B wrote:
> goldrunt wrote:
> > You are right, I will keep listening because one can never know enough.
> >  I am just here to share opinions, and B's Australian (I'm guessing)
> > opinion of Japan seems to be a bit antagonistic. Do you think Japanese
> > fishermen really should obey the loudest gaijin when it comes to
> > completely legal whale harvesting.  Also, no one cares if they are fish
> > or mammals.  Why is this important?
>
> Japan is explicitly stating this is a nationalistic thing.

A "national interest" thing yes - which is partly why there are more
bureaucrats employed on this issue than full time whalers (according to
Ohmae Kenichi and others). Economically Japan's deep sea whaling (in
the other hemisphere) makes little sense, but then neither do many of
the arguments being made by their opponents. But from a national
interest point of view abitrary (and more than somewhat irrational)
restrictions such as some of the IWC circus proposals could easily
become a precedent that extends to fishing and other blue ocean
activities.

> Japan is fishing in water tens of thousands of kilometers
> away from Japan. Funny how they refuse to acknowledge
> Australian sovereignty but want the RAN to protect them
> from Greenpeace

So does would that mean that if the hunting was exclusively within the
Japanese EEZ, or even within the 12 nautical mile limits, and the boats
were hunting a very small and heavily regulated number of minke and
other balleen whales at rates well below the natural rate of
replacement, that such hunting would no longer be opposed by you on
these specific grounds?

> Yes, it is an important distinction that they are mamamals,
> not fish. Whales are highly intelligent and socialable mammals.

Other than all whale & dolphin species, what other mammals should by
this definition also be off limits for human consumption?