NZ's stance on environmental issues is one of the things that makes me proud to be a Kiwi, now is not the time to back down. Put it to a vote!

I don't have a problem with eating animals for food including whales, but only if its sustainable and humane.

I think reaching a deals leaves the Japanese a face saving way to bow out of the hunt and this whole ordeal will be over faster than taking a hard nose stance, which hasn't worked so far. So whats the harm in trying? our face, their face or less whales killed?

What is the real objective? No more whaling in the Southern seas or lobby groups getting Japan to bow to pressure?

I think good on any politician will the guts and foresight to to go against populist opinion to achieve a goal that nobody else can see, that real leadership.

Many whale species are under such threat of extinction that any compromise is not acceptable. These are highly intelligent creatures with low birth rates. I am frankly appalled that a NZ government would consider softening our stance on ending all whaling.

Japanese culture will not allow them to stand down and lose face over whaling. Therefore a prohibition on whaling is pointless - the Japanese will ignore it as, if they didn't, they would lose face.

If whaling is to be stopped then some way of doing so which recognises this fact needs to be found.

My suggestion would be to allow the commercial whaling of a certain quota of whales per year. These quotas would be for non-territorial oceanic whaling (so 1000 minke whales in the Southern Ocean, another quota for 2000 dolphins in the Pacific etc). Importantly the rights to each quota would be auctioned off in an international auction to organisations and not be open to nations to bid on themselves and can not be reallocated.

So what will happen is that the Japanese government has reached a face saving compromise that allows whaling to happen and has no control over the auction as it is, simply, a purely commercial business.

Even then it is pretty obvious that the organisations with the largest pockets for whaling (due to not wanting to make a profit) are the NGOs. So Greenpeace etc will bid on, and win, the auctions and simply not take up the whaling rights.

Whales saved, face saved, and Japanese whalers can continue to operate in their territoral waters but not outside of them (as they should be doing under cultural catches). Over time the costs involved would be too high for the businesses to succeed and even this whaling would die out.

Any money made in the auctions can be recycled into, for example, whale research and counting.

Win, win. But far too free market for most watermelons to agree to!

@Alison #63 - Andy Gill is an interesting point. If you look at the video, it looks like they manuevered their craft into the path of the whaling boat. Of course, many hotly contests this.

"Next election lets not vote for John key and his group in. He and McCully dosn't care about the whales and low income New Zealanders" - Why did "low income New Zealanders" come up in a debate about whales? Especially considering your previous comment "seams that the goverment is thinking more about money than help protecting the whales"

Did someone switch this story around after the comments were put up?

It doesn't say anything about "allowing" whaling. More like a pragmatic way to actually get results. There is no point acting like that bunch of idiots destroying boats down in the southern ocean. Fools like them don’t help the case at all - makes me want to try a humpback sandwich..... The majority of those commenting here need to have a look at the credibility of their arguments. Not clever. At all.

@ Dr.N.Baker #66

"So you think that by not fully prohibiting whaling, you will be able to regulate and control the killing of these creatures."

"Another hot topic at the moment is whether to carry on (failed) prohibition of cannabis use"

You appear to be using the same reasoning to somehow take different sides of these two prohibition arguments?!?

John #40, not compromising your beliefs works very well when it comes to your own actions. It is generally a dismal failure when trying to control or change the actions of others. In general people are stubborn and will ignore someone demanding they stop doing something even when they know they should. Working with the whalers on a way to scale down and eventually cease whaling is worth considering. It does not mean you support whaling while that process is completed. A scale down and ceasing over 10 years is probably a better outcome in the long term, assisting with this does not mean you condone the actions of the whalers. No one has suggested that NZ start harvesting whales. Given the extremely poor results achieved so far by direct confrontation it has to be worth an attempt. Remember the definition of insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting a different result. At the end of the day in this matter it is the result that counts.

Tom #63 : Its not hypocritical that people are concerned about the morality of whaling when we continue to eat cows, sheep etc, because we continue to replenish our supply by the use of breeding. We don't for whales, and every species of whale is on the verge of extinction at this rate. You don't have to be an animal rights activist to see that it is morally wrong to hunt a species which will soon be gone. I am an omnivore, therefore I rely and enjoy eating our cutsie creatures. But if one of these species i enjoy was on the verge of extintion for whatever reason, it WOULD be morally wrong to keep killing them. Whats the point if there is no abundance of the species??

@ Sock #23

But they are being hunted to extinction, so is pretty much every edible creature in the ocean. Even around NZ, look at our snapper stocks, they're only 2% of what they were in the 1930's. If we as a country stand idley by, there shall be no marine life left in about 50 years or so.