national

4 ships start whale hunt off Hokkaido

55 Comments

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

© (c) 2014 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

55 Comments
Login to comment

Good huntin'!! :-D

sink the Sea Shepherd riff-raff while you're at it!

;-)

-16 ( +5 / -21 )

Pandering to arrogance.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Maybe some country's navy will be kind enough to 'research' their torpedo technology on the whaling fleet

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Awesome! More wasted tax payer's money and more whale near to stockpile with the other 5,000 tons. Keep up the waste of money fools!

5 ( +11 / -6 )

I'm so glad we're all paying more tax this year and every subsequent year in order to responsibly address the economic crisis, and that the Prime Minister is so manfully dealing with responsible spending cuts, and my hard-earned cash, which Iwe could otherwise be spending ourselves, and thus stimulating the economy, isn't being p!ssed away on pointless porkbarrel schemes.

After all, it's not like we have 6000 tonnes of whalemeat in freezers, not being eaten because even the Japanese don't want to eat it, eh?

Oh, hang on...

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Leave the whales alone!!!

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Oyajis wasting more taxpayer money on a population generally not interested in whale meat. Don't they still have a nuclear fallout problem to solve (among other things)?

3 ( +7 / -4 )

But the pro-whaling government hopes to bypass this ruling by giving the controversial mission a more scientific focus.

They aren't bypassing it, they are falling in line with it.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Awesome please raise my tax again and please spend it on a failed business model. The Government could defiantly build more long term freezer space for blubber. Perhaps build a bigger fleet of blubber harvesters...I would love a job maintaining the freezers then I'd get my tax money back and yours too.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I am not worried about the huntings of whales by Japan since Japan's consumption of whales is no more threatening to the species. People should pay more attentions to Japan's tuna fishing. Japan's consumption of tuna is a threatening scale.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

On hunting whale in their own territorial waters.... its their back yard and they can do as they please. But hunting whale in International waters when every other country is refraining from doing so... that is selfish and wrong.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The morality of whaling is by the by on this occasion. The fundamental issue is we have a government spouting they are committed to cutting wasteful spending and at the very same time bankrolling this white elephant.

Let's not get tangled up in the morality of commercial whaling. Let's just check what the word "commercial" means. If an industry doesn't turn a profit, because nobody wants to buy the product, then boys and girls it isn't commercial.

We have anLDP government p!ssing our money away on archaic nonsense and pretending they have some kind of innovative magic bullet for which we all must stump up with increased taxes and devalued currency.

Abenomics is failing? Well, who'd ever have dreamed such a thing.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

nobody wants to buy the product

HaraldBloodaxe, that's not true. There are people who want to eat whale meat if served in Japan.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Steve said

Good huntin'!! :-D

sink the Sea Shepherd riff-raff while you're at it!

;-)

Let then go a few Km to the north into Russian water and let me see who is that's going to get sink :)

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Tina...not enough people want the product to make the industry viable without massive government subsidies. With the economy in the state it's in, wasteful spending like this needs to be stopped.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

HaraldBloodaxe, Is it OK to ignore the people who want to eat whale meat just because there are not many people? Where to draw line? Since there are many industries having government subsidies, it doesn't make sense to single out only whale meat.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

The story is about whale meat! Next week maybe Farmers, Auto industry, construction, all of them receive subsidies tax payer money. But this story is about a long term loss making industry. Although I might have an idea, 5000 tones of blubber nobody wants could be used as a wall around Fukashima. It's not porus and the Government has the stock stored already. Also it could be used as comfortable seating at the new stadiums. Now that is research!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

HaraldBloodaxe, Is it OK to ignore the people who want to eat whale meat just because there are not many people? Where to draw line? Since there are many industries having government subsidies, it doesn't make sense to single out only whale meat.

Actually it makes perfect sense. Whaling is not a viable industry. If people wanted whale meat so much, it would not need government subsidy and people would be willing to pay a higher price for the meat. However, that is not the case.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Why after multiple people correcting the incorrect information do these articles continue to misstate the facts?

under a loophole in the 1986 global moratorium

It is not a loophole. Article VIII existed almost 40 years before the moratorium.

their meat ends up in restaurants and fish markets.

And Article VIII specifically requires the whale to be processed.

despite an order from the UN's top court to stop all whaling in the area.

The court did not order all whaling to stop in the Antarctic. It ordered Japan to stop using the JARPAII permit.

hopes to bypass this ruling

It is not an attempt the bypass the ruling. The ruling itself contemplated future whaling in Antarctica and even included a discussion of what any new permit would require to meet the courts ruling and be acceptable.

it's not like we have 6000 tonnes of whalemeat in freezers

It is not like that same number has been bandied about for years now. If the amount in freezers has stayed fairly constant for years it would seem to mean that there is a steady turnover of meat, as the older meat is sold it is replaced with newly caught meat.

However, that is not the case.

How do you know that? Due to the moratorium it is impossible for a commercial whale hunt to occur and for market forces to come into play.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

It is not a loophole. Article VIII existed almost 40 years before the moratorium.

When what was written is irrelevant. In fact, a loophole is more likely to exist when provisos and rules are written at different times by different people, instead of as an integrated whole. That's how loopholes come into being. It isn't normal to write a law or rule and them deliberately put in a clause that negates everything.

loophole noun 1 an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules: they exploited tax loopholes.

(Do you really imagine the taxman deliberately writes the tax laws in such a way as to give people a way out of paying their taxes?)

Article VIII specifically requires the whale to be processed

The only bit that gets processed is the meat - and the tasty bits, at that. Most of the whale gets tipped over the side of the boat after it's been 'researched'. Bleating 'But Article VIII says we hafta!' only works if the animal is processed in its entirety (as Article VIII requires). Picking out just the tasty bits for the market is not processing as far as practicable.

It is not an attempt the bypass the ruling.

Stamp your pretty little feet and pout all you want, the fact is that the point and purpose of both the southern and northern hunts is to get the meat. Tweaking the 'research' to comply with the ruling is a means, not an end. In fact the 'research' itself is a means, not an end. If the ICJ or the IWC were to announce tomorrow that the moratorium on commercial whaling was no longer in effect, we would hear no more from Japan about the need for 'research'.

If the amount in freezers has stayed fairly constant for years it would seem to mean that there is a steady turnover of meat, as the older meat is sold it is replaced with newly caught meat.

Except that the older meat has not been being replaced with newly-caught meat, at least not in the amounts Japan says is necessary. The icr gives itself a quota of around a thousand, which Sea Shepherd has successfully managed to reduce drastically each year for a number of years now. The fact that the amount in the freezers stays relatively constant despite the huge drop in the volume of newly-caught meat means that the meat isn't moving.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

And Article VIII specifically requires the whale to be processed.

it does not state that exactly, it says under Article VIII.

Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.

it clearly states "so far as practicable" and it does not say "requires"

1 ( +4 / -3 )

zichiSep. 08, 2014 - 05:10PM JST "And Article VIII specifically requires the whale to be processed." it does not state that exactly, it says under Article VIII. "1.Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted." it clearly states "so far as practicable" and it does not say "requires"

You are wrong zichi. If a law says "a person SHALL.." a person is REQUIRED by that law to comply with that wording. And "as far as practicable" has no bearing on your argument.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

OssanAmerica

The wording of the Article VIII that I have quoted is as exactly written and presented on the IWC site. It states, as far as practicable. In otherwise, when the Japanese whalers go hunting in the Antarctic, much of the slaughtered whale is thrown back overboard because its mainly the belly and the tail which are used to produce the whale meat for sale. Rightly or wrongly, that action still fits into the Article VIII because the Japanese could argue its just not practicable to bring back every piece of the dead whale.

So do you have a real point to your comment?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

zichiSep. 08, 2014 - 09:24PM JST OssanAmerica The wording of the Article VIII that I have quoted is as exactly written and presented on the IWC site. It states, as far >as practicable. In otherwise, when the Japanese whalers go hunting in the Antarctic, much of the slaughtered whale is >thrown back overboard because its mainly the belly and the tail which are used to produce the whale meat for sale. >Rightly or wrongly, that action still fits into the Article VIII because the Japanese could argue its just not practicable to >bring back every piece of the dead whale. So do you have a real point to your comment?

Yes, read my first post. That the exact article wording does not say "requires" does not mean that any Permit recipient is "not required" to process the meat.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

OssanAmerica My comment was a response to O'Brien who stated that according to Article VIII, Japan is "required" to process the whale flesh. The word "required" does not appear in Article VIII which only states as far as practicable.

Can you explain why more of the dead whales are thrown overboard than taken back to Japan?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

put in a clause that negates everything

Article VIII doesn't negate everything. And if it does then why would IWC delegates who we can assume know the ICRW pass a moratorium that is compeltely negated before it is even voted on?

Do you really imagine the taxman deliberately writes the tax laws in such a way as to give people a way out of paying their taxes?)

Yes. In fact I find it hard to believe that people don't seem to know that extensive tax laws are written specifically to create loopholes for a favored group.

if the animal is processed in its entirety (as Article VIII requires)

Article VIII clearly does not require the animal to be processed in its entirety. Hence the term as far as practicable that you go on to quote.

Picking out just the tasty bits for the market is not processing as far as practicable.

Sure it can be. It depends on what is practiable under the specific situation.

Stamp your pretty little feet...

My feet aren't pretty. And why quote text and then whing about something completely different?

at least not in the amounts Japan says is necessary

Where has Japan said anything about how much meat is necessary? I would really like to see this information.

shall - expressing an instruction or command

Use of the word shall in Article VIII means it is required. And as already stated as far as practicable is a case by case determination.

Can you explain why more of the dead whales are thrown overboard than taken back to Japan?

Easy. It is not practicable to process the whole whale. Whether because of space limitations on the ship, or having a practical use for all of the whale, or any of a number of other possible reasons.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Easy. It is not practicable to process the whole whale. Whether because of space limitations on the ship, or having a practical use for all of the whale, or any of a number of other possible reasons.

There's only one reason that the entire whale isn't processed is because people are only interested in buying the belly meat, orunesu which is known for being made into whale bacon. And the prized tail meat, called onomi, or oniku which are two strips of muscle that run from the dorsal to the base of the fluke. The tail meat is regarded as marbled, and is eaten as sashimi or tataki.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

why would IWC delegates who we can assume know the ICRW pass a moratorium that is compeltely negated before it is even voted on?

Maybe because the people who wrote the moratorium were honest people who never imagined that unscrupulous governments would take an article that is obviously meant to allow small-scale legitimate scientific research and use it to 'justify' large-scale commercial whaling in all but name.

why quote text and then whing about something completely different?

What is it that you think is 'completely different'?

Where has Japan said anything about how much meat is necessary?

In the quotas it set itself. Japan claimed to need to 'research' around a thousand whales a year in the Antarctic and around 500 in the North Pacific. The ICJ ruled that the 'research' was not research in the case of the Antarctic hunt, and since the northern hunt is no different from that, it takes no great stretch of the imagination to see that the northern hunt is also not for the sake of research.

If the hunt is not for the sake of research, for what possible purpose could Japan set a quota? Obviously, to acquire the amount of meat considered necessary. The sad thing is that the meat is not necessary; even with greatly reduced intake, the blubber mountain remains high. They cannot sell the stuff, and one wonders who it is in high places who thinks this is even a fight worth throwing scarce tax money at.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

zichiSep. 08, 2014 - 10:11PM JST OssanAmerica My comment was a response to O'Brien who stated that according to Article VIII, Japan is "required" to >process the whale flesh. The word "required" does not appear in Article VIII which only states as far as practicable.

Yes he said that the whalers were "required" to process the whales. To which you objected on the grounds that the world "requires" does not appear in Article VIII. However it does state "shall be processed" in the Article which means that to any party subject to that Article's jurisdiction, they are REQUIRED to process the whales. The whalers are obviously processing the whales in accordance with Article VIII and are doing so as far as practicable. You should have no objections.

Can you explain why more of the dead whales are thrown overboard than taken back to Japan?

Yes, a large portion of the whale carcass has no value either scientifically or commercially, Hence, to preserve and store it onboard a ship is "not practicable". If every part of the carcass had either value you can rest assured it would not be disgarded. The commercial value supports the research program. This is not unusual in any fisheries research. For example, Australia's own fisheries research sells their catch to augment their needed operational funds.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Sharks are killed for their fins. Whales are killed for their belly and tails. Both killings are a waste overboard.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I don't deny that shark finning is an absurdly wasteful process. But the use of any animal results in parts that are disgarded. In a land based operation that waste may be used for other purposes, But on a hip based operation storage and preservation procedures are limited. Still when you stop to think of Western whaling in the late 19th century where all whales, females, calves were indiscriminately harpooned and flensed taking only the blubber for oil and disgarding the remaining 90%, itls nowhere near as bad. Western whaling ships did not even keep the meat,

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

It's a commercial operation. Anything they cannot make sufficient profit on to justify bringing back should not be brought back, and instead fed back to the local environment.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

the late 19th century where all whales, females, calves were indiscriminately harpooned and flensed taking only the blubber for oil and disgarding the remaining 90%, itls nowhere near as bad. Western whaling ships did not even keep the meat,

What happened with whaling in the 1800's is irrelevant to whaling in the 21st century. The whaling ships of the 1800's didn't have refrigeration so it would have been impossible to bring the whale flesh back to port but it was eaten by the whale ship crews. The entire whale was landed when it was coastal whaling as it is today in places like Iceland and what is not used for human consumption is turned into oil.

More importantly, back in the 1800's they didn't have the same knowledge and facts about the environment that we have today.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Irrelevant? LOL.What happened in the 19th century is why global whale populations were decimated, why we have a IWC and why there is a Moratorium on commercial whaling and why this article and thread exists.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Ossan,

Still when you stop to think of Western whaling in the late 19th century where all whales, females, calves were indiscriminately harpooned and flensed taking only the blubber for oil and disgarding the remaining 90%, itls nowhere near as bad.

Yeah, good thing the enlightened and humane Japanese whalers never do such terrible things... oh wait....

http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2014/03/japan-ordered-stop-scientific-whaling

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

There's only one reason that the entire whale isn't processed is because people are only interested in buying the belly meat, orunesu which is known for being made into whale bacon.

Fine. Then it is only practicable to process those cuts of meat because if they processed other cuts people wouldn't buy it and it would still end up getting thrown away. Thanks for helping prove they are following Article VIII.

Maybe because the people who wrote the moratorium were honest people who never imagined that unscrupulous governments would take an article that is obviously meant to allow small-scale legitimate scientific research and use it to 'justify' large-scale commercial whaling in all but name.

Nope, sorry that explanation fails. Artcile VIII had been used before the moratorium to hunt whales that had been banned by the IWC. So the IWC members knew full well that it was likely Article VIII would be used exactly as Japan used it.

What is it that you think is 'completely different'?

Well the text you quoted was about the claimed bypassing of the ICJ ruling and your comment has nothing to do with how they are bypassing a ruling that includes information on how to write a new research plan that complies with the ruling. So how is following the directions right in the ruling somehow 'bypassing' the ruling? You can stamp your pretty little feet and pout all you want, the fact is the ruling explicitly contemplates new research plans being written and used.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

funkymofoSep. 09, 2014 - 03:28PM JST Ossan, Still when you stop to think of Western whaling in the late 19th century where all whales, females, calves were >indiscriminately harpooned and flensed taking only the blubber for oil and disgarding the remaining 90%, itls nowhere >near as bad. Yeah, good thing the enlightened and humane Japanese whalers never do such terrible things... oh wait.... http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2014/03/japan-ordered-stop-scientific-whaling

Yea they don't strip just the blubber layer off and throw the other 90% overboard, The photo in he link is an example of the need to sample a young specimen. They don't indiscriminately take everything they see.But of course I doubt you'd understand that.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The photo in he link is an example of the need to sample a young specimen. They don't indiscriminately take everything they see.But of course I doubt you'd understand that.

that would be incorrect by previous photos that the Japanese whalers killed both young calfs and pregnant females and the whalers wouldn't even know that the female was pregnant until it was hauled aboard the factory ship and had its belly slit open exposing the unborn calf.

More than 90% of the slaughtered whale is thrown back overboard with only the much prised belly and tail parts being kept for sale of the whale flesh.

In Iceland the parts of the whales not consumed are turned into oil and used to power the whalers.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

More than 90% of the slaughtered whale is thrown back overboard with only the much prised belly and tail parts being kept for sale of the whale flesh.

Huh? I saw a diagram on the parts of a whale that are used for consumption alone, where did you get 90% from?

I'm not sure where some of the people who are obviously against whaling get their statistics from? And if there's 6000 tonnes in storage, then that equates to less than half of the annual whale hunt. Seems there's a lot more long term rice, other fish and meat in storage.

Some people are against whaling, maybe they love those animals more than other species. I don't have a problem with it. More whales are dying needlessly from being hit by cargo ships and choking on the rubbish polluting the oceans. At least whatever 'research' is being done, the catch is not wasted.

Perhaps those people who are so anti-whaling can open their eyes a little and see the hundreds of thousands of marine mammals being killed by rubbish and pollution, including whales - not to mention the millions of sea birds. But yeah, concentrate your animosity towards a small group of fisherman catching minke whales, that are listed as 'least concern' on the IUCN redlist, same as cows or kangaroos.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The effects of whaling may certainly be one component of why the numbers have dropped, but many suspect global warming is also a culprit as waters around Antarctica's coastline shrink as the continent slowly melts into the sea. So, say those minke whales were more dutiful about sending in their census forms, that's still a pretty high number compared to the populations of other favorites like pandas, tigers, lions, elephants, tuna or even other whale species. And while the Japanese seem to not be making a huge dent in the overall whale population at the moment, it does beg the question, exactly how long, and under what guidelines, can they sustainably keep this up?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Nope, sorry that explanation fails. Artcile VIII had been used before the moratorium to hunt whales that had been banned by the IWC. So the IWC members knew full well that it was likely Article VIII would be used exactly as Japan used it.

Which other country prior to the moratorium used Article VIII to hunt and kill over a thousand whales per year, every year for decades?

You can stamp your pretty little feet and pout all you want, the fact is the ruling explicitly contemplates new research plans being written and used.

Thank you for acknowledging the prettiness of my little feet. :-)

The ICJ ruled that the present programme is not for the purposes of research and outlined what they considered would be needed for the programme to be legitimately for purposes of research. The problem is that even if Japan follows those recommendations to the letter, they will be doing so in order to be able to continue the commercial hunt, not for the purposes of research. They've already shown that the 'research' ia a means to an end, not the end in itself.

that equates to less than half of the annual whale hunt. Seems there's a lot more long term rice, other fish and meat in storage.

Duh. Of course there are larger stocks of basic staples than there are of stuff that only a handful of nostalgic old men with jaded palates ever indulge in.

Some people are against whaling, maybe they love those animals more than other species.

Or maybe they love other animals just as much, this just happens to be a thread about whaling, not about the hunting of other animals or about the other dangers whales face.

Perhaps those people who are so anti-whaling can open their eyes a little and see the hundreds of thousands of marine mammals being killed by rubbish and pollution

Perhaps our eyes are open and perhaps we do see the problem of pollution and perhaps we do try to do what we can about it. But you won't read about it here because this is a thread about people going out into the North Pacific and engaging in the commercial killing of whales under the pretence of 'research'.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Which other country prior to the moratorium used Article VIII to hunt and kill over a thousand whales per year, every year for decades?

That is not what I said, but thanks for the straw man. And of course after the moratorium Japan hasn't used Article VIII to hunt and kill over a thousand whales per year, every year for decades. In fact in the 28 years since the moratorium Japan has killed over a thousand whales a year only twice; 1243 in 2005 (377 of those weren't in the Antarctic), and 1004 in 2008 (333 not in the Antarctic). And in 14 of those 28 years they have killed less than 500.

they will be doing so in order to be able to continue the commercial hunt, not for the purposes of research.

That is what is known as opinion. The fact is the ICJ gave explicit directions on how to establish a research plan that would pass muster. If Japan follows those directions then they are in compliance with the ICJ ruling and by extension in compliance with the IWC regulations.

as waters around Antarctica's coastline shrink as the continent slowly melts into the sea

What? And actually the Antarctic sea ice has been expanding not shrinking.

exactly how long, and under what guidelines, can they sustainably keep this up?

Well wildlife management has been around for a long time. For example every year in the US the state and/or federal government determine the sustainable quotas for a whole bunch of wildlife, from whitetail deer to mallards. These quotas are based on formulas that have been refined over decades. The IWC has just such a formula for whales, the Revised Management Procedure. And based on the best current data the RMP places the sustainable hunting level of Antarctic Minke whales as significantly greater than 2000 per year.

So under the IWC's RMP guidelines, Japan could sustainably take 1000 Antarctic Minke whales a year essentially forever.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I don't eat whale meat but I am curious how much Japanese Govt pay to whale industry? I thought they are private corporations. Please clarify. Last year amount J Govt paid Japan's tax money.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ossan, Oh, you mean killing for the highly respected and totally not an illegal cover for commercial whaling 'scientific' program?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

If it falls within the boundaries set by the court ruling, then it's not illegal not covert.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Mike O'Brian -

But that is the way Japan has used Article VIII. How many other countries have done the same? And if no other country used Article VIII in that way before the moratorium, why would the IWC assume that any would after?

The failure to take a thousand whales per year is not for want of trying; the quota has been for close to 1000 (850 minke, 50 fin, 50 humpback, plus or minus 10%) just in the Antarctic. It's only thanks to Sea Shepherd the quota has not been reached.

And that was one point in the ICJ ruling; that although Japan set itself these huge quotas as being the minimum needed to meet its 'research' goals and year after year failed to make the quota the 'research' goals and methods were not changed to accommodate the lower number of 'samples'.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

cleo -

But that is the way Japan has used Article VIII.

What is the way Japan has used Article VIII? The false claim of over 1000 whales every year for decades?

How many other countries have done the same?

Again, done what the same? The only claim has been over 1000 whales every year for decades, which no country (even Japan) has done. It is another meaningless question.

But numerous countries other than Japan had used Article VIII before the moratorium to get around IWC bans on specific species or to go beyond the IWC quota on specific species. No IWC member can reasonably claim that when they voted on the moratorium they didn't know that there was a hsitory of many countries using Article VIII to continue hunting species for which the IWC had set the quota to zero.

The failure to take a thousand whales per year is not for want of trying. It's only thanks to Sea Shepherd the quota has not been reached.

Some proof would be nice.

(850 minke, 50 fin, 50 humpback, plus or minus 10%)

And that quota did not come into existence until 2005. So the comment: Which other country prior to the moratorium used Article VIII to hunt and kill over a thousand whales per year, every year for decades? is still a meaningless question based on a false premise.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

OhKay....so which country before the moratorium used Article VII to kill large numbers of whales, making it clear that Japan (or some other country) would likely use it to continue commercial whaling under another name once the moratorium came into effect?

The failure to take a thousand whales per year is not for want of trying. It's only thanks to Sea Shepherd the quota has not been reached.

Some proof would be nice.

Dunno if it's proof, but it's what the Japanese whalers say.

The catch was smaller than planned due to factors including weather conditions and sabotage acts by activists," an agency official was quoted

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-17312460

It's a pity the whalers couldn't have interpreted Article VIII with as much attention to detail as you interpreted my comments.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Okay...So why do previous users of Article VIII have to have killed large numbers of whales to make it clear that countries could use Article VIII once the moratorium came into effect? If people consistently break the current speed limit, even by a small amount, then it is pretty clear that lowering the speed limit will result in people continuing to break the speed limit and it is a reasonable assumption that they will even break it by larger amounts because obviously they believe even the current limit is too low.

Dunno if it's proof, but it's what the Japanese whalers say.

No, it is not proof. Sea Shepherd makes a nice whipping boy and target for the whaler's PR message. If as you claim the whaling is just for commercial purposes, then the whalers are happy if they kill enough whales to fill the demand. And you seem to have agreed that the long term average of whale meat in storage has remained fairly constant. So obviously their catch has been close to the demand, any more would just lead to lower prices, extra storage and/or disposal costs; assuming your claim is valid.

It's a pity the whalers couldn't have interpreted Article VIII with as much attention to detail as you interpreted my comments.

Article VIII doesn't require much attention to detail. It is written in plain language. The fact that people who don't like it would rather try and twist its plain words rather than try and change it is their problem.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

why do previous users of Article VIII have to have killed large numbers of whales to make it clear that countries could use Article VIII once the moratorium came into effect?

Because the problem is countries using Article VIII to carry on whaling on a commercial scale, which means large numbers. We aren't talking about one or two animals being taken for a scientist to rummage around in.

If people consistently break the current speed limit, even by a small amount, then it is pretty clear that lowering the speed limit will result in people continuing to break the speed limit and it is a reasonable assumption that they will even break it by larger amounts because obviously they believe even the current limit is too low.

I'm not quite sure what that has to do with the topic, and you may not have noticed, but people do break the speed limit, all of the time. Some of them even get fined for it. But there's still a difference between people habitually doing say 90kph in a 80kph zone on the expressway, and some fool doing 150kph in a built-up area where the speed limit is not necessarily marked but common sense as well as the law tells you to slow down.

obviously their catch has been close to the demand, any more would just lead to lower prices, extra storage and/or disposal costs

Even their reduced catch is way over the demand. The stuff doesn't sell even at lower prices (hence why they have to try and fob it off onto schools and old people's homes, and put it in pet food labelled その他の肉), and when the government (aka the taxpayer) is footing the bill, extra storage costs are just another aspect of the pork barrel.

http://ika-net.jp/ja/ikan-activities/whaling/250-sluggish-sales-of-whale-meat

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I'm not quite sure what that has to do with the topic

I'm not quite sure how you completely missed the analogy and then went on to even ignore the simple premise I gave, but there you have it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

you completely missed the analogy

I did not miss the analogy, I said it had nothing to do with the topic. You're saying in essence that laws are there to be broken.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You're saying in essence that laws are there to be broken.

No I am not. The discussion that you started was why would the IWC have expected Japan to use Article VIII to get around the moratorium. The analogy is that when people are already getting around existing laws, making those laws more restrictive can be expected to cause more people trying to circumvent the law or at least those already circumventing will continue to do so.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The analogy is that when people are already getting around existing laws, making those laws more restrictive can be expected to cause more people trying to circumvent the law or at least those already circumventing will continue to do so.

Erm, but before the moratorium came into effect there was no moratorium and therefore no 'law' for people to try to circumvent. You have still not shown that there is any reason sensible people should expect Article VIII to be used as a legitimate way to get around the ban on commercial whaling. So I ask you again, prior to the ban on commercial whaling, which countries were using Article VIII to kill whales on a commercial scale, in defiance of a 'law' that didn't exist?

if you want a traffic analogy, try people with 'handicapped' stickers on their cars parking in the spaces reserved for people who have trouble getting around otherwise. The Japanese made their own rip-off handicapped stickers and stuck them on a whole fleet of vehicles driven by able-bodied fraudsters.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Erm, but before the moratorium came into effect there was no moratorium

Erm, but before the moratorium there were IWC quotas and IWC bans on specific species.

I have shown that there was every reason to believe that countries might continue to use Article VIII to get around IWC bans and quotas. You have shown a lack of knowledge on basic whaling history.

So I ask you again, prior to the ban on commercial whaling, which countries were using Article VIII to kill whales on a commercial scale, in defiance of a 'law' that didn't exist?

So I say why did it have to be on a commercial scale to put IWC members on notice that countries could and would use Article VIII to continue hunting species under a ban or with low quotas, and please define just what differentiates a commercial scale from a non-commercial scale.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

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