It's not incredibly true that killing whales does not provide scientific benefit, Japanese research has shown that:
* Whales are still tasty
* Whale meat can be sold for a pretty sum.
* Fast food restaurants selling whale burgers are a cash cow (no pun intended.)
Whalers and activists accuse each other of being terrorists?
Greenpeace sprays slogans on the side of the ship – exterior decoration, or graffiti at worst.
Sea Shepherd tries to jam up the gear, sabotage but mostly a silly nuisance of an idea.
And the whaling vessels spray them with water – now what does a ship that fills up with water do? Does it in anyway endanger the lives of the sea-persons? Is forcing a ship to take on water in the open ocean a brilliantly nice thing to do? I don't think so.
(Of course, there's that time a Greenpeace vessel was blown up by terrorists (read: government officials), but that's a different story.)
One group has an agenda based on sustainability, the other on profit.
Truth be told, Greenpeace are, and I hate to put it this way, doing John Howard's bidding – his administration lobbied, pleaded and endlessly talked to protect whale sanctuaries. Perhaps secretly he applauds their efforts – in the same way as if the Sea Shepherd shepherded boats full of lip-sewing refugees out of Australian waters, because it is the same thing. Bob Brown shouldn't be the one getting the media for this – this is John and Co.'s will and desire.
And quite frankly, they are doing the bidding of the whaling industry itself. Obviously it is struggling with self-regulation, even international intervened regulation, and will end up self-destructing if stocks are depleted. Perhaps that should be Greenpeace's slogan: “Save the whales, but only until they require culling in order to balance the oceans ecosystem, then it's Save the Krill.”
Although Save the Krill is a bit similar to “Save the Blowfly! There are too many swats around!”
I have no beef at all with traditional whalers – if you can catch a whale old-school, good work – much like the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines whaling (which involves a single elderly man and his nephew who “carry out the hunt using simple hand-held harpoons and wooden rowing boats.”). If you require a vast fleet of factory vessels, you have no shame.
And besides, we have, with America, a big fat population that is begging to be rid of it's excess blubber – and we have an obvious demand for raw lard as a Japanese and Norwegian delicacy from whales. I can see a link, and a quite prosperous export opportunity here, people.
And now for the satire:
Activists go “Japanesing”
Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd vessels have begun what they define as a scientific analysis of Japanese whalers. “Fascinating, yet simple, creatures” claims Paul Watson, head of Sea Shepherd.
“We are taking samples from small pods of Japanese that get stranded in Australian waters. The meat will be shipped to take-away restaurants in the form of sushi.”
“Some praise the Japanese as resourceful, brilliant animals, and should be protected, but the truth is somewhat different. A chicken knows little of the facts involving any strain on fish stocks a whales diet causes, or even of the historical World War II, and neither do the majority of Japanese. The whalers actually believe a whale is not intelligent based on the weight of the brain, and the weight of the mammal itself. If true, this would mean an ant is far smarter than Einstein, a dolphin would have several PhDs, and fat people would be so retarded they would have difficulty tying their shoe laces (which is usually due to other reasons.)”
“Unlike whales, there is also much less fat on whalers, with the added advantage of being completely spineless. Their songs are terrible though – have you heard The 5,6,7,8's? Whale songs are infinitely more pleasant.”
