They've been described as the rabbits of the sea. I'm referring to minke whales.
How much money does Greenpeace spend sending boats to the Antarctic to 'save' them?
I'm more concerned about the species that are really threatened with extinction like the freshwater dolphins of Asia.
After posting earlier today on the baniji in China, I was sent a link to the Mekong Dolphin Conservation Project.
[from the Mekong Dolphin Conservation Project website]
This project to save the Mekong River Dolphins appears to have been initiated by one dedicated PhD Student, Isabel Beasley.
I wonder how her budget compares to the Greenpeace budget for minke whales?
Where are our priorities?
Hi there,
In this world i see people taking animals for granted, they have feelings and suffer just like we humans do,they are important to us,i have gone out my way for animals because of others,i wish i could do more, and be part of any activity in helping animals...
thanking you
anabela
Yes - I agree with you "a lot more should be done to save the river dolphins".
I again stress that groups that purport to be "saving the environment" ought to focus on these real issues, rather than completely unrelated ones. Indeed if their efforts were focussed in such a productive way there is much that could otherwise be achieved.
'... yet you dived in to the subject earlier: Travis at July 6, 2006 08:53 AM. That Travis was you, wasn't it? But, silly me, your comment there was just rhetoric, wasn't it.'
It was one sentence disputing your misrepresentation of the facts.
'Interesting, seeing as I've never asked you what you thought about the upcoming JARPA review before this thread.'
Your thoughts on JARPA, regardless of the upcoming review, have been expressed countless times on this blog.
'Of course, some groups would rather drag the issue out forever, as it is in their interests to do so. That is life! ;-)'
Ah, the irony of it all re my comments of your repetitiveness.
Any thoughts on Mekong Irrawaddys?
> There was nothing that said I WASN'T INTERESTED,
It was what you didn't say that gave the impression that you aren't interested.
> I don't want to engage with you on your tired topic
... yet you dived in to the subject earlier: Travis at July 6, 2006 08:53 AM. That Travis was you, wasn't it? But, silly me, your comment there was just rhetoric, wasn't it.
> I also noted I had heard it all before
Interesting, seeing as I've never asked you what you thought about the upcoming JARPA review before this thread.
You're tired of this apparently, but I can assure you that I and many others are "tired" of hearing about very dubious "critiques" of such research programmes.
The upcoming review could lay this issue to rest once and for all, if interested people could say upfront "yes, we're all prepared to gracefully accept the outcome of this review".
Of course, some groups would rather drag the issue out forever, as it is in their interests to do so. That is life! 😉
'At any rate, I again note that I'm looking forward to the results of the next IWC SC review of the JARPA programme, and also note that you don't seem interested in it at all. Nothing but rhetoric...'
David do you actually read what others say, or are you so caught up in your own self-absorbed, opinionated world that it is beyond you? There was nothing that said I WASN'T INTERESTED, but instead, that this thread is NOT on JARPA and Japanese whaling. It is about other cetacean species and the problems they face. And yet you came to the conclusion, because I don't want to engage with you on your tired topic, that I am not interested. Get your facts straight, and stop jumping to conclusions based on scant evidence, something you take great delight in accusing anti-whaling scientists and green groups of doing. I also noted I had heard it all before, but you keep on repeating yourself regardless. I think you should be the one getting over it.
Travis,
Do the checking yourself. I have. It's hard to find a scientist that doesn't have an anti-use bias and also thinks that JARPA is a sham. That's all. Get over it.
Why should this be a surprise to anyone, anyway?
As we know, the IWC Scientific Committee has commended the research. It would be strange indeed if a different group of serious scientists turned around and contradicted this. Science isn't that ambiguous.
At any rate, I again note that I'm looking forward to the results of the next IWC SC review of the JARPA programme, and also note that you don't seem interested in it at all. Nothing but rhetoric...