Here
and
Now

opinions

Future of commercial whaling ban rests with Japan

55 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

55 Comments
Login to comment

Nationalism, can't let those foriegners win, even if it doesn't involve Japanese territory. This mindset it prevalent in alot (not all) of Japanese. Was the shame of losing the war too much? Too much pride leads to these sort of problems. Really, this issue is pretty childish. The main reason Japanese bureaucrats want to fish in the Antartic waters is because the international community is against it? I can just picture the J-gov bureaucrats screaming and throwing a tantrum because they can't get their way. To these losers, a one-finger salute I extend to you. Whale around your own damn waters!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Any political party that bows to international pressure on this issue will take a major hit in the public opinion polls in Japan. That's really as simple as this issue is. The Japanese political gap between parties is just too close right now to risk losing even 5% of the votes. If the international community would just wake up, take the pressure down a few notches and reach a back-room deal that will take effect in 2 or 3 years then the chances of a successful solution are much more likely. Unfortunately the international political parties are pursuing an active pressure campaign for precisely the same reason the Japanese are not moving, because in Australia and the U.S. the parties know that they can gain major political capital by pushing this through. It's idiotic, and the Japanese aren't solely to blame here as everyone implies. It's an international battle for domestic voters, and if anyone actually cared about the whales they wouldn't be pursuing the issue this way. So to all those bleeding heart environmentalists, realise you're prolonging this problem, not solving it, by pressuring you MP, congressman, etc. to take public action.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@jam_sandwich

Those words apply to any of the anti-whaling nations, since the moratorium was scheduled to be reviewed in 2004 which never happened due to stalling by anti-whaling nations thinking it is they who decides. Nations that never had anything to do with whaling in the first place, have not done any research concerning the subject nor, have any financial stake(Pro or con) into it. The so called "Southern Ocean Sanctuary" is within international waters so no single nation lays claim and yet Australians are acting as NIMBYs thinking it's theirs. If you don't call that Nationalism, I don't know what is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hahahaha -

“The moratorium has been one of the single most effective conservation achievements of the century, but it’s not working currently in the sense that several governments can whale completely outside the IWC’s control,” said Wendy Elliott, who will lead a group from the WWF at the meeting.

Is that the same WWF that has been bribing non-whaling members of the IWC for the last 30 years?

Who is actually running 'the world’s sole whaling regulator' (aka the IWC)? Does Greenpeace, the WWF and the Pew Group have enough money to influence enough of the voters to get their way?

If IWC votes have been for sale for the last 30 years, maybe it's time the IWC should be dissolved and each nation should set it's own limits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its becoming more and more clear that Japanese whalers are being backed by Yakuza or some sort of organized crime. They will NEVER back down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SamuraiBlue,

Well, here's the thing about Southern Ocean Sanctuary (SOS), the northern boundary of the sanctuary follows the 40°S parallel of latitude except in the Indian Ocean sector where it joins the southern boundary of the Indian Ocean Whale Sanctuary at 55°S, and around South America and into the South Pacific where the boundary is at 60°S. Much of this is in Australian territory, given that it's coastal waters extend 200 nautical miles from it's territories. So much of the waters in Southern Ocean Sanctuary lay in Australian coastal waters. You could say they do have vested interests in these waters, and the Sancturary in general. Japan unfortunately doesn't have any such territory. Japan, being from the northern hemisphere and all. Nationalism, I highly don't this is an issue of pride for the Australians. Japan on the other case, just doesn't like to be told what to do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who is actually running 'the world’s sole whaling regulator' (aka the IWC)? Does Greenpeace, the WWF and the Pew Group have enough money to influence enough of the voters to get their way?

Yes they do, or to be more accurate, the pushy liberal, American tax-free foundations that fund groups like Greenpeace and the WWF do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"more scientific analysis", “we need to collect more data.”, more "scientific research"... for what purpose?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ jam_sandwich

Here we go again some Australians claiming Antarctica as their own while virtually no other nation in the world acknowledge it. That's what you call "Nationalism" at it's finest.

When will you guys/gals learn that when Australia signed the Antarctic Treaty (which Australia is a signatory of) you also lost all claims to the ice continent. So whatever you claim is also null and void.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan on the other case, just doesn't like to be told what to do.

I think that applies to just about every other country, including mine (the US of A). However, I do agree with this comment :

Whale around your own damn waters!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lets all wait and see what goes down next week, right now we get a lot of huhhah and propaganda.

Like with many of those conferences the real deals, etc are done before they meet and are just announced at the conference.

In short many people already know what the outcome will be but ain't talking.

And I think the result will come as a surprise(welcome or not) to some parties.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a surprising article in terms of how negative it is about whaling. Personally, I think Japan should be allowed limited commercial whaling in their own waters (frankly I don't think anyone should be telling Japan what to do in their own waters). But the insanity of the Antartic hunt needs to stop. It's only viable because of government subsidies and serves no real scientific purpose.

Unfortunately we should be more worried about the obliteration of tuna species than most (I stress most) whale species. :(

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The_harper.

I agree witb you on japanese whaling.

Said that there is one small fish more endangered than Tuna. That is a small fish(name eludes me) that makes up the majority of what we eat in Fillet-o-Fish, Fish-fingers, Fish-cakes, etc.

We used to use a lot of cod for that previously.

Currently it looks as fishing that fish will soon result in a ban, hence either we find another fish to replace it or eat less of the above dishes.

While I think the whaling issue needs addressing, there are other more important fishing issues that also need it. Like the depletion of Sharks worldwide, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SamuraiBlue,

I'm not sure where you're getting you facts, but I dug this up about the antartic treaty:

Article 4 – the treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force.

Since Australia had territory before this treaty (1961), it's territory was not surrendered, nor revoked. The Australian antartic territory still stands, like it did.

However, ironically enough I found this:

Australia's claim to sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory is recognised by the United Kingdom, New Zealand, France and Norway.[5] Japan does not recognise this claim.[6] Japan also does not recognise the Australian claim to Australian Antarctic territorial waters in which Japanese ships conduct whaling.

Seems like Japan is being a bit of a jerk on the territorial water claim anyways, and, self-righteously, are doing whatever they want.

So long as they keep it in their own waters, I'm sure the heat they are facing will die down. If Japan keeps stubbornly claiming their "right" to whale in international waters, (a whale sanctuary, the irony of ironies) then expect the international community to hammer the nail that is sticking out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh boy talk about rewriting for self assertion.

Go to the "Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty" web site to read the full content of the treaty instead of digesting parts to fit your needs. Here is the link;

http://www.ats.aq/documents/ats/treaty_original.pdf

First of the Antarctic Treaty was signed in Washington on 1 December 1959 not 1961.

Second the section before your digested version states the following;

No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting , supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.

So claiming the so called sanctuary as Australian waters is in direct violation of the treaty, get it.

Geez I really can't understand why some people try to bend what's clearly written in black and white to pose to their favor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can't you SamuraiBlue? Really. You really can't understand why some people try to bend things in their favour? You must find the world a bewildering place indeed.

Makoto Ito, managing director of Kyodo Senpaku Co, the company that runs the annual Antarctic hunt, said he didn’t think they should be ended, because “we need to collect more data.”

Ha - what a joke.

Japan can whale in their own waters - I don't really like that way it is done but accept that some countries just take longer to grow up than others. Also Japan has fished out it's seas - there is precious little environment to save.

Australia however does have a legitimate interest in SOS waters. It directly affects their own territorial waters as they are all part of the ecosystem of the Southern Ocean - which is under pressure. Removing the large mammals affects the whole system - so targeting the last remaining significant population in that ecological niche makes zero sense.

So I too call for the resumption of commercial whaling within territorial waters - in return for renunciation of all "scientific" whaling and any whaling in the Southern Oceans at all.

Go Australia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@yelspal

Which part within the treaty suggests SOS is Australian territory? Read the treaty.

Australia CANNOT make any assertion while treaty is in force. In other words it is considered international waters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SamuraiBlue, I read the document, it states, as I have posted previously:

**1 Nothing contained in the present treaty shall be interpreted as:

(a) a renunciation by any contracting party of previously asserted rights or of claims to territorial sovereignty in Antartica.

Here's a brief definition of the word renunciation: to give up, refuse, or resign usually by formal declaration.

The Australian claim to Antartic territory was made well before the Antartic Treaty. Since your aforementioned treaty DID NOT, in fact, nullify Australia's territory. Rather it just means no new claims can be made on Antartic territory. Australia's claim to this territory is not nullified by it's action. The Treaty puts aside disputes over territorial claims by providing that no activities taking place while the Treaty is in force can be used to assert, support or deny a claim.

Unfortunately, this isn't black and white, (one point for you sir) since Australia has previously existing claims to Antartic territory, and while arresting Japanese vessels outright would be violating that treating, (asserting territorial sovereignty). What is to be noted is that Australia looks to be in a stronger position in its legal action against Japan. In international court, Australia's claim to Antartic waters isn't denied, since the Antartic treaty did not nullify previously existing treaties. In which the court would probably grant an immediate injunction ordering Japan to stop whaling. Either way, it's better for Japan to stay coastal. My original point. Geez I really can't understand why some people just don't know when to quit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Still interpreting to your own means?

Read article 4 section 2; It reads as follows;

No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting , supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.

As I posted before.

Are you really reading the same treaty?

It clearly means while the treaty is in force, Australia cannot make any assertion whatsoever towards Antarctica nor the sea surrounding it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

space_monkey - Its becoming more and more clear that Japanese whalers are being backed by Yakuza or some sort of organized crime. They will NEVER back down.

There was no mention of Yakuza, organized crime or criminals in the article. Are you referring to Greenpeace, the WWF and the Pew Group?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Garthgoyle - "more scientific analysis", “we need to collect more data.”, more "scientific research"... for what purpose?

To understand and properly manage any resource, the normal proceedure is to collect and study data.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jam_sandwich at 09:06 PM JST - 19th June What is to be noted is that Australia looks to be in a stronger position >in its legal action against Japan. In international court, Australia's >claim to Antartic waters isn't denied, since the Antartic treaty did not >nullify previously existing treaties.

SamuraiBlue at 09:29 PM JST - 19th June "No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting , supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force."

Looks to me like the sovereignty part of Australia's claim is going to fall flat on it's face. Followed by the Scientific Whaling issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ChrisBiggins, did you read the article? The IWC is now considering re-establishing commercial whaling. Otherwise, scientific research will continue. No matter how many bribes the WWF doles out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The IWC is now considering re-establishing commercial whaling. Otherwise, scientific research will continue.

Let me get this straight. Japan is conducting 'scientific research' in order to be able to properly manage stocks when commercial whaling resumes. So if there is to be no commercial whaling, either at all or in a specific location such as the Southern Sanctuary, then surely there is no need for research whaling either at all or in that specific location?

But you say that unless commercial whaling is restarted, research whaling will continue. What would be the point of continuing research to manage stocks if there is not going to be any need to manage those stocks because there is no commercial whaling?

If this scientific research is being carried out for the purpose of managing stocks, surely there would be a greater need for research if commercial whaling were restarted, to make sure that populations were not being threatened or compromised, not less need?

Why not just admit the research is nothing but an excuse to get the meat. Let the Emperor put some clothes on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - Let me get this straight.

What issues do you think the IWC is considering?

Are they considering re-establishing commercial whaling?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo at 01:27 AM JST - 20th June "The IWC is now considering re-establishing commercial whaling. Otherwise, scientific research will continue." Let me get this straight. Japan is conducting 'scientific research' in >order to be able to properly manage stocks when commercial whaling >resumes.

Could you provide a link for that please. Presumably the ICR makes that statement?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Research data can also be collected from "commercially" caught stock, that actually happens with nearly every commercial resoure out there from plants down to animals. You just sample or allocate a portion of the commercial catch for research data purpose.

Not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Samurai Blue

Can you not read your own article? Can you read? Do you have higher brain functions? Do you know what I am saying? Article IV of the Antartic treaty, clearly states that Australia's previous claim to Antartic is not, in fact, invalid. The claim to its territory is still existent! As in "has not been nullfied. Australia cannot act unilaterally, however, Should Australia challenge Japan's claims to scientific whaling in international court, (which I think, it has), Australia has a lot going for it. Prior claims to antartic waters, (possession is 9/10 of the law), exposed bribes by Japan to other (non-whaling) members of IWC. Australia won't act by unilaterally because it can't, however, multilaterally, Australia can in effect shut Japan down on the issue of international whaling. Please don't reply anymore, you're wasting value internet space. Japan needs to stick to its own waters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan -

Presumably the ICR makes that statement?

Well that's the way I read it, and also what our friend davidattokyo has been telling us for years, that research is necessary to ensure sustainable use of resources.

http://www.icrwhale.org/QandAjapanresearch.htm

arrestpaul -

I'm not talking about what the IWC may or may not be considering. I'm asking about your apparent claim that there is some kind of either-or element involved, that the restarting of commercial whaling would mean less research whaling.

Reading back over the icr page I linked for Ossan, I see that they claim 'the Southern Ocean Sanctuary applies only to commercial whaling. It does not apply to research.' Now that looks to me like they recognise the sanctuary as a place where commercial whaling is not allowed. So why are they conducting research whaling with a view to improving stock management, if they acknowledge that the resources swimming in the sanctuary are off limits to commercial whaling?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - I'm not talking about what the IWC may or may not be considering.

I was. Presently, research whaling IS ALLOWED. The anti-whaling zealots violently object to that. The IWC membership is now considering re-opening commercial whaling. Will the IWC members vote to stop or reduce research whaling if (or when) commercial whaling is re-established?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul;"Presently, research whaling IS ALLOWED. The anti-whaling zealots violently object to that."

Well what will happen when Japan rejects/leaves the IWC, does that same belief preserve? Even though we are hunting in a necognised sanctuary? Do we still have the same rights we claim under "scientific research"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Presently, research whaling IS ALLOWED.

What is the point of conducting research to manage stocks in an area that Japan acknowledges is a sanctuary where commercial whaling is not allowed?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm curious about how the folks here and beyond define the term "research whaling". How do the researcher(s) capture whales with a giant dragnet or a general anesthesia in order to conduct a study of cetaceans (i.e., number of species, taxonomy, natural habitat), if it is solely scientific? Does IWC or any other international organization have an official institutional research board or committee that gives member nations an approval for scientific/empirical study of cetaceans and any other sea mammals?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh so you mean it will no longer be 'research', it will simply be 'commercial'? Please explain the difference in our hunts in the Antarctic under this change? Because I can see none other than the term for it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh so you mean it will no longer be 'research', it will simply be 'commercial'? Please explain the difference in our hunts in the Antarctic under this change? Because I can see none other than the term for it!

So, does that lead you to the conclusion that the problem solely rests with Japan? What about the IWC's current policy on whaling? What can be implied with its moratorium?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KeikoTokyo - Well what will happen when Japan rejects/leaves the IWC, does that same belief preserve? Even though we are hunting in a necognised sanctuary? Do we still have the same rights we claim under "scientific research"?

cleo - What is the point of conducting research to manage stocks in an area that Japan acknowledges is a sanctuary where commercial whaling is not allowed?

First, you have to resolve some legal questions? Who created the Southern Sanctuary? The IWC members. Who is required to respect the rules and regulations of the IWC? The IWC members. Can the IWC enforce it's rules on countries that are not members of the IWC? No, they can't. They have neither the authority nor an enforcing agency (police force) to make non-member countries do their bidding. Unless some country volunteers to involve their navy/coast guard to enforce IWC rules and risks economic (and possibly armed) conflict, there is nothing that IWC could do.

Membership in the IWC is voluntary and it's thru negotiation that the IWC was able to establish a commercial moritorium. The IWC negotiated a deal to allow research whaling. The IWC negotiated that research whale carcass's would be be used or eaten. After many years of not allowing commercial whaling, which allowed whales stocks to replentish, the IWC is now negotiating a return of (limited) commercial whaling.

The WWF and other animal-rights NGO groups undermined the negotiation process 30 years ago when they started bribing countries to join the IWC and vote according to the dictates of the WWF and their friends.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wau.. where to begin ne? First, throw away any more pretense of 'research'. There is no research being conducted at all that actually would require the killing of whales - none at all. If they were researching the stock of whales to see if they were in sufficient numbers to allow commercial hunting, then they could literally just count noses and say see? they are not endangered! Second, if the IWC is actually OFFERING to sanction commercial whale hunts for Nihon in exchange for keeping away from the Southern Sanctuary, then they are showing their own complicity in the Nihongo whaling research farce - they have known all along that it was only rhetoric, only words on paper that made the difference between slaughtering whales commercially as opposed to research - and that complicity is the reason that it has continued so very long! Norway and Iceland have their own commercial whale hunting and are not considered a threat to whales because of their self-imposed limits on how many they kill and where they hunt for them and that is what the IWC would like to see happen with Nihon.. that Nihon become a much smaller-scale commercial whaling nation instead of whaling so far out at sea and with such a large industry.. again this too is obvious proof of the 'research' farce - Nihon has the biggest COMMERCIAL INDUSTRY for the slaughter and processing and sale of whale meat/products in the entire world.. they just call it research instead of hunting. Finally a word to goddog.. who feels that whales are "just like cows and chickens" There is so much wrong with those words sir.. to begin with whales are not raised commercially and cannot be because of their size and the area needed to do so.. it is just to astronomical an undertaking even for Nihon. Second and more importantly, whales have bigger brains than we do.. and have a language that has many more distinct sounds than any human language, and when it comes to technology like computers and cars, consider their environment a moment please? They have no need to adapt to build cities since the only predators they ever suffer from are US.. they have no need to build tools to construct then. Their food literally flows into their mouths as they breathe for the many baleen species of whales, and the others follow herds of countless thousands of fish, and they work together to herd those fish, and to hunt them.. very similar in fact to how the early American native peoples hunted buffalo.. again with no lack there is no need to create - 'necessity is the mother of invention' so with no necessity, there is no need for invention! So much of our advancements in technology have come out of lack and adversity.. the whales simply have had no such troubles - except from Us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The point of research is to find an excuse to kill the whales, and since whales are just dumb mammals that made a mistake and lost their ability to walk upright, why not eat them. Let the whaling season begin in my opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mikanojo - Wau.. where to begin ne? First, throw away any more pretense of 'research'.

No. Commercial whaling also provided whales for research purposes. After the IWC banned commercial whaling, the IWC membership allowed that NON-ENDANGERED minke whales and other spieces be taken for research purposes. The IWC membership also required that the the whales taken be fully utilized and not wasted. That's one of the reasons why the meat is sold.

You seem to be under the impression that you can ban the killing of every whale. That's not going to happen and you'll just have to learn to live with that. The IWC was created to control the taking of whales. The IWC membership has to reach some kind of compromise that protects the whales AS A RESOURCE and keeps the IWC together. If your hardline tactics destroy the IWC, each country will go back to setting their own limits and there will be NO international protection for the whales.

Of course, the non-whaling nations that were bribed by the WWF and other animal-rights NGO's to join the IWC over the last 30 years will just have to go back to NOT whaling as they have NOT traditionally done for decades. hehehehe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul,

Actually the whaling convention itself (from 1948 or thereabouts) is where the scientific research provision is written.

The moratorium, adopted in 1982, doesn't mention anything about it. The moratorium is a Schedule amendment to the convention - essentially it is subordinate to the convention because all Schedule amendments including the moratorium are only possible because the convention exists. And the convention itself recognises that research is necessary for it to properly fulfil it's purpose of conserving whale stocks to make for the development of whaling industry, providing us whale consumers with tasty and healthy food such as that which I consumed this evening :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo at 11:47 PM JST - 20th June So let me quote - both the moratorium and the Antarctic Sanctuary apply >only to commercial whaling.....It is important to understand that the >Southern Ocean Sanctuary applies only to commercial whaling. How does >that not mean that Japan recognises the Antarctic Sanctuary as a place >where commercial whaling is banned? http://www.icrwhale.org/QandAjapanresearch.htm

If you had quoted the entire text rather than choosing the first sentence to support your argument, anyone can see that david's statement regardling validity of the SOS is true.

"The IWC sanctuary in the Antarctic applies to commercial whaling only. It does not apply to research whaling conducted under Article VIII of the ICRW. Article VIII begins with the words “Notwithstanding anything in this Convention…”, meaning that neither the moratorium on commercial whaling nor the sanctuary in the Antarctic Ocean applies to research whaling. The IWC Sanctuary in the Antarctic was adopted without any recommendation from the Scientific Committee that it was required for conservation purposes. Further, at the 2004 meeting of the Scientific Committee, invited outside experts strongly criticized IWC sanctuaries as an approach to conservation. Their conclusions were that IWC sanctuaries are not ecologically justified, that they are based on vague goals and objectives, that they lack a rigorous approach to design and operation, that they represent a “shotgun” approach to conservation and, that they are more prohibitive than precautionary. In regards to Australia’s designated sanctuary, many countries including the U.S. and Japan do not recognize Australia’s Antarctic claim. The Antarctic Treaty, to which Australia is a member, freezes all Antarctic claims. From the perspective of the international community therefore, Australia’s claim and its sanctuary in Antarctic waters, which it has declared under its domestic legislation, has no legal standing in international law and therefore no effect."

http://www.icrwhale.org/QandAResearch.htm#11

Don't take too long with your apology. If there is no apology >forthcoming, I would like the Mod to remove your 10:15 post on the >grounds of it being insulting to another poster. I've had posts removed >in the past for much less than outright calling a person a liar.

In light of the above, I don't see david, or anyone owing you an apology. Besides, I never got any "apology" from you for accusing me of "blowing up puppies and gerbils". :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan, that long quote you gave is Japan's justification of its so-called scientific research programme, ie 'It's perfectly legal so there'. It has nothing to do with my question, which I'll repeat:

Why is Japan conducting scientific research in the Antarctic Sanctuary with a view to providing information for the management of stocks and sustainable harvesting of resources when it acknowledges that the Sanctuary is closed to commercial whaling?

Did I really accuse you of blowing up puppies and gerbils? I don't remember that. I wonder what the context was.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - Why is Japan conducting scientific research in the Antarctic Sanctuary with a view to providing information for the management of stocks and sustainable harvesting of resources when it acknowledges that the Sanctuary is closed to commercial whaling?

Because the IWC doesn't prevent scientific research whaling from taking place in the sanctuary that the IWC established. Japan is conducting the research. The IWC has no intention of banning the commercial taking of any and all whale speices forever. Whales are a resource to be managed.

The IWC and it's membership, at least the members who actually hunted whales, needs current, up to date data on the health and numbers of whales.

Without the IWC, you will have no organization in control of INTERNATIONAL whaling. If the anti-whaling NGO's continue to push their complete ban on whaling, more nations will quit and set their own limits based on their own needs. Other countries may even follow Australia's lead and ATTEMPT to create their own sanctuaries. Only 3 or 4 nations bothered to acknowledge Australia's territory grab. 189 nations simply refuse to submit to Australia's demands. That's why their court case will fail.

And who will protect Australia's claim? Do the Australian taxpayers intend for the Royal Navy to patrol Antarctic waters looking for whalers? Providing rescue efforts when needed is one thing, stationing a ship(s) 24/7/365 is quite another.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have recently read an article that states that whales meat and oil is in the testing stages for various types of skin creams as well as medicinal uses. Therefore, even though the product may be commercialized, there is still scientific research to be done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo, what don't you understand

Why is Japan conducting scientific research in the Antarctic Sanctuary with a view to providing information for the management of stocks and sustainable harvesting of resources when it acknowledges that the Sanctuary is closed to commercial whaling?

As with the Moratorium, the Sanctuary is but a IWC Schedule amendment, and can be overturned whenever the IWC membership so decides. Given that the IWC was established primarily in order to manage whaling in the Antarctic which were the primary whaling grounds when the IWC was established, everyone who has adhered to the IWC's underlying convention should accept that eventually whaling will resume in the Antarctic one dya. You should be informed that the Sanctuary itself comes up for periodic review because of this, as as OssanAmerica kindly noted the grounds for the Sanctuary are non-existent, but politics prevents it from being overturned for the time being.

Japan is conducting the research so as to contribute to scientific knowledge that may have a role in contributing to conditions that will see the Sanctuary abolished.

See also the terms of the convention in Article V that provide for the establishment of open and closed areas, as well as sanctuaries, to bring yourself up to speed regarding the intent of IWC sanctuaries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A clearly biased article to "convervationism".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan's "scientific research" is a sham. It has zero credibility at all in scientific circles. Some people that seem to have nothing to do except hang around and post the same apologist spin verbatim every 3rd post or so. But seriously, unless you're extremely gullible, or paid, the notion that Japan is bravely carrying on vital research to preserve whale populations for future generations is absurd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yelspal - Japan's "scientific research" is a sham. It has zero credibility at all in scientific circles. Some people that seem to have nothing to do except hang around and post the same apologist spin verbatim every 3rd post or so..

Is this your third post about scientific research?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yelspal,

Here's a quote from IWC Scientific Committee Chair, Arne Bjorge.

"The Japanese input into cetacean research in Antarctica is significant, and I would say crucial for the (IWC) scientific committee"

If you had ever read the IWC Scientific Committee reports for yourself (without blinkers on) you'd know as well as I do that Japan's research certainly does not have "zero credibility".

So given your comments to the contrary, and your claims that anyone who disagrees is "extremely gullible, or paid", I wonder what we can conclude about you?

the notion that Japan is bravely carrying on vital research to preserve whale populations for future generations is absurd.

Japan's research isn't aiming to "preserve whale populations for future generations". You don't even have a basic understanding of what it's about - no wonder you said such silly things (although you'd think people who don't know anything about something will tend not to say anything... unless ... )

I suggest you read the whaling convention carefully in full and then consider Japan's aims and how they relate to the whaling convention. Then perhaps you will be better able to post relevant comments.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I must be talking to the last two people on earth that think Japanese whaling is for research.

However I think - deep down - in your heart of hearts you might just have just a nagging suspicion that it is at least conceivable that Kyodo Senpaku might have an ulterior motive.

Also - nice quote above - couldn't find that one - but found these just lying around...

*The commission made note of the fact that the catches took place in the IWC established Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and that improving management of whaling in a sanctuary is unnecessary. The 2007-1 resolution on JARPA is one of several calling on Japan by majority vote to suspend its lethal research

In 2005 and 2007 the commission passed resolutions by majority urging Japan to stop all lethal research in JARPA II -

In 2000, 2001 and 2003 more resolutions were passed by the IWC urging Japan to cease issuing special permits for whaling and limit research to non-lethal methods

The International Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee has repeatedly expressed concern for the objectives and results obtained by the ICR. In a resolution in 2007, the IWC noted that "none of the goals of JARPA 1 had been reached, and that the results of the JARPA 1 [Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic] programme are not required for management under the RMP [Revised Management Procedure]" and called upon the Japanese government "to address the 31 recommendations listed in [the Scientific Committee's JARPA 1 report] to the satisfaction of the Scientific Committee" and "to suspend indefinitely the lethal aspects of JARPA II conducted within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary"*

Funny way to show support for credible, sorry "crucial" research - by repeatedly calling for it to cease.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yelspal - I must be talking to the last two people on earth that think Japanese whaling is for research.

However I think - deep down - in your heart of hearts you might just have just a nagging suspicion that it is at least conceivable that Kyodo Senpaku might have an ulterior motive.

Funny way to show support for credible, sorry "crucial" research - by repeatedly calling for it to cease.

Calling for what to cease? The Whale RESEARCH Program?

Are you saying that some of the IWC members are expressing concern over the results of the whaling RESEARCH that's being conducted?

Are you saying that some of the members of the IWC are calling for an end to the whaling RESEARCH being conducted by other IWC memebers?

Aren't you proving that whaling RESEARCH is taking place?

I think - deep down - in your heart of hearts, that you've known all along that whaling RESEARCH has been taking place and you simply refuse to admit it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ha ha ha - so Japan pretends it's harvesting whales to do research in order to exploit a loophole in the rules of an organisation which then asks for the "research" to stop because it's an obvious farce - and to you that's PROOF that it was research after all. I'm getting dizzy.

Spin till you drop buddy - Japan agreed to a whaling moratorium but instead whales commercially under the guise of research. Two-faced, weak and nobody is falling for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yelspal at - ha ha ha - so Japan pretends it's harvesting whales to do research in order to exploit a loophole in the rules of an organisation which then asks for the "research" to stop because it's an obvious farce - and to you that's PROOF that it was research after all. I'm getting dizzy.

You're getting dizzy from all the spinning you're doing. The IWC considers many proposals from it's membership. Ending RESEARCH whaling is only one issue that has been proprosed by some of it's members. In order to request that whaling RESEARCH be curtailed, you first have to admit that whaling RESEARCH is, in fact, taking place.

As a WHALING commission, the IWC needs up to date research about the health of, ... are you ready for this, ... are you sitting down, ... about the health of WHALES.

Sampling 1/10th of 1 percent of the worlds supply of minke whales does not significantly affect the minke whale pods. Your claims of "loopholes" and "pretending" blah, blah, blah only give knowledgeable people the opportunity to prove you've made yourself dizzy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When I was a kid (granted, it's been a while) my Scandinavian relatives always had whale on the smorgasbord. Go ask an Eskimo to stop eating whale because it's immoral. Maybe you can synthesize something out of coal and oil, then you "economy" can flourish.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ Sakurala: skin creams and medicines? They are using the oil as a base for skin creams.. because it is a natural fat, and because it is neutral and body soluble they use it as a base in gell form inside of some medicine capsules.. that is NOT research.. that is utilization. It is in NO WAY vital or even at all necessary.. simply examples of common uses. There is simply NO valid excuse for the slaying of even 1 whale any more or ever again by such a technologically advantaged nation as Nihon. What is left is traditions, a sense of 'this is how it has always been done' an old-school big business mentality.. fearful of change. @ arrestpaul: You are claiming that the IWC needs to kill whales to research the health of whales as a whole and that 1/10 of 1 percent is not a significant amount of slaughter. What absolute rubbish. You may as well try to make the same claim about the killing of any other mammals.. if Nihonjin medical researchers were looking at the general health of Australians.. i suppose that if they hunted down and killed 1/10 of 1 percent of the Australian population that would be insignificant? Especially in view of the vital information such research would provide?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites