Or do you think perhaps these villages, being situated in areas where there is an abundance of marine resources should be made to relocate to somewhere where there is no abundance of whales?????

Unfortunately, the IWC's idea of 'whaling' is quite different to your idea. I think this is the source of your confusion.

You are clearly evidence enough.

Were all these whales drowned...or only 2 of the 54? Were the rest killed by the japanese *whalers*?

If it were 1 whale beached and 1 whale caught in nets there might be a parallel. In this case there were no whales beached and 54!!!!!! caught in nets. Accidentally caught in nets is different from what I see as *deliberately* caught in nets. The knowledge that this would happen was there ahead of time (even documented for each year). So then, these whales were caught deliberately...which in your own words is the definition of whaling: 'Sure. That is whaling by definition.' So you agree with me here. Isn't that all fuzzy-wuzzy?!!

Fisherwhalepeoples you mean. They know whales will be caught as well, do nothing about it, ask the iwcto let them kill and take the whales, are turned down, get their own government to *allow* them to take the whales, get approval with a quota, and then go ahead and take more than the allowed quota! If I wasn't such a trusting guy, I would say there is plenty of room for suspicion here!

I have already shown you that documentation. Check back to the article you accused me of not posting (posted 6 times)...you know, the one when you finally admitted to seeing, you flippantly dissed. You know, the one you could apologize to me for accusing me of a lie about posting. It's there; as well read your own posted link that leads to the very numbers referred to.

Yes, but those ways are not allowed at present now, are they??????

Read your own reference...you supplied the ammunition here...and it's shooting you in the foot (in your mouth)!

Ho hum....these are your suppositions...ho hum...yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

No, you are missing it again. The iwc turned down these japanese whalers...it was the japanese government (or government agency) who gave the approval...with a quota...WHICH WAS BROKEN! (sorry about shouting...hope to get your attention to this).

Ah, shucks....coming from you that be a compleement!

terminalethargy(Douglasred)

Well actually, I'm pleased debiddo to see how much you're reeling from Tim's total annihilation of any points you make and your inability to counter in any kind of effective way.

terminalethargy(Douglasred)

You sure support him when he speaks against Greenpeace. You are pretty two-faced.

Rev Dirk